If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote: Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Evolution comes from learning right from wrong. Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to survive in their environments or they perish. The ability to do this is coded into their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of mutation and natural selection, i.e., by evolution. Humans have evolved complex behaviors that allow successful, large-scale tribal organization. Simpler analogues of these behaviors are seen among animals, particulary the other apes. In groups of chimps, means to settle disputes without violence exist but are not always followed, and murder has been observed, just as in human society. Or better said, learning better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting. That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge". It's just using what evolution gave us. "Progress" in terms of human behavior is ephemeral, and quickly reverts to savagery given the proper circumstances. It will require some more biological evolution to change human nature; Homo Sapiens will have to give way to Homo Something Else. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
What you said was: "Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
Biological evolution, then that's a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe. But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law." I focused on this portion, which I made sure I was not taking out of context: "But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with influence." My point was, the early Christians, who had almost no influence, drove a great deal of societal change. And it was this societal change that later drove an increase in influence of Christians. "Funny" wasn't involved in my end of the discussion... "Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message om... Bill Denton wrote: Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they? I did not say the Christians were funny. |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
You sig, attributed to "Epicurus"...
When my son was young and learning how to ride a two-wheel bicycle I was ABLE to keep him from falling over on his bicycle I was WILLING to keep him from falling over on his bicycle Many times I kept him from falling over on his bicycle But sometimes, I let him fall over, so he could learn " jls" wrote in message . .. "Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message om... wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "mike regish" wrote in message news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03... Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell. For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of retribution from God either. No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such. It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument if you want your distinction to "stick". Pete What distinction? Moral vs religious? There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable group. That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source? Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The rest believe is some higher power. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly) surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are freethinkers, anyway. Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend, whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just freethinkers. ***************** Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ---Epicurus |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote: Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard in a long time. What's funny about it? It's inverted...that's what's funny about it. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain. Think: cause vs. effect. That's not much of an explanation. A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should be so. Still curious, Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
jls wrote:
"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message om... wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "mike regish" wrote in message news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03... Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell. For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of retribution from God either. No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such. It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument if you want your distinction to "stick". Pete What distinction? Moral vs religious? There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable group. That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source? Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The rest believe is some higher power. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly) surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are freethinkers, anyway. Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend, whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just freethinkers. ***************** Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ---Epicurus I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though. Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is. Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is falling, which I find surprising. You said you were not surprised by my post. May I ask you to clarify that? Was it based on previous posts I have made or did you think it was more in line with what you thought people in this group would post? Good or bad I am womdering now how my posts come across to people. I am told I can seem very cold at first. One interesting event was when I was at a bar with a friend of many years and a couple of his other friends I had never met before. Out of the blue one of the "new guys" says to me, "You don't like me, do you?" I was a little shocked by that and only said, "excuse me?" before my friend jumped in saying, "if he didn't like you, you would know..." and continued to explain my personnality. It was interesting to say the least. But I have had no further misunderstandings with them since. I am just glad I have a friend that can explain myself to others. By the way, regarding your sig, Scott Adams has an interesting take on God in his books. Not his Dilbert books but the ones you find the business and philosophy sections of book stores. "God's Debris" is a pretty good one found under philosophy. He goes into exactly what your sig is about. |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote: I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though. Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is. Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is falling, which I find surprising. I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an assertion of which I am uncertain) I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these facts (assuming they are both correct). I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion". As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns, indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with religion.. Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend that atheism is anathema to them. A curious contradiction, to say the least. |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is falling, which I find surprising. Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too harsh to rationally accept. I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion". As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns, indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with religion.. If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD. Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know and doesn't care. Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion: "Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain." "We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms. Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself, unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people." "Not every god has to exist in order to do his job." Cheers Howard --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004 |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
wrote: Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is falling, which I find surprising. Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too harsh to rationally accept. I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion". As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns, indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with religion.. If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove the existence of GOD. My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I believe), all qualify. Other than that, it's just a belief system. As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close, but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political rather than religious. But I suppose that's arguable as well. At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been truer than today. Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know and doesn't care. Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion: "Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain." "We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms. Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself, unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people." "Not every god has to exist in order to do his job." Cheers Howard --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004 |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:04:12 -0600, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote: Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard in a long time. What's funny about it? It's inverted...that's what's funny about it. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain. Think: cause vs. effect. That's not much of an explanation. A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should be so. You can find the following in virtually any good introductory sociology book. As a specis evolves it aquires instinctual survival traits. Like tends to join together and those different are either shunned or destroyed. It's a standard across the entire animal kingdom of which humans are a part. As the specis develops (evolves) socially the same survival traits apply. Whether consciously or not, we develop social survival rules that follow the same structure as the specis survival traits. Like tends to join together and shun or destroy what is different. As a specis becomes widely spread across the world they slowly diversify in both physical and social traits. As we evolved we had another trait, which is also a survival trait. We keep asking, "why". We have a driving need to know why things happen. What causes them? Society also developed survival rules to further aid the survival of the species. These rules in general, were to reduce conflict and promote the well being of the individual and the specis as a whole. A well ordered society stands a much better chance of survival than one where there are no rules. Morals, or more correctly the mores of society developed along these lines. It should come as no surprise that morals vary from society to society and each believes its own mores are absolutes. This holds true for religions as well. Although religions teach morality, the morailty developed as a survival trait. When there is not enough knowledge to supply an answer we invent one. Superstitions developed around happenings, we invented gods who controlled the weather, the harvest, war, love, hate, life, and death. As the harvest, seasons, weather, war, love, hate...etc are common where ever we exist each group developed their own names for the gods controlling these events. The superstitions developed into the primitive religions. With each group having gods of different names for the same things they inevitably argued and fought over which was right although they were basically arguing over names. As society developed the religions became powerful and controlling. As science developed it came up with ansers to questions that differed from the religions. Religion had the power, science was the new kid on the block. Science was relagated to herresy with its practitioners being persecuted unless they went along with the teachings of the church. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Still curious, Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |