In theory, it's not too hard to kill 100 people and disappear without anyone knowing. Poisoning water supply, launching a rocket from a distance at group of a 100 people, etc.
But the reason why I wouldn't do this, and most people on this planet wouldn't either is from their own consciousness or morals not because they couldn't get away with doing it.
My point I'm trying to ask is where does our self morality or conscience come from? There's an advantage of being moral person, but it's not really necessary for a species to survive. Do bugs or fish have morals? -- yet they survive. It could be said that this "inner voice" we have is given to us by a higher power...
Anyways.. there's a lot of concepts and theories that we believe probably exist but just can't prove yet. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@a1s My point I'm trying to ask is where does our self morality or conscience come from? There's an advantage of being moral person, but it's not really necessary for a species to survive. Do bugs or fish have morals? -- yet they survive. It could be said that this "inner voice" we have is given to us by a higher power...
I'll repost Norvu's earlier link, partly because he didn't bother to actually make it a link:- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 It looks like there's good evidence to believe that our basic morality originated due to the process of evolution. -The simple fact that morality is a good survival trait for a community -The presence of basic forms of morality in other species
The basis for morality is coded into our genes. As a social animal, the mechanism of interdependence is critical to the survival of the species. Its specific iterations are irrelevant; those iterations are specific to humans, and the fact that we can communicate with and understand each other. Other pack animals display many strikingly human characteristics, in terms of their interactions with each other.
So, human morals exist as a specific iteration of a survival mechanism necessary for the continuation of the species? If you're asking WHY it exists, there's no real answer to that. Does it have to have a purpose? It just exists, much in the same way that everything simply exists. No beings have a predetermined "purpose" or a "why" of existence; it's up to the individual to determine its purpose in life. Make your own path and so forth.
EDIT: Might as well state my position. I'm a hardcore atheist, but I really don't care about your religion. As long as you're not ramming it down my throat, I'm OK with you believing in utter bullshit nonsense. Keep your religion out of my schools, my courts, and my government, and don't force it on anyone else (including your children). Don't believe your books of nonsense when we have other, more thorough explanations for the same things.
Basically, use your religion as a tool to guide you in spiritual enlightenment; don't obey it slavishly. And stop fucking with science. You can't compete. Period. Knock it off.
1) Hillary: The key point I gather from Hillary not being honest about the Bosnia trip is not what she said but how the media reacted. She had lied about the Bosnia "sniper fire" landing several times in the recent past. What I find most interesting is that members of the media made a direct point of confronting her on it and rolling the tape of the landing. That is what tells me Hillary is out, the media has turned on her. Obama is still a rockstar to the media.
2) Super Delegates: The Democrat party added the super delegates as a way to protect the party in the event of a whacko candidate winning the pledged delegate vote. They were added as a way for the party insiders to overturn the will of the party members if they decide to nominate someone they feel should not be nominated.
I would love to see the Democrats become something other than the "we're not Republicans" party
I find it sad, that the fact Hillary is still in the running...and it's this close. I can't believe so many Democrats are that stupid. If Obama smacked down on all his opponents and won a long long time ago, Democrat voters wouldn't be perceived as idiots. I have no idea why anyone would vote for Hillary.
I find it sad, that the fact Hillary is still in the running...and it's this close. I can't believe so many Democrats are that stupid. If Obama smacked down on all his opponents and won a long long time ago, Democrat voters wouldn't be perceived as idiots. I have no idea why anyone would vote for Hillary.
If you're asking WHY it exists, there's no real answer to that.
LOL, why did you answer if you didn't know. Anyways, it was an interesting...
I didn't say I didn't know the answer. The question is wrong. Life could only have purpose if there were intent behind it. There is no intent behind our existence; ergo, there can be no purpose.
Life is life. Give it your own purpose. You're not assigned one from birth.
There isn't a 'reason' for morality to evolve, it just happened to be that humans came about but the luck of the dice roll of genetic mutation over thousands of generations and we just happen to survive better in a community because of our environment. Asking why there is morality is an answerable question, which I've answered... a few times.
I don't know much about the polotics over there, because... I'm not from over there, but, if I were able to choose from the three candidates I'd choose Obama, since Gravel doesn't stand a chance (even with his tax scheme) and Hilary doesn't seem to like the demographic I fall in to. I've found it peculiar that Gravel raising taxes makes him completely unvoteable, but Obama not taking the prospect of an illegal war against Iran isn't as big of an issue... again, don't know much about the politics over there.
I am so happy that my home state has a law that bans the use of "faith based healing" on children.
While I'm all for it, of course, I don't know if a law like that is going to work out. A law that says "you must not neglect to take your child to a real doctor" is fine. A law that says "you must not use faith-based healing" might be first-amendment fodder.
A little off-topic but who was the guy that Rym referred to at the start of the show. He said that this guy is called pendulette? It was in reference to how serious the following show segment is going to be.
I just got done listening to the episode this afternoon. It is sad when people take their faith too far and believe, beyond a reason of a doubt, that their faith will prevail in the face of modern medicine, technology, science, etc. Rym and Scott stated that people who believe in a god do not deserve their respect except for the person's freedom to express that they believe in god. Unfortunetly, the vast majority of the entire world believe in some kind of god.
Let's forget the United States and all 1st class societies. Let's say there is a remote tribe in the middle of the African Safari has never heard of all the things science has found for us such as medicine, gravity, how weather works, etc. How would these people explain a large storm that nearly wipes out their village. They have no modern knowledge so they can't explain weather patterns and such. But, as humans, they seek to understand why such an event happened. The easiest explanation is some power above them created the storm.
I think it was Scott that stated something where if someone shows evidence of how an event happened, the other person has no choice but to abandon their belief and take the evidence as how an event happened. The African tribe is now going to understand weather patterns, the spinning Earth, etc. The explanation of a god causing the large storm is much easier.
In a sense, this is what happens in our society. Modern medicine, science, and technology has elements of the exotic and mystical. Explain why our bodies take some kind of medicine and we get cured from a disease. If you can't break it down to layman's terms, the medicine has some mystical element to it. So, it's easier to explain that god helped cured me.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that all religious people should not be blown off right away. They may not understand a concept of science, technology, etc. It's much easier to explain that some god help create that power. Humans are emotional creatures. If we don't understand a concept, we tend to let our emotions tell us what is right. To most folks, we are told god created everything around us... so the default answer in times of misunderstanding is god.
Anyways, to say there's absolutely no higher power at all is kind of like saying there's no such thing as String Theory or White Holes. They may or may not be out there, but they haven't been proven not to exist either.
Ever hear of Agnosticism? It's when you just take the stance of since there's no solid proof of gods or deities, they may or may not exist, but we cannot know for the time being. Personally, I match up with this the most out of all the stances that don't believe in gods...
One can say our conscience or "free will" is from a higher authority.
Or one can say that conscience or "free will" is something that we've just had with us since we were born, and we cannot be certain where it came from exactly.
People can exist without a conscience...
Everyone has a conscience, it's just a matter of whether or not we "listen" to it. If you can for sure give me an example, with sources backing you up, of someone who literally had no conscience (vs just choosing to not "listen" to it), I'll shut the hell up.
My question from the start is why do we have one? Having free will could be a starting point to prove that God/higher power. exists.
Again, we don't know for sure why we have one...so why make such a high and mighty assumption that, since we have free will, there's a good chance that there's a god?
If you ever looked at the concept of String Theory, it's not out of the realm of possibility that things can exist without us seeing them.
The string theory itself is another case of "since we can't prove it, we don't know if it's true or not", thus, you can't possibly use it as a way to back up something that's already in the realm of "we can't prove it, so we don't know if it's true or not".
Uh....yeah...I guess this post kinda summarizes why I don't take part in religious debates more often...:P
So, it's easier to explain that god helped cured me.
Are you saying you should lie to people because it's easier?
I'm not saying that I would lie to someone. What I'm saying is that even after a long explanation of some complex topic, if the person doesn't understand the topic, they tend to explain it to themselves in easier terms such as God.
What I'm saying is that even after a long explanation of some complex topic, if the person doesn't understand the topic, they tend to explain it to themselves in easier terms such as God.
And that, inherently, is my issue. If your assumptions are correct, then these beliefs are no more than an intellectual laziness at worst, or a lack of intellectual capacity at best. In such a case, why on Earth should the former be respected, or the latter met with anything more than pity?
What I'm saying is that even after a long explanation of some complex topic, if the person doesn't understand the topic, they tend to explain it to themselves in easier terms such as God.
And that, inherently, is my issue. If your assumptions are correct, then these beliefs are no more than an intellectual laziness at worst, or a lack of intellectual capacity at best. In such a case, why on Earth should the former be respected, or the latter met with anything more than pity?
Just a few years ago, it was very easy to understand everything an everyday person might experience in the workaday world. It's pretty simple to understand how a rotary dial telephone works. It's pretty simple to understand how tube-driven radio or a phonograph works. It may be a little harder to understand a refrigerator or a carburetor, but they're still not too hard. Anyone could open up an old radio, for instance, and with a bit of tinkering, actually figure out how it worked. Everything back then was user-serviceable. People were still irrational in some ways, but no one really believed in, say, astrology in the 50s and people didn't wear their religion on their sleeves in the 60s. You didn't begin to see the really freaky irrationality until the 70s.
An everyday person might find it a little harder to understand the everyday world of today. What do you think your answer would be if you asked an average person on the street to explain to you how a CD or a cell phone works? It seems like nothing is user-serviceable these days. I think that we're still far from technology that's indistinguishable from magic, but I think it's on the way. Whether it's laziness or not, I think that we're gonna see more and more irrationality as technology becomes less and less understandable to the average user.
An everyday person might find it a little harder to understand the everyday world of today. What do you think your answer would be if you asked an average person on the street to explain to you how a CD or a cell phone works? It seems like nothing is user-serviceable these days. I think that we're still far from technology that's indistinguishable from magic, but I think it's on the way. Whether it's laziness or not, I think that we're gonna see more and more irrationality as technology becomes less and less understandable to the average user.
What do you think your answer would be if you asked an average person on the street to explain to you how a CD or a cell phone works? It seems like nothing is user-serviceable these days. I think that we're still far from technology that's indistinguishable from magic, but I think it's on the way.
The thing is, there is an acceptable answer to the question of "how does technology X work?"
"I don't know."
Even better:
"I don't know, but I know that the engineers and scientists who made it have the answer, and I know that the answer is verifiable, measurable, and rational."
Unacceptable:
"God/Allah/FSM makes my cell phone work."
People were still irrational in some ways, but no one really believed in, say, astrology in the 50s and people didn't wear their religion on their sleeves in the 60s.
Yes they did. The only difference now is that science and technology have made the craziness of their beliefs stand out in all the more stark relief.
I'm not proposing that people believe that spirits make their tech operate. I'm proposing that, the less control people have over their live, the more likely they are to believe in irrational things. When a person with an average high school education could take the back off a radio and fix it themselves, that person felt very much in control of his life and was less likely to believe in irrational things than the person today who can't even change the battery in his iPod.
People were still irrational in some ways, but no one really believed in, say, astrology in the 50s and people didn't wear their religion on their sleeves in the 60s.
Yes they did. The only difference now is that science and technology have made the craziness of their beliefs stand out in all the more stark relief.
What? Rym, I was there. You didn't see the common belief in astrology until about '68. I don't remember anyone talking about religion in political life until the Moral Majority came around in the late 70s.
I'm not proposing that people believe that spirits make their tech operate. I'm proposing that, the less control people have over their live, the more likely they are to believe in irrational things. When a person with an average high school education could take the back off a radio and fix it themselves, that person felt very much in control of his life and was less likely to believe in irrational things than the person today who can't even change the battery in his iPod.
Are you saying that when society requires people to be smarter, people get stupider?
I'm not proposing that people believe that spirits make their tech operate. I'm proposing that, the less control people have over their live, the more likely they are to believe in irrational things. When a person with an average high school education could take the back off a radio and fix it themselves, that person felt very much in control of his life and was less likely to believe in irrational things than the person today who can't even change the battery in his iPod.
Are you saying that when society requires people to be smarter, people get stupider?
No. Listen, I know that you guys are very impressed with yourselves for knowing about technology. That's fine. You have every reason to be happy about your technological prowess. The problem is, not everyone has the same level of tech skills that you do. That fact alone doesn't make them stupid.
This is the first time in history that tech is removed enough from common understanding that we need a virtual "priest-class" of IT workers to make the tech usable. That has some implications. Those implications cannot all be that "Oh, people who don't have the same level of tech skills that I have are stupid." What I'm proposing is that, as people feel that they have less control over their tech, they'll be more likely to accept irrational answers for other things over which they feel they have no control.
What I'm proposing is that, as people feel that they have less control over their tech, they'll be more likely to accept irrational answers for other things over which they feel they have no control.
I propose the same thing, in reverse. The more that our society validates and ecourages irrational religious beliefs, people will be more likely to accept irrational answers to things in everyday life such as psychics, fake medicine, etc.
The more that our society validates and ecourages irrational religious beliefs, people will be more likely to accept irrational answers to things in everyday life such as psychics, fake medicine, etc.
I don't think that society as a whole will be abe to hold itself back from the slippery slope. Twenty-four hour entertainment is constantly hungry for something to sell. Irrational belief is much, much easier to sell than any science, philosphy, or logic. Thus, it will be encouraged lots more.
I saw a Ghost Hunters reality show on HBO last night before John Adams came on. They sent people loaded up with all kinds of tech into a haunted house to find a ghost. The reality show part was that they had judges to grade the people's attempts at calling out the ghost. That's the kind of crap that sells. That's the kind of crap that people want to consume. Personally, I would have been happier if the show explained the purpose of all the tech they carried with them.
Comments
In theory, it's not too hard to kill 100 people and disappear without anyone knowing. Poisoning water supply, launching a rocket from a distance at group of a 100 people, etc.
But the reason why I wouldn't do this, and most people on this planet wouldn't either is from their own consciousness or morals not because they couldn't get away with doing it.
My point I'm trying to ask is where does our self morality or conscience come from? There's an advantage of being moral person, but it's not really necessary for a species to survive. Do bugs or fish have morals? -- yet they survive. It could be said that this "inner voice" we have is given to us by a higher power...
Anyways.. there's a lot of concepts and theories that we believe probably exist but just can't prove yet. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
It looks like there's good evidence to believe that our basic morality originated due to the process of evolution.
-The simple fact that morality is a good survival trait for a community
-The presence of basic forms of morality in other species
So, human morals exist as a specific iteration of a survival mechanism necessary for the continuation of the species? If you're asking WHY it exists, there's no real answer to that. Does it have to have a purpose? It just exists, much in the same way that everything simply exists. No beings have a predetermined "purpose" or a "why" of existence; it's up to the individual to determine its purpose in life. Make your own path and so forth.
EDIT: Might as well state my position. I'm a hardcore atheist, but I really don't care about your religion. As long as you're not ramming it down my throat, I'm OK with you believing in utter bullshit nonsense. Keep your religion out of my schools, my courts, and my government, and don't force it on anyone else (including your children). Don't believe your books of nonsense when we have other, more thorough explanations for the same things.
Basically, use your religion as a tool to guide you in spiritual enlightenment; don't obey it slavishly. And stop fucking with science. You can't compete. Period. Knock it off.
2) Super Delegates: The Democrat party added the super delegates as a way to protect the party in the event of a whacko candidate winning the pledged delegate vote. They were added as a way for the party insiders to overturn the will of the party members if they decide to nominate someone they feel should not be nominated.
I would love to see the Democrats become something other than the "we're not Republicans" party
Life is life. Give it your own purpose. You're not assigned one from birth.
I don't know much about the polotics over there, because... I'm not from over there, but, if I were able to choose from the three candidates I'd choose Obama, since Gravel doesn't stand a chance (even with his tax scheme) and Hilary doesn't seem to like the demographic I fall in to. I've found it peculiar that Gravel raising taxes makes him completely unvoteable, but Obama not taking the prospect of an illegal war against Iran isn't as big of an issue... again, don't know much about the politics over there.
Damn, I leave for a day and this thread gets 100 new posts.
I am so happy that my home state has a law that bans the use of "faith based healing" on children.
Let's forget the United States and all 1st class societies. Let's say there is a remote tribe in the middle of the African Safari has never heard of all the things science has found for us such as medicine, gravity, how weather works, etc. How would these people explain a large storm that nearly wipes out their village. They have no modern knowledge so they can't explain weather patterns and such. But, as humans, they seek to understand why such an event happened. The easiest explanation is some power above them created the storm.
I think it was Scott that stated something where if someone shows evidence of how an event happened, the other person has no choice but to abandon their belief and take the evidence as how an event happened. The African tribe is now going to understand weather patterns, the spinning Earth, etc. The explanation of a god causing the large storm is much easier.
In a sense, this is what happens in our society. Modern medicine, science, and technology has elements of the exotic and mystical. Explain why our bodies take some kind of medicine and we get cured from a disease. If you can't break it down to layman's terms, the medicine has some mystical element to it. So, it's easier to explain that god helped cured me.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that all religious people should not be blown off right away. They may not understand a concept of science, technology, etc. It's much easier to explain that some god help create that power. Humans are emotional creatures. If we don't understand a concept, we tend to let our emotions tell us what is right. To most folks, we are told god created everything around us... so the default answer in times of misunderstanding is god.
Uh....yeah...I guess this post kinda summarizes why I don't take part in religious debates more often...:P
An everyday person might find it a little harder to understand the everyday world of today. What do you think your answer would be if you asked an average person on the street to explain to you how a CD or a cell phone works? It seems like nothing is user-serviceable these days. I think that we're still far from technology that's indistinguishable from magic, but I think it's on the way. Whether it's laziness or not, I think that we're gonna see more and more irrationality as technology becomes less and less understandable to the average user.
"I don't know."
Even better:
"I don't know, but I know that the engineers and scientists who made it have the answer, and I know that the answer is verifiable, measurable, and rational."
Unacceptable:
"God/Allah/FSM makes my cell phone work." Yes they did. The only difference now is that science and technology have made the craziness of their beliefs stand out in all the more stark relief.
This is the first time in history that tech is removed enough from common understanding that we need a virtual "priest-class" of IT workers to make the tech usable. That has some implications. Those implications cannot all be that "Oh, people who don't have the same level of tech skills that I have are stupid." What I'm proposing is that, as people feel that they have less control over their tech, they'll be more likely to accept irrational answers for other things over which they feel they have no control.
I saw a Ghost Hunters reality show on HBO last night before John Adams came on. They sent people loaded up with all kinds of tech into a haunted house to find a ghost. The reality show part was that they had judges to grade the people's attempts at calling out the ghost. That's the kind of crap that sells. That's the kind of crap that people want to consume. Personally, I would have been happier if the show explained the purpose of all the tech they carried with them.