Conquer Club

Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:47 am

nietzsche wrote:BBS, if it was concluded that (after decent research) humans need some certain amount of "magical thinking" to function properly or optimally, what would be your say in surrendering to it? i.e. being spiritual, being religious?

I don't remember where it was published but a study showed that "magical thinking" provides a release of dopamine necessary for healthy living. I'm not saying being healthy means being religious, but, we are humans, rational animals after all. Takes me back to Laputa.

I would venture that EVERYONE has the anxiety of dying, being responsible for their life. Some have it very hidden, everyone deals with it in a different manner. Cynicism is a high price to pay. Stoicism is pessimism even if you want to think otherwise.

Is it the boldness of youth?

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?


In other words, if SCIENCE said that I must be either religious or spiritual in order to function properly or optimally, then which would I pick? Neither! That's a silly situation.

Suppose SCIENCE dictates that your stipulated outcomes of "magical thinking" can be perfectly substituted by receiving one blow job per year. Not one per month, nor one per week--just one blow job per year. Receiving multiple blow jobs per year will not increase one's functions or optimal what-have-you. Also, the effects of giving a blow job once per year are currently unknown, but the theists strongly assert otherwise.
Now, which would you pick?

("magical thinking" seems like it could be "I feel great because there's people out, and I'm joking around, and things are well, so I feel great." If that's 'spirituality', then I'll choose 'spirituality'.)


What kind of cynicism are we talking about?

The youth tend to be bold because they don't know any better and because acquiring information is costly.

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?
There is no sacrifice--only Opportunity Cost. I yield profit through adhering to reason, and it's been a wise investment because the current and expected profit of my plans offset the value of my second-best plan (i.e. opportunity cost). Besides, "faith to reason" is the most productive choice we have--when faced with that false dichotomy (because we can choose on the margin, i.e. Choosing mostly reason, with some faith/emotion/whatever is contrary to reason).

And "being faithful to reason" need not be the only goal. The means differ with the goal, so if I'm discussing religion, then I'll put on my logic hat, steel my heart with reason, don my monocle, and begin scoffing, harrumphing, joking, with the occasional serious response to a potentially reasonable person of the faith. For other occasions, I wear different clothes, but still manage to act like an ass. Is that being faithful to reason?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby nietzsche on Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:47 am

chang50 wrote:
nietzsche wrote:BBS, if it was concluded that (after decent research) humans need some certain amount of "magical thinking" to function properly or optimally, what would be your say in surrendering to it? i.e. being spiritual, being religious?

I don't remember where it was published but a study showed that "magical thinking" provides a release of dopamine necessary for healthy living. I'm not saying being healthy means being religious, but, we are humans, rational animals after all. Takes me back to Laputa.

I would venture that EVERYONE has the anxiety of dying, being responsible for their life. Some have it very hidden, everyone deals with it in a different manner. Cynicism is a high price to pay. Stoicism is pessimism even if you want to think otherwise.

Is it the boldness of youth?

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?


If I may offer an answer of sorts in the form of a question,there may well be something in the research,so am I doomed to functioning sub-optimally because I simply am unable to indulge in magical thinking?It's just white noise to me it doesn't even begin to make any sense.


One research study is rather not definitive, I'm asking hypothetically in order to try to understand positions. Existentialist philosphers adopted both positions, not believing (most) and others believing, like Kierkegaard and Saint. Agustine.

As I said, I believe every atheist must believe in something. Believing in Progress or Science is, psychologically speaking, the same as believing in god. I mean, it counts as the belief a person bases in his root many of what he does, says. Made a mess there, but I'll trust you will get what I'm trying to say instead of showing the flaw.

If billions of people over the course of history have done the same, it must be rooted in the nature of men. Cannot be coincidence. So, maybe, maaaaybe, we need it? Or we have not evolved to live fully without some spiritual belief.

Again, I'm not saying it must be like that, only that it might be a possibility.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby nietzsche on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:01 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
nietzsche wrote:BBS, if it was concluded that (after decent research) humans need some certain amount of "magical thinking" to function properly or optimally, what would be your say in surrendering to it? i.e. being spiritual, being religious?

I don't remember where it was published but a study showed that "magical thinking" provides a release of dopamine necessary for healthy living. I'm not saying being healthy means being religious, but, we are humans, rational animals after all. Takes me back to Laputa.

I would venture that EVERYONE has the anxiety of dying, being responsible for their life. Some have it very hidden, everyone deals with it in a different manner. Cynicism is a high price to pay. Stoicism is pessimism even if you want to think otherwise.

Is it the boldness of youth?

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?


In other words, if SCIENCE said that I must be either religious or spiritual in order to function properly or optimally, then which would I pick? Neither! That's a silly situation.

Suppose SCIENCE dictates that your stipulated outcomes of "magical thinking" can be perfectly substituted by receiving one blow job per year. Not one per month, nor one per week--just one blow job per year. Receiving multiple blow jobs per year will not increase one's functions or optimal what-have-you. Also, the effects of giving a blow job once per year are currently unknown, but the theists strongly assert otherwise.
Now, which would you pick?

("magical thinking" seems like it could be "I feel great because there's people out, and I'm joking around, and things are well, so I feel great." If that's 'spirituality', then I'll choose 'spirituality'.)


What kind of cynicism are we talking about?

The youth tend to be bold because they don't know any better and because acquiring information is costly.

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?
There is no sacrifice--only Opportunity Cost. I yield profit through adhering to reason, and it's been a wise investment because the current and expected profit of my plans offset the value of my second-best plan (i.e. opportunity cost). Besides, "faith to reason" is the most productive choice we have--when faced with that false dichotomy (because we can choose on the margin, i.e. Choosing mostly reason, with some faith/emotion/whatever is contrary to reason).

And "being faithful to reason" need not be the only goal. The means differ with the goal, so if I'm discussing religion, then I'll put on my logic hat, steel my heart with reason, don my monocle, and begin scoffing, harrumphing, joking, with the occasional serious response to a potentially reasonable person of the faith. For other occasions, I wear different clothes, but still manage to act like an ass. Is that being faithful to reason?


Excellent. Cost-Benefit.

And we arrive at the perception of what the cost is. I think many atheists (including me) base their decision partly in trying not to look like a fool. Science is the cool thing, we don't want to be the loser kid. We want an iPhone. So we trust what is giving us what is sleek, shiny, useful. The benefit we don't know it, because we have never been close to the feeling those drunk in god tell us about.

So we perceive the cost to be high, the benefit to be low, since we don't believe in hell anyway.

The cynicism I was talking about is something like.. "hey, the world is indifferent of us, we might be the best citizen, charitable and all, and die in a car accident at 25, why do we even try" or "why do we try, if everything is determined" or "i'm going to die anyway, whats the use". I see the flaws here, as it can be easily pointed out that many if not all atheists are model citizens compared to blind believers, but psychologically speaking I think those type of thoughts surface to our conscious mind often, and could be only the tip of the iceberg.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:36 am

nietzsche wrote:
Excellent. Cost-Benefit.

And we arrive at the perception of what the cost is. I think many atheists (including me) base their decision partly in trying not to look like a fool. Science is the cool thing, we don't want to be the loser kid. We want an iPhone. So we trust what is giving us what is sleek, shiny, useful. The benefit we don't know it, because we have never been close to the feeling those drunk in god tell us about.

So we perceive the cost to be high, the benefit to be low, since we don't believe in hell anyway.


I was into SCIENCE before it became cool.
[/hipster]


nietzsche wrote:The cynicism I was talking about is something like.. "hey, the world is indifferent of us, we might be the best citizen, charitable and all, and die in a car accident at 25, why do we even try" or "why do we try, if everything is determined" or "i'm going to die anyway, whats the use". I see the flaws here, as it can be easily pointed out that many if not all atheists are model citizens compared to blind believers, but psychologically speaking I think those type of thoughts surface to our conscious mind often, and could be only the tip of the iceberg.


So you think most of us are pessimistic fatalists?

This reminds me of something relevant:

Books which cover Two Basic Visions on Humanity and the World:

Sowell, Thomas. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
White, Lawrence. The Clash of Economic Ideas: The Great Policy Debates and Experiments of the Last Hundred Years
Adam Smith on "The Man of System"


It seems that many subscribe to the 'constrained' view of humanity. Basically, they view humans as too stupid to overcome their own problems; therefore, they need me and/or Government X (or god) to rescue them. Examples include people like Thomas Malthus and his ideas. Notice the Malthusian arguments that many environmentalists make, and note that most of them typically have no appreciation of and understanding of the market process (thus they will adopt that fatalist and pessimistic view about humans). Religious fundamentalists tend to exhibit this behavior too.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:31 am

nietzsche wrote:BBS, if it was concluded that (after decent research) humans need some certain amount of "magical thinking" to function properly or optimally, what would be your say in surrendering to it? i.e. being spiritual, being religious?

I don't remember where it was published but a study showed that "magical thinking" provides a release of dopamine necessary for healthy living. I'm not saying being healthy means being religious, but, we are humans, rational animals after all. Takes me back to Laputa.

I would venture that EVERYONE has the anxiety of dying, being responsible for their life. Some have it very hidden, everyone deals with it in a different manner. Cynicism is a high price to pay. Stoicism is pessimism even if you want to think otherwise.

Is it the boldness of youth?

Would you sacrifice part of your life yearnings only to be faithful to reason?


Not sure what the question-begging term "magical thinking" means here. Not having religion doesn't mean that you only ever worry about food and electronic gadgets.
I am as capable of looking at a bright moon , or a rainbow, or the Mona Lisa, and going "Wow!" as anyone. And I'd posit that I have a healthier attitude than some monk wearing a hair shirt for his supposed sins and flogging himself.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Neoteny on Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:28 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:I like this thread. The best argument for god, I think, is the one about feeling Jesus pulsing in your heart of hearts, or however that goes. I think the human experience, and a certain amount of psychology, connects well with that concept for some reason. It's effective for that reason, and what I feel a lot of theism really boils down to. And necessarily so, or what's the point of it?


So, basically "cognitive bias" + "appeal to emotion" = Best Argument for God? (or rather best explanation for the belief in God?)


Yes and yes. My favorite is gap god, but I think the most effective is the appeal to emotion.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Army of GOD on Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:28 pm

Robots don't have emotions
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby jonesthecurl on Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:31 pm

Whirred.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:47 pm

Army of GOD wrote:Robots don't have emotions

I want a robot as a friend. Before they kill all humans.




--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby jonesthecurl on Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:28 am

jonesthecurl wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.


Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.


You called the wrong line. His phone number is pi.


OK
[starts dialing...]


[still dialing...]
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby jonesthecurl on Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:49 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.


Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.


You called the wrong line. His phone number is pi.


OK
[starts dialing...]


[still dialing...]



[still dialing...
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Lootifer on Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:24 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:It seems that many subscribe to the 'constrained' view of humanity. Basically, they view humans as too stupid to overcome their own problems; therefore, they need me and/or Government X (or god) to rescue them. Examples include people like Thomas Malthus and his ideas. Notice the Malthusian arguments that many environmentalists make, and note that most of them typically have no appreciation of and understanding of the market process (thus they will adopt that fatalist and pessimistic view about humans). Religious fundamentalists tend to exhibit this behavior too.

I know I do!

I'd change my sig to "Never under-estimate the power of human stupidity" but im too... conservative.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby jonesthecurl on Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:19 am

Lootifer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It seems that many subscribe to the 'constrained' view of humanity. Basically, they view humans as too stupid to overcome their own problems; therefore, they need me and/or Government X (or god) to rescue them. Examples include people like Thomas Malthus and his ideas. Notice the Malthusian arguments that many environmentalists make, and note that most of them typically have no appreciation of and understanding of the market process (thus they will adopt that fatalist and pessimistic view about humans). Religious fundamentalists tend to exhibit this behavior too.

I know I do!

I'd change my sig to "Never under-estimate the power of human stupidity" but im too... conservative.


That quote doesn't mean that YOU have to be stupid.
Despite all their failings, humans can be magnificent sometimes.
try to be magnificent, not stupid.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:54 am

Lootifer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It seems that many subscribe to the 'constrained' view of humanity. Basically, they view humans as too stupid to overcome their own problems; therefore, they need me and/or Government X (or god) to rescue them. Examples include people like Thomas Malthus and his ideas. Notice the Malthusian arguments that many environmentalists make, and note that most of them typically have no appreciation of and understanding of the market process (thus they will adopt that fatalist and pessimistic view about humans). Religious fundamentalists tend to exhibit this behavior too.

I know I do!

I'd change my sig to "Never under-estimate the power of human stupidity" but im too... conservative.


i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby crispybits on Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:18 am

john9blue wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It seems that many subscribe to the 'constrained' view of humanity. Basically, they view humans as too stupid to overcome their own problems; therefore, they need me and/or Government X (or god) to rescue them. Examples include people like Thomas Malthus and his ideas. Notice the Malthusian arguments that many environmentalists make, and note that most of them typically have no appreciation of and understanding of the market process (thus they will adopt that fatalist and pessimistic view about humans). Religious fundamentalists tend to exhibit this behavior too.

I know I do!

I'd change my sig to "Never under-estimate the power of human stupidity" but im too... conservative.


i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.


I agree - but I see religion as another bunch of stupid humans - if there is a God and he demonstrates his/her/it's existence and starts acting directly to sort things out then I'll be all for it.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Lootifer on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:24 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:That quote doesn't mean that YOU have to be stupid.
Despite all their failings, humans can be magnificent sometimes.
try to be magnificent, not stupid.

I agree.

I'd also point out that its not always being stupid, but sometimes being an asshole, and sometimes being both.

I try [and usually fail] to avoid both.

j9b wrote:i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.

I personally think stupidity of decision makers can be something we "evolve" out of.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:23 pm

Lootifer wrote:
j9b wrote:i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.

I personally think stupidity of decision makers can be something we "evolve" out of.


i think so too... in fact i think it has already happened to an extent... but our species has been fucking up our own natural selection lately, so we'll see whether that ends up working.

crispybits wrote:
john9blue wrote:i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.


I agree - but I see religion as another bunch of stupid humans - if there is a God and he demonstrates his/her/it's existence and starts acting directly to sort things out then I'll be all for it.


some religions are better than others. getting scammed by a dumb religion (like scientology) isn't much different from getting scammed by some other con artist.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:31 pm

Lootifer wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:That quote doesn't mean that YOU have to be stupid.
Despite all their failings, humans can be magnificent sometimes.
try to be magnificent, not stupid.

I agree.

I'd also point out that its not always being stupid, but sometimes being an asshole, and sometimes being both.

I try [and usually fail] to avoid both.

j9b wrote:i have that view as well, but i don't trust government because government is just a bunch of relatively stupid humans who don't know me trying to solve my problems.

if there is a god, then they would be much better at doing so, because they aren't human.

I personally think stupidity of decision makers can be something we "evolve" out of.


So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:58 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?


man... are you another one of those guys who thinks significant humans evolution can happen in a 50 year time span?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:18 am

john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?


man... are you another one of those guys who thinks significant humans evolution can happen in a 50 year time span?


Yeah, you're right. With Lootifer's argument, 1000s of years of totalitarian governance is justifiable!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:38 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?


man... are you another one of those guys who thinks significant humans evolution can happen in a 50 year time span?


Yeah, you're right. With Lootifer's argument, 1000s of years of totalitarian governance is justifiable!


it is if you consider "they aren't evolved enough" to be justification. which apparently is a good enough answer to questions like "why do some birds rape each other" and "why do female insects eat male insects after they f*ck"
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:06 pm

john9blue wrote:it is if you consider "they aren't evolved enough" to be justification. which apparently is a good enough answer to questions like "why do some birds rape each other" and "why do female insects eat male insects after they f*ck"


Evolution has nothing to do with man-made moral considerations. Evolution pushes towards a selective advantage in a certain ecosystem. Do you think eating the males after they f*ck is some kind of evolutionary hiccup that will be fixed when the evolution1.1 patch is released?

Improving the human condition is something that only humans can do. Hoping that "evolution" will somehow fix our problems is equivalent to wishing for the rapture to happen so we can all go live in our mansions in the sky.

* Note: I am using evolution is the strict biological sense. If you're using some fuzzy notion of "all progress is evolution" then the term loses all meaning. The difference I'm specifying is that evolution is something that happens to the members of a species, whereas our progress in the past couple thousand years is something we did to ourselves. Not something that evolution or aliens or sky daddies did for us.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:34 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Evolution has nothing to do with man-made moral considerations. Evolution pushes towards a selective advantage in a certain ecosystem. Do you think eating the males after they f*ck is some kind of evolutionary hiccup that will be fixed when the evolution1.1 patch is released?

Improving the human condition is something that only humans can do. Hoping that "evolution" will somehow fix our problems is equivalent to wishing for the rapture to happen so we can all go live in our mansions in the sky.

* Note: I am using evolution is the strict biological sense. If you're using some fuzzy notion of "all progress is evolution" then the term loses all meaning. The difference I'm specifying is that evolution is something that happens to the members of a species, whereas our progress in the past couple thousand years is something we did to ourselves. Not something that evolution or aliens or sky daddies did for us.


would you agree that societal morals are made to benefit humanity as a whole?

would you agree that we can only develop these morals due to the advanced intelligence that our species evolved?

if so, then i propose that man-made morals are an evolutionary adaptation to benefit our species. there are evolutionary reasons why our society has taboos on (for example) incest and cannibalism. how do you think those developed in the first place?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:32 am

john9blue wrote:would you agree that societal morals are made to benefit humanity as a whole?


Not really. At best you could argue that they're made to benefit the specific society they occur in. The widespread notion that all humans are equal is a very recent one, for almost all of human history people really only gave a shit about their "group".

john9blue wrote:would you agree that we can only develop these morals due to the advanced intelligence that our species evolved?


To some extent yeah. I don't know if it's a purely human trait. I'm pretty sure chimps also have some kind of social rules that allows them to live in groups.

john9blue wrote:if so, then i propose that man-made morals are an evolutionary adaptation to benefit our species. there are evolutionary reasons why our society has taboos on (for example) incest and cannibalism. how do you think those developed in the first place?


Right, I agree with that to some extent.
However, there has not been an evolutionary change leading to the widespread change in opinion regarding slavery or racism or owning women or the right to kill your kids or the value of human life in general. We have seen MAJOR shifts in culture in the past couple thousand years and these were not caused by any evolutionary event.
Therefore these changes are due to the actions of humans. It's due to emperors uniting large areas of land and then imposing a rule of law. It's due to the creation of currency. It's due to the proliferation of trade. It's due to the invention of the printing press. And so on and so forth.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am

Re: Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

Postby john9blue on Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:42 am

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Not really. At best you could argue that they're made to benefit the specific society they occur in. The widespread notion that all humans are equal is a very recent one, for almost all of human history people really only gave a shit about their "group".


yes, but you're missing the point. societal mores still exist to benefit the survival of the group of humans in question. this is the purpose of evolution.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Right, I agree with that to some extent.
However, there has not been an evolutionary change leading to the widespread change in opinion regarding slavery or racism or owning women or the right to kill your kids or the value of human life in general. We have seen MAJOR shifts in culture in the past couple thousand years and these were not caused by any evolutionary event.
Therefore these changes are due to the actions of humans. It's due to emperors uniting large areas of land and then imposing a rule of law. It's due to the creation of currency. It's due to the proliferation of trade. It's due to the invention of the printing press. And so on and so forth.


just because something happens due to our actions doesn't mean it's not an evolutionary adaptation. for example, the actions of peacock females have caused the evolutionary adaptation of bright, colorful plumage. adaptation does not just happen in response to the environment or to other species. in fact, since humans are no longer immediately threatened by either of those, our adaptations to the actions of our own species have become even more important for our survival.
Last edited by john9blue on Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users