between a few of the threads here - i have been thinking - about evolution and religion. if humans are the only species with religion - then maybe it is only because we are intelligent enough to override the desire to procreate. children are another mouth to feed - taking food out of ones own mouth so to speak. perhaps humans need that added reason of religion not to just follow the path of selfishness into extinction - by being too selfish to care for our offspring or work together. in a physical sense humans are relatively lacking, we need to work together to further the species. i think (i know it's kind of a stereotype) that religious ppl have more children becausethey beleive in mankind's superiority. the bible says that earth and the other species are here for us and not just with us. i heard a quote of some oil baron or other (sorry i don't remember who or where) who, when questioned about the environmental impact of the oil industry said it was irrelevant because the apocolypse was nigh anyways. from a darwinian standpoint - he was surviving well - he had 14 kids and enough money to support his offspring and theirs for generations. (provided his business didn't destroy the earth in the meantime) this isn't an idea much different from what's been floating around here - and it's not my personal opinion - but the idea of a god gene would make alot of sense. it just seems ironic that the concept of evolution can explain organized religion. which brings me to my point - any extreme is false. and definate conclusion is wrong. although i obviously enjoy the debate - i think the real answears are things we in our little human minds cannot not describe or fully understand. any ideas which cause harm to many others to protect or punish a small amount of ppl should not be followed - in short - i think my only rule from now on will be the classic golden rule. i don't know - i'm pretty high - pretty lost - and pretty enlightened today - so i don't know if this is intelligible or not... any thoughts??
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins....it deals largely with this very topic, and is utterly mind expanding.
The golden rule is the Rule of All Rules. Above God and above Richard Dawkins. I like to believe that both would agree with me.
I think you'll find most rationalists, Dawkins included, support the golden rule avidly The rule is based upon human insight and ideal nature, not divine dictate. That's why it's rather universal to all of humanity. Excepting various adherants of fundamentalist faiths ofcourse.
i very strongly doubt we are i can't speak with any certainty on prevention (though i have observed that which would suggest such occurs), it is quite comon in nature for parents to find ways of reducing the number of mouths to feed for the benefit of the whole.... ie, they eat their runts. and indeed, these are traits seen in (at least part), many social animals isnt there stuff about us being here for it too? and yet it's not a complete whole-istic philosophy or explanation of everything. fascinating eh? nods furiously though acquiring that ability is a process we can all be partaking of any act of war, violence or hostility is an expression of extreme gross self mutilation what's the classic golden rule? for those of us who dont yet know. like Bernard Black from Black Books (uk sitcom) said: NO RULES!
humans are genetically pre-programmed to fall in love with people, to have lust, to feel good towards family, etc. You can't understand evolution (or are really stoned) to suggest this. By the time humans were much lesser apes we already came equipped with the genes that would fight tooth and nail to get genetic propagation done. It can't be any other way, any organism that has less of a drive to pro-create their genes would die off. things don't work for 'the good of the species' the gene is the unit of selection, however: evolution doesn't happen for the 'benefit of the species' what happens is if you have a gene or gene-complex that makes you terrified and run away everytime you hear an animal like noise, even if it only helped you 1 in 10,000 times, 1 in 10,000times that gene would spread through a population like wildfire and in no time at all most of the population would have it. because those that had other genes wouldn't propagate as successfully. thats how we get species typical traits.
if we listened to you iscariot, we'd think it was all nature and no nurture. extremes becoming opposites.... like when anti-religiousness takes on a religious zeal? laughing: been seeing an increase in the uptake of that around here recently )
Yeah accept if you listened to me i'd probably tell you the truth, that the debate between nature/nurture is based on faulty illoigcal premises. There is no nature/nurture that you can talk about in that sense. Enviromental outputs and interactions have effects on how genetic mechanisms set up in an individual. Its like asking whats more important the gas or the engine in a car to make it run. humans are genetically pre-programed as survival machines, theres no denying that. The fact that we are lustful creatures has nothing to do with nurturing, the fact that people fall in love has nothing to do with nurturing. Environment effects those things but its already decided in the genes. Actually, i'll quote it for you: The adapted mind - leda cosmides and john tooby Don't go ahead and assume that i'm as scientifically backwords and ignorant as people who actually think that there is some kind of nature vs nurture issue. Read it and learn. here are some examples of what humans have: We have a super rich cognitive architecture and beneath variable behavoir there exists universal mechanisms that we all have, that evolved for specific reasons, LIKE GENETIC PROPAGATION. Thats why humans have the urge to reproduce our genes. Or in other words: - the adapted mind So if we listened to digit we might believe a ridiculous notion about another person thats probably a lot more studied on the sciences from where the nature vs nurture debate comes from.
Theres nothing wrong with having strong emotions over the issue of other people's ignorance. Society is by far and large a worse place for it. Children that believe in monsters are indoctrinated into nonsensical irrational beliefs before their mentally capable of deciding what is real or not. Theres a lot of ways society is harmed by religion and being strongly intellectually and morally opposed to religion, is fine. Religious zeal takes on faith and a belief that you are right without evidence. Now why don't you explain who you're talking about and point out logical flaws in their reasoning instead of privately laughing at it? oh wait, you can't!
I'd agree that the SSSM is worth argueing against merely on principle alone, it coming seemingly from the science of dogma, or at least from the rhetoric of someone lambasting & ridiculing the scientific dogma. And neither source merits much worth. why you would use this to prop up a claim of "no-nurture" i know not. indeed, your car-gasoline analogy is quite accurate, well, nearly. the mechanism, if explained in full, will have an answer for every riddle great mystery throws at us, but such explanations are incomplete, not whole, not holistic. Complete understandings of mechanism, though will yield many insight into that which can be described as being psychological or social, will not be fully reverse engineer able (i speculate), and further, will be unsatisfactory in the minds of those who aren't genetically predisposed to a life of thick glasses and even thicker books. reduction to mere mechanical understanding alone, though convincing of it's correctness through tangible results, is blinding to broader and higher truths, and with which, runs the risk of creating an arrogance in those who disseminate the truths it has to offer. if only these people can remain open minded in face of their convincing results, that the situation can be explained from different perspectives, all lending to the whole. if you looked at a kettle from only one angle, could you claim to know it's shape? circular arguments reside between the lines, there only to prop up how right you are in your own mind. expectation defeats you. i had no assumption you were scientifically backwars or ignorant. a little over certain and closed-minded perhaps though. when one finds an answer, there may be the tendency to consider it THE answer, and stop seeking the truth that the answers make up. yeah, you've left me nothing to argue against (and i know how much u wanted an argument)... except that this is in any way showing that there's absolutely no "nurture" aspect. if anything, it's leaning to revealing the simple truth that "nurture", as a term we came up with to describe evolutionarily accepted/beneficial trait(s) born out of evolution, to revealing the truth that that which we term "nurture" is a product of evolution, to revealing the truth that evolution is all pervading, and so of course underlies all other intellectual markers we create, such as "nurture". ...and so, nature/nurture still exists as ever before, just that now, perhaps there might be a few less people making the mistake of thinking of them as two separate distinct creative forces existing on the same level. heh. ^making it personal? bruised ego rearing up on hind legs on the defensive offence? that's ok, i don't mind when people make up my argument to make their own seem stronger, it has happened enough times for desensitisation to occur. if you really listened to Digit, you wouldn't believe. forever suspending disbelief (and belief) to allow consideration of all possibilities, without predjudice obfuscating the "unbelievable-but-true". ideally. anyways... i'll leave yas with a banksy quote: "If you've only ever read one book in your life... ...shut the fuck up." oh, looks like i'm not leaving just yet... where's the appropriate smilie that gives that look like you're staring lovingly at someone waiting for them to return to self awareness. you're still running hot from your last post i can tell. first up, yup, i agree. there's nothing wrong with having strong emotions over the issue of other peoples ignorance. those who've been here a while will tell you i'm all about that. as i also had to learn, running around accusing people of ignorance is in itself, ignorant in it's judgementalism. annoying as it was to learn. because it's far easier to wear your ability to detect and accuse like a sheild protecting yourself from realising the extent to which you yourself are ignorant. ignorance, it's not digital, and there's a little bit of it everywhere in us all. now lets clarify some stuff... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a "religion" in no way implies making children believe in monsters inherent to it's meaning*. if you want to ask for specifics when arguing against general statements, perhaps you could do the same when you are lamenting on the dangers of religion across the board. you didnt like my broad stroke with my comment intended to point out the hypocracy/irony/humour of "becoming that which you hate" by picking up religious fervor, even though i hadn't even thought of you when writing it. perhaps a sign it touched a nerve in you? soul seeking required? but no, i shall not dredge up piles of shit for you to trawl through, if i'm not bringing something up here, it's usually to avoid getting bogged down in repetitions of repetitive arguments, and to avoid kicking of personal attacks (as fun as character assassinations in heated debates are). i'm with you. i'd rather the topic stay on the issues, on the topic, on the debate, not the debater. though i prefer discussion to argument. *before you grab that stick in a flurry of haste... yes, making children believe in monsters, though well intentioned to ensure kind behaviour coerced by the boot/stick/fear, is a fundamentally disagreeable practice where better alternatives are abundantly available. and with that, i don't know what more to say, only left with a feeling of unsaidness. edit- "Religion might also be defined as scrupulous conformity to a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. " - that's about as close an accurate definition of "religion" as i was using it here.
i was very stoned to be having those thoughts iscariot - that's one of the main reasons i smoke pot. i enjoy getting lost in sometimes strange thoughts. sorry if i've somehow offended you with my "ignorance" my intent was not really to indoctrinate ppl or even spread my own opinion - i even stated that a god gene was not my opinion - but lately i can't get into a light hearted, open minded thread here. how much harder do i have to try to stay out of an argument? you even argue about nyquil even though it was obviously just a stupid metaphor - or was it a simile - i'm sure u'll correct me if it was... :rollseyes:
I didn't argue about nyquil, I even said I didn't know anything about nyquil, just thats its probably a cough supresser which is usually bad for any type of lung infection, if you're coughing 9/10 cough medicine is going to make the situation worse, because 9/10 times coughs are productive. Might be that nyquil is a cough-promoter or phelgm loosener, but i only mentioned cuz most people don't know that cough medicine can be quite bad for you in the long run.
oy vey. no matter what i say everybody wants to talk about cough medicine. lol. to give you something else to be positivly correct about, iscariot - it does prevent coughing and can worsen something. i think the idea is that it can do more good than harm when u are deprived of sleep, making it difficult to fight the infection. whether it worsens or affects you probably depends on what ur sick with and ur own body. i once went to the hospital for something and they gave me as much much morphine as would send most ppl to lala land - no effect on me.