Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84
  1.    #1  
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/sc...ml?ref=science

    Moral behavior can be explained on evolutionary terms. God is not needed for laying the foundations of moral behavior. Parts of the article is as below:

    --------
    Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

    Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.
    ....
    Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.
    ....
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  2. #2  
    How do you know that God did not plan to put the "genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules" in there to begin with?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/22/2007 at 03:52 PM.
  3. #3  
    There are many more arguments for a supreme being than not.

    Why did the ameba become a ...
    Why did eyes develop?
    Why a brain?

    There is no way you can discount God; but it is easy to discount no god.

    Ben
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    There are many more arguments for a supreme being than not.

    Why did the ameba become a ...
    Why did eyes develop?
    Why a brain?

    There is no way you can discount God; but it is easy to discount no god.

    Ben
    But of course.
  5. #5  
    I believe you will find it the other way around - the liberal left does not want religion taught anywhere. The religious people of this country are the ones who have no object to both being taught. The site you selected is a poor excuse. You really can do better.

    Ben
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I believe you will find it the other way around - the liberal left does not want religion taught anywhere. The religious people of this country are the ones who have no object to both being taught. The site you selected is a poor excuse. You really can do better.

    Ben
    The site I selected is for the giant spagetti monster which I find humourous as hell.

    I'm not going to debate what spawned the church of the flying spagetti monster as the arguement boils down to evolution is a leap of faith thus a religion which reduces science in general to a leap of faith I guess.

    It is sad however that some religions are so insecure they want to force their views everywhere. I'll stick with the first amendment and fight for your right to your personel religious expression.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It is sad however that some religions are so insecure they want to force their views everywhere. I'll stick with the first amendment and fight for your right to your personel religious expression.
    This statement is very easily applied to extremes of both sides of the strong religious and the agnostic liberals. There are those who do wish to have God represented in every aspect of life along with making every effort to convert all who will and will not listen. There are those who wish to force a Godless society in every aspect of life on every citizen in the US hoping to force those who believe in God that they will deny him and come to their senses. You cannot say that only the religious are guilty of this when there is law suit after law suit to impose their Godless view on everyone else in the country making it illegal to express or reference anything remotely religious. With the 1st amendment in mind, I would hope you hold just as much contempt for these actions as well.

    I think the the majority fall in the middle where they are happy with their views and are fine with people having other and even opposing views. Just because I am strongly religious does not make me a bible thumping evangelist who demands that you pray at least 5 times a day and are baptized by next week or you are doomed. Just like since you do not believe in a God, I would hope you are not one to impose your agnostic views on the rest of the citizens that do have a strong belief in God. It often times (but not always) holds true that the extremes are the loudest and get the most attention with the quiet vast majority are shaking their heads walking away.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/22/2007 at 04:03 PM.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    This statement is very easily applied to extremes of both sides of the strong religious and the agnostic liberals. There are those who do wish to have God represented in every aspect of life along with making every effort to convert all who will and will not listen. There are those who wish to force a Godless society in every aspect of life on every citizen in the US hoping to force those who believe in God that they will deny him and come to their senses. You cannot say that only the religious are guilty of this when there is law suit after law suit to impose their Godless view on everyone else in the country making it illegal to express or reference anything remotely religious. With the 1st amendment in mind, I would hope you hold just as much contempt for these actions as well.

    I think the the majority fall in the middle where they are happy with their views and are fine with people having other and even opposing views. Just because I am strongly religious does not make me a bible thumping evangelist who demands that you pray at least 5 times a day and are baptized by next week or you are doomed. Just like since you do not believe in a God, I would hope you are not one to impose your agnostic views on the rest of the citizens that do have a strong belief in God. It often times (but not always) holds true that the extremes are the loudest and get the most attention with the quiet vast majority are shaking their heads walking away.

    Actually I think that what you consider to be lawsuits to make the country godless is actually an enforcement of the first amendment to keep the gov't from endorsing a religion. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a lawsuit attempting to infringe on an individuals right to religious belief and expression.
  9. #9  
    Without a Google here are some examples off the top of my head.....

    The ACLU's lawsuit over a tiny corner of the a CA County seal. The county was founded by a mission centuries ago. From there, the county grew to what it is today. As a token of remembrance to the historical foundlings of their county, there was a cross, due to the founding mission being a Christian mission. I am sure if it was a Jewish mission there would have been a Star of David or if it was a corn farm there would have been an ear of corn as it was a nod to history not religion. They sued the county costing the county tax payers tens of thousands of dollars because of the tiny cross in the corner of the seal demanding it be removed because it was a symbol representing Christianity. There are those who go to extreme lengths to deny God and try to wipe anything that may represent him in the public view out.

    There have been lawsuits against school districts because they were denying teachers to use historical documents because they reference religion in some way. Region is part of history. In order to understand history, religion is going to have be included. It can easily be taught as a weight of events in the past without preaching about their teachings.

    The Navy is handing out dishonorable discharges if a Chaplain references Jesus in a prayer. Let's see...chaplain....prayer....wouldn't there be some recognition of some form of Deity? I wonder if they have done the same to a non-Christian reference during a prayer? I didn't think the Gov was involved in demanding a methodology to saying a religious prayer?

    Employees being fired because of a reference to Christmas instead of Winter Holiday because it has Christ in it and hence might offend somebody.

    This is no way denying the actions of the extremes on the other side of fence, but to say only side side is guilty of your statement while ignoring the other may mean you are simply not aware of what lengths both sides have gone or maybe are biased toward one side of the argument.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/22/2007 at 09:28 PM.
  10. #10  
    Originally Posted By: bclinger at Today 12:20 PM

    There are many more arguments for a supreme being than not.

    Why did the ameba become a ...
    Why did eyes develop?
    Why a brain?

    There is no way you can discount God; but it is easy to discount no god.

    Ben



    That is one the most preposterous posts I've read in a loooong time. Ben's head would have been spinning in my upper level evolutionary biology course in school. We (i.e. non-fundies) actually know how & why eyes, brains, etc. developed.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  11. #11  
    I think there is some scope of confusion in using the terms "Religion" and "Morality". The same type of confusion exists between "Religion" and "Spiritualiy"

    Whatever their actual definitions are, one of them (Religion?) is a organized social construct, that is merely meant to control people and control people's minds. (I say "people" meaning the middle class of any society. The rich and the poor have no need for social nicities, or morality, they just have to fake it.)

    Spirituality, on the other hand, has to do with one's relationship with the environment (society, universe etc...).

    Morality (on the face of it) appears to have something to do with Religion than with Spirituality (i.e. it is a socially imposed and accepted "behaviour").

    Maybe all that the monkeys in the NYT are displaying is empathy for their peers.
  12. #12  
    Do you have any instances where the government is forcing religion down your throat? Frankly the lawsuits to make the country godless are an infringement on the majority of this country. The only way you can make this country godless is through the court system - no other method stands a chance and that goes against the vast majority of this country's citizens.

    Also, what religion is forcing itself upon you?

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Actually I think that what you consider to be lawsuits to make the country godless is actually an enforcement of the first amendment to keep the gov't from endorsing a religion. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a lawsuit attempting to infringe on an individuals right to religious belief and expression.
  13. #13  
    Far from it. My majors: music and entomology. Everything one scientist puts forth can be countered by another scientist of equal stature. Now detail why it is preposterous.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    Originally Posted By: bclinger at Today 12:20 PM

    There are many more arguments for a supreme being than not.

    Why did the ameba become a ...
    Why did eyes develop?
    Why a brain?

    There is no way you can discount God; but it is easy to discount no god.

    Ben



    That is one the most preposterous posts I've read in a loooong time. Ben's head would have been spinning in my upper level evolutionary biology course in school. We (i.e. non-fundies) actually know how & why eyes, brains, etc. developed.
  14. #14  
    You are so correct. The only way to force religion outside of the public's view is through the court system. Frankly they need to try it through our legislative system - not a chance it will go through there.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Without a Google here are some examples off the top of my head.....

    The ACLU's lawsuit over a tiny corner of the a CA County seal. The county was founded by a mission centuries ago. From there, the county grew to what it is today. As a token of remembrance to the historical foundlings of their county, there was a cross, due to the founding mission being a Christian mission. I am sure if it was a Jewish mission there would have been a Star of David or if it was a corn farm there would have been an ear of corn as it was a nod to history not religion. They sued the county costing the county tax payers tens of thousands of dollars because of the tiny cross in the corner of the seal demanding it be removed because it was a symbol representing Christianity. There are those who go to extreme lengths to deny God and try to wipe anything that may represent him in the public view out.

    There have been lawsuits against school districts because they were denying teachers to use historical documents because they reference religion in some way. Region is part of history. In order to understand history, religion is going to have be included. It can easily be taught as a weight of events in the past without preaching about their teachings.

    The Navy is handing out dishonorable discharges if a Chaplain references Jesus in a prayer. Let's see...chaplain....prayer....wouldn't there be some recognition of some form of Deity? I wonder if they have done the same to a non-Christian reference during a prayer? I didn't think the Gov was involved in demanding a methodology to saying a religious prayer?

    Employees being fired because of a reference to Christmas instead of Winter Holiday because it has Christ in it and hence might offend somebody.

    This is no way denying the actions of the extremes on the other side of fence, but to say only side side is guilty of your statement while ignoring the other may mean you are simply not aware of what lengths both sides have gone or maybe are biased toward one side of the argument.
  15. #15  
    If There was such a thing as a supreme being It wouldn't fit into any of our pathetic ratings . obviously it wouldn't be a dictator , and it also doesn't have any extra time to watch over sparrows or to bring most people there daily bread . I don't get it . How can people in this age take beliefs so seriously isn't a belief by its own nature an illusion ? Look at all the crazy things people have believed ! I mean the supreme being , it can believe all it wants because it sees the real deal . But what can we see ? I think it would be an under statement to say "god is way over our heads . Imagine if you could see the real deal . Don't you think it would be deeper ,wider, and different than you or me or anyone ever imagined ? would you be willing to let go of your old half baked ideas and embrace the real ? How could you while you cling to beliefs and don't trust in the real ? The real is beyond our comprehension ,all we can do is dance in its shimmer ! What els would it want from mere mortals ? The more empty your cup the more real can deal ! If your cup is full You should pour some out .
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    There are many more arguments for a supreme being than not.

    Why did the ameba become a ...
    Why did eyes develop?
    Why a brain?

    There is no way you can discount God; but it is easy to discount no god.

    Ben
    Evolution and natural selection?

    If that answer is not good enough, there's always "I don't know".

    That's much more satisfying (to me) than making up some concept that cannot be proven or dis-proven.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  17.    #17  
    Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices
    By BENEDICT CAREY
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/sc...ml?ref=science

    Damage to an area of the brain behind the forehead, inches behind the eyes, transforms the way people make moral judgments in life-or-death situations, scientists reported yesterday. In a new study, people with this rare injury expressed increased willingness to kill or harm another person if doing so would save others’ lives.

    The findings are the most direct evidence that humans’ native revulsion to hurting others relies on a part of neural anatomy, one that evolved before the higher brain regions responsible for analysis and planning.

    The researchers emphasize that the study was small and that the moral decisions were hypothetical; the results cannot predict how people with or without brain injuries will act in real life-or-death situations. Yet the findings, appearing online yesterday, in the journal Nature, confirm the central role of the damaged region, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is thought to give rise to social emotions, like compassion.
    .....
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #18  
    With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?

    – Charles Darwin
  19. #19  
    "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

    -- Charles Darwin
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

    -- Charles Darwin
    But, again, why would we put any stock in the product of Darwin's advanced monkey brain?
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions