Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution. Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans. it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc. Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics. It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective. because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species. it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive. our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct. check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow. everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species. @ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution. Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans. it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc. Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics. It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person. There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos. Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy. Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reporduce. Very simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted June 11, 2014 i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective. because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species. it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive. our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct. check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow. everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species. @ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution. Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans. it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc. Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics. It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person. There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos. Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy. Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reporduce. Very simple. The empathy traits are instinctual and put their by God. God also hardwired animals with maternal instincts too as well as the need for self-preservation. There is a balance in nature between the predator and prey so that the predator can survive without wiping out a particular species of prey to extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective. because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species. it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive. our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct. check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow. everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species. @ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't If I didn't want to understand I wouldn't have asked for clarification on how empathy is derived from a physical process. It seems though that you've lost interest in this discussion. I'm not sure how that places me at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Why I Think I've Got It “If you see your neighbor’s ox or sheep or goat wandering away, don’t ignore your responsibility. Take it back to its owner. If its owner does not live nearby or you don’t know who the owner is, take it to your place and keep it until the owner comes looking for it. Then you must return it. Do the same if you find your neighbor’s donkey, clothing, or anything else your neighbor loses. Don’t ignore your responsibility. Deuteronomy 22:1-3 (NLT) You Take Two Atoms Of Hydrogen And One Of Oxygen Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground. Psalms 147:5-6 Apply Heat And Wham~! You've Got Empathy For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin. Hebrews 4:15 (NIV) Dripping All Over Your Face And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Genesis 1:26(a-c ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted June 11, 2014 i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective. because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species. it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive. our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct. check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow. everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species. @ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't If I didn't want to understand I wouldn't have asked for clarification on how empathy is derived from a physical process. It seems though that you've lost interest in this discussion. I'm not sure how that places me at fault. I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down. ~ Beloved It Is Very Simple "God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy." Matthew 5:7 (NLT) Instead Of Making Up Mythologies And (Somehow) Calling Them Science "Then he added, “Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.’ For I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.'" Matthew 9:13 (NLT) Just Confess The Obvious Truth, Mankind Gets It's Empathy "In his grace, God has given us different gifts for doing certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy, speak out with as much faith as God has given you. If your gift is serving others, serve them well. If you are a teacher, teach well. If your gift is to encourage others, be encouraging. If it is giving, give generously. If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously. And if you have a gift for showing kindness to others, do it gladly." Romans 12:6-8 (NLT) Only From It's Creator "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matthew 9:36 (NLT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective. because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species. it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive. our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct. check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow. everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species. @ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special That makes no sense. Good and wrong based on survival instinct? Where do you get that from? Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species. Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on. You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read. Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct? Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided? The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face? Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions. A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water... But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't? No, there is right and wrong. It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution. That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process? If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question. Oh well... Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't If I didn't want to understand I wouldn't have asked for clarification on how empathy is derived from a physical process. It seems though that you've lost interest in this discussion. I'm not sure how that places me at fault. I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down. Yeah, you provided me with a lame explanation that is pretty much based in fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts