Page 4 of 5

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:09 pm
by Coldfire26
OK, here is an example of objective good and evil:
we, as humans know killing is wrong, in another civilization, such as the colony of black widows the females kill the males after they 'give them what they want', this is considered as 'good' in the colony, as it helps future generations in certain ways (i will not list them, as not to stray from the subject). this action is recognized as inhumane in our culture for certain reasons. (the reason is NOT that we are more intellegent than the black widows)

Adriac, Soul is something humans made up. there is no 'soul', no destiny, no purpose, nothing. if you want the definition of soul, it is a concept that is supposed to contain the assence of life. unless you can show me where it is there is no such thing.

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:20 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
You "objective" arguement is rather vague and I see no real point.  We assume killing is wrong because we have a primal fear of death, but who is to say it is wrong morally.  It is better for society that poeple don't go around killing at will, but morals and good and evil are not established by this fact.

As for the soul, "unless you can show me where it is there is no such thing" is historically one of the stupidest arguements one can make.  There are huge numbers of things we cannot see or feel what we "know" exist.  Electricity for one, electrons for another.  That is no way to make an arguement.  Again just dismissing everything to me seems a cop out.  

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:26 pm
by Coldfire26
hmm, i didn't quiet understand that.
we assume killing is wrong because we are afraid to die? thats not really logical, because killing has nothing to do with dying (leaving the punishment factor out)

i didn't mean 'show me where it is' in its pure form, i meant 'show me where i can see it exists' there is nothing un explainable about humanity using the simple (colpex more like it) structure of the human body.,

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:34 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
Heh, how silly of me I have been thinking all this time killing and dieing were somehow related. . .

We don't let people run around killing because they have to kill someone (meaning that that person dies) and there is nothing keeping that person from being us.  AH!  I knew there was a connection there somewhere.

Show me where the air is, or a hydrogen atom.  There are things that exist but are not perceptable to humans (consciousness itself for instance), that does not mean they do not exist.  :)

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:41 pm
by Coldfire26
1) Well, i'm not sure, but when or friend gets a job in the bank, earning 10,000$ a month, we don't feel happy because it could've been us, we feel sad because it could've been us (we'd feel happy it WASN'T us that was murdered.

2) that is kind of stupid. i don't need to show you where they are but prove they exist. if the following questions don't have answers than they don't exist:
What do we breath?
What is hydrogen composed of?
i can easly answer both questions, this gives me the right to believe both things exist.
try answering this:
How does the soul effect a human's life?

In short, you don't need to know 'where' something is to know it exists, you have to find it out in some other way. if you CAN'T it means it doesn't exist. i dare you to find what the soul does.

(Edited by Coldfire26 at 11:21 pm on Nov. 22, 2003)

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 12:17 am
by Adriac
I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Allow me to define "soul". When I say "soul", I mean you- your consciousness.  the part of you that sits behind your eyes, that thinks. You want an example? Just think for a minute- there you go.

Explain THAT away with chemical reactions.

The soul defies explanation because we really have no idea what it is, just that there is some consciousness that is you. It obviously exists (or we wouldn't be having this conversation; it would be the interplay of billions of complex electrochemical reactions culminating in the movement of our fingers)- but you simply cannot explain it.

Hydrogen or air is different. I can tell you that a hydrogen atom is composed of one proton orbited by one neutron, and air is a mixture of gasses composed of elements. Ultimately, these are defined as experiences; you can use equipment to take apart and analyze the components of air, which you just can't do with human consciousness. It has no superset or subset that we can experience.

Hell, by definition it defies explanation.

Wow, I do ramble on...

(Edited by Adriac at 7:05 pm on Nov. 22, 2003)

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:21 am
by Redbaron
Quote: from Iris on 5:50 am on Nov. 22, 2003[br]that's why i've always been thinking that someone should invent a 'Neural Behavioral Correction' equipment. you stick it in the guy's head (aka Matrix but not that long a needle, ouch!), click on a switch, and the violent or erratic behavioral part of the brain is subdued. next thing you know the guy is a changed man!

yeah, yeah, i know it's crap, but even then walking on the moon was thought impossible, right? think about it. no need for death penalties, no need even for correctional facilities or jails. of course it has to be regulated else it falls to the wrong hands and abuses the method.

It's called marijuana and can be taken in a variety of forms.  It surpresses the violent instinct and instead allows the subject to feel that they are somehow able to discern the meaning of life.  the side-effect is that same person whilst lucid at the time is unable to understand the logic of their arguement when treatment has worn off.

Other than that I find myself having some considerable truc with Jackmn which worries me enormously!  I am an agnostic on the subject of everything being down to chemistry but it does seem more plausible with the knowledge we currently have.  This may of course change in time.

The notion of the soul and afterlife etc. are as I have stated before fundamently the old 'Opium for the ppl' ploy.  'Don't worry about how shite your life is now, the afterlife will be all better and all the nasty ppl will get their just deserts.'  Sorry I just don't buy it.  call me Thomas but there you go.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:23 am
by Sonnybobiche
You're all so negative. It's sad, really.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:29 am
by Jackmn
It's called 'dealing with the evidence'.

It is ignorant to go about believing the entire world is a perfect, happy place, when all the evidence is to the contrary.

The vast majority of evidence shows that human life is the result of evolution, meaning that thought/emotions are nothing more than survival attributes. Meaning they have no 'value' beyond survival.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:13 am
by hackerboy
I have absolutely no stomach for evolution.   IMO: it's a lie made up by people who reject God.  To say that something as complex as the solar system, the world, a human being was begun with an explosion is ridiculous.  Try exploding things and let me know when you come up with something that resembles life.

Maybe you believe in evolution, but I don't.  Take this computer in front of me.  If you asked me where it came from and I told you that it came together piece by piece, the motherboard, memory, cpu, drives, power supply, just bits of metal and silicon and wire, all by themselves, you'd call me a liar and rightly so.

Now evolution expects me to believe that humans came together the same way.  Come on!

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:39 am
by Jackmn
It isn't a matter of 'belief'. There is solid evidence in favor of evolution, and a complete lack of evidence for any other theory.

Now, try and defy one of these:

1) When an organism results from reproduction, it's genetic makeup (and thus attributes) is defined by a random mix of the the genetic makeup of it's parents, plus a bit of randomization on top of that.

2) This randomization will either either harm or benefit the organism's chance of survival.

3) This randomization will be passed down to future offspring.

4) Thus, the increased or lowered chance of survival will also be passed down, cause favorable mutations to florish, while stunting the spread of unfavourable ones.

5) Over time, these continued mutations will end up creating species very different from the original. (Since the mutations are cumulative)

(Edited by Jackmn at 3:49 am on Nov. 23, 2003)

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:46 am
by Miah
Hey guys, can we please stick to the topic, and not go into evolution again?

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:04 am
by hackerboy
I haven't spent enough time in studying evolution to be able to sufficiently debate you, but I do believe that a slight degree of evolution, more of an adaption to one's surroundings, is present.  

However, due to the fact that Earth is only 6,000 years old, this slight degree of evolution is not enough to bring us from single-cells to humans.

Also, I do believe that it is the other way around.  There is sold evidence in favor of creation, and a complete lack of evidence for evolution.

Edit: How did we get from the death penalty  to evolution? :smile:

(Edited by hackerboy at 9:05 am on Nov. 23, 2003)

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:17 am
by Jackmn
6000 years? You're off by a few billion years, mate =)

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:22 am
by Miah
Quote: from Jackmn on 10:17 pm on Nov. 22, 2003[br]6000 years? You're off by a few billion years, mate =)

Indeed. 6000 years ago, the pyramids were being built

Anyway, the most recent length of human evoultion began around 2 million years ago, prior to that, dinosaurs were still around and about.