Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

That’s The Evolution Way.

Recommended Posts

I did point out that it did happen (human vs. chimpanzee). Even that some people and groups in the recent years attempted this. Because of the physical and cultural differences between humans.

67442[/snapback]

I wouldn’t consider humans and chimpanzees a good example of discrimination. First of all, you even said yourself that humans and chimpanzees are “cousinsâ€ÂÂ. You clearly understand that humans did not “come from†chimpanzees, and yet you’re using this as a comparison for the speciation of modern humans. Chimpanzees may be our closest living relative, but the evolutionary distance between us is still huge.

 

Secondly, discrimination is a term which generally applies a prejudice against a person or group. No one is prejudiced against chimpanzees (at least I hope not).

 

And because evolution will continue it will happen in the future. There is no indication that evolution of human will stop. Unless all human mutate in the same way at the same time evolution dictates that the human race will at some point in time divide.

67442[/snapback]

Or we could all go extinct. You’re talking about something that’s a long way off, and may not even happen. Furthermore, you seem to imply that a speciation event would produce humans that are superior in some way which would not necessarily be the case.

 

 

Yes I think that most people like you and me will agree that discrimination is not ok. If I apply evolution as a world view, at some point in time discrimination is unavoidable. And if you look at human history this will not be positive.

67442[/snapback]

Discrimination against race, gender, class, etc. are already unavoidable in our society. There will always be individuals who consider themselves superior to another group. And it’s worth pointing out that religion is a huge source of discrimination, against h*m*sexuals, atheists, other religions, etc.

 

Evolution is not a worldview, and it does not necessarily lead to discrimination.

 

I’m not attempting to disproof evolution. I’m attempting to formulate ethics using atheism and evolution as the basis for n world view.

67442[/snapback]

Once again, evolution is not a worldview. Atheism is, and if you want to discuss the ethics surrounding atheism that’s fine. Evolution, on the other hand, describes a process. It doesn’t make sense to formulate ethics based on evolution, just like it wouldn’t make sense to formulate ethics based on the molecular orbital theory, or the particle theory of light.

Is discrimination not a natural thing?

 

How decide when is it OK to discriminate and when not?

 

And when is it OK to discriminate?

67442[/snapback]

These are all philosophical questions regarding social structure and human worth. They have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Personally, I think discrimination is wrong if it is based on personal opinion or lacks grounds. But treating groups of people differently is not necessarily discrimination. For example, I don’t think blind people should become surgeons or commercial airplane pilots. That’s not discrimination, that’s just a reality of their condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all philosophical questions regarding social structure and human worth. They have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Personally, I think discrimination is wrong if it is based on personal opinion or lacks grounds. But treating groups of people differently is not necessarily discrimination. For example, I don’t think blind people should become surgeons or commercial airplane pilots. That’s not discrimination, that’s just a reality of their condition.

Obviously if the asker asks the question evolution is connected to those things in his mind. But I give you credit for finally answering the question in a civil manner which shows the function of common sense.

 

If as you say evolution and atheism is not connected to the atheists worldview what that means is the person is asking for what values “you†use? If for example you are a fascist, it would be nice to know that so that people can give you a wide birth if they so choose. Yes, my worldview is tied to my belief in God and the Ten commandments. Therefore you might expect behavior out of me commensurate with that. The atheists belief is very much a variable and people generally don’t choose to relate well to mystery of that type. It would be easy to conclude that “survival of the fittest†might be a very big part of the atheist believing evolutionist. But then atheists are not know for clarity on this issue.

 

To tell you the truth, I have never met an atheist that didn’t believe in evolution. Are there such creatures?

 

So called society has rules prescribed for all citizens and humans present in the society to follow. I am a born American citizen legally whether I like it or not (I like it). Of course I could immigrate but I would probably have to become a citizen of another country to do that. I don’t know if there are any places that one can go where one would not be expected to obey the local rules or become an independent country unto himself so to speak. This seemingly is the status that some atheists want. As you say we do discriminate and so if you don’t like the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God in it would you leave and find a country that suits you better--one without a declaration of independence that mentions God? It seems to me we all have to compromise somewhat to get along.

 

Atheists tend to be sensitive about their beliefs on how they propose to treat their fellowman. It would seem easy to conclude their defensiveness is because they sense others hostility towards atheiststic neutrality when it comes to ideas of right and wrong. Trust is a delicate creature when it comes to relationships and when atheists belief systems are variables as atheists tend to be seen, trust goes south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, I would die if all my intelligence was taken away and I was left to survive on my own. But there are animals that can survive without a brain, so it’s not impossible in all cases. I already agreed with you that humans are highly intelligent, and very powerful as a result. But I disagree that we are “superior†to everything else for that reason.

A quibble. Lets put it this way. we are more in control of how we interface with our environment than any animal or plant on this planet.

 

I’ve always accepted that. I could talk for hours about the reason why humans gravitate towards religious beliefs, from an evolutionary perspective. I find it very interesting.

And from my point of view you left one dogmatic demanding set of ideas for another (evolution).

 

That’s exactly my point. Evolution as a theory does not make any claims about the value of life, or the superiority of races/species relative to one another. Evolution simply states that if an organism is “fit†(ie. effective at reproducing) its genes have a better chance of remaining in the population.

If people choose to form their own opinions on topics like abortion and genocide, that has nothing to do with “the evolution way†that Crous refers to.

So are you saying just our biology evolved seperately from our mind--not true if you accept materialism. There is no metaphysical. Evolution is resposnible for our mental state. Deviding it as you do is not evolutionism.

 

I foreget the name of the scientist but I remember her quote; "...all we are is expendable metabolic units." I take it you do not share her opinion or should I say observation? Why all the mental life Isabella--what's that all about? People do more than eat to survive. So much of the happines of our lives are dependant on the felings we have towards one another--our relationships. Evo is mute but then subtly not so. Expendable metabolic units indeed. Say that when someone you love dies or is gone from your life.

 

You seem to imply that evolution is some sort of invisible force which is “responsible†for things, and has “power†over things. You’re personifying it to say that it “gave us a choiceâ€ÂÂ. Evolution describes a process which is based entirely on genetic and environmental factors, not a guided or conscious process.

66781[/snapback]

No I didn't mean that. I was being fascious. I speculated that it comes across that way. I clarified what I meant a the end of the quote. You seemed to disreguard it.

 

As far as evolution being a process--baking a cake is a process as it predictable. Follow the recipe and you always ge the same thing. Evo by its description is like a cosmic cheshire cat almost undefineable in any practical sense. It selects but does not. It causes thousands of small precision steps which can only lead to a bird evolving but does not know what it is evolving. It is blind but, in referene to your quip about blind people not beig allowed to fly airplanes, evolution despite its blindness has done better than flying an airplane by "designing" birds that see with eyes and all the plants and animals on the planet. You justify all these inconsitencies to have faith in this theory.

 

I don’t mind if someone chooses to be an atheist. It really has no effect on my mental state. In fact I respect the atheist’s position. I also respect the theist’s point of view. Do I believe in God? Yes, I doâ€â€Âbut I verbalize it and make an issue of it because God says to me in His word that He does not want me to be ashamed of my belief. So it is more out of my concern for what He thinks of me than what others think. Otherwise I accept my autonomy as well as everyone else's and speak only for myself. With this in mind, I can concede the same respect to an atheist for what he or she believes.

 

Here is my issue with the atheists that believe we evolved. Ok. Fineâ€â€Âthat’s your opinion. Why? Because there is no empirical evidence to prove evolution. In other words no human beings were there to observe it. Of course the converse is true. No theist can claim they observed God create the universe. Thus two differing opinions. But here is the caveat I find unfair. Evo science claims that evolution is a “fact.†My brains asks, “How can they make a conclusion like that with no observers?†If they point to animal diversity then the theist has a plausible answer for that ( a differing opinion from their opinion but just as plausible and therefore as valid). It boils down to the respect we give the other guys opinions. I admit I created the idea of God with my mind. But evolutionists do not seem to want to admit that they create the idea of evolution with their mind. They say the observed evolution. Well then, I shoulf be able to observ it too. We both observe gravity and agree it exists.Why can't I observe evolution?

 

I accept my belief in God on faith and evo’s accept their belief in evo on faith but, they steadily claim they aren’t doing that. They are right and we are wrong! Their position makes them, in my view, as self-righteous and arrogant as they can be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And because evolution will continue it will happen in the future. There is no indication that evolution of human will stop.

Because natural selection is a product of environmental pressures...when those pressures cease or are controlled...evolution ceases.

 

Man is one of the only creatures that can control his environment.

 

...When he is cold, he puts on warm clothes.

...When the weather is hostile, he builds a shelter or relocates.

...When there is lack of food, he farms.

...When he gets sick, he develops medicine.

...etc.

 

This is not to say that evolution is not taking place when it comes to certain disease resistance, etc...

 

I believe man has finally reached a plateau (most likely with Adam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If as you say evolution and atheism is not connected to the atheists worldview what that means is the person is asking for what values “you†use? If for example you are a fascist, it would be nice to know that so that people can give you a wide birth if they so choose. Yes, my worldview is tied to my belief in God and the Ten commandments. Therefore you might expect behavior out of me commensurate with that. The atheists belief is very much a variable and people generally don’t choose to relate well to mystery of that type. It would be easy to conclude that “survival of the fittest†might be a very big part of the atheist believing evolutionist. But then atheists are not know for clarity on this issue.

67561[/snapback]

I never said that atheism and evolution are not connected. They are connected, but they are not synonymous with one another. You can’t use them interchangeably. Plenty of evolutionists are also theists, after all.

 

Evolution says nothing about ethics, morality, or human worth. To garner any such notion from evolution would suggest a misunderstanding of the theory. For example, the false idea that “fitness†refers to physical, mental or political superiority. Fitness refers only to reproductive success: how many offspring can you have, and how many of those offspring will go on to have offspring of their own? If evolutionists used “survival of the fittest†as their worldview, they would be having as many children as they possibly could. Yet I don’t see any evidence suggesting that evolutionists have larger families than creationists. In fact, from my personal experience very religious families tend to have more children because they don’t believe in using contraceptives.

 

I think it would be fair to say that most atheists are not terrible, immoral people. We have a sense of right and wrong, but it’s not based on evolution.

 

To tell you the truth, I have never met an atheist that didn’t believe in evolution. Are there such creatures?

67561[/snapback]

Probably. People believe all kinds of strange things, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other non-theistic explanations for the diversity of life in addition to evolution.

 

So called society has rules prescribed for all citizens and humans present in the society to follow. I am a born American citizen legally whether I like it or not (I like it). Of course I could immigrate but I would probably have to become a citizen of another country to do that. I don’t know if there are any places that one can go where one would not be expected to obey the local rules or become an independent country unto himself so to speak. This seemingly is the status that some atheists want.

67561[/snapback]

I’ve heard this one before: atheists reject religion because they don’t like all the rules it imposes, right? This is not true at all. If we had a problem with rules or authority, the jails would be full of atheist anarchists who rebelled against the law in some way or another.

As you say we do discriminate and so if you don’t like the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God in it would you leave and find a country that suits you better--one without a declaration of independence that mentions God? It seems to me we all have to compromise somewhat to get along.

67561[/snapback]

I’m Canadian, so I’m not very familiar with the Declaration. But no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. God is mentioned in the Canadian national anthem, and I can accept that as a historical part of our country. There would only be a problem if religion or religious laws were being imposed on me by the government to the extent where it was affecting my everyday life. In that case, I would consider moving.

 

Atheists tend to be sensitive about their beliefs on how they propose to treat their fellowman. It would seem easy to conclude their defensiveness is because they sense others hostility towards atheiststic neutrality when it comes to ideas of right and wrong.

67561[/snapback]

Atheists are not neutral to the ideas of right and wrong, if that’s what you’re implying. I have a sense of morality that does not depend of religious teachings. I think most atheists do.

Trust is a delicate creature when it comes to relationships and when atheists belief systems are variables as atheists tend to be seen, trust goes south.

67561[/snapback]

I don’t understand what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabella

I never said that atheism and evolution are not connected. They are connected, but they are not synonymous with one another. You can’t use them interchangeably. Plenty of evolutionists are also theists, after all.

Let me try again. Your premise is that you evolved. Here is my understanding of what evolution reduced to its lowest common denominator or core idea is; Energy and matter gave birth to the first self replicating molecule then the evolution process could act which led eventually to the self replicating cell. The evolutionary “process†caused all the plants and animals including human beings. Evolution therefore, by deduction, had to be responsible for your mental ability including consciousness.

 

Think about what you are saying. You are strongly implying that your (our) mental ability has little to do with evolution as if “it†(our mental ability is in no way connected to evolution). If evolution is the cause of your existence and intelligence then it would only follow that morality or the lack of it would be its ultimate responsibility also. Evolution therefore is responsible for God and the disbelief in God etc. Otherwise you are declaring your independence from evolution.

 

Evolution says nothing about ethics, morality, or human worth. To garner any such notion from evolution would suggest a misunderstanding of the theory. For example, the false idea that “fitness†refers to physical, mental or political superiority. Fitness refers only to reproductive success: how many offspring can you have, and how many of those offspring will go on to have offspring of their own? If evolutionists used “survival of the fittest†as their worldview, they would be having as many children as they possibly could. Yet I don’t see any evidence suggesting that evolutionists have larger families than creationists. In fact, from my personal experience very religious families tend to have more children because they don’t believe in using contraceptives.

Now you are doing something you encouraged me not to do (which I actually thank you for) and that is personifying (evolution).  Since the “theory of evolution†does not exist as an entity "it" therefore is mute (“it†says nothing). Some clever human created the theory and sold it to a bunch of gullible people (in my opinion)  who  embraced it and considered it the “truth.â€ÂÂ

I think it would be fair to say that most atheists are not terrible, immoral people. We have a sense of right and wrong, but it’s not based on evolution.

No of course not. But atheistic ideas of right are commonly referred to as situation ethics. That means no one knows what you are going to do until the situation presents itself. That’s one of the reasons why in the US (at least) atheistss are one of the most mis-trusted groups of all.

 

Probably. People believe all kinds of strange things, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other non-theistic explanations for the diversity of life in addition to evolution.

Spoken like a true evolutionist!

 

I’ve heard this one before: atheists reject religion because they don’t like all the rules it imposes, right? This is not true at all. If we had a problem with rules or authority, the jails would be full of atheist anarchists who rebelled against the law in some way or another.

You make a good point but, at a cost. If someone is in jail as people often are for murdering another person they would be there not because they obeyed God’s command not to murder but because for a moment they became an atheist and employed situation ethics. They chose to murder.

 

 

 

I’m Canadian, so I’m not very familiar with the Declaration. But no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. God is mentioned in the Canadian national anthem, and I can accept that as a historical part of our country. There would only be a problem if religion or religious laws were being imposed on me by the government to the extent where it was affecting my everyday life. In that case, I would consider moving.

You contradict yourself when you said you are not familiar with the Declaration of Independence otherwise you probably would not have said God is mentioned in your country’s anthem.

 

The law to not murder whether you choose to view it as religious or not is also a part of the civil laws of your country.

 

 

 

Atheists are not neutral to the ideas of right and wrong, if that’s what you’re implying. I have a sense of morality that does not depend of religious teachings. I think most atheists do.

Good for you! Your views on stealing probably coincide with “religious†laws also.

 

I don’t understand what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

I am sure you have friends. A human can very much be a variable because he or she is capable of saying and doing just about anything they decide to. However, when people subscribe to common moral laws they become predictable. “I have a high degree of probability (faith) that my “friend†Isabella will respond to me in a kind and considerate manor and not abuse me.†That is what I mean by trust. The fabric that holds relationships together is woven of trust. Behave in an abusive manor consistently and your friend will no longer grant you friend status and at a minimum seek to avoid you. He or she will not “trust†you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are ignoring my questions.

 

Lets for the moment consider evo to be true. And there is no God or gods. No greater entity that makes the rules. Everything that we are and will be is the result of evolution. If we can “make a plan†is because after millions of years of evolution have resulted in us having better brains that other animals. Even religion is the result of evolution. Even the fact that we have morality.

 

Now I’m going to attempt in explaining it again.

 

Using a “Vâ€ÂÂ: The bottom point of the “V†is our common ancestor. The top two points is the human and the chimpanzee respectively. The distance between the two legs of the “V†represent the amount of different between the two species. At the top of the “V†there is “discrimination†(oppression: Chimpanzee in a zoo) between the two species. At the bottom of the “V†the discrimination is small or nonexistent at.

 

Now, let’s use this history and apply it to the future. (Evolution will not stop.) Use the “V†again and look to the future. The first human at the bottom of the “V†and the new “Lesser human and the “superhuman†at the top. (The “super human†has something that makes him “stronger†than the “lesser human†just like human have something that makes us “stronger†than the chimpanzee.)

In nature the strongest make the “rules� (The fittest survive.) In society those who have the power makes the rules. In n dictatorship one person or small group makes the rules that the rest have to follow. In a democracy the masses have the power.

 

The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens.

 

1. Using the “V†as refines. When will it be OK to “discriminate� (When you state that it is not OK you are not really answering the question. You are ignoring the history of evolution. You can answer the question by pointing to the amount of different between the future humans .obviously some imagination is required here)

 

2. Is it not natural to discriminate? (It is natural to discriminate against the Chimpanzee and other animals. You might be all for animal rights but you still won’t put your children in the same school as the children of chimpanzees)

 

3. If it is natural, why is it wrong when people start to discriminate against other people? (The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens. You can say that the strongest have decided it to be wrong)

 

4. If the strongest group or person consider discrimination is wrong and in the future change their mind to say it’s ok. Does this mean it is OK to discriminate then? (Keep in mind that if you say it’s never ok. You are ignoring the history of evolution.)

 

5. Today murder, rape and discrimination are wrong. And we cannot imagine it ever to be ok. But if those who are in power (a small group or the majority) deicide that this is ok. (Whatever the reason may be). Does this mean it is ethical ok to do this? Does this mean the morality have change? (In the past it was morally wrong to have an abortion. The people of the time could not imagine that a mother can consider it to kill her unborn child. Today it seems to be ok.)

 

*I predict that atheists will not answer these questions directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in the middle of a very busy week, so I won’t be able to reply for the next few days. Don’t worry, I haven’t abandoned the discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try again. Your premise is that you evolved. Here is my understanding of what evolution reduced to its lowest common denominator or core idea is; Energy and matter gave birth to the first self replicating molecule then the evolution process could act which led eventually to the self replicating cell. The evolutionary “process†caused all the plants and animals including human beings. Evolution therefore, by deduction, had to be responsible for your mental ability including consciousness.

 

Think about what you are saying. You are strongly implying that your (our) mental ability has little to do with evolution as if “it†(our mental ability is in no way connected to evolution). If evolution is the cause of your existence and intelligence then it would only follow that morality or the lack of it would be its ultimate responsibility also. Evolution therefore is responsible for God and the disbelief in God etc. Otherwise you are declaring your independence from evolution.

67600[/snapback]

I meant that evolution, as a field of study and as a theory, does not cover the philosophical aspects of the human mind. That would be like suggesting chemists need to read and analyze all the works of Shakespeare, because they are printed on pages that are made out of molecules. A printed page does obey the laws of chemistry, but that doesn’t mean anything about Shakespeare is directly incorporated into the molecular orbital theory.

Evolution as a process may be responsible for the formation of the mind, but analyzing thoughts and human nature is outside of evolutionary study.

Now you are doing something you encouraged me not to do (which I actually thank you for) and that is personifying (evolution).  Since the “theory of evolution†does not exist as an entity "it" therefore is mute (“it†says nothing). Some clever human created the theory and sold it to a bunch of gullible people (in my opinion)  who  embraced it and considered it the “truth.â€ÂÂ

67600[/snapback]

You’re mixing up theory and process here. A theory is simply an explanation of something. Evolution, as a theory, could be summarized in a few key points. It could be written on paper. That doesn’t mean the paper itself was responsible for acting on the diversity of life in any way... that would be the process of evolution, the one that the theory describes.

No of course not. But atheistic ideas of right are commonly referred to as situation ethics. That means no one knows what you are going to do until the situation presents itself. That’s one of the reasons why in the US (at least) atheistss are one of the most mis-trusted groups of all.

67600[/snapback]

It makes me sad to know some people think of atheists that way. I don’t need a Bible to tell me that it’s important to treat others with respect. My ethics are not “situation ethicsâ€ÂÂ. I don’t get on the bus each morning wondering whether I’ll give up my seat for an elderly person, or punch someone in the face because they’re standing too close to me. I know what kind of person I am, and I know what my moral values are.

I have many atheist friends. I also have many Christian friends. As far as I can tell, both are equally nice people (I wouldn’t be friends with them if they weren’t!). I can also think of atheists and Christians I don’t enjoy spending time with. My point is I don’t see any overall trend, at least in my life, that atheists are “bad†and Christians are “goodâ€ÂÂ.

You make a good point but, at a cost. If someone is in jail as people often are for murdering another person they would be there not because they obeyed God’s command not to murder but because for a moment they became an atheist and employed situation ethics. They chose to murder.

67600[/snapback]

So from your point of view, all murders since the history of time have been committed by atheists?

You contradict yourself when you said you are not familiar with the Declaration of Independence otherwise you probably would not have said God is mentioned in your country’s anthem.

67600[/snapback]

You just finished telling me God is mentioned in the Declaration.

The law to not murder whether you choose to view it as religious or not is also a part of the civil laws of your country.

I think that law is a very sensible one, and there are plenty of non-religious reasons why I choose to follow it. However, if there was a law stating I had to attend church each Sunday I would have a problem with that.

I am sure you have friends. A human can very much be a variable because he or she is capable of saying and doing just about anything they decide to. However, when people subscribe to common moral laws they become predictable. “I have a high degree of probability (faith) that my “friend†Isabella will respond to me in a kind and considerate manor and not abuse me.†That is what I mean by trust. The fabric that holds relationships together is woven of trust. Behave in an abusive manor consistently and your friend will no longer grant you friend status and at a minimum seek to avoid you. He or she will not “trust†you.

67600[/snapback]

As I said before, I don’t need religious teachings to see the advantage of treating others respectfully. The “golden rule†is well known not because the Bible tells us to follow it, but because it makes logical sense. If you treat someone badly, they will probably treat you badly in return. If you treat someone with respect, they will be more likely to treat you the same way. Even animals follow this rule to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are ignoring my questions.

 

Lets for the moment consider evo to be true. And there is no God or gods. No greater entity that makes the rules. Everything that we are and will be is the result of evolution. If we can “make a plan†is because after millions of years of evolution have resulted in us having better brains that other animals. Even religion is the result of evolution. Even the fact that we have morality.

 

Now I’m going to attempt in explaining it again.

 

Using a “Vâ€ÂÂ: The bottom point of the “V†is our common ancestor. The top two points is the human and the chimpanzee respectively. The distance between the two legs of the “V†represent the amount of different between the two species. At the top of the “V†there is “discrimination†(oppression: Chimpanzee in a zoo) between the two species.  At the bottom of the “V†the discrimination is small or nonexistent at. 

 

Now, let’s use this history and apply it to the future. (Evolution will not stop.) Use the “V†again and look to the future.  The first human at the bottom of the “V†and the new “Lesser human and the “superhuman†at the top. (The “super human†has something that makes him “stronger†than the “lesser human†just like human have something that makes us “stronger†than the chimpanzee.)

In nature the strongest make the “rulesâ€ÂÂ? (The fittest survive.) In society those who have the power makes the rules. In n dictatorship one person or small group makes the rules that the rest have to follow.  In a democracy the masses have the power.

 

The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens.

 

1. Using the “V†as refines. When will it be OK to “discriminate� (When you state that it is not OK you are not really answering the question. You are ignoring the history of evolution. You can answer the question by pointing to the amount of different between the future humans .obviously some imagination is required here)

 

2. Is it not natural to discriminate? (It is natural to discriminate against the Chimpanzee and other animals. You might be all for animal rights but you still won’t put your children in the same school as the children of chimpanzees)

 

3. If it is natural, why is it wrong when people start to discriminate against other people? (The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens. You can say that the strongest have decided it to be wrong)

 

4. If the strongest group or person consider discrimination is wrong and in the future change their mind to say it’s ok. Does this mean it is OK to discriminate then? (Keep in mind that if you say it’s never ok. You are ignoring the history of evolution.)

 

5. Today murder, rape and discrimination are wrong. And we cannot imagine it ever to be ok. But if those who are in power (a small group or the majority) deicide that this is ok. (Whatever the reason may be). Does this mean it is ethical ok to do this? Does this mean the morality have change? (In the past it was morally wrong to have an abortion. The people of the time could not imagine that a mother can consider it to kill her unborn child. Today it seems to be ok.)

 

*I predict that atheists will not answer these questions directly.

67723[/snapback]

 

Crous,

 

Before I answer your questions, you need to tell me what you mean by “discriminationâ€ÂÂ. I disagree with your claim that humans discriminate against chimpanzees. I would define discrimination as a negative bias which is based on opinion rather than fact. We don’t treat chimpanzees as our equals because they are less intelligent than us. That’s not an opinion or a stereotype, it’s a proven fact.

 

There are plenty of groups in our society that are treated differently, but as long as it’s for a good reason than it’s not an example of discrimination.

So would you mind giving me your definition, and explaining why you feel humans discriminate against chimpanzees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crous,

 

Before I answer your questions, you need to tell me what you mean by “discriminationâ€ÂÂ. I disagree with your claim that humans discriminate against chimpanzees. I would define discrimination as a negative bias which is based on opinion rather than fact. We don’t treat chimpanzees as our equals because they are less intelligent than us. That’s not an opinion or a stereotype, it’s a proven fact.

 

There are plenty of groups in our society that are treated differently, but as long as it’s for a good reason than it’s not an example of discrimination.

So would you mind giving me your definition, and explaining why you feel humans discriminate against chimpanzees?

68077[/snapback]

What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

 

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

 

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

 

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

 

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

 

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.

 

Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

 

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

 

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

 

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate†against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans†to discriminate against the lesser humans?

 

(I use the word “discrimination†for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discriminationâ€ÂÂ)

 

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

 

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabella...Isabella......

 

The two of use is looking at the same painting of a tree. You want to argue the type of the three and I’m discussing the meaning of the painting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crous,

I don’t particularly enjoy arguing over semantics, but I felt that in this case it was necessary for me to understand what you meant by discrimination. In my opinion, there is nothing unjust about the fact that humans and chimpanzees have different rights. As I said, plenty of groups in our society have different rights and opportunities. Small children are not allowed to drive cars. Students who fail high school are not allowed to become doctors. People with severe mental illness require the care of an institution. To me, these are not examples of oppression or discrimination, and neither is the treatment of chimpanzees. This is not comparable to racism at all, and I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise. Racism is the belief that certain groups are superior based on the color of their skin. There is no evidence linking skin color to intelligence.

On that note, I will try to answer your questions.

1. Using the “V†as refines. When will it be OK to “discriminate� (When you state that it is not OK you are not really answering the question. You are ignoring the history of evolution. You can answer the question by pointing to the amount of different between the future humans .obviously some imagination is required here)

67723[/snapback]

It will be ok to treat another group/species differently as soon as there is a logical, un-biased reason to do so. If these “superhumans†(I dislike the term, but I’ll use it anyways) are legitimately more intelligent than us, they would have the right to start their own school system which would be off limits to human children. Keep in mind that even now, we have schools that are off-limits to certain groups... every college I’ve ever heard of has a minimum admission average, and private schools are limited to children from wealthy families.

2. Is it not natural to discriminate? (It is natural to discriminate against the Chimpanzee and other animals. You might be all for animal rights but you still won’t put your children in the same school as the children of chimpanzees)

67723[/snapback]

If we’re defining discrimination as recognizing very real differences between groups, then yes of course it’s natural. It’s obvious that not all the living things on the planet are equal in all categories, and it would be illogical to pretend otherwise.

 

3. If it is natural, why is it wrong when people start to discriminate against other people? (The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens. You can say that the strongest have decided it to be wrong)

67723[/snapback]

It becomes wrong when it’s based on opinion rather than fact. If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that. If they said that only white students with a 70% average would be accepted, that would be a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color and intelligence have any correlation, so to make such a claim would be discriminatory.

4. If the strongest group or person consider discrimination is wrong and in the future change their mind to say it’s ok. Does this mean it is OK to discriminate then? (Keep in mind that if you say it’s never ok. You are ignoring the history of evolution.)

67723[/snapback]

I don’t think it would ever be ok to discriminate based on something that lacks grounds, like skin color or gender (with respect to intelligence). But as I said, if a real difference exists like the intelligence of two different species, it’s alright to recognize this difference and adjust treatment accordingly.

 

 

5. Today murder, rape and discrimination are wrong. And we cannot imagine it ever to be ok. But if those who are in power (a small group or the majority) deicide that this is ok. (Whatever the reason may be). Does this mean it is ethical ok to do this? Does this mean the morality have change? (In the past it was morally wrong to have an abortion. The people of the time could not imagine that a mother can consider it to kill her unborn child. Today it seems to be ok.)

67723[/snapback]

This is a question based on opinion, so the best I can do is give you mine. No, I don’t think it’s ok for a small group to decide what rules society must follow. However, you say “a small group or the majority†as if those are the same thing. I believe in democracy, and I think in most cases the majority should make the decisions. However, there are some cases where this would not hold true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

 

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

 

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

 

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

 

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.

 

Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

 

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

 

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

 

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate†against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans†to discriminate against the lesser humans?

 

(I use the word “discrimination†for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discriminationâ€ÂÂ)

 

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

 

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

68227[/snapback]

Great post. I understand exactly what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

 

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

 

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

 

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

 

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

 

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.

 

Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

 

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

 

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

 

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate†against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans†to discriminate against the lesser humans?

 

(I use the word “discrimination†for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discriminationâ€ÂÂ)

 

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

 

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

68227[/snapback]

First of all because people generally misunderstand the communication process they wrongly conclude and don’t understand your first sentence which shows an amazing insight on your part about words.

 

In trying to look at things from another point of view than my own, I can’t really accurately do that. What I have done therefore is to simulate another point of view as if it were external.

 

According to atheists who for the most part once believed in God, we have constructed a sand castle made up of pure fantasy about a God that does not exist along with his creative feats which the atheist “knows†did not really happenâ€â€Âthe atheist knows better. The atheist feels he has an obligation to inform us that our sand castle is just that and not the fortified fortress we think it is. So, the atheist wants us to accept the â€ÂÂreality†that we live behind the walls of our falsely secure sand castle. It is a noble effort on their part. The problem is that the atheist has built himself a sand castle and often retreats behind the walls of his equally fragile sand castle thinking because no one can see him hiding behind the walls that his castle is stronger than ours. Sometimes both sides don’t really realize what is going on.

 

There are two solutions to discrimination. One is situation specific. That is to treat the effect or the specific situations which initiated the discrimination cycle. The other solution is far more elegant. Vesuvius only erupts because of all the hot molten lava seeks the weakest place to break through the earth’s crust We can shore up the weakest place but the lava will just find another weaker place to come though. The elegant solution is to eliminate the lava at it’s source. That’s what Jesus proposed. when He advocated doing away with hate and replacing it with love. If you eliminate hate (lava) then you will never have to worry about it breaking through anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crous,

I don’t particularly enjoy arguing over semantics, but I felt that in this case it was necessary for me to understand what you meant by discrimination. In my opinion, there is nothing unjust about the fact that humans and chimpanzees have different rights. As I said, plenty of groups in our society have different rights and opportunities. Small children are not allowed to drive cars. Students who fail high school are not allowed to become doctors. People with severe mental illness require the care of an institution. To me, these are not examples of oppression or discrimination, and neither is the treatment of chimpanzees. This is not comparable to racism at all, and I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise. Racism is the belief that certain groups are superior based on the color of their skin. There is no evidence linking skin color to intelligence.

On that note, I will try to answer your questions.

 

It will be ok to treat another group/species differently as soon as there is a logical, un-biased reason to do so. If these “superhumans†(I dislike the term, but I’ll use it anyways) are legitimately more intelligent than us, they would have the right to start their own school system which would be off limits to human children. Keep in mind that even now, we have schools that are off-limits to certain groups... every college I’ve ever heard of has a minimum admission average, and private schools are limited to children from wealthy families.

 

If we’re defining discrimination as recognizing very real differences between groups, then yes of course it’s natural. It’s obvious that not all the living things on the planet are equal in all categories, and it would be illogical to pretend otherwise.

It becomes wrong when it’s based on opinion rather than fact. If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that. If they said that only white students with a 70% average would be accepted, that would be a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color and intelligence have any correlation, so to make such a claim would be discriminatory.

 

I don’t think it would ever be ok to discriminate based on something that lacks grounds, like skin color or gender (with respect to intelligence).  But as I said, if a real difference exists like the intelligence of two different species, it’s alright to recognize this difference and adjust treatment accordingly.

This is a question based on opinion, so the best I can do is give you mine. No, I don’t think it’s ok for a small group to decide what rules society must follow. However, you say “a small group or the majority†as if those are the same thing. I believe in democracy, and I think in most cases the majority should make the decisions. However, there are some cases where this would not hold true.

68268[/snapback]

Thank you for answering my questions.

It seems that you do not disagree on the fact that the stronger makes the decisions. “The stronger†can be one person (Dictatorship), a small group (Communist) or the majority (Democracy).

 

The two of us are living in a Democracy. The power is in the hands of the voters. (Or in the hands of the one that can manipulate the voters. :huh: T.I.A)

If the majority of us want something to changed, for better or for worse, we have the power.

 

In a Dictatorship and a communist society a small group of people have the power and they make the rules. Even if the two of us do not agree it is right, according to evolution this is natural and in the end not naturally wrong. (The strongest survives)

Morals in an atheist society are governed by the power of the time. In an atheist society their morals can evolve into something different.

 

Let’s concentrate on a democracy. (I think in the end democracy will have the power) An atheist’s morals are subjected to change. If the majority of the people decide its ok to kill and unborn child, it is ok. (This change of morals I have witnessed in my life time.)

 

Change for the good: All humans have equal rights.

 

Change for the worse: The killing of an unborn child. (In the past an unborn child was human but we have evolved and so have our morals to the point that a unborn chide have less right than the human mother) *Question: Are you “pro life†or “pro choice�*

 

Some groups that thought they had the power have already decided that skin colour and intelligence go hand on hand. Luckily they failed.

 

I agree that the colour of your skin have nothing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). But the access to food, medicine and education, has every thing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). This means that the first world countries will have smarter people than the 3rd world countries. Even if the two of us want to be optimistic and think it will all change for the better. Reality is that the education level in 3rd world is getting worse compare to the education level of the first world country. At some stage there will be “smarter humans†vs. “humansâ€ÂÂ. You already admitted that intelligence is grounds for discrimination. Isabella: “If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that.†Does this mean that the future people with less intelligent (humans) will have fewer rights than intelligent people (superhuman, smart humans)? In a world where resources is getting lesser and people getting more. When will the smarter humans consider their life more valuable than the less intelligent human? It happened to the chimpanzee.

 

I do have atheist friends. And just like you they are good people. I’m just pointing out that your morals are subjected to change. Change that is govern by the “Power†of the time. The biggest deferens between me and my atheism friends’ morals is our view on abortion. All of them are “pro choiceâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all because people generally misunderstand the communication process they wrongly conclude and don’t understand your first sentence which shows an amazing insight on your part about words. .

68271[/snapback]

I’m living in a country with 11 official languages. Depending where you are in the country, English is our second language. Because of all this cultures and languages communication is not just restricted to word. You have to have some knowledge of that person. To understand what the person is saying you have to learn to listen to what the person is saying and not get stuck on the meanings of every word.

 

In trying to look at things from another point of view than my own,  I can’t really accurately do that.  What I have done therefore is to  simulate another point of view as if it were external.

68271[/snapback]

I attempt to do this as well.

 

According to atheists who for the most part once believed in God, we have constructed a sand castle  made up of pure fantasy about a God that does not exist along with his creative feats which the atheist  “knows†did not really happenâ€â€Âthe atheist knows better.  The atheist feels he has an obligation to inform us that our sand castle is just that and not the fortified fortress we think it is. So, the atheist wants us to accept the â€ÂÂreality†that we live behind the walls of our falsely secure sand castle. It is a noble effort on their part. The problem is that the atheist has built himself a sand castle and often retreats behind the walls of his equally fragile sand castle thinking because no one can see him hiding behind the walls that his castle is stronger than ours.  Sometimes both sides don’t really realize what is going on.

68271[/snapback]

Ones a person is a born-again Christian they will never be able to deny the existents of God. They may fool them self in denying God, but that’s all it is, a lie.

 

There are two solutions to discrimination.  One is situation specific. That  is to treat the effect or the specific situations which initiated the discrimination cycle. The other solution is far more elegant. Vesuvius only erupts because of all the hot molten lava seeks the weakest place to break through the earth’s crust  We can shore up the weakest place      but the lava will just find another weaker place to come though. The elegant solution is to eliminate the lava at it’s source. That’s what Jesus proposed. when He advocated doing away with hate and replacing it with  love.  If you eliminate hate (lava)   then you will never have to worry about it breaking through anywhere.

68271[/snapback]

The moment we follow Jesus’ (is God) teaching all this problems will come to an end. When you make your decisions out of love for others even your enemies and not out of love for yourself, will you be the solutions to this type of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post. I understand exactly what you are saying.

68269[/snapback]

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m living in a country with 11 official languages. Depending where you are in the country, English is our second language. Because of all this cultures and languages communication is not just restricted to word. You have to have some knowledge of that person. To understand what the person is saying you have to learn to listen to what the person is saying and not get stuck on the meanings of every word.

I attempt to do this as well.

Ones a person is a born-again Christian they will never be able to deny the existents of God. They may fool them self in denying God, but that’s all it is, a lie.

The moment we follow Jesus’ (is God) teaching all this problems will come to an end. When you make your decisions out of love for others even your enemies and not out of love for yourself, will you be the solutions to this type of problems.

68307[/snapback]

In terms of meaning of words, I have had a difficult time convincing some of our only English speaking people that meaning is a function of the individual mind. It is to them a difficul to understan concept. It is something you acquired and understand by being exposed to so many different language groups.You realize even between people in the same language group a person may have given a particular word a slightly different meaning than yourself or others. Even though English is your second language you have explained it better than I did. I have in many cases given up trying to explain it and prayed that someday later they may be given the insight you have. You are blessed to understand this my friend.

 

I thought English might not be your first language. I taught ESL (English Second Language) to adults fom many differentl countriies for several years.

 

Your conclusions follow mine. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," John 14:6 Love is the final solution. 1st Corinthians 13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a Dictatorship and a communist society a small group of people have the power and they make the rules. Even if the two of us do not agree it is right, according to evolution this is natural and in the end not naturally wrong. (The strongest survives)

68305[/snapback]

I feel like I keep saying this over and over: evolution is not about the strongest surviving or having more power! Evolution is all about reproductive success; it has nothing to do with politics, or the idea that it’s “natural†for a small group to be in change.

Morals in an atheist society are governed by the power of the time. In an atheist society their morals can evolve into something different.

 

Let’s concentrate on a democracy. (I think in the end democracy will have the power) An atheist’s morals are subjected to change. If the majority of the people decide its ok to kill and unborn child, it is ok. (This change of morals I have witnessed in my life time.)

68305[/snapback]

I disagree. Do you have evidence to suggest that atheists were primarily pro-life at one time, and have since shifted their morals to become pro-choice? Perhaps the opinion of the majority can change over time, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the majority is comprised of atheists who keep changing their values. I don’t know about South Africa, but in Canada the majority of the population belongs to some sort of religion. According to Wikipedia, 77% of Canadians are Christians, and only 16% are not religious.

Change for the worse: The killing of an unborn child. (In the past an unborn child was human but we have evolved and so have our morals to the point that a unborn chide have less right than the human mother) *Question: Are you “pro life†or “pro choice�*

68305[/snapback]

I’d rather not get into a big debate about abortion, but I am pro-choice. Just to be clear, pro-choice does not mean that I support abortion or think that it’s a good thing. Abortions are typically done early in the pregnancy, and at this point the embryo or fetus is physically dependant on the mother and is essentially part of her body. Although I don’t like the idea of killing an unborn baby, I think that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body. In my opinion, because the embryo/fetus lacks autonomy from the mother it is a more complex situation than the murder of a fully independent human and cannot automatically be labelled as such.

I agree that the colour of your skin have nothing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). But the access to food, medicine and education, has every thing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). This means that the first world countries will have smarter people than the 3rd world countries. Even if the two of us want to be optimistic and think it will all change for the better. Reality is that the education level in 3rd world is getting worse compare to the education level of the first world country.

68305[/snapback]

I suppose it depends how you define intelligence. If it’s based on your ability to solve complex math equations or write essays, then people in a first world country would be more intelligent. To me, this is a very limited definition. I think people in third world countries have the same capacity to learn as people in wealthy nations, however they often lack the resources to do so.

At some stage there will be “smarter humans†vs. “humansâ€ÂÂ. You already admitted that intelligence is grounds for discrimination. Isabella: “If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that.†Does this mean that the future people with less intelligent (humans) will have fewer rights than intelligent people (superhuman, smart humans)?

68305[/snapback]

Let’s consider my college example for a moment. All children have the right to attend a public school, where they will be evaluated equally regardless of race, gender, etc. Some students will get above 70% and some will get below 70%. Both have the right to apply to the college, but only the students who got above 70% will be accepted. Does this mean the students who got below 70% have fewer rights? I don’t think so. Either these students didn’t work as hard, or they are less intelligent. In the same sense, I don’t think humans would necessarily have fewer rights than a more intelligent species, just limited opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I keep saying this over and over: evolution is not about the strongest surviving or having more power! Evolution is all about reproductive success; it has nothing to do with politics, or the idea that it’s “natural†for a small group to be in change.

After reading both of your posts here is something you might want to consider. You may both be talking about two different subjects that share the same name.

 

When you talk about evolution Isabella, you are talking about biological evolution. When Crous talks about evolution he is talking about the philosophical spin off based on social implications of evolution. In the past it has been refereed to as Social Darwinism. The concept has been abandoned by Neo Darwinism but, it was the basis of the fascist ideas and concepts of Hitler and hierarchical governments where the elite lead the expendable masses.

 

The writer of our Declaration of Independence declared independence from a hierarchical government at the time England specifically. Jefferson was not saying everyone was equal in terms of skills orintelligence but would be granted legal equal status just because they were human.

 

Darwin believed he belonged to the "favored races' and while he didn’t champion slavery and was even credited with wishing it abolished, his ideas paralleled the society and government of his time. The “elite†of the species governed the expendable masses. Jefferson essentially ended the hiearchial form of government (England) in the USA.

 

If someone was oly three fifth of a human one was considered and animal and animals could be bought and sold. The 3 fifth of a human ideas which led to slavery was based on Social Darwinism. Marx and numerous others embraced Social Darwinism. In Russia Stalin was responsible for ordering the death of 50 million people because they were considered expendablle to the state and party (survival of the fittest).

 

I disagree. Do you have evidence to suggest that atheists were primarily pro-life at one time, and have since shifted their morals to become pro-choice? Perhaps the opinion of the majority can change over time, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the majority is comprised of atheists who keep changing their values. I don’t know about South Africa, but in Canada the majority of the population belongs to some sort of religion. According to Wikipedia, 77% of Canadians are Christians, and only 16% are not religious.

 

Once again the same problem as above. Creationism is connected to a moral law the Ten Commandments for example. Atheism is perceived as a variable and subject to no standard moral law. Because there is no agreement generally as to what is right and what is wrong among atheists, they are mistrusted. I believe in getting to know each person as an indiiidual so worry why soemone would anounce at the beginning of a relationship that they are atheist. In view of all the baggage connected why bother? Majority is a dubious concept if we are all individuals. I sometimes point this out but have had little success getting the concept of belonging to a group seen as a "silly" idea.

 

I’d rather not get into a big debate about abortion, but I am pro-choice. Just to be clear, pro-choice does not mean that I support abortion or think that it’s a good thing. Abortions are typically done early in the pregnancy, and at this point the embryo or fetus is physically dependant on the mother and is essentially part of her body. Although I don’t like the idea of killing an unborn baby, I think that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body. In my opinion, because the embryo/fetus lacks autonomy from the mother it is a more complex situation than the murder of a fully independent human and cannot automatically be labelled as such

 

Lets look at it from a guys point of view. When there is a reproductive union of a man and a women most women & men realize that a baby could be the result. Even though 23 of the chromosomes come from the male many have bought into the argument that it should be the woman’s right to terminate not even consulting the guy. Do you have the right to destroy a house because half of it is yours and you may live in it? I think men have rights too. Moreover the baby is actually not an estension of the womasn body, it is connecte by an umbilical cord wich is designed be severed when the child is born Talk. about spin. :D .

 

Here is a comment on your non autonomous argument. The most viable place for a fetus to grow is in the womb. That’s the reality of life. In the womb it is virtually guaranteed to be fed nurtured and in other ways protected form harsh environments. A baby is more vulnerable to abuse outside the womb than it is inside the womb. That’s the way life goes. At a specific time a baby is going to be born. “I am coming out!†:D

 

 

Let’s consider my college example for a moment. All children have the right to attend a public school, where they will be evaluated equally regardless of race, gender, etc. Some students will get above 70% and some will get below 70%. Both have the right to apply to the college, but only the students who got above 70% will be accepted. Does this mean the students who got below 70% have fewer rights? I don’t think so. Either these students didn’t work as hard, or they are less intelligent. In the same sense, I don’t think humans would necessarily have fewer rights than a more intelligent species, just limited opportunities.

I have to agree. As they say that is “obnoxious reality!â€ÂÂ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading both of your posts here is something you might want to consider. You may both be talking about two different subjects that share the same name.

 

When you talk about evolution Isabella, you are talking about biological evolution. When Crous talks about evolution he is talking about the philosophical spin off based on social implications of evolution. In the past it has been refereed to as Social Darwinism. The concept has been abandoned by Neo Darwinism but, it was the basis of the fascist ideas and concepts of Hitler and hierarchical governments where the elite lead the expendable masses.

68387[/snapback]

I agree that this appears to be the misconception, and I am trying to make it clear that biological evolution and social Darwinism are not the same thing. Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and despite the name it has nothing to do with Darwin either. It is a misrepresentation of evolution used to justify certain political, economic, and social policies. it’s very outdated and is in no way consistent with the views held by most modern evolutionists.

 

Once again the same problem as above. Creationism is connected to a moral law the Ten Commandments for example. Atheism is perceived as a variable and subject to no standard moral law. Because there is no agreement generally as to what is right and what is wrong among atheists, they are mistrusted. I believe in getting to know each person as an indiiidual so worry why soemone would anounce at the beginning of a relationship that they are atheist. In view of all the baggage connected why bother?

68387[/snapback]

Are you suggesting that atheists should keep quiet about what they believe? I don’t introduce myself by saying, “Hello, I’m an atheist.†But at the same time, I’m very open about my beliefs and I would never attempt to hide them in order to gain someone’s acceptance. I don’t think there should be any “baggage†associated with atheism. Pre-conceived stereotypes only lead to discrimination.

 

Despite the Ten Commandments there is plenty of moral controversy within Christianity as well, so it’s not like every Christian I’ve met is morally predictable or trustworthy.

Majority is a dubious concept if we are all individuals. I sometimes point this out but have had little success getting the concept of belonging to a group seen as a "silly" idea.

68387[/snapback]

We’re all individuals, but our beliefs can still be categorized. Although your beliefs are probably not identical to every other Christian out there, you still label yourself as a Christian.

Lets look at it from a guys point of view. When there is a reproductive union of a man and a women most women & men realize that a baby could be the result. Even though 23 of the chromosomes come from the male many have bought into the argument that it should be the woman’s right to terminate not even consulting the guy. Do you have the right to destroy a house because half of it is yours and you may live in it?

68387[/snapback]

Perhaps this is a better analogy: A man and woman design a house together. Then while the man does nothing (except perhaps providing some emotional and financial support), the woman is expected to spend the next nine months gathering the materials and building the house on her own... followed by 18 more years of maintenance and upkeep. Sure, the man helped with the design. But should it be his right to say that she must go through with the full construction?

 

That was a silly analogy, but you brought up houses and I couldn’t resist. In all seriousness, I understand that from a man’s point of view pro-choice can be extremely unfair. That being said, when a woman gets an abortion there’s a good chance she’s not in a committed relationship, or the man she’s with isn’t ready to be a father. I also think it’s very difficult for men to relate to what a woman is going through when she finds out she’s pregnant. Having never been pregnant, I can’t fully relate either. However I know how terrifying it must be, especially for a girl or woman that lacks the support of a partner. Suddenly your body is no longer your own, and your whole future has changed.

 

I would like to believe that if abortion was not an option, most women would do the responsible thing and either care for their baby or put it up for adoption. But I’ve heard enough tragic news stories about babies being found in garbage bags, abused, or abandoned, to know that this wouldn’t always be the case. I’m not saying abortion is the right choice, but I think it’s important that it’s at least an option.

I think men have rights too. Moreover the baby is actually not an estension of the womasn body, it is connecte by an umbilical cord wich is designed be severed when the child is born Talk. about spin.

68387[/snapback]

I know the fetus is not genetically part of her body, but it’s using her oxygen and nutrients to grow. Every cell in its body is made out of molecules taken from her. In that sense, I would say it’s physically a part of her even though it is a distinct life.

Here is a comment on your non autonomous argument. The most viable place for a fetus to grow is in the womb. That’s the reality of life. In the womb it is virtually guaranteed to be fed nurtured and in other ways protected form harsh environments. A baby is more vulnerable to abuse outside the womb than it is inside the womb. That’s the way life goes. At a specific time a baby is going to be born. “I am coming out!â€ÂÂ

68387[/snapback]

I don’t see how this is refuting my argument. The fetus is dependent on the mother until a certain point in the pregnancy. I’m not sure how premature a baby can be born and still kept alive, but I know there’s a limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the digest visible differences between Christians and atheist is there view on abortion. As a Christian we know we have a soul. As atheist you don’t know you have a soul. (I’m talking about the Christian definition of a soul.) The moment of conception the soul exists. This soul do not belong to you (ever) it belongs to God. This is way when an atheist look at a fetus they do not see a human. They will call an unwanted baby a fetus and we will call it a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabella

 

I do not understand why you insist that moral it not a product of evolution?

 

Maybe I should ask. Where do you (atheist) think morals come from?

 

Do you think that moral is subjected to change?

 

1.When a lion kills another lion, for food, is it murder?

2.When human kills an animal, for food, is it murder?

3.When a human today kills another human, for food, is it murder?

4.If 100 000 years ago a human killed another human,for food, is it murder?

 

 

A stronger lion will kill the weaker lion to take control of the pride. This will result in a stronger leader and protector of the pride. This helps the pride to survive and in stronger offspring. Is this not called survival of the fittest (evolution)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the fetus is not genetically part of her body, but it’s using her oxygen and nutrients to grow. Every cell in its body is made out of molecules taken from her. In that sense, I would say it’s physically a part of her even though it is a distinct life.

 

I don’t see how this is refuting my argument. The fetus is dependent on the mother until a certain point in the pregnancy. I’m not sure how premature a baby can be born and still kept alive, but I know there’s a limit.

68456[/snapback]

All children depend on others in order to survive. Neglect is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms