People's Contradictory Beliefs?

[Boris Godunov]

SD, I mentioned "the parents" in a previous post, but have been trying to be simplistic by just referring to the mother. For the sake of this particular argument, it doesn't make a difference if you add the father to the equation, since as long as the creators of a fetus consent to its destruction, it is fine to destroy it, under obiwan's logic.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by lightblue


Hmm, interesting dilemma. I would see that as different people make different decisions when presented with the same circumstances, the physical interactions in your brain constitute your personality, and as such will determine which decision you will make. So yes, you're right in that chemical changes will affect which decisions we make, however I'd see this as free will in that it is not an outside influence that determines this coice, but rather an inside influence, which seeing as it is a part of you, consitutes yourself. Therefore, eventhough chemicals might make the ultimate decision, seeing as they are part of you, you make the decision. I do not accept the existence of a soul, I fully agree that we're a bag of chemicals, who just happen to be self aware, because of a certain mixture of these chemicals.

I suppose if you use your definition of free will, then yes, a scientist would not believe in free will. However, if you look at it from the POV that the particular mix of chemicals (and whatever else goes on a lower level with quantum states etc) in your brain make you the person you are, then if the natural physical interaction of these chemicals make the decisions for you, you could stipulate that you made this decision.

As for morality, this follows from this argument. It is a part of our genetic (and memetic, though that concept leads to more hassle) makeup, and as such is a part of our personalities, and as such you still make the decisions.

In short I probably agree with you, though we differ on what free will actually entails

good post

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Please don't use that again in any arguement. It is one of the absolute worst reasons to believe in God.

what is Pascal's wager? sounds interesting...

[Kramerman]

If the Christian is wrong, and the Muslim (or Wiccan or Satanist etc.) is right, then the Christian is in the same post-humous boat as the Atheist.

If God will send the Atheist to Hell as punishment for making use of his God-given reasoning abilities, then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

If God rewards people for being intellectually dishonest ("I believe in God because that way I'm covering my bets" is a statement that does not denote belief at all, except perhaps a belief in God's inability to recognize our inner thoughts and motives), then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

Well said

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kramerman


what is Pascal's wager? sounds interesting...

Basically, that it is smarter to believe in God than to not believe in him. After all, it says, if the believer is wrong, then his fate will be no different than an atheist. But if the believer is right, then he gets to go to heaven and such while the atheist burns in Hell.

It's a stupid thought, however, as it neglects to point out which exact belief in God should be followed (since many are contradictory, and picking the wrong one would still land the believer in Hell), and it makes belief in God a cynical tool for self-preservation.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Morality is a set of social standards imposed on us by both evolution and conditioning.

How does this make sense? IMO, in a state of nature the man who has no compunction at all about killing another man for his home or his wife would be more likely to survive. So by your logic evolution would give us few if any morals. You admitted yourself that morals are a supression of ourt natural instinct, so then how can you say it comes from evolution?

[Kramerman]

One of my favorite contridictions in my life happened while I was over at a friend's house. My friend is a taoist/Christian, and we were having some stupid kind of Science vs. Religion arguement.

We were sitting in his kitchen, and I had just made myself a sandwhich, and he was about to heat something up. I made some remark, and he finally just said in an angey voice, "What has science ever done for us!?" ... while saying this he had running water going, we were under the flourescent lights of his kitchen, and he was typing in the length of time for the microwave to heat his food...

After erupting in laughter, we went back to playing Halo on his X-box and watched a couple of DVDs on his big screen television...

Kman

[Kramerman]

You admitted yourself that morals are a supression of ourt natural instinct, so then how can you say it comes from evolution?

uh ooooh... sounds like we got a contridiction

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Darius871
IMO, in a state of nature the man who has no compunction at all about killing another man for his home or his wife would be more likely to survive.

Were this the case, then I would expect morality to have died out long ago. The fact that it has not died out provides solid evidence that morality is apparently beneficial in some way.

[Boris Godunov]

Darius, you're omitting the "conditioning" part of morals. Evolution has given us basic instincts--survival, reproduction, entertainment, etc. Societal conditioning has transformed those into morals. By living together and working together to satisfy one's own basic needs better, it becomes obvious that the basic needs of all in the society need to be protected for that society to function properly. So morals were developed to protect society. Over time, they have grown more complex. Now, morals were also adopted in some societies based on the selfish desires of individuals/groups that had risen to power. Such morals were often imposed under the guise of religious dogma. So in a modern secular society, such morals can be discarded if they no longer serve a rational purpose in that society.

[Darius871]

That's correct, but that's not evolution in the way Jack seemed to mean. Morality was a phenomenon created by necessity as humanids bound together in tribal society, not evolution by random mutation over millions of years. There's a difference.

[Boris Godunov]

You can't separate evolution from it, however, as evolution gives rise to instincts, and instincts gave rise to morals.

[Sava]

Re: Re: People's Contradictory Beliefs?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How's this for contradictory: A "pro-life" person who staunchly supports the death penalty. Or any "Christian" who supports the death penalty, for that matter. I doubt Christ would approve of it.

There are numerous references in the Bible to the justification of capital punishment (i.e. an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.).

Pro-Life people in general are contradictory. They support the "right to life", but apparantly don't believe in the "right to a good life" because they don't support universal health care or public education (for the most part). And many are staunch anti-gun-control people, too. So apparantly they don't care about murder .

Bodds, there's something called a Social Democracy. Too many damn right wingers start to believe this whole "anti-Commie"/Reagan-like propaganda. Even the so called "communisms" weren't even communism. Socialism is even closer to America capitalism. It's just that we Socialists believe that education and health care are human rights issues and should be not-for-profit.

[SlowwHand]

Socialists believe in government run programs.

The whole thing is, all you rebel wannabes don't even know :

A) What you want to be, because
B) You don't know the definitions of what you think you aspire to become.

[Kramerman]

It's just that we Socialists believe that education and health care are human rights issues and should be not-for-profit.

And we believe that since they are for profit, competition would breed innovation. Tho, governemnt controls are a must to keep it stable. That is why a little bit of socialism, and a little bit of capitalism work so well...