who's stuck? you're trying to to tell me (and VB) what we mean when we use a word. stop being a semantics nazi.

i said nothing of the sort.

seriously, can you stop and at least consider the possibility that you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any conclusions about what results are or aren't possible?

evolution is only hard to understand when you change the meaning eveytime you find you can't defend it's validity.

but all serious people who study things know this and agree with me.

there's no definition changing going on. all that's happening in this thread is you are claiming empathetic behavior can't possiblity be beneficial in any way, and people are showing you why you're wrong but you have your eyes closed and the part of your brain that can reason objectively turned off.

Evolution would favor groups that have empathy. You're positing a particular instance when empathy is counter-productive to the society. Caring for this child isn't a behavior that evolution can drive directly. It's a behavior that's a result of a generally advantageous attribute. You're not arguing that morals are counter-productive for a group when their effect is taken as a whole, right?

Have I ever been attracted to a woman who wasn't ovulating? Yep. What? you say. How could this instinct possibly have evolved?

I don't have to show that copulating with non-ovulating women helps the species survive to defend evolution. I have to defend only that the desire to copulate with women who might be ovulating would be an advantage.

No, you are dodging your original statement that evolution gave us morality.


You are also competely comfortable to imply that there is a direction to both evolution of life and evolution of morality, then when called on it tell me I don't understand evolution.

You are completely comfortable to imply that there is a 'best' way for things to go, then ignore when I point out that logical reality that in order for there to be a best or worst, there must either be a director, or a foundational good or bad meter.

Your constant statements about how I don't understand things is just your weak attempt to distance yourself from the fundementally flawed foundation you have created in your decision to hold to the religion of Chance.

In fact you never want to explain, or debate anything to see what is going on with the issue at deeper levels. You quickly and arrogently disregard anyone who holds a view different than you. It's because you have invested so much of your soul into the Dawkins school of "I don't want to believe" that I don't think you are constiutionally capable of addressing anything that even you have questions about. ( Not that you have any questions, why would there be any questions about the entire history of life and it's purpose, cause, direction or validity? It's so obvious to all the scientist who know the answer )

So while you may have a few cheerleaders, let's not pretend that the adults are impressed.

I am not trying to argue whether empathy is advantageous or not, it is. Hugely, as a trait that gives nobility to our lives. But that nobility is irrelevant in evolution. It would be like a trait that says let's give thieves another chance no matter how amny times they steal. As a trait we may decide it is nobel, but as a practical matter it is just holding us back.

I am trying to see how evolutionist can say that from a neutral beginning, with no foundation of right or wrong, empathy could have been advanced as a superior trait to have in a darwinian environment

Especially when almost every culture since recorded history has shown a lack of empathy in most dealings with people of different races, religions and national backgrounds. And from a darwinian perspectibve, empathy is an anchor to the purposeful advancement of a species. No other animal would risk the clan for a deformed baby.

There you go. You answered your own question.

direction is a misleading term and you're the only one using it.



there are positive or negative results to different behavior in terms of survival/flourishing in a social context for any social species. the positive or negative nature of those "ways for things to go" aren't predefined though, which is what you are trying to imply. they are simply dictated by circumstances and aren't attached to the specific behavior before hand, and they don't require a director or imply a "direction". it's just cause and effect and causes that lead to positive effects under certain circumstances tend to proliferate under those circumstances.



everyone responding to you in this thread thinks you don't understand evolution well enough to draw any objective conclusions about the origin of behavior. i was just trying to semi-politely get you to consider the possibility as the reason this debate is going nowhere.



jeez lash out much? i never want to explain or debate anything? maybe i'm poor at explaining things in a way you can relate to, but otherwise that's obviously false. give me a break. i'm one of the biggest mass-debaters here.



also obviously false. i don't disregard any view. i'm occasionally condesceding in explaining why a view is nonsense, but so is almost everyone else here including you. in fact a lot of that starts with you. don't take it personally if some of it comes back your way

why can't feeling good about yourself be an evolutionary positive, particularly in a social context?



not much of an example since i don't know anybody who would think giving social offenders unlimited chances would be a moral action. your god certainly doesn't seem to.



start by thinking of things in gradual steps, not as a switch turning on.




empathy transcending tribalism has been evolving gradually since way before jesus. it's still spotty, but increasing.




actually many do (some even raise other parasitic species as their own). as jester already pointed out a strong instinct to ensure the survival of offspring doesn't have to discriminate to be beneficial.

BG, you're obviously very well respected around here (for good reason), and I generally find you to be pretty funny, but I have to say you've basically devolved into doing nothing but trolling in this thread. The way in which you just disregard numerous extremely thoughtful responses to the nonsense you're posting here is nothing short of HollywoodAFDesque. Crow argues his positions in such an impersonal and intellectual manner that your attacks just reek of desperation and betray the realization (subconsciously anyway) that you're out of your league. I suppose this is your cue to accuse me and crow of being the same person, just as Holly liked to do. But you're better than that.

If ever were someone with a mind open enough to think critically about this issue to stumble across this thread in the future, they will be in an extremely fine position to judge the merits of the arguments espoused here. This has the potential to be quite the public service.

Hey BG, this reminded me... and is totally offtopic... but do you use itunes?

If so, download this album immediately and tell me what you think of songs 5 & 6.


Psalms by Sovereign Grace Music


(You will not be disappointed in your purchase)

Don't do itunes, don't have any clue how to listn to music on the interweb, don't have an ipod etc.

I bought my wife one 2 year ago, she never opened it, and someone stole it from our store 6 months later.

But I do love good worship music...almost the only music I listen to, that and Third Day, Jeremy Camp and Dean Martin, oh and Sinatra of course.

Just never was really into music much though.

Did run the sound at my church for 3 years though.

And I have perfect pitch I think...

When crow responds with points, I address them. But his MO is one of superiority bordering on arrogance.

It gets old.

It would help somewhat if in the 4,000 posts he has he would have spent maybe a small percent of them elsewhere, but he's spent 4 years in religion, on a poker forum, attacking everyone who thinks different from him, with a long ago stated goal of seeing all religion vanish. He is not interested in debate or finding out anything new, he is firmly convinced that he knows more than any religious person simply by the fact that they are religious. And he likes to let you know that you aren't smart enough to have an opinion if you disagree with him.

He cherry picks small points he thinks he can belittle, then ignores any arguements he doesn't have an answer for with his standard twofer:
1. You don't understand what it means
2. Everyone who is smart already believes what I believe.


I got tired of it and lashed out.

Was I wrong? maybe.

I do dumb things all the time, why should this forum be any different?

And for the record, Kramit and vb disagree with me, and we have a civil discourse with humor. So apparently I am capable of disagreeing and have a conversation with the person.

Buy it on Amazon then. It's all worship music.

http://www.amazon.com/Psalms-Sovereign-Gra...2538&sr=8-2



Or on the sovereign grace website it's way cheaper:


Every song on the CD is based on a Psalm. Song 6 is probably my favorite, based on Psalm 23.
Listen to the samples of tracks 5 and 6 and tell me it's not awesome. I dare you.

Empathy is not holding us back as a practical matter. It's practically advantageous to us, that's why evolution selected for it.



From a (biological) evolutionary perspective all it needs to do is provide practical benefit for reproductive success. It's quite easy to show how empathy does this. Empathy between parents and children increases childcare... it leads to cooperation and mutual helping, etc.. which all make survival and thus reproduction more likely. Its pretty easy to show that a community of social animals without empathy would not survive as well as those with empathy. Likely there were such individuals and they did not succeed as well.




I agree that empathy is stronger for those within your own social group. The evolutionary perspective explains this quite well, since those in your close social group are more likely to share genes with you and also to aid in your survival through mutual cooperation. If the other guys want to kill you, it may benefit you not to empathize with them so you can defend yourself. Genes that favor this kind of pattern of empathy are more likely to find themselves replicated.

( I actually ran an experiment a few months ago which showed that people from our university experience stronger emotions when looking at emotional faces of people from the same university, as opposed faces from a rival school. In-group empathy is stronger than out-group empathy. )

Now -- I happen to think that this in-group effect is no longer to our advantage since the conditions have changed and we are so connected to everyone on the planet that we must extend our mutual cooperation to the whole thing.

P.S. I do think the language you use when describing evolution seems to indicate some non-trivial misunderstandings about how the theory works, but I think both sides share some of the burden of clearing that up.

god you're a manipulative SOB lol. the first quote of mine there was obviously a joke about pascal's wager, which as you are well aware i have spent more time debating the merits of here than anyone else, including briefly in this thread. as for the other 3, people aren't blind. i've attempted to make a bunch of points in this thread that you've blown off as "attacks" because you currently aren't capable of an objective understanding of evolution - you have misconceptions that have been hardwired in by religious propaganda. as i said i was just pointing this out, not making any kind of personal attack. trying to get you to consider the possibility that you are viewing the subject through your misconceptions isn't arrogance.



i have duh.



trying to tell someone why i think they are wrong or misguided isn't attacking. not my fault you take that personally.

i have done this lots of places. you aren't my only bitch.



obviously false.



obviously false.



you're the one being antagonistic.

If only I was capable of being smart like you

I am writing a new thread that will alow us to clarify all the points us poor Christians is confused about.

It will be fun for all most of us.

What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions etc, just as we were getting to the good stuff, crow began jumping ahead to tell me everyone why I am just trying to make the case that planets are astronomically difficult to form and that some how..yawn..proves evolution wrong. the thread got sidetracked and LLY never finished, leaving me with swirling masses of cosmic dust spinning on their own inertia, soaring through the vast universe, and getting caught in the gravitational pull of our sun to condense into large masses that were the correct distance to maintain perfect orbits for millions of years. I never got past that part...which happened 9 times, or 8...I forget, oh and with moons, a bunch of them...you know, the tricky part.

So the last time I started a thread asking honest questions about evolution, it was quickly derailed into my being put on the defensive for my beliefs, instead of an actual instructional thread about how planets formed. Because if you asks difficult questions of evolutionist, they get testy.

Don't get me started on where matter comes from...you know 1st law of thermodynamics and such.

So some people are late to this party, but the party has a history. And history will repeat itself again, because everything continues just as it always has...right?

stop interpreting my posts like i'm incapable of having any kind of sense of humor

See now, the fact that you don't understand when and where you can use it...proves you don't have it.


It's okay, lots of people are humorless


Now if I finished that with a profanity, level 7-8, the over the topness would be make the joke lost because of our current feud, so I pulled it back to a level of 4 and kept the civility, therefore allowing you to laugh with us, at you.

It's science, proves God has a sense of humor. It's in the Bible

the thread is still there if anybody wants to check and see how big of a BS spin artist you are. i doubt anybody does because they already know.

you're the only one fueding. i'm just defending myself.

This one?

Surprisingly, I remember myself being much funnier and having more fun, and crow being crankier.

It did not happen exactly how I remember.

I think I can see that I was a bit of an ass at times. I gave some condescending remarks to some people, crow included.



I should just be happy being right all the time...

Well that's why I say we share some of the burden. From my perspective, the challenge is on me to see if I can get you to understand what evolution is all about (provided you are wanting to know). That doesn't mean getting you to agree with it, but at least if you understand it then your argument can be aimed at the right target. I haven't read the old thread though.

I am learning something from this forum though, about the ways these two sides misunderstand each other that may help further communication. I think atheists spend a lot of time telling the religious people how they are wrong, which I understand in that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But what happens is that the religious folks become defensive and feel attacked, and retreat to caricaturing the atheists as immoral heathens or robots with no feeling, and not making the effort to really appreciate that there is a depth to our position. This is why Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation is not really going to work. I've been thinking about writing a similar kind of letter-book, but with a different strategy. Instead of starting with why religion is wrong, starting with what we agree on that many religious people don't realize we agree on. E.g. we agree that selfishness is bad, that morality is important, even that there is something to be learned from the stories of the Bible... but here is how we can have all those good things and still not be in conflict with science and rationality. Carrot instead of stick.

To be honest, I have looked back on some of my old stuff in that thread and I definately was defensive, and quick to anger. At times I was the very thing that I have accused crow of being.

I do agree that atheist are a little more into telling religous folks they are wrong first, rather than present a different idea. I mean think about where we are, on a poker site, in a religion section, which claims to be the place to dicuss religion. And as soon as a new Christian guy comes in here he is mocked ridiculed and laughed at. Now some of these new guys are idiots too, going for the shotgun blast approach of posting a bunch of statements and then running away. But let's not pretend that this sub forum is anything other than a couple atheist who scan this forum everyday, looking to pounce at the first mention of Pascal, Jesus or creationism.

Personally I think they are like Creed in the second to last episode of last season's Office when he was playing chess.

Don't do that, if you do that I do this,
you do that, I do this,
you do that I do this.

Thet act like they've already won the debate, and it is beneath them to go over it again.

But I am also guilty, I more than once have posted something purposefully on the fence of logic just because I know it bugs those guys. Like the phrase random chance as a qualifier for evolution. Sure it's a part, but it's just the beginning of a process that includes natural selection. It's not the process itself.

I'll clear up the evolution thing once I get to writing my new thread, I need to cut some out, it's 8 pages of dialogue now...too long.

I agree. I suggest you review LLY's initial response to your OP in that thread.



After reviewing the thread in question, all i have to say regarding what is bolded above is QFT.

This would be a travesty if there were such a thing as travesty.

Unfortunately the slave proffering god of the bible does not exist, so apparently there is no such thing as travesty, or joy, or right and wrong, or any distinction between things.

So, let's go drink and rape!

see ayn rand

Just fucking noose yourself already, jesus christ.

Once people shed the notion that morality is no longer needed. I can just imagine the havoc. Society would be torn apart. There would be no need to give up your seats to the elderly because there are no morals, therefore no sense of rightness of wrongness.

But it wouldn't be right or wrong to do that if there isn't an outside authority making the act of morality right or wrong.

Consider me the outside authority that tells you you are wrong.

well now that throws me into a pickle....

stop trolling me retard. go back to assuming your role as a pseudo-intellectual poser.

lol, not giving up seats to elderly = society torn apart

right is what leads to your life and your happiness by the way. ethics and morals come from reality.

there is no outside authority needed. morality and ethics arise from reality. they are the acts that lead to the continuation and happiness of your life.

ok... heres a quick lesson in aristotle's nicomachean ethics for all of you.

what is your highest value? well, its your life. proof? if you didnt have your life, you would have no values. you need life for other values to exist, thus your life is your primary, highest value.

what is the purpose of that life? to answer that: what is the one thing you dont save up or trade for anything else? happiness.

your life as your highest value and your happiness as its purpose is what creates ethics and morality.

Are you saying people never willingly give up their life for a higher value?

Or sacrifice their own happiness for someone else's?

that's an oversimplification that doesn't explain altruism.

of course not. just saying that its immoral to do so. your actions are not automatic, thus they are not automatically right. you can perform wrong actions. ethics arnt a deterministic code that all people are bound too, they dont explain how things are, they explain how things should be.

(aristotle said all that. i agree though. his ethics that i outlined above are basically indisputable).

it is in humans self interest to be social, to a degree. but you misunderstand what ethics and morality are. they are the study of how things should be, not how they are.

.

i understand that you are over-objectifying morality in much the same way as religious people do.

The basic problem with Waters' analysis is that it assumes that the only "self" which has self interest is the individual. This is false. The individual organism is an arbitrary unit. There are various levels of organization which express self-interest (genes, cells, organisms, communities, etc.), and there is no objective reason why the individual organism's interest should have priority.

genes and cells do NOT express self interest. their actions actions are automatic. thats like saying that a machine expresses self interest. things which do not have selfs, because they are not conscious of a self, cannot have self interest.

you are perverting the concept of self; it does not just apply to any physical existence, it applies to consciousness. a dead person has no self.

i dont know what you mean by organisms because it could mean any living thing on earth including us. some of them can have self interest, some of them cant.

yes, communities can have interest, but by definition it is not self interest. community is a concept, a concept cannot have a self. a community is just a collection of individuals. you say the individual is an arbitrary unit, im not sure what that means but i dont like the sound of it.

in a free society the interest of the community comes down to the self interest of all the individuals in that community. in communism, a higher power (the state) forces its idea of communal interest on you. this is why its immoral and evil, it puts something above your own self interest, by force.

"and there is no objective reason why the individual organism's interest should have priority."

once again, your use of the word organism makes what you are saying extremely vague. if you mean human individuals, yes there is. i already outlined that. if you disagree with my logic, (through aritstotle) point it out.

religious morals are not objective at all, they are intrinsic. aristotles morals are logically deduced from reality. and i still dont think you understand that morals are something which people have to choose to follow or not follow. there is no invisible force of morality controlling us, as you seem to be implying, thats mysticism. morals are a code of conduct if you will. you seem to be talking more about some kind of biological hardwiring.

Something can exhibit the qualities of having self interest without it being driven by what we could consider "consciousness". Shit, we aren't anything more than extraordinarily complicated bio-machines, unless you're of the opinion that we have a magical/otherworldly soul that is out of the boundaries of physics. Does an organism have to actively think "I better do X in order to survive" in order to act in self interest? Is there a difference between me, out of total instinct and without any thought whatsoever, jumping out of the way of a car that jumped onto the sidewalk, and me making the decision to walk off a golf course during a lightening storm?

youre right but i guess i just have an issue with people applying the word self to things which do not have selfs. if something does not have a self it cannot act in self interest, even if that is what it seems to be doing automatically. my point is more than semantics though:

we are more than complicated biomachines, and we do have something outside of the boundaries of physics, though its not a soul in the religious sense. i would call it a "self"

You're wrong about this. Speedz' explanation went a long way so I don't need to repeat most of it. The automatic/conscious distinction does not really determine selfhood. For example, I'm sure you would agree that insects exhibit self interest even though all of their actions are automatic responses to their environment. I'm not using the word self casually.

Furthermore, most biologists agree that genes are the most important unit of self interest when it comes to natural selection (although some are finally coming around to the idea that there are group-level selection pressures as well).



The word organism is not ambiguous. Please find me a living creature which does not have self interest.



Community is not a concept any more than a human is a concept. They are both cooperating collections of smaller units that display coherent intentions, have goals, etc. Arbitrary here means that an "individual" has no special ontological status in relation to the other groupings. A human body is a collection of cells, a community is a collection of humans.



The problem you are ignoring is that both levels of self interest co-exist and interact with each other. For example, if each individual attempts to maximize his only his own happiness, this is not the best way to achieve the greatest overall happiness across the population. In fact, narrow self interest is generally counter-productive even to one's own well-being, and most people recognize this to some degree. Evolution certainly did, and this is why we have built-in social cooperation instincts.




I'm going to turn this around on you and say that anything which acts with self-interest therefore has a self -- a self in the only sense that is relevant to this conversation. Self is a tricky concept to nail down, and I have spent a good portion of my career pursuing it, so I don't really want to make this a semantic argument about what self is. But the kind of self that is relevant to self-interest is quite simple, and only requires an entity with interests to protect.