How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[jonman122]

So in other words, we are all criminals that we are here today but thanks heavens that the laws controlled our criminal behavior which passed to us from our ancestors.

No that makes no sense, what happened is people realized if we all went off alone we all died. One man could never take on a lion, and in this case we would have actually still been apes of some form, so they went around in groups instead, for the protection of their tribe. The problem is the same as it is now, those groups, back then being maybe a group of 30-40 individuals and now being entire countries, still conflict and kill each other. There are, however, laws about killing within that country, and within other countries because these days we're a lot more civilized about such things, but back then if you were fighting a rival tribe you'd have no problem killing one of their people if you caught him unaware and it would give your tribe a leg up in the long term.

The thing is, these problems apply just as much today (albeit in different ways) as they did 200 000 years ago. So what exactly did your god change? the size in numbers, the killings should be increased from 20 about 200 000 years ago to several million nowadays? I don't find that to be very moral myself.

The laws we use now limit these killings an incredible amount, or people would just walk across country borders and murder other people to control their land and resources. I think the law does a pretty decent job of inhibiting that.

 

[Alceste]

So in other words, we are all criminals that we are here today but thanks heavens that the laws controlled our criminal behavior which passed to us from our ancestors.

Er - no. I wouldn't put it like that at all. We are animals, and like most animals, our species is prepared to kill others in order to increase our own chances of survival and reproduction. "Thank heavens" another of our traits with evolutionary benefits - the need to live in communities for protection and to increase mating opportunities - has resulted in a framework of laws that helps to prevent our murderous impulses from running amok.

Every trait or behavior comes with both a benefit and a cost. I would say the balance between our impulse to kill others and our impulse to live in safe, healthy communities is pretty much at an equilibrium. Most societies don't allow individuals to murder each other over petty grievances, but are prepared to send those individuals to murder "foreigners" in a war.

 

[FearGod]

Er - no. I wouldn't put it like that at all. We are animals, and like most animals, our species is prepared to kill others in order to increase our own chances of survival and reproduction. "Thank heavens" another of our traits with evolutionary benefits - the need to live in communities for protection and to increase mating opportunities - has resulted in a framework of laws that helps to prevent our murderous impulses from running amok.

Every trait or behavior comes with both a benefit and a cost. I would say the balance between our impulse to kill others and our impulse to live in safe, healthy communities is pretty much at an equilibrium. Most societies don't allow individuals to murder each other over petty grievances, but are prepared to send those individuals to murder "foreigners" in a war.

But even though there are laws,that won't forbid the murderer from doing his awful act.

i didn't talk about wars and protection but an awful individual crimes.

We aren't similar in our behaviors even among brothers and sisters.

You may find one brother a peaceful one while the other is criminal.

So our acts has nothing to do with our physical bodies but with our souls.

if you have other explanation,then please explain it in scientific approach.

 

[johnhanks]

Would you please rephrase your statement ?

Does smiling help in the survival and reproduction of the species ?

Yes. Social bonding behavior in general is beneficial because we are a social species. One of the advantages of being a social species is that a group can defend against predators more easily than an individual. Also, since human females are pretty much constantly in estrus, living communally offers an abundance of mating opportunities.

And so the farce continues. A disingenuous question is asked, and a considered and accurate reply is given. The questioner promptly ignores the answer and continues as if the question had never been asked, offering up a new fatuity in its place.

How much longer do we indulge this troll?

 

[FearGod]

And so the farce continues. A disingenuous question is asked, and a considered and accurate reply is given. The questioner promptly ignores the answer and continues as if the question had never been asked, offering up a new fatuity in its place.

How much longer do we indulge this troll?

i am revealing the truth from those questions.

i can see that you are confused from my questions and your responce is either anger or mockery.

There is no trolling in discussing those issues,but you are using it as an excuse for your weak position.

Trolling need smart ones to escape all kind of questions and i aint smart enough.

The problem isn't focused on the questions and its answers,but to agree or disagree.

The criminal behavior is a beneficial for the human species and that is the reason that human are criminals,and other theory there is nothing called crimes but the laws make it to be so.

Buy it if you want,but sorry my mind is refusing those answers,but still it can convince some others,so don't worry about me and my Fatuously questions.

 

[darkendless]

But even though there are laws,that won't forbid the murderer from doing his awful act.

i didn't talk about wars and protection but an awful individual crimes.

We aren't similar in our behaviors even among brothers and sisters.

You may find one brother a peaceful one while the other is criminal.

So our acts has nothing to do with our physical bodies but with our souls.

if you have other explanation,then please explain it in scientific approach.

Is this a science debate or not? You can't have a proper discussion if you consider the soul to be a part of the body.

 

[FearGod]

Is this a science debate or not? You can't have a proper discussion if you consider the soul to be a part of the body.

if there is no convincing answers in scientific means then how to escape the other part.

Can you find out from the genes that this person have a dirty mind and the other having a criminal mind ...etc

i know some persons which i am one and proud to be so that can't kill a chicken,but i am brave enough to kill a roach,i have a mercy towards peaceful animals.

But still you can find other persons that can kill hundreds of innocent people while smiling,can you know that from their genes.

Just one example the famous Norwegian Anders Breivik who was active in the forums in spreading the hatered against Islam and muslims,but still when i saw him crying from remembering his deeds i felt sad about him and wished if he'll be free even though that he killed many innocent people.

Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[youtube]7r9CYDZ-tTE[/youtube]
Nostalgji nga e kaluara....Anders Breivik Cries During own Propaganda Film.mp4 - YouTube

[youtube]gULY8Bukr0U[/youtube]
Anders Behring Breivik Trial: Norway Gunman Cries 'Racism' - YouTube

 

[HonestJoe]

So our acts has nothing to do with our physical bodies but with our souls.
if you have other explanation,then please explain it in scientific approach.

Our actions have everything to do with our mind. The nature of our mind in is a complex combination of genetics, early development, upbringing, education, experience, environmental effects plus any illness or damage. That's why we're all different.

Now, what is you scientific explanation for "souls"?

 

[FearGod]

Our actions have everything to do with our mind. The nature of our mind in is a complex combination of genetics, early development, upbringing, education, experience, environmental effects plus any illness or damage. That's why we're all different.

Now, what is you scientific explanation for "souls"?

Upbringing,education,experience,environmental effects are those scientific explanations while we can see 2 brothers raised in the same conditions and still different in their behavior and no health problems.

Regarding the soul,it is something which you can realize except if you don't realize your own self.

Our body is serving our soul,your heart is pumping constantly and we have no power to stop it,but we can move our hands if we want to,or move our legs if we want to.

i can't help you in how to understand your own self,because if you think deeply then you'll find it other than just a materialistic body.

 

[secret2]

Upbringing,education,experience,environmental effects are those scientific explanations while we can see 2 brothers raised in the same conditions and still different in their behavior and no health problems.

Regarding the soul,it is something which you can realize except if you don't realize your own self.

Our body is serving our soul,your heart is pumping constantly and we have no power to stop it,but we can move our hands if we want to,or move our legs if we want to.

i can't help you in how to understand your own self,because if you think deeply then you'll find it other than just a materialistic body.

Even more baseless claims to support your baseless claims.

 

[FearGod]

Even more baseless claims to support your baseless claims.

Prove me wrong.

 

[HonestJoe]

Upbringing,education,experience,environmental effects are those scientific explanations while we can see 2 brothers raised in the same conditions and still different in their behavior and no health problems.

No two people, even brothers, will have exactly the same formative experiences and even fraternal twins will have different genetics. We're all physiologically and psychologically unique and that could be more than sufficient explanation for our different behaviours (just as our similarities do the same).

Regarding the soul,it is something which you can realize except if you don't realize your own self.

On that basis I could say exactly the same thing about the mind and dismiss your demand for scientific evidence. You can't present the soul with zero scientific backing yet demand scientific evidence before you even consider any alternative.

i can't help you in how to understand your own self,because if you think deeply then you'll find it other than just a materialistic body.

I agree that there is more to us than our physical body but we don't entirely understand what that actually encompasses. You're ignoring the "don't know" aspect and trying to impose your personal beliefs as unquestionable statements of fact. I'm suggesting that, unless you can provide the same level of scientific evidence you're demanding of everyone else, you must accept that you're in the same position of ignorance as the rest of us.

 

[LuisDantas]

How can one prove that there is no God (regardless of whether there is one), or that there is no soul (when it is not even a clearly defined concept)?

 

[chinu]

How can one prove that there is no God (regardless of whether there is one), or that there is no soul (when it is not even a clearly defined concept)?

You are asking how can one TRY to prove ?

 

[apophenia]

I agree that there is more to us than our physical body but we don't entirely understand what that actually encompasses. You're ignoring the "don't know" aspect and trying to impose your personal beliefs as unquestionable statements of fact. I'm suggesting that, unless you can provide the same level of scientific evidence you're demanding of everyone else, you must accept that you're in the same position of ignorance as the rest of us.

This is the crux of the issue right here.

He's right Fear God.

Just because you have a book which claims divine authorship doesn't mean that you or Mohammed know diddly squat about the mystery of sentience.

You can give it a name like 'soul', but actually that is not knowledge, that is just your name for a mystery beyond your understanding.

I have the same argument with scientific fundamentalists.

Science knows nothing about why molecules arranged as brain, blood and bones have personal identity issues.

Neither science or religion can explain the 'who', the experience of 'I am'.

The argument makes fools all round.

The fact that science cannot address the experience of self does not mean that religion must be right - and vice versa.

All religion offers is a collection of names which mean nothing - like god and soul, and angel and prophet etc etc. None of that tells us anything. And all science has to offer is the vague catch-all 'emergent property'.

I'm not buying either of them.

I have seen this same impasse in other threads. Someone starts proclaiming "god ! god ! god ! ", and when you get right down to it, the basis for their '100% certainty' is the experience of sentience which they have decided is the 'god' or 'soul' of their 'sacred texts'.

Same with hindus who accept it as proof of ideas about atman and paramatman, or buddhists and 'nirvana' etc. It seems that the mystery of it is unacceptable to most everyone.

The experience must be nailed down and understood ! Well, bollocks ! We don't understand. Deal with it.

Certainly, the fact of experiencing, of sentience itself, is both irrefutable and beyond explanation, but it is not proof of anything.


Refer to my signature ...

 

[darkendless]

How can one prove that there is no God (regardless of whether there is one), or that there is no soul (when it is not even a clearly defined concept)?

Why is the burden on science to prove anything?

As far as science is concerned it neither exist because they are outside testable means, end of.

 

[chinu]

I have seen this same impasse in other threads. Someone starts proclaiming "god ! god ! god ! ", and when you get right down to it, the basis for their '100% certainty' is the experience of sentience which they have decided is the 'god' or 'soul' of their 'sacred texts'.

But that is not the case God, which i know.

 

[apophenia]

As far as science is concerned it neither exist because they are outside testable means, end of.

There it is ^

If it is not something science can get a handle on, it does not exist.

This is the necessary outcome of believing 'there is nothing which science cannot explain'.

Ummm .... yes there is. It is illuminating your very thoughts. It both exists and does not exist. You know it, but it has no definable quality - except the sense of presence.

Mystical types give it various names, but it has no practical use and defies any attempt at understanding. Focusing on it tends to produce various kinds of 'altered states'. Some may choose to be pedantic and say "no, it is the unaltered state", or "it's not a state, it's Being".

How about - there may be limits to science, and perhaps the experience of self is not something in the purview of science ?

The assertion that something not testable does not exist is as ****** as religious faith and as perverse as using the fact of self-awareness as evidence of the validity of some mystical schema or another.

The yin and yang of hubris.

We don't know how we know. Aggravating huh ?

 

[apophenia]

But that is not the case God, which i know.

There you go ^

Precisely what I just described.

Thank you DarkEndless and Chinu for providing examples of precisely what I was talking about.

 

[darkendless]

There it is ^

If it is not something science can get a handle on, it does not exist.

This is the necessary outcome of believing 'there is nothing which science cannot explain'.

Ummm .... yes there is. It is illuminating your very thoughts. It both exists and does not exist. You know it, but it has no definable quality - except the sense of presence.

Mystical types give it various names, but it has no practical use and defies any attempt at understanding. Focusing on it tends to produce various kinds of 'altered states'. Some may choose to be pedantic and say "no, it is the unaltered state", or "it's not a state, it's Being".

How about - there may be limits to science, and perhaps the experience of self is not something in the purview of science ?

The assertion that something not testable does not exist is as ****** as religious faith and as perverse as using the fact of self-awareness as evidence of the validity of some mystical schema or another.

The yin and yang of hubris.

We don't know how we know. Aggravating huh ?

I have no interest in discussing your whims regarding how you believe the synapse of the human mind operates. The two are not reconcilable.

Things that are not testable do not exist "in the eyes of science" because they cannot be reasoned or observed. Whatever it is you believe in and whether or not you believe we have a soul means absolutely nothing to me.

Unless you have reasonable evidence in support other than "experience" then don't bother.

Please refrain from incorrectly using the word belief. There is nothing regarding science that is a belief. It's simply an observation of factual evidence that is available. I disregard anyone with the opinion that anything scientific or within the scientific method involves a belief.