I am not going to argue with you because it seems that what ever I say you disagree with as a matter of course. I read this in a paper written by a professor of genetics. I figured that he is right considering who he is, however, you are no doubt more qualified then he is. I am talking about adaptive behaviour when a child adapts to using a potty instead of soiling himself. That is adapting so my description was right and did not require any challenge.
I’d like to see that paper then, because what you are describing here falls under the field of psychology, so perhaps you are missing something in your explanation that would tie it into genetics.
This is what you said and this is what I read. "You said: "Anyhoo, alcoholism is genetic. The link you gave reinforces that fact that myself and another poster had previously pointed out. So as it turns out, I do know what I'm talking about. You're the person trying to say alcoholism isn't genetic. That would make you wrong. Sorry."
I showed you exactly what I said in my more detailed post that I provided long before that one. I’m not sure how you missed that one, given that I’ve quoted it several times now and cited the post number as well. The only conclusion I can come to at this point that you are simply being dishonest.
I even went on further to point out that a discussion of genetics inherently contains a discussion on environment because both are intertwined in various ways. So to say that alcoholism is genetic, does not in any way ignore or deny the fact that environmental factors are involved. If you paid closer attention to what I’ve said, we wouldn’t have to go round and round in this silly game.
You are judging me without justification. I have not ignored what you have said, I had not read it, therefore, I only read your claim that alcoholism is down to genetics. You wrote it in a way that who ever just joined the debate would wonder what planet you lived on. It was grossly negligent and inconsistent.
I’ve asked you to point out to me what it is that I am not being clear about, after I’ve explained myself several times now. That’s not a judgment, that is a request.
You
haven’t just joined the thread, so I don’t know what you’re going on about. If someone new joins the thread and asks me to clarify my statement, then I will gladly do so.
Well it sure did sound like it
Well, I clarified what I was saying right below it, so it shouldn’t sound that way now.
It didn't work because you were teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs again.
I still have no idea what that means. How about addressing what I’m saying?
I know what you are saying, however, you are wrong. You are trying to make a fact out of an ambiguity. We can all say "No" regardless of our genes. They may cause the urge but we lift the blanket and get in. If you say that we cannot control our base desires, then lets be honest, a trip to a psychologist is essential. Everything we do is by our choice, to blame it on our genes is a first degree cop out. That is why I said that dead to rights killers say that the are deterministic, blaming anyone or anything for their actions..
It depends what choices you are talking about. Some things that seem within our conscious control are influenced by factors we are not even aware of.
I didn’t say “we can’t control our base desires.” What I said was, we are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, emotions, reactions, etc., or the risk of certain behaviors, given presentation of certain environmental cues at significant points in our development. Once we also factor in things like brain chemistry and epigenetics, it becomes pretty obvious that something like sexual orientation isn’t a conscious choice. Alcoholism is another one, once we start factoring in family history, personality type, and all the other indicators I mentioned long ago. Nobody chooses to be an alcoholic and nobody
wants to be an alcoholic.
Then you see something that I don't.
I’m trying to point out to you what it is that I see that you apparently do not see. I’ve given you a few different examples.
We are all in full control of our faculties, only when you lose that control can you claim "I didn't have a choice". There is no compromise on this.
Again, it depends what you are talking about. For example, if you are talking about a person that is physically addicted to alcohol, quitting without close medical supervision isn’t necessarily a viable choice, given that that person’s body is dependent upon a certain blood alcohol concentration.
Or if we are talking about sexual orientation, it’s pretty clear that we are not making conscious choices to be attracted to other people, rather, it’s something that happens as a result of myriad of factors that are beyond our control.
This isn’t to say that we aren’t responsible to each other for the actions we take and the choices we make.
I am sixty years old and in that time I have fully accepted that I am totally responsible for every choice I have ever made, whether it be wrong or right, and have never willingly succumbed to the enticing of the Devel, or or any other influence, that would cause me to do something that I did not want to.
Good for you. That doesn’t deny the fact that there are certain things that are involved in your decision making abilities that are beyond your control, many of which you are not even aware of. The fields of psychology and genetics have elucidated this fact for us.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe in the existence of an evil demon that tries to seduce us into doing bad things. It just sounds like an excuse or a cop out to me.
Drinking another pint before going home, which leads to another and another is not the beers choice, it is mine. I accept accountability for that. That the choice was a wrong one does not detract from the fact that I made it, nobody made me do it. No one has ever made me do anything. I drank the second beer because that it what I wanted to do at the time.
Try arguing with your body when you’re curled up in the corner of the room having seizures and hallucinating and not knowing where you are because you didn’t have any alcohol today.
Christ is real, you just choose not to find out for yourself. Christ does not impose himself upon you. He knocks on a door with no handle. It has to be you who lets Him in. Christ cannot intervene and what kind of test would it be if you know all the answers.
Simply stating things doesn’t make them true. You
believe Christ is real.
If he is, he should know exactly how to “knock on a door with no handle” in order to lead me to him and convince me of his existence, if that’s what he desires. He has not and so I cannot assume he exists.
It is my opinion that they have no deterrent. The have no rules and regulations, morals and principles, that the have a need to follow. If they sin then there is no consequences to their actions. So, although I cannot tar all atheists with the same brush I am a realist and can see easy prey for satan to influences into paths of unrighteousness. Although morality is objective when you have no need to keep then than the first thing to go is morals
It certainly is your opinion. Reality doesn’t bear out that opinion, as we’ve discussed in the past on other threads.
I, like most people, have no desire to be harmed and I have no desire to harm others, because I can empathize and understand how it feels to be harmed. I want to live in a society where I can be safe and happy and live in harmony with other human beings. I can’t do that if I am committing crimes against my fellow human beings, and neither can they. I can’t speak for most atheists, but since atheist mobs aren’t swarming the streets and raping and pillaging all over the place, I think I might be onto something.
The consequences to my actions are that they affect other people. And I have to live with how those consequences affect other people. We all do. I don’t think we need to believe that we need to be obedient to some invisible entity that dictates to us what we must do, and I don’t think any morality is actually being exercised under such a system. It’s really just following orders, whether we find them moral or not.
.
