How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

fatmammycat

Interesting article on the 'moral' behaviour of chimp groups (you know that old chestnut that morals only come from God and only people have them so we're so super duper and so forth? Seems not).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307185016.htm

Northclare

A person could have all the morals, be able to digest and quote all the holy books,science books,spiritual books, Gods and Religion and still be an Idiot

Galvasean

fatmammycat wrote: »

Interesting article on the 'moral' behaviour of chimp groups (you know that old chestnut that morals only come from God and only people have them so we're so super duper and so forth? Seems not).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307185016.htm

Such behaviors have been suspected and documented in apes (and also moneys). What is REALLY interesting is that rats have a highly developed sense of empathy:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=jailbreak-rat

edit: but people don't pick up on the rats so much. Why? Because people don't like rats, that's why.
Person sees an ape do something nice: "Oh look at the lovely munkky, they're so much like us! "
Person sees a rat do something similar: "Damn dirty cheese robbing buggers, get out of my bin!!! :mad:"

fatmammycat

Galvasean wrote: »

Such behaviors have been suspected and documented in apes (and also moneys). What is REALLY interesting is that rats have a highly developed sense of empathy:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=jailbreak-rat

edit: but people don't pick up on the rats so much. Why? Because people don't like rats, that's why.
Person sees an ape do something nice: "Oh look at the lovely munkky, they're so much like us! "
Person sees a rat do something similar: "Damn dirty cheese robbing buggers, get out of my bin!!! :mad:"

That's a fascinating article. I don't mind rats at all and would happily have one as a pet, except for the bloomin' cats I already own would probably devise a way at killing it/ them, I say them as I don't think they do well solo, so I'd have to have more than one.

Oranage2

fatmammycat wrote: »

Interesting article on the 'moral' behaviour of chimp groups (you know that old chestnut that morals only come from God and only people have them so we're so super duper and so forth? Seems not).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307185016.htm

Nothing new here really as 'peace makers' in packs of animals are very common.

Though please tell me more about chimps and morals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khwjD-KVQ_Q

Doctor DooM

Yeah, Poe (not Godwin as I mistakenly said earlier)

fatmammycat

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Yeah, Poe (not Godwin as I mistakenly said earlier)

Has to be.

robindch

Hi Northclare -

Northclare wrote: »

A person could have all the morals, be able to digest and quote all the holy books,science books,spiritual books, Gods and Religion and still be an Idiot

Here's what a dialectic discussion looks like:

A: Hey, all this evolution stuff seems incredible to me.
B: Well, perhaps on a first glance it does. Here, let me describe to you, say, the origins of whales.
A: Thanks. That looks interesting and the bit about vestigial hands is weird. But how does evolution explain co-operative behaviour?
B: That's fairly well-understood by now and here's how it happens...
(etc, etc)

A dialectic discussion does not look like this:

A: Hey, all this evolution stuff seems incredible to me.
B: Well, perhaps on a first glance it does. Here, let me describe to you, say, the origins of whales.
A: Knickers! Ha, ha!
B: Huh? I thought you asked a question about evolution?
A: Bum! Scientists are silly! Ha, ha!
(etc, etc)

If you are interested in asking genuine questions and getting genuine answers, then ask away. At the moment, however, you're coming very close to avoiding discussion and that can be a cardable offense around these parts.

Oranage2

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why would we wan't to develop gills. I don't even like swimming. Sure wings would be cool but I don't like the idea of having to get every piece of clothing tailor made.

SNIP.

Again I do find it very interesting how a lot of the species have the same symmetry, and the research will be no doubt lost on me.

Perhaps Dades was right that I just wont change my mind.

Northclare

Robin we all have an opinion.
I don't need your guidance or advice.
I read your comment and it doesn't make sense to a person who has free will.

I was sitting on a bench in work eating a sandwich enjoying my hour of peace, and a pigeon landed close by, within a minute the pigeon had a collison with a huge raptor and ended up in the talons of the eagle which flew off over mount callan.
There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle "hey that wasn't in the script:)

Have a nice day Robin

Galvasean

Northclare wrote: »

There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle

The word idiot does not get a capital letter when used in the middle of a sentence.

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

I read your comment and it doesn't make sense to a person who has free will.

If you're willing to discuss whatever interests you in a mature, dialectical sense, then A+A is a good place to do it.

If you want to make a series of disconnected, random postings that convey no clear meaning, contribute nothing to any discussion, and are forgotten ten seconds after you made them, then AH is more suitable.

sephir0th

I often wonder if I met someone like NorthClare or JC in real life would they come across as coherent and sensible, or ramble insanely akin to their online personas?

Penn

Northclare wrote: »

I was sitting on a bench in work eating a sandwich enjoying my hour of peace, and a pigeon landed close by, within a minute the pigeon had a collison with a huge raptor and ended up in the talons of the eagle which flew off over mount callan.
There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle "hey that wasn't in the script:)

Have a nice day Robin

....

what?

Northclare

Well if you were mature enough Robin we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If your so bright why are you getting attached to people's inability to be up to your standards of intelligence and have to correct them on an internet forum.

Zombrex

It should also be pointed out that humans are not the only species who have evolved brains capable of things like complex communication and art.

Orange you just happen to be living in a time when we are the only species who can do this because the others died out.

If you were living 40,000 years ago you might be sitting around wondering why having only 2 species developed this ability (ie Netherlands and humans). In 2 million years time you might be sitting around wondering isn't it odd that 43 species developed this ability, who knows.

Certainly developing a very complicated brain has not been a common trait in the history of evolution in Earth. It is not as common as say developing hair or the eye (which it is estimated evolved approx 40 times independently of each other).

But it should also be pointed out that you cannot infer much by simply taking a snapshot of evolution at a particular time. If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

Northclare

sephir0th wrote: »

I often wonder if I met someone like NorthClare or JC in real life would they come across as coherent and sensible, or ramble insanely akin to their online personas?

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

If your so bright why are you getting attached to people's inability to be up to your standards of intelligence and have to correct them on an internet forum.

I'm not referring to "standards of intelligence", but standards of debate.

This discussion is best carried out, btw, via PM.

thanks.

Zombrex

Oranage2 wrote: »

Perhaps Dades was right that I just wont change my mind.

Perhaps explain how you made your mind up in the first place.

You seem to know very little about this subject. This is fair enough, I know very little about Chinese pottery but that doesn't trouble me. The thing though is that you seem to know very little about this subject but feel confident to say that all the biologists who spend their lives studying it are wrong.

I wouldn't have the confidence to say that the current consensus on the dating of Ming pottery is in fact nonsense and they all got it completely wrong. I wouldn't have a clue, and as such defer to the experts.

Oranage2

Zombrex wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that humans are not the only species who have evolved brains capable of things like complex communication and art.

Orange you just happen to be living in a time when we are the only species who can do this because the others died out.

If you were living 40,000 years ago you might be sitting around wondering why having only 2 species developed this ability (ie Netherlands and humans). In 2 million years time you might be sitting around wondering isn't it odd that 43 species developed this ability, who knows.

Certainly developing a very complicated brain has not been a common trait in the history of evolution in Earth. It is not as common as say developing hair or the eye (which it is estimated evolved approx 40 times independently of each other).

But it should also be pointed out that you cannot infer much by simply taking a snapshot of evolution at a particular time. If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

Northclare wrote: »

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

I'm just gonna jump in and be pedantic straight off the bat, but 65 million years ago there were many many types of feathered dinosaurs and also many species of what we would consider fully fledged birds.
In fact we have found direct evidence to show that at least 30 types of dinosaur definitely had feather, with many for suspected of having them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur#List_of_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers

Northclare wrote: »

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

C'mere 'til I eat ya!



Reptilian enough for you?

Northclare

LOL Nice one !

Food for thought eh

Bannasidhe

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.




I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

Ok - am I correct in saying that you find it hard to believe that life just began with single cell forms some of which, over millions of years, grew into more complex forms, adapted and evolved to suit the environmental conditions in a effort to increase chances of survival but you have no problem believing that a deity made the whole thing in 6 days?

Can I get credit for not being a 'meaning of the word 'phantom' nazi????

(ARRRGHHHHH - it's fathom dammit - not phantom...arrggggggg!!!!!)

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

Do you have as much trouble believing that I, a large 6'4 male once lived in my 5'5 mother's belly?

Oranage2

Zombrex wrote: »

Perhaps explain how you made your mind up in the first place.

You seem to know very little about this subject. This is fair enough, I know very little about Chinese pottery but that doesn't trouble me. The thing though is that you seem to know very little about this subject but feel confident to say that all the biologists who spend their lives studying it are wrong.

I wouldn't have the confidence to say that the current consensus on the dating of Ming pottery is in fact nonsense and they all got it completely wrong. I wouldn't have a clue, and as such defer to the experts.

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

kylith

Oranage2 wrote: »

Again I do find it very interesting how a lot of the species have the same symmetry, and the research will be no doubt lost on me.

Most animals have essentially the same layout because we are all descended from one creature - the first backboned animal, which gradually changed to fit its surroundings. The basic animal plan is: head at the front, two legs/arms, torso, two legs at the back, tail.

Think of it this way: if a deity created, say, whales and snakes then why would he leave the bones for their legs in their bodies? These vestigal limbs are clear signs that these creatures used to walk on land, but went to the sea millions of years ago. There is also a fossil record showing the 'smallifying' of these limbs over the years.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Where you're going wrong is thinking of us as evolving from nothing. There was never Nothing, then Humans. It started off as cells, which changed over such a long period of time that you couldn't notice it happening. Rather than Nothing > Humans, it was more A Cell > two cells > four cells >> a hundred cells working together > a hundred cells, and one cell that is sensitive to light >>> a hundred cells and a crude eye >> an eye that can actually see things >>>>>> animals that aren't microscopic and so on until, millions of >>>s later you come out with a primate > a primate that spends less time in the trees >> a primate adapted to live mostly not in trees > a slightly less hairy primate > a primate that can balance on it's back legs for longer than avereage >>>>>> humans

Think of it in the context of dogs. Millenia ago there were no dogs, just wolves, humans evolved dogs through unnatural selection - that is that the humans selected which dogs survived based on their traits, rather than nature 'selecting' which survived based on which were best adapted. When humans wanted big dogs to guard their homes they bred the biggest dogs to each other, this is similar to a natural situation where perhaps all the small prey items have died/fled/been eaten, and only the biggest dogs able to kill the biggest prey would have survived to pass on their Big Dog genes.

Of course dogs aren't seperate species, but if you kept the bloodlines of each breed from mingling for another million years or so then they would become seperate species.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

I don't think any belief is hard wired into our brains. Things like evolution can be understood if you break them down, and in some short-lived species you can see these changes happening. Someone posted a study done with a type of fish, and 'evolved' a large spotted and small spotted variety by replicating different habitats.

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

I have no idea what this even means. I can only guess that you see christianity as this shining fire, whereas I see christian doctrine as the darkness.

Delirium

@Oranage: I just wondering, do you distrust everything that scientists claim or is it only with regards to evolution?

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

People are easily led...

Indeed.

kylith

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

I'm sorry, you don't believe them because there's no money in it? But you're happy to believe the 'A Magician Did It, Now Give Us 10% Of Your Earnings' church. Generally, in life, if someone is pulling the wool over your eyes it's the person asking you for money.

The wonderful thing about science is that anyone can do it. You don't need a 'calling', 'vocation', or 'revalation'. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can confirm every scientific thing for themselves.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

I'm starting to think that, I don't know... you keep asking questions, but you don't seem to want answers to them because you think it's easier to just accept what the Church tells you and not ask them any questions about it.

Facts are never a waste of time. The fact that science corrects itself isn't a weakness, it's a strength, it means that when scientists discover that something's incorrect they figure out what the correct answer is. This is in vast contrast to the church who, if scientists hadn't developed the technology to study space, would still be claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe.

To recap:
Seeing that you are wrong, saying 'my mistake' and correcting it = Good.
Seeing that you are wrong, accusing others of misleading you, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU' = Bad

Oranage2 wrote: »

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

For some people, maybe. Personally I don't see how you can live like that.

Monty Burnz

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

A couple of points:

1. If scientists lie and other scientists find out, they lose their jobs. And it's other scientists' job to find out if they are telling the truth. Therefore, it's very, very difficult for even one scientist to convincingly lie about any research for any length of time.

For evolution to be the product of lies, you would have to have all of the scientists involved lying all the time with no fear of being caught, and all of their lies somehow fitting together to make perfect scientific sense. This is quite unlikely, no? And who is paying the scientists to come to wrong conclusions, and how are they profiting from it?

2. Do you really, honestly think that no religion has been created to make money? Or has ever been exploited by people to make money? Does this totally discredit everything that religion says? If you believe that even the possibility of corruption due to money discredits science, then you have also told me that you do not believe in religion either.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

I can see why you might lean more towards religion ('popular opinion') than science ('fact') in that case.

But popular opinion never put a man on the moon, split the atom, or build the iPhone. And religion didn't discover electricity, the internal combustion engine, or the cure for smallpox.