GOD

[SlinkFree]

"Sounds very native american slinkfree. Have you studied/paid attention to their customs? "

 

Actually I haven't... but might look into it... Thanks!!!

[SlinkFree]

see you tomorrow guys

[geko]

Originally posted by: SlinkFree

Quote

 

 

I can find more sources if you would like.

 

No, what you have given is fine. Thank you.

 

By the way, this: "... mathematics..... is even underlining and prooving that there has to be more there!" (Soul Searching, C4, 11/03)

 

... in no way points towards soul/after-life/god/G-d. It could be a misunderstanding of mathematics (or existence) in general. Something is missing, the math doesnt work out.

 

p.s. Im in no way refuting the quote ^^

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, something you said last week has been tickling the back of my mind, and I'm hoping you can explain it, if you don't mind.

 

You said "The ONLY people that think that basic human nature is negative are God believers. Mainly Christians and Judaism. I do not know Islam well enough to place it. Humanists typically feel that humanity is naturally altruistic. It is to each persons best interest to be good to everyone else. It has very strong evolutionary benefits. Thus it is hardwired into our psyche. Those with anti-social behavior are less apt to procreate."

 

Ok, as a Christian, I agree with your "think that basic human nature is negative" statement. I don't understand how anyone can believe otherwise. I believe that we are born sinful. We can try to remain 'good', but we still sin. I'm not saying that everyone will kill another, but that there is not a single person alive right now that has lived a perfect life. No matter how good we want to be, we just don't have it in us to be that good.

 

I see this watching my children. I never taught my children to lie, or to steal, or to cheat. Were those things they learned on their own, or were those traits already there? Are those just normal in kids? And if so, when do people outgrow them? My older children know it is wrong to lie, steal, etc. Still, knowing it is "wrong", and knowing it is not acceptable in our home, they will on occasion lie to stay out of trouble, etc.

 

So where do Humanists stand on this? "Humanists typically feel that humanity is naturally altruistic". And altruistic means: 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species How does basic human nature fit into this? Or are my children, as children of Christian parents, different from your children? Children are not naturally altruistic, are they? Or are my kids the only kids that had to be taught not to lie, etc.? I've spent a lot of time with kids, and I don't think they are naturally unselfish. Some are kind to others, some are gentle. I'm not making a blanket generalization that all kids are horrible. But children generally have to be taught that a lie is not good, that you can't use physical violence to solve a problem, that you are responsible for your actions- especially if what you do OR SAY causes another person harm. I agree that as a Humanist, you can be concerned with humanity, and therefore be altruistic, but I just don't agree that's it is a natural condition for humans.

[SlinkFree]

Quote

 

"... in no way points towards soul/after-life/god/G-d. It could be a misunderstanding of mathematics (or existence) in general. Something is missing, the math doesnt work out. "

 

Geko... Your probably best looking at the people I mentioned for reference... I found it very interesting source material that has led on...

 

Agreed... "something IS missing". It has been suggested by these guys that the last remaining gap in the field of maths is Quantum Mechanics. A bizarre subject, that to the best of my current knowlege, suggests that the same physical object can exist many times over in many dimensions (trying not to use the term 'parallel universe' here).

 

What is interesting about this point alone, is that in religious subjects like Kabbalah for instance, it discusses the connection and the stages between our physical universe, and the spiritual realm, and talks about how what one may call 'reality' is made up of these stages... or dimensions. Its a subject well worth looking into if you have a thirst for it...

 

Another basic argument follows the question of conciouss. Is it physical - a product of neuro activity in the left hemisphere of the brain - the logical side; or is it corporeal and metaphysical, as the work of these scientists is beginning to suggest?

 

Check this arcticle out...

 

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-12676.html

 

From a very quick google search i can only find this arcticle... i'm sure you can find more.

[geko]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

A) ...as a Christian, I agree with your "think that basic human nature is negative"

 

B) "Humanists typically feel that humanity is naturally altruistic". And altruistic means: 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

 

 

A) I agree. The noble savage is excepted as a myth anyway. Humans typically used war (fear/force) to get what they want (ill root out some material if there's an interest in this). Nor am i christian, or etc., etc.

 

B) I dont understand altruism either; in fact i think it's quite daft when reffered to humans. Who is going to do something for someone else without gaining anything in return? I challenge to give an example of an altruistic human act

[SlinkFree]

Originally posted by: geko

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

B) I dont understand altruism either; in fact i think it's quite daft when reffered to humans. Who is going to do something for someone else without gaining anything in return? I challenge to give an example of an altruistic human act

 

very interesting... again, religion aside, could this not be considered a major problem for Western Civilisation today? The fact that it generally encourages 'taking' and certainly not giving. I always find it amazing that when you watch something like a dating programme, the contestants always describe their perfect partner like "Well he/she has to be funny, good-looking, easy going, knows how to have a good time, rich, etc, etc." No-one ever says "well, my perfect partner is someone i can give MY all to, someone i can offer myself to"

 

With the exception of the few, since when is the population of today's society generally concerned with what the individual can offer to the whole?

[SlinkFree]

To me... much of western culture's socialogical problems reflect this... Furthermore, it is important to ask whether one positive aspect of religion could be that it DOES attempt to promote unselfishness. Would you not say this is true?

[sanctus]

Go see the topic "Can the world change", there we have discussed quite a lot about if mankind is selfish by nature.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

I see this watching my children. I never taught my children to lie, or to steal, or to cheat. Were those things they learned on their own, or were those traits already there? Are those just normal in kids? And if so, when do people outgrow them? My older children know it is wrong to lie, steal, etc. Still, knowing it is "wrong", and knowing it is not acceptable in our home, they will on occasion lie to stay out of trouble, etc.

 

Actually there are two processes in which cildren learn, one thing is in the genes of every human being (survival instinct and so on..), the other is the life in the society which is the relevant thing here. Stealing they learned it, they did not know it by nature, living in our society of capitalism and competition.

That is Not in contradiction with the survival instinct, because this instinct knows that it will survive better if it won't be the only survivor (we are selfish!!).

 

But yes, they will lie and still, even knowing that is bad, because they don't think harming someone is worse than stay out of trouble. They think this way because that's the message our society passes on to them.

 

So we are not at all, full of sin by nature, at the limit we grow into sin by living in the society.

[IrishEyes]

Quote by sanctus: So we are not at all, full of sin by nature, at the limit we grow into sin by living in the society.

 

Following that line of thinking, if you were to theoretically raise a group of children on an uninhabited island (or somewhere equally as isolated), they would become a group of altruistic individuals? Or would this only work if you raised a single child in that environment, as the group introduces too many different dynamics? And if it only works for the single child scenario, then I guess I'm not understanding the argument. If the only way to raise a person that will be truly altruistic is to isolate them...??? Do you see the problem I see there? The only way to eliminate a sinful nature is to remove oneself from the society that fosters sinful attitudes?

 

I'm going to need to think about and research that idea a little more before I'll buy it with my coffee, sanctus. But thanks very much for that differing POV.

[sanctus]

No, following that line of thinking one wouldn't have to grow up on a island, it would be enough if it was in a society not based on competition. It is just the price we pay for other advantages competition gave. I actually do not know which kind of society I would prefer, I've never lived in another than our kind, but you there are books that sort of prove "my" theory (if you are interested I can give you the name, just I'm not at home now so I haven't got it here).

[IrishEyes]

it would be enough if it was in a society not based on competition.

 

A society not based on competition, huh? Isn't that part of the idea behind communism? everyone is equal, everyone is important, and we're all working for the same state? I don't think I agree with that, sanctus. I mean, a society without competition would produce people with virtually no motivation to be anything more than they had to be. Noone would strive for greatness! How could everyone be happy in a society in which they were not better than the Smiths and worse than the Joneses?

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here (LOL). Your competition-free society provides many new obstacles that I can see. I agree that we would probably be better off without so much influence from society telling us what we should want, and how we should define

'happiness'. But short of starting over with people who have never lived in any type of society, I'm not sure how that can be changed. But back to the thread, I still don't think people are altruistic by nature, I think they are full of sin. Just look at the people around you, or at yourself in the mirror, and try to see how 'good' you are. Yes, I may do some 'good' things, but basically, I know that I am a greedy, selfish, self-centered, prideful, petty person. It takes a LOT to help me overcome those things, and I don't have that power within me. Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic. That means that all of those 'good' things I do, they have to be only for His honor, not for my pride, or to make me feel better about myself. As a Christian, if I do something for possbile rewards later, then I'm missing the point of bringing glory to Him.

[IrishEyes]

Quoted by SlinkFree... To me... much of western culture's socialogical problems reflect this... Furthermore, it is important to ask whether one positive aspect of religion could be that it DOES attempt to promote unselfishness. Would you not say this is true?

 

I would have to say that it depends on the religion, and the persn that follows said religion. I think it was Freethinker that said earlier something about defining your own personal god beliefs, and finding a religion to match it. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe i misunderstood the meaning, but I agree with that.

 

People may be brought up as Catholics, or Methodists, but then change their views and find a new church that better suits those beliefs. Anyhow, I have guests now, so I'll finish this later.

[SlinkFree]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Quoted by SlinkFree...

 

I would have to say that it depends on the religion, and the persn that follows said religion. I think it was Freethinker that said earlier something about defining your own personal god beliefs, and finding a religion to match it. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe i misunderstood the meaning, but I agree with that.

 

 

Yes i thik you are right. Perhaps i should have put it differently. My point tries to follow what you describe as "bringing the glory of G-d into the world" Could you not imagine the Utopia if all people reflected this in their lives? Dont get me wrong, NOT necessarily structured as such, like all major religions are, but definatly and truly understanding our place in the world, and our duty to each other as G-d's creations. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt most religions try to achieve this anyway? Christianity believes that Jesus died for it, Jews believe it is the world to come... I don't know Islam well enough to comment.

 

I'm going to stop now because i'm getting on my own nerves, it sounds like i'm preaching AND i leave myself open to my athiest adversaries!!!

[IrishEyes]

I'm going to stop now because i'm getting on my own nerves, it sounds like i'm preaching AND i leave myself open to my athiest adversaries!!!

 

Slinkfree, change your perspective. I get flamed here on a pretty regular basis. And it really burns sometimes, for a short while. But that's PRIDE!! I don't want other people to think I'm stupid, or have crazy ideas, etc., so I 'fight back'. When your perspective changes, so will your attitude. I honestly have come to truly appreciate those atheists. I spend time studying what they write, even if it's only to try to show them they are wrong. And while I may never convince them of God, it truly does strengthen my belief in Him. Freethinker gave me a very long list of supposed cntradictions in the Bible, and I set out to prove that they were not contradictions. Well, Freethinker believes they are contradictions, and so according to him - anything I say will just be twisting the Bible to say what I want. But that list got me to actually study Genesis again, which was helpful since I needed that for a class I'm in, and it was good to be reminded by Scripture that He is my creator. It HELPED me. I test everything said by atheists against my Bible, but i also test everything said by other "Christians" here by my Bible (also, I test what is said by anyone claiming to be a follower of God). And you have to also accept that there will be arguments that you will not win, but that does not mean there is no God. Just as there will be times even you will question your own beliefs. That's normal. I'm not trying to be some wise old sage, but I firmly believe that it takes fire sometimes to bring a shine. And as a Christian, I'm supposed to be salt and light. The world will not always want salt or light, but that doesn't release me from being what I am supposed to be. Anyway, that's just my opinion. PREACH ON!! ;>)

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

 

 

A society not based on competition, huh? Isn't that part of the idea behind communism? everyone is equal, everyone is important, and we're all working for the same state? I don't think I agree with that, sanctus. I mean, a society without competition would produce people with virtually no motivation to be anything more than they had to be. Noone would strive for greatness! How could everyone be happy in a society in which they were not better than the Smiths and worse than the Joneses?

 

I'm not at all a comunist (even if much closer to that than the other extreme, but anyway these are just labels...), no competition doesn't mean everybody is equal (and therefore a kind of comunism) it is just the full acceptance that everyone has his skills and is better than anyone else in this or that by nature or because he/she wanted that and worked for it not because he/she wanted to be bettter than others (i.e. competition spirit) but because of liking it. You may now say that if you do something because you like it and end up being the best one, you do it for competition, well no if you fully accept everybody. If you have this full acceptance (you may think this is an utopia...., in this case inform yourself about the old tribes of aborigines for example) you can't even think of being better than somebody else, because you don't bother at all about that.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here (LOL). Your competition-free society provides many new obstacles that I can see. I agree that we would probably be better off without so much influence from society telling us what we should want, and how we should define

 

Not being influenced is just a matter awareness, it's not easy but one can learn it (Anthony De Mello has written a lot about it, for example); I'm not yet able, but hope to be one day...

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic. That means that all of those 'good' things I do, they have to be only for His honor, not for my pride, or to make me feel better about myself. As a Christian, if I do something for possbile rewards later, then I'm missing the point of bringing glory to Him.

 

How can you do something only to bring glory to god not to yourself? Tell me just one example, I'm sure if you try analyze any possible example eventually you'll find you do it for yourself. Being altruistic is just impossible,

• you help somebody--> you do it because you feel the need, because it makes you feel you are a better person (nothing personal, I'm aware that I do the same thing)

• you want to save nature--> it makes you feel alright with yourself

• and so on...

You see it's impossible to do something not for getting rewards later, therefore it is impossible to bring glory to god.

 

By the way you say as well:

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

Only when I am doing something to bring glory to God, not to myself, can I be truly altruistic..

 

What about if I don't believe in god? Then if you do something for god, you are not doing something altruistic as you do it for an entity that doesn't exist!

 

Actually, what about IF I BELIEVE IN GOD? Then the only thing to which you can be altruistic is god, where is then the use to mankind of altruism? You may answer that if you do something for god it can as well be for a person and therefore you're altruistic: well no, that's a bit easy, who tells me that YOU (I only can explain what i mean by this YOU in the first person: this YOU is the I and not the ME) actually believe in god and it isn't something you (in the sens of the me) built up to be alright with yourself and therefore it