4 of 7
4
Trouble in Libya,Egypt
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

Sam Bacile Muhammad Movie FULL HD - Innocence of Muslims

Its just a goof, its silly, everyone is making far too big a deal about the movie.  It is freedom of speech, it is their right to say what they want: bad or good messages.  <sarcasm>Those Muslims don’t respect people’s rights the way that we Americans do.</sarcasm>  I think that Sec. Hillary Clinton said a good balanced message.

The violence is very serious.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04
jump_in_the_pit - 14 September 2012 10:29 AM

Sam Bacile Muhammad Movie FULL HD - Innocence of Muslims

Its just a goof, its silly, everyone is making far too big a deal about the movie.  It is freedom of speech, it is their right to say what they want: bad or good messages.  <sarcasm>Those Muslims don’t respect people’s rights the way that we Americans do.</sarcasm>  I think that Sec. Hillary Clinton said a good balanced message.

The violence is very serious.

I, too, support the free speech right of the movie makers, though I suggest that they be subjected to contumelious reproach.

It is interesting to see that Section 36 of the Mass. constitution.  Thankfully it is over-ruled by the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.

I also was pleased with the Secretary of State’s balanced message.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
TimB - 14 September 2012 10:08 AM

And it remains to be seen how Islam may or may not evolve.

If cultural evolution goes hand in hand with the biological evolution, resulting in religion being based largely on the biology of its members (as I strongly believe is the case), you’ll probably have to wait a long time to see a major reformation in Islam.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2009-07-17
George - 14 September 2012 11:30 AM
TimB - 14 September 2012 10:08 AM

And it remains to be seen how Islam may or may not evolve.

If cultural evolution goes hand in hand with the biological evolution, resulting in religion being based largely on the biology of its members (as I strongly believe is the case), you’ll probably have to wait a long time to see a major reformation in Islam.

It seems that some of it was designed to prevent any kind of evolution/enlightenment. The whole kill apostates and such… (But then like any religion it seems that which bits of their writing’s/teaching’s practitioners focus on is more important than it was written in the first place.)

Take care,

Derek

[ Edited: 14 September 2012 03:02 PM by harry canyon ]
 Signature 

“It is noble to be good; it is still nobler to teach others to be good—and less trouble.”—Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 14 September 2012 11:30 AM
TimB - 14 September 2012 10:08 AM

And it remains to be seen how Islam may or may not evolve.

If cultural evolution goes hand in hand with the biological evolution, resulting in religion being based largely on the biology of its members (as I strongly believe is the case), you’ll probably have to wait a long time to see a major reformation in Islam.

Even if cultural evolution is the most active factor, it is likely to take a long time, as, it seems to me, that Islam was designed to limit the effects of cultural influences from outside of itself. 

However, in a fast-paced, more open world society, cultural influences on Islam from outside itself should have some impact.  And in societies where Muslims are in a small minority and must adjust in some ways to different cultures, it is more likely that there could be some cultural evolution of Islam, at least to some extent. 

As to “religion being based largely on the biology of its members”, I think that generally speaking, humans are pre-disposed to being religious.  But I have strong doubts that humans are pre-disposed to being a certain religion. It seems much more likely to me that humans come to identify with a specific religion, mainly by virtue of their life experiences and personal history.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

Of course people are not predisposed for a certain religion, but they are born with a partially determined character and intelligence. These are the bases that depending on their surrounding culture help to shape their religiou affiliation. In return, religion becomes a mirror of the nature of those who are affiliated with it. Each impacts each other: biology molds culture which molds biology which molds culture, etc.

Why do you think people cherry-pick from their holy books? Because they have changed (biologically) and no longer find, say, stoning their children acceptable. The problem for atheists arises when most of them realize that they are also liberals and are willing to accept that biology plays a role in our morality only when they try to debate the theists on the evolution of morality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 05:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 14 September 2012 03:46 PM

Of course people are not predisposed for a certain religion, but they are born with a partially determined character and intelligence. These are the bases that depending on their surrounding culture help to shape their religiou affiliation. In return, religion becomes a mirror of the nature of those who are affiliated with it. Each impacts each other: biology molds culture which molds biology which molds culture, etc.

I’m with you so far.

George - 14 September 2012 03:46 PM

Why do you think people cherry-pick from their holy books? Because they have changed (biologically) and no longer find, say, stoning their children acceptable.

It makes sense that past generations of people who were prone to taking their own children out of the gene pool, may have well been less successful in passing on their traits.

George - 14 September 2012 03:46 PM

The problem for atheists arises when most of them realize that they are also liberals and are willing to accept that biology plays a role in our morality only when they try to debate the theists on the evolution of morality.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.  There seems to be a lot of varied assertions in that one sentence.  I tried to break it down, but gave up.  Perhaps you could say what you meant in more sentences?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

I guess I should have directed the last piece of my post to GdB after he said that it is premature (and racist) to assume that some peoples may be biologically determined to behave more violently than others. Since we have gone over this with GdB a number of times before, I didn’t feel like starting the same conversation with him and included the coment in the response to you instead.

My point is that an atheist will agree that biology plays a role in the evolution of our moral behaviour but disagrees (as an atheist AND a liberal) that different peoples may have evolved different senses of morality. As far as I can tell the evidence for both claims is not different, but for some reason the later idea is premature and racist. This is obviously crazy talk. Since it is the environment that plays a role in the evolutionary process of selection and different groups of people are surrounded by different types of environment, one must logically conclude that just as natural selection gives different groups of people different types of skin, it will also give them different types of behaviour.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04

Perhaps.  I heard, recently, that the greater part of genetic material, that was previously thought of as inert, extra stuff of no particular function, actually is functioning as a lot of off and on switches.  They surmise that, environmental exposures may play a role as to what genes they might activate or deactivate.  But it is apparently going to be a very complex undertaking to begin making sense of.

It is not inconceivable that current life experiences may have a role in those on/off switches being activated.  Point being, we still have a lot to learn.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 14 September 2012 06:19 PM

My point is that an atheist will agree that biology plays a role in the evolution of our moral behaviour but disagrees (as an atheist AND a liberal) that different peoples may have evolved different senses of morality.

You underestimate the methodological problems to support this standpoint in a scientifically justified way. Yes, sure, evolution definitely plays a role our moral development. But it is only part of the story. A lot of changes in our behaviour (in general) and culture do not need any change in our genetic structures, changes in neurological structures due to the environment are more than enough to explain such changes.
Then the research in these areas is very difficult, for several reasons: it is very difficult to study humans in vitro; and even if that is possible, it is difficult to predict how the results work out in vivo. Then a lot of research is biased by the cultural and sociological backgrounds of the researchers themselves (e.g. intelligence tests). And also factors like hunger, war, discrimination, social background etc have huge impacts on people’s behaviour. If e.g. blacks are discriminated and nearly get no chance to improve their situation, they will feel as loosers, and behave as such. Then there is a correlation between being black and having bad performance in tests, but no biological cause at all.

So I call your ideas premature, because they lack any scientific basis, and lead to the conclusion that we cannot do much to improve the situation for blacks, Arabs, Moslems, etc, because their behaviour is genetically fixed. At most they earn our pity, but not our help to get out of their situations. It leads to different ways of treating different people’s, based on their origins. And yes, that is discrimination and racism.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

I never said we can’t improve their situation. But at least I see you proved my point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 15 September 2012 06:53 AM

I never said we can’t improve their situation. But at least I see you proved my point.

(italics above added by me)

Your point that I think you are referring to is that an atheist, who is also a liberal, disagrees that different peoples may have evolved different senses of morality.

GdB (who I think you are referring to as an atheist and a liberal) did not (in my reading of his post above) disagree with the possibility of your point being correct.

Rather he suggested, I think, that it is not parsimonious, that it is premature, that it would be difficult to find valid empirical evidence for, that it leads to over-generalizations about others because of their race, and that this can lead some (not you) to the erroneous conclusion that supporting positive changes to an individual’s culture, morality, and behavior in their individual lifetime is useless if the individual is of a certain race. 

So GdB, apparently strongly disagrees with a foregone conclusion and assertion that people of different races have evolved different senses of morality.  And he provides reasons why such a conclusion and assertion should not be made. 

But he does not completely rule out the possibility of the assertion being correct.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

Do you, guys, agree that our behaviour and our moral compass today is different from our ancestors’ seventy thousand years ago? And if you do, do you think biology might have something to do with it?

I’ll wait for your answer before I continue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2787
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 15 September 2012 09:05 AM

Do you, guys, agree that our behaviour and our moral compass today is different from our ancestors’ seventy thousand years ago? And if you do, do you think biology might have something to do with it?

I’ll wait for your answer before I continue.

Indubitably and indubitably, my dear sir.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 15 September 2012 09:05 AM

Do you, guys, agree that our behaviour and our moral compass today is different from our ancestors’ seventy thousand years ago? And if you do, do you think biology might have something to do with it?

I’ll wait for your answer before I continue.

Do you think anybody can answer this question in a scientifically justified way? This question is just a Rorscharch test of our intuitions, nothing more. And it is for you too.

Let’s imagine we transport a baby born 70,000 years ago with a time machine, and let it grow up with normal western parents today, who treat it as their own child. My Rorscharch answer is that its mental development will be the same as that of our own children. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are. How about a child from 1000 years ago? 10,000? What about an Egyptian baby? Or a Celtic? A Chinese? Where is your evidence that culture develops based on inherited biological changes in the brain?

Now please continue, I gave my answer.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4