Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (TedMar, AndrewAMD, fairtrader), 578 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: NITRO777] #125860
04/23/07 22:43
04/23/07 22:43
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

OK but you say that those people "deserve a life" means that you place a high and equal value on every human life. I commend you for that belief, as it was established in Christianity a long time ago, but in the light of the fact that you believe we evolved, how can you place the value of the unfit on an equal pedestal with the fit? For evolutionary progress to occur, the unfit must be selected out. If you are a true rationalist and scientist you must forego emotionalism and sentimentalism over the lives of the unfit in order to advance the species as a whole.




Well, both yes and no, but mostly no actually. For starters, as a rationalist (and scientist) we'd also know that we are quite emotional (for an animal species), in fact, we are so emotional that we will feel sorry for the weak. That's why we have thought of and improved our medical treatment technology in the first place, to be able to help.

Individuals may be selfish, sure, but as a species our strength actually lies in the fact that we can deal with problems together. In fact, nowadays a whole range of things make us care for the weak, from curiosity for scientific advancements to simply that emotional side.

Quote:

For evolutionary progress to occur, the unfit must be selected out.




Personally I think evolution is going very slowly as far as the humans are concerned, and that only very mad and crazy scientists would kill in order to 'speed up things'. It's simply not right to do this, both from the scientific perspective (it would be unnatural, right?) and from the moral/emotional side. Is it rational to kill people in order to speed up evolution? No, because why would evolution be more worth than a human life?

Quote:

1)You believe that when you die you will cease, your body will rot in the ground and become part of the environment, correct? Then I am curious as to what sort of purpose your life when it was lived had at all? Im not saying you have no purpose, Im just asking you what your purpose for living is, from the perspective of a person who believes that when they die they simply are gone.




Isn't life itself enough of a purpose? You live because you are able to live. Why make things more complicated then they are?

A purpose would suggest a plan, right? Well, what if there's simply no plan?

Do you believe in predestine? I definitely do not believe in predestine, eventhough theoretically you can't test whether or not it exists.

As a species we don't quite have a purpose anymore, since we are practically at the top of the foodchain. Except the pigeons, bugs, rats and mice etc. that live on our trash, I don't really see a purpose in the biological sense, except for life itself.

Some people need some sort of 'special purpose' for them to be able to accept the fact that they are living, it allegedly makes worth it to live or something. Well, basically I strongly disagree with this even depressing philosophy. In live there are only winners and live is what you make of it and you really can just set your own goals, live for your own 'purposes'. That's the beauty of life.

Quote:

2)Do you think that the following attributes are inheritable: laziness, alcoholism, addiction, and the tendency to committ crime?




Theoretically those can be (partly) inheritable attributes indeed, and some of them actually are greatly influenced by your genes (if your parents are alcoholics, it's likely you might pick up the habit too, environment or heritage? perhaps both?), however I know for sure that most of them are definitely also very much related to environmental conditions. Those ultimately make for someone to get addicted to drugs or alcohol or whatever.

It's really quite complicated and not very black and white. You can't really blame your genes for doing something wrong, but when looking at the mentally ill, they are not what we consider to be 'normal' people. Genetic heritage plays a big role there, I mean when a brain simply is 'faulty' ...

Still I don't think that you can justify behavior purely based upon someone's genes though, no matter what. Someone's genetic heritage should never be used as an excuse to act in a certain way. That would simply be irrational and off course wrong.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: PHeMoX] #125861
04/24/07 08:46
04/24/07 08:46
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
At a first glance, applying a morality to a scientific theory, like Evolution theory, looks like the usual misunderstandings of simple-minded science-haters: a scientific theory just explains something and has no "morale". Or has it?

Indeed, the connection between morality and evolution might be justified here. Of course not through Nazi crimes - Hitler didn't know anything about evolution theory and has probably never heard of Darwin. He certainly didn't care about some science theories. His only "morality" was his personal religion of the "Vorsehung" (providence).

But evolution is indeed related to human morality - in fact evolution is its primal cause. We all have basic ethics principles built in our genes. They came into existence some 100,000 years ago in the age of the cave clans. One of those basic principles is that the strong must help the weak. Clans that followed that principle survived; those who didn't perished. This way, survival of the fittest was the cause of the ten commandments as well as of our modern justice systems.

Later, people invented theism and thus the moral relativity. Not "you must help the weak" was now the principle, but "you must obey God". This moral relativism caused all the crimes and genocides that were commanded by God, and culminated in the dark ages of Christian atrocities, and finally in the Nazi religion where "God" was replaced by "Vorsehung".

However, we're living in the 21st century and many people feel that religions have suppressed morality long enough. My personal hope: the rise of Atheism will finally get rid of all religious moral relativity and make the world a better place. Even if this may still take a long time.

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: jcl] #125862
04/24/07 19:07
04/24/07 19:07
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug Offline
Senior Expert
Doug  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
But, to argue the other side, isn't theism part of evolution? There are reason why religious societies survived and, as far as I know, outnumber non-religious ones.

Until Atheism can overcome the advantages of theism, how can it survive?


Conitec's Free Resources:
User Magazine || Docs and Tutorials || WIKI
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: jcl] #125863
04/24/07 21:56
04/24/07 21:56
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Jcl, nice try!

But, you can't compare the clan centered morality which excludes the foreigners to the contemporary moral of the human rights which definitely includes the foreigner.

If you were right, George Bush's morality while cheating to get arguments for his war against Iran and installing Guantanamo were out of question. But, from the view of the human rights and international law, it is not at all out of question!

And, there were believes in superstitious powers and fairies and daimons and gods long before the invention of the big religions. If the big religions 'invented' something, then that they reduced the company of gods and goddesses to one single power.

You and Doug used the term evolution in the way it is used in the sociology extracting an evolution of social systems out of the history of modern societies. But, this doesn't show results in the genes, it's 'heredity' happens through habits and customs(and their changes).

At your vision of atheism as the base for a final victory of morality:

There is an author writing an 'evolution of childhood' where he states that the last form of childhood is one of empathicly acting parents which children grow up without fears, so that their mind can develop and think rationally without being interfered by uncontrolled feelings of fear and anger etc. (His view is one of an evolution of the soul, called psychohistory, Lloyd deMause.)

Closer to the topic:

There had been always people who exaggerated the importance of their profession or their special interests. For instance, a friend of mine, a biologist, stated some years ago, that the science of society should be part of biology, what is complete nonsense because you can't describe economical and political processes in biological terms.
To take science as an adviser for one's daily life is an exaggerating, as it is to take a religion as an each detail adviser, science has its specific task as religion has, or the economic system, or the system of law, or the educational system etc.

Each person is responsible for his decisions, regardless where he took his advices from. It is his very own decision, and his morality is challenged in any single situation. It was a revolution by Martin Luther who claimed that one is responsible on his very own against God, and it is the contemporary challenge of each atheist that he is responsible against others and the society as a whole and against his conscience with his doings, he can't claim: But the science said so, or, my God told me that I have to do so...

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: Pappenheimer] #125864
04/24/07 22:08
04/24/07 22:08
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:


It was a revolution by Martin Luther who claimed that one is responsible on his very own against God...





Yes I have always been wondering how such claim can get along with pre destination but this is an other matter

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: AlbertoT] #125865
04/25/07 01:28
04/25/07 01:28
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer Offline
Serious User
LarryLaffer  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
Quote:


But, to argue the other side, isn't theism part of evolution? There are reason why religious societies survived and, as far as I know, outnumber non-religious ones.

Until Atheism can overcome the advantages of theism, how can it survive?




Suprisingly enough, not a lot of people argue if religion is useful or not. I don't like lies either but still, even I, find many good reasons for religions to exist, mainly giving people something to lean on.

I also think though, like jcl, that in future years, people who don't need a religion will get the edge. If you can find a way to believe and have faith in yourself to get you through the day, instad of needing to pray in some Deity, and also be lies-free, you'll probably have better chances of advancing than religious people do.


INTENSE AI: Use the Best AI around for your games!
Join our Forums now! | Get Intense Pathfinding 3 Free!
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: LarryLaffer] #125866
04/25/07 01:58
04/25/07 01:58
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

But, to argue the other side, isn't theism part of evolution? There are reason why religious societies survived and, as far as I know, outnumber non-religious ones.

Until Atheism can overcome the advantages of theism, how can it survive?




Personally I think that atheism can only grow bigger than theism when a lot of old, but mostly recent technological and scientific discoveries are shown to everybody worldwide.

Take for example the whole fossil discussion, it practically doesn't even take an expert to figure out it really shows an evolution gradient. Things like the age of earth and all that stuff are really facts and the exact age is getting more and more accurately known. People really can't go about and claim earth isn't older than 6000 years. This is true for a lot of theistic claims.

There will always be problems though. For example, it's physically impossible to change pure water into wine like Jesus supposedly did, right? Well, no matter what, you will never convince Christians because they will always say 'yes, but you are just a normal person, not a messiah like Jesus, so off course you can't change water into wine'.

Theistic people will also never accept the fact or admit that some things are almost certainly greatly exaggerated in the holy scriptures. They simple belief them no questions asked.

Anyways, my point, I don't think religion will totally disappear anytime soon because of the things you can't convince people of,

Quote:

Yes I have always been wondering how such claim can get along with pre destination but this is an other matter




The whole idea of predestine is flawed and ridiculous anyways, but yeah you are right such statements are contradicting.

Quote:

the science of society should be part of biology, what is complete nonsense because you can't describe economical and political processes in biological terms.




Why not? There are a lot of good analogies to be found in nature when it comes to organization. I'm not sure if 'democracy' can be found anywhere else in nature, but anarchy and monarchy definitely do exist.

Quote:

If you were right, George Bush's morality while cheating to get arguments for his war against Iran and installing Guantanamo were out of question. But, from the view of the human rights and international law, it is not at all out of question!




Not quite following you here. Guantanamo isn't exactly the best example of human rights-obedience of the US etc. ... Nor would a war against Iran be justified by international law, Iran isn't occupying anyone.

Quote:

And, there were believes in superstitious powers and fairies and daimons and gods long before the invention of the big religions. If the big religions 'invented' something, then that they reduced the company of gods and goddesses to one single power.




Yes, all the more reason why Christianity and Islam and most other religions are probably wrong rather than right.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: PHeMoX] #125867
04/25/07 08:05
04/25/07 08:05
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245

If you read the " Selfish gene " by R. Dawkins you see that evolutionism leads to a " common sense " behaviour , being a key condition for stability
In other words

neither saints nor criminals
neither heroes nor cowards
neither universal love nor universal hate

just normal people

Someone might not like such a "plain " society

The point is , as said, that this is a condition for stability and progress
You can make a simulation on computer, you will see

Extremism , even if grounded on a high ethical principles, has alwayes made disasters

Sex is not an exception

Last edited by AlbertoT; 04/25/07 08:06.
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: Pappenheimer] #125868
04/25/07 09:32
04/25/07 09:32
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Quote:

But, you can't compare the clan centered morality which excludes the foreigners to the contemporary moral of the human rights which definitely includes the foreigner.



Right. The clan morality is in our genes; human rights are an extension of the clan morality, based not on genes but on rational thinking. By the way, the clan morality did not necessarily exclude the foreigner; a single foreigner was normally welcome to the clan (because he added new genes and new ideas and thus improved clan survival).

Quote:

But, to argue the other side, isn't theism part of evolution? There are reason why religious societies survived and, as far as I know, outnumber non-religious ones.



Yes, religious superstition was also created and put into our genes by evolution, just like morality. A clan who believed to be helped by higher beings had a survival advantage over an "agnostic" clan. Thus, the natural state of the uneducated human mind is believing in gods and demons; abandoning god requires a conscious thought process. Atheism can normally only be achieved in an independent, educated, thinking society.

The perversion of morality by religion happened when clans grew very large, began to live in cities and subordinated themselves to priests and kings. That was the time when theism was invented and obedience replaced the "natural" morality.

Quote:

You and Doug used the term evolution in the way it is used in the sociology extracting an evolution of social systems out of the history of modern societies. But, this doesn't show results in the genes, it's 'heredity' happens through habits and customs(and their changes).



No, I didn't mean social evolution. I meant real, physical evolution. Genes are not only responsible for our look, but also for our behavior - and several 100,000 years of development of mankind is enough time for evolution to produce the optimal "cave clan behavior genes", including morality, but also superstition.

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: jcl] #125869
04/25/07 23:43
04/25/07 23:43
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug Offline
Senior Expert
Doug  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Quote:

You and Doug used the term evolution in the way it is used in the sociology extracting an evolution of social systems out of the history of modern societies.




This is somewhat true for me, not so for JCL (see his post above).

While I believe some of our behavior is "burned into" our genes, I'm not sure I buy into the "god gene" theory. I find it easier to believe that most of our morality, region, and superstition is passed down by other methods (books, tradition, government, family, etc.). But this isn't something I've spent much time researching, so I'm willing to change my mind.

Quote:

I also think though, like jcl, that in future years, people who don't need a religion will get the edge. If you can find a way to believe and have faith in yourself to get you through the day, instad of needing to pray in some Deity, and also be lies-free, you'll probably have better chances of advancing than religious people do.




I'm not convinced that living a "lies-free" life improves the odds of you (or your clan) passing your genes or beliefs on to another generation. In fact, history shows otherwise.

Again, I'd love to see evidence that proves otherwise.


Conitec's Free Resources:
User Magazine || Docs and Tutorials || WIKI
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1