No, Muslims don't suffer any discrimination at all in my country. In fact, they are praised.

Some guy once questioned me if I loved my mom. In his mind I could not love my mom if I did not believe in god. Go figure it.

igordesu Wrote:BTW, just out of curiosity. As far as the metaphor as the box metaphor for the universe, what do you think are all of the possible different beliefs about the box that have been presented in the world so far (in the form of philosophy, religion, whatever...) Examples: Some think the box is the product of a creator on the outside. Some think from that, that the creator is still involved directly in things in the box. Some think that the creator is no longer involved directly in events in the box. Some think there is no creator, and the box has developed on its own. You know. What are some different views that you guys can think of?

There is no box.

It's a misconception that ethics defy evolution. Ethics are a perfect example of evolution. Over long periods of time, certain humans mutated so that their brains were physically programmed to follow certain rules of conduct. Other humans did not. The humans who mutated thus, had a distinct advantage, for obvious reasons. Like, they weren't killing each other. Therefore, they took the upper hand and eventually the others were weeded out. In this way, some convenient rules are hard-programmed into our brains, but that doesn't mean any kind of intelligent outside creator had to play a role. Although individual mutations are arbitrary, over millions or billions of years the system tends toward the optimal possible rules, which are non-arbitrary.

Incidentally, this isn't mutually exclusive with Christianity, and indeed Christianity's crusade against evolution is basically a giant waste of credibility and time since the two can happily live together. (And creationism/evolution have absolutely nothing to do with salvation, which is the only thing that actually matters in all of Christianity) Ie, a god creates the bare foundations of the universe, sets it in motion, and lets laws of physics do the rest. This isn't my own idea, this is Descartes' idea. Of course the book of Genesis is read metaphorically.

There are so many different religions, and many of them specify that if you're not a believer in that religion then you will go to some kind of hell. So if any of those religions are accurate that means the rest of people, a majority of the world - good people included, will all go to hell for picking the wrong one. What a sad thing that would be, considering most good people around the world follow very similar ethics, even though they don't worship the same god.

snispilbor Wrote:It's a misconception that ethics defy evolution. Ethics are a perfect example of evolution. Over long periods of time, certain humans mutated so that their brains were physically programmed to follow certain rules of conduct. Other humans did not. The humans who mutated thus, had a distinct advantage, for obvious reasons. Like, they weren't killing each other. Therefore, they took the upper hand and eventually the others were weeded out. In this way, some convenient rules are hard-programmed into our brains, but that doesn't mean any kind of intelligent outside creator had to play a role. Although individual mutations are arbitrary, over millions or billions of years the system tends toward the optimal possible rules, which are non-arbitrary.

Incidentally, this isn't mutually exclusive with Christianity, and indeed Christianity's crusade against evolution is basically a giant waste of credibility and time since the two can happily live together. (And creationism/evolution have absolutely nothing to do with salvation, which is the only thing that actually matters in all of Christianity) Ie, a god creates the bare foundations of the universe, sets it in motion, and lets laws of physics do the rest. This isn't my own idea, this is Descartes' idea. Of course the book of Genesis is read metaphorically.

I remember reading somewhere that the Pope said there might be some value in studying evolution.

snispilbor Wrote:It's a misconception that ethics defy evolution. Ethics are a perfect example of evolution. Over long periods of time, certain humans mutated so that their brains were physically programmed to follow certain rules of conduct. Other humans did not. The humans who mutated thus, had a distinct advantage, for obvious reasons. Like, they weren't killing each other. Therefore, they took the upper hand and eventually the others were weeded out. In this way, some convenient rules are hard-programmed into our brains, but that doesn't mean any kind of intelligent outside creator had to play a role. Although individual mutations are arbitrary, over millions or billions of years the system tends toward the optimal possible rules, which are non-arbitrary.

Incidentally, this isn't mutually exclusive with Christianity, and indeed Christianity's crusade against evolution is basically a giant waste of credibility and time since the two can happily live together. (And creationism/evolution have absolutely nothing to do with salvation, which is the only thing that actually matters in all of Christianity) Ie, a god creates the bare foundations of the universe, sets it in motion, and lets laws of physics do the rest. This isn't my own idea, this is Descartes' idea. Of course the book of Genesis is read metaphorically.

The evolution of ethics? So, let's think about this here. Ethics are how beings should act. So, evolving a sense of how we "should" act would mean the independent "box" (or portions of it) eventually evolve/self-determine how they should act. Hmm...I don't know. I'll admit, this one has my brain chugging. I'm not even sure I know what that means, lol...But you seem to be onto something when you say that portions of the box (humans) developed so that "undesirable" or inconvenient "rules" (whatever that means) were weeded out. And then we're left with the good ones like not destroying (killing) other parts of the box that are similar to ourselves (humans) out of convenience. Why do you suppose we developed "rules" like this? To prolong our existence? That seems like it makes the most sense since killing other self-aware portions of the box for self-gain is an inefficient way to go about prolonging our existence. Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like "survival of the fittest" and not really ethics to me...Edit: lol, sorry for the sarcasm, but that means I'm still not convinced.

BTW, you said that the system, over millions of billions of years, tends toward the best optimal rules. That actually isn't true because of the (I think) second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Everything tends toward disorder and energy is constantly being converted into less usable energy. Just thought I'd point that out.

igordesu Wrote:Just for the sake of clarity, *ethics* are, by definition (and I'm not making this poop up, either), how beings *should* or *ought* to act. Morals are, by definition, how beings really do act. I just say this because there seems to be a little bit of overlap in the use of the terms so far in this thread.

I'm still not convinced that beings in this "box" "should" act one way or another, if the box is hypothetically without a creator on the outside. Regardless of which way we have "evolved" or if we are "social animals", any so-called ethics are just pretend, you know? Like, it's still the majority of the box telling the minority of the box (however small) to take a hike because these are the "real ethics". Then the majority does things like restrain, imprison, and prevent the minority of the box from expressing what they want to do based on the ethics that have been created by the majority. That's really just "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest", isn't it?

But "ethics" are not always completely pretend. They are often based upon a complex interplay of genetic instinct and social compromise for the greater good (because we are social animals.) But you are right that "might makes right" has had a strong influence on the history of ethics and therefore ethics are also quite malleable.

A good example would be how in the olden days it was pretty common and acceptable for a man to have more than one wife. I would say that this was because men in general felt that their instinct was to have multiple partners and so God must have wanted it that way (in their closed worldview in which women were inferior.) Men were probably also able to physically overpower and oppress women into this arrangement even though it goes against women's general instincts to not want to have to share a husband.
To reiterate, monogamy probably arose from a desire to compromise. Perhaps men realized the unfairness over time or women began to gain more prominence within tribes to the point that their instincts could not be ignored. Therefore ethics for a particular group is often determined by the general willingness of a majority to recognize some of the unique desires or needs of a minority. So in a way they are pretend because they have the capacity to slide based on empathy and in a way they aren't because they are rooted in very real instincts.

igordesu Wrote:Why do you suppose we developed "rules" like this? To prolong our existence? That seems like it makes the most sense since killing other self-aware portions of the box for self-gain is an inefficient way to go about prolonging our existence. Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like "survival of the fittest" and not really ethics to me...

Hm? What's wrong with that? I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me. End of story. The biggest problem I have with religion is when they try and tell me I'm wrong, morally inferior, or try to impede on personal rights.

(Also, on a side note, I think the reason polygamy is not acceptable is to protect men. In a society where men can have multiple wives only the highest ranking men would get women. Just a random thought based on what I read in "The Red Queen".)

alyks Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:Why do you suppose we developed "rules" like this? To prolong our existence? That seems like it makes the most sense since killing other self-aware portions of the box for self-gain is an inefficient way to go about prolonging our existence. Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like "survival of the fittest" and not really ethics to me...

Hm? What's wrong with that? I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me. End of story. The biggest problem I have with religion is when they try and tell me I'm wrong, morally inferior, or try to impede on personal rights.

(Also, on a side note, I think the reason polygamy is not acceptable is to protect men. In a society where men can have multiple wives only the highest ranking men would get women. Just a random thought based on what I read in "The Red Queen".)

My point was that "survival of the fittest" would in that case then be the only real ethic working. "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" would only be the ethic "developed" by portions of the box to prolong their existence.<----survival of the fittest (if banding together's what it takes in this case to survive, then that's what the fit do). That's why it's all a facade. The only real ethic working is survival of the fittest. It's still portions of the box pushing it's own desires on other portions of the box. Certain portions of the box want to prolong their existence, so they develop things like "leave me along and I'll leave you alone". Other portions could care less (certain elements of nature, etc.). It's still the majority telling the minority to take a hike. Not ethics.

Edit: and remember, I hope this isn't confusing or anything, but I really do officially believe in a creator outside of the box. I'm just posing these questions for poops and giggles...

@Alyks

Yes, it is quite possible that monogamy was enforced, at least in part, to protect other men.

igordesu Wrote:My point was that "survival of the fittest" would in that case then be the only real ethic working. "I don't mess with you, you don't mess with me" would only be the ethic "developed" by portions of the box to prolong their existence.<----survival of the fittest (if banding together's what it takes in this case to survive, then that's what the fit do). That's why it's all a facade. The only real ethic working is survival of the fittest. It's still portions of the box pushing it's own desires on other portions of the box. Certain portions of the box want to prolong their existence, so they develop things like "leave me along and I'll leave you alone". Other portions could care less (certain elements of nature, etc.). It's still the majority telling the minority to take a hike. Not ethics.

Edit: and remember, I hope this isn't confusing or anything, but I really do officially believe in a creator outside of the box. I'm just posing these questions for poops and giggles...

Give me an example here. This analogy has gotten way too convoluted. Tell me who would be told to take a hike.

@ igordesu

Yes, ethics still are in large part determined by the majority pushing around the minority. It IS ethics for those who identify with the majority opinion.

This is why slavery was once viewed as ethical by the majority through justifications.

It's also IMO why gays here in CA were ripped of their constitutional right of marriage. (I know you don't want to debate this but I believe it is relevant.). The only reason this doesn't feel like "ethics" right now is because the majority-minority popular opinion is so close on this particular issue.

alyks Wrote:The biggest problem I have with religion is when they try and tell me I'm wrong, morally inferior, or try to impede on personal rights.

Sounds like you've had a prettyrough time man... Are you referring to religion in general? Or members of particular institutions?

Remember, this is all hypothetical assuming a box (universe) with no outside creator (I do not actually believe this in real life, but am hypothesizing). There are portions of the box (universe) that have become (self)aware of the box (humans and animals). We have that clear. The only ethic working is survival of the fittest. Humans (a particularly smart and advanced/highly evolved portion of the universe/box) have realized that it is not efficient to kill off other portions of the universe/box (including other humans) for personal gain if the their ultimate goal is to prolong their existence. Therefore, humans have "evolved" ethics like "treat other similar beings with kindness", etc. because of this goal. However, this isn't really a true "ethic" because the whole underlying thing is survival of the fittest (survival of the fittest or, the strongest gets to do what it wants, that sort of thing). Remember, there are other portions of the box/universe besides humans who have not developed the same ethics. These include beings which are conscious of the universe/box/itself but not to our level of evolution (other animals), life that is not aware of the box/universe/itself (plants), and non-life (rocks). Since we are the most evolved of all these forms, we are essentially telling all the other forms and life forms and things (and even the other minority of human beings who disagree with us) in the universe/box to "take a hike" because it's our goal to prolong our existence. Therefore, we enforce our ethics which support this goal. However, underlying all this, we're ignoring the other life-forms with these ethics. We're saying to be ethical in a certain way (or basically to act a certain way), when that's really not fair. You are just as much a mere "portion" of the box as every other portion. By enforcing an ethic, you're saying this is the way you "should" act. Well you know what? Any other portion of the box/universe has just as much reason to say "screw you. That's how you say I should act, but I want to act this way." And they have every right because your ethic that you're imposing is just being imposed for selfish reasons (your goal to prolong life). Therefore, in all of this, the conclusion that I draw is that survival of the fittest is the only real ethic if the universe is without a creator.

Sorry if I sounded like a jerk. I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to be as clear as possible.

cracky Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:BTW, just out of curiosity. As far as the metaphor as the box metaphor for the universe, what do you think are all of the possible different beliefs about the box that have been presented in the world so far (in the form of philosophy, religion, whatever...) Examples: Some think the box is the product of a creator on the outside. Some think from that, that the creator is still involved directly in things in the box. Some think that the creator is no longer involved directly in events in the box. Some think there is no creator, and the box has developed on its own. You know. What are some different views that you guys can think of?

There is no box.

I've thought about that in the past. What if we and the universe actually don't exist and it's all just...whatever. A dream. Not real.

Well, since it would pretty much suck if I went on that and it turned out that that isn't so, I'm just going to assume that it is real and do my best assuming that system. And besides, we don't really have a lot to go on with the whole "not real" deal. Because of that, we're stuck with the other box options.

Igor, no you were not being a jerk. Although I disagree with a few minor word choices, I think that's basically what I used to believe when I was a straight-up, science-only atheist. In fact, I still believe that it is about all we can determine for a fact. I think anything beyond that requires a type of faith.

In Buddhism, we believe in the box (suffering) although it is more similar to a stubbornly persistent dream as you mention, but we also reject the rules of the box in another sense. Animals are kind of like distant family members under Buddhist worldview. Life feeds on life in an endless rat-race driven by karma. The goal is to wake up from this nightmare and be compassionate as we can to ALL parts of the box.

But I still don't believe in a personification outside the box which is why I still consider myself atheist, but I'm a different type of atheist than the one you are describing.

Ok, so you're saying that plants and animals get the short end of the stick in our little survival of the fittest scenario? Like, the way it is now even with religion?

To answer your question, SammyB, my mother was raised in a devote Christian community (The Worldwide Church of God, to be specific). She was mentally abused by her family throughout her entire childhood because she didn't believe in the religion. It may not have been me personally, but it's part of what shaped my views.

Tobberoth Wrote:...I don't need God to tell me that it's wrong to kill a human. I don't need anyone to tell me or teach me that...

So you are admitting that there seems to be some standard of decent behaviour that all humans know yeah? That some things are just Right, and some are just Wrong...

Quote:...Universal ethic: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. It is completely independant on religion.

I totally agree, we all know this, and certainly don't need "religion" to make us aware of it.

However... why is it then that we don't all follow this "universal ethic"? I'm sure you will agree with me that at some stage this year, or this month, or more likely today, we have failed to practice the kind of behaviour we expect from other people... yeah?

Now, there may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were rude to someone was when you were really tired, or that thing you promised to do for that dude and never did -- well, you would never have promised if you had known how busy you'd be... etc. I mean, I'm as guilty as the next guy! But the very fact that we feel a need to come up with excuses is further proof of how deeply we believe in some "universal ethic" or standard of decent behaviour.

So, we have two important points here: Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have the feeling that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact always behave in that way.

Do we agree so far?

alyks Wrote:Ok, so you're saying that plants and animals get the short end of the stick in our little survival of the fittest scenario? Like, the way it is now even with religion?

To answer your question, SammyB, my mother was raised in a devote Christian community (The Worldwide Church of God, to be specific). She was mentally abused by her family throughout her entire childhood because she didn't believe in the religion. It may not have been me personally, but it's part of what shaped my views.

Eh, I suppose that's the case sometimes. But that wasn't my general point. My general point was that all/every single one of our ethics that some say we've "evolved" can be traced back to pure survival of the fittest/might makes right.

SammyB Wrote:So, we have two important points here: Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have the feeling that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact always behave in that way.

Do we agree so far?

And yet, despite religion (and even in the name of religion) bad people do bad things.

@sammy:
I agree

alyks Wrote:And yet, despite religion (and even in the name of religion) bad people do bad things.

And in the name of Atheism Joseph Stalin is responsible for the death of 20 million people...

Yet how is it that you can call someone else "bad" in the first place? Where are you getting this standard from? We all do "bad" things right? Doesn't that make us all "bad" people? Or do you have to do a certain number of bad things to be a "bad" person? Or do only a certain type of bad things count? Did you read my post on page one?

alyks Wrote:To answer your question, SammyB, my mother was raised in a devote Christian community (The Worldwide Church of God, to be specific). She was mentally abused by her family throughout her entire childhood because she didn't believe in the religion. It may not have been me personally, but it's part of what shaped my views.

And dude, I am sorry to hear that... and I'm not just saying that, I mean it. I'm the first to admit that the Church is responsible for some terrible atrocities over the past 1500years. I just hope you don't blame God for something that people did. What they did was wrong and you have a right to be angry with them.

SammyB Wrote:

alyks Wrote:And yet, despite religion (and even in the name of religion) bad people do bad things.

And in the name of Atheism Joseph Stalin is responsible for the death of 20 million people...

Got any sources for that claim. Cause that sounds strange to me.

SammyB Wrote:So, we have two important points here: Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have the feeling that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact always behave in that way.

Do we agree so far?

No not in the slightest and I say that if you think all people around the world have some inner central ethic that is identical then you obviously haven't looked at any other people except your own. There are countless cultures around the world that do not "behave in a certain way" and feel no remorse because for them it does meet their particular ethics for the society they are a part of.

The few core central "ethics" that seem to be shared in many places around the world are the ones that are exactly what one would except from the process of evolution. Evolution has taught us that there is a great benefit, it terms of self protection and ability to be successful in an environment, to working together with other individuals to accomplish tasks. Not randomly killing our good neighbors isn't due to some magical being sprinkling us with ethics dust.....it's because we realized that going around trying to kill other people all the time is a good way to get killed ourselves, among other negative consequences. Smart societies learned that they needed to control such factors for maximum survival benefit and thus have tried to build up standards for what they believe to be proper behavior. Also, Ethics is not static, it is ever changing and evolving just like everything else.


I'd also like to make the point that just because something doesn't fit the romantic image of what you want it to be doesn't make it any less true.