Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[z.5]

...but my point was that our way of thinking, solving problems, questioning our own existence, our complex emotions and sociality are second to none.

Well, we are certainly very good at solving human tasks and answering human problems.

Introspection appears to be a human trait - as does asking questions about the nature of our existence.
But are they really that important?

To us, yes. Of course.
But would having a greater understanding of the workings of the universe be particularly useful to an ant?
Would it make sense for any other animal to ask questions like this?

Emotions are certainly a very hard thing to test. There is an awful lot of research into the nature of emotions, and there are conflicting views on most issues.
The problems become even more pronounced when you try to apply these emotions to other species.

We see behaviours, which appear to show envy, fear, distrust, love... in other species.
But at the end of the day, we have no real way, yet, to say if these really are similar to the emotions seen in humans or not.
Do animals have 'emotional states' which humans lack?

Our emotions appear to be as complicated as they need to be for us, but that doesn't mean that they would need to be as complicated to be useful to any other species.
It may be that we see complexity where there is less - or perhaps we see less than there is.

When it is hard to accurately judge the quality of an emotion - then it becomes hard to compare amongst individuals.
Check out the stupid pain categories used in most hospitals as a prime example of this.
'how painful is your arm - on a scale of 1 to 10?'

Now, certainly we appear to be a very sociable species - in fact, isolation can lead to some serious health issues.
But again, that is not necessarily a useful thing for all species to have.

In fact, sometimes, staying isolated (except for activities related to procreation) may be benefitial to some environments - for example, ones where resources may be limited.

 

[xi0]

Well, but isn't this more or less what happens with Islam in many places except that in a much greater extreme? Islam is overtly not a violent religion. It takes a solid 5 minutes on google to find more than enough information on that. However a terrorist goes somewhere, blows something up and suddenly all muslims are seen as terrorists. With this girl it is not different. of course, she wasn't blown up but it is by no means a stretch than in her mind this is an Islam vs Christianity thing. And yes, it might be in her mind and it might be on her and whatnot... but it's not really fair to blame her considering other overreactions. It's would be the same as any other overreaction if anything.

Well, none of the three are overtly violent today (at least compared to the past), what's your point? That doesn't mean they aren't in some essence. I mean, if all 3 Abrahamic religions were as violent and intolerant as they seem to be in scripture, the world would be a much different place.

 

[takneeque]

@takneeque

Certainly.

Free will, to me, would be the unconstrained ability to decide upon what one wishes to do - without the constraint of necessity or fate.

This is impossible as the brain will always determine the desire of the individual.

It, in itself, is constrained by the laws of physics – and will perform according to a specific set of rules.

The brain doesn’t do things randomly, but instead weighs out actions according to its layout, chemical and electrical state.

Even if it was random – and not deterministic – it still wouldn’t leave any room for freedom in the will, it would be ‘random will’…

I agree that absolute free will doesn't exist.I was only exploring choices we get to make from a set of options we have.Granted that brain,being constrained, makes some choice(good or bad) based on some processes typical of it's constituent elements but the set of choices it makes certainly influence how the mind works and evolves.
The point is that brain itself gets influenced by what choice is made and in that way,so to speak,the choice/will is enforced on the brain itself.It's kind of a feedback system influencing the brain.It could be more influential in a young brain and less in an established one,but it is shaping the mind with choices it makes at every stage. So,could we not make choices,irrespective of brain's initial constitution,which would shape it the way we want?

 

[M3J]

Hmm..actually, do animals really do not believe in God? We do not seem to have any kind of proof whether they believe in God or not, because either case could be true.
And I think you are a little bit generalising here. Not all people started to question the purpose of life or ended up believing in God because they cannot think for themselves or are brainwashed at an early age. Many people, including me, do extensive research into this matter. A deep research into everything in order to answer the dwelling questions in our minds. And it is human nature to search and keep searching for answers for everything. Otherwise, our world would not have reached the development it is experiencing nowadays. So, it is natural for a person to ask him or herself what purpose does life serves. Totally normal.

What indication is there that they believe in a higher power? As far as I recall, they have not in any way indicted they believe in higher power, or that they have the intelligence to even think about that.

Tons of people have been raised to believe in God, myself included. Most don't question anything because of their upbringing or fear of goin to Hell. The most common excuse I've come across is "I'd rather be right and go to Heaven than be wrong and go to Hell." So basically, it supports my view that most people who believe in God are selfish because they fear Hell and prefer to go to Heaven. I'm not sure how many people do extensive research, but whatever.

It is normal, but it is also pointless in a way. Why can't you just make your own purpose? Other than carrying on the family name and ensuring the survival of species, your intellect (or "intellect") gives you the freedom to do whatever you want to do. Where most animals are bound by their biological needs (birds migrating to a warmer hemisphere), we can go and do whatever and wherever. We went from being nomads to settlers, and if we want, we could be nomads again if the situation allowed us to (I don't see this working out well given what we did to the lands).

Well, I did not invalidate the Big Bang theory. It is plausible that it happened and occurred, but in my opinion, it does not answer the questions regarding the nature of our existence and its purpose.
I could simply ask, what was before the big bang? What was before the thing before the big bang? then what was before what is before that is before the big bang? And so on.
A never ending cycle, that is.
We could expand this analogy to the existence of God argument and ask: who created God? Who created who created God? then who created who created who created God? (Now that is confusing XD)
Again, it is a non-ending cycle. For this reason, at least for me, a plausible explanation is that there is a beginning to all beginnings which would end this never ending cycle. And, in my opinion, this beginning should be omniscient in nature to be able to initiate this grandiose universe. At university, our biology professor was asked during a lecture on evolution by one of the students the very same question that I have written above: Who or what caused the Big Bang? The professor did not know how to answer her and paused for few minutes, then he answered that scientists will one day figure it out.
In my opinion, even if they figure it out, another question will arise: what was before that event which was before the big bang? Again, a non-ending cycle.
So, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are things which our human minds cannot and will not be able to comprehend due to our knowledge and minds being limited. At least, this is what I think is the case.
I could be wrong, but that does not necessarily mean I am not right. Anything is possible. I think we agree to disagree on this matter.
But at least, I think we do agree on the fact that we, human beings, are not omniscient in any way or form.
Anyway, at the end of the day, every individual follows what she or he believe is the best for her or him, so whether one believes in God or not is completely up to the individual.

Lot of people do. One person I debated with years ago kept saying Big Bang can't have happened because in order for something to happen, it must have some sort of catalyst or beginning, but God was apparently forever and did not need a beginning. The logic was annoying. But yes, I think you are right in that the Big Bang theory does not answer the questions of existence and purpose of our existence. My belief is that only we can answer why we exist. Maybe Mother Teresa came to the conclusion that her purpose was to help others, or she gave herself that purpose. I still can't understand why people can't carve their own paths or figure out their purpose in life.

We don't know, it doesn't have to be a non-ending cycle. If the theory that a universe existed before the current universe which contracted and caused the big Bang is true, then it could be a never-ending cycle. If our universe is the first, then it could have a beginning. That's the beauty of science though, nothing is set in stone and anything can change. People treat it like it's fact, but most of what we know is based on what we have observed, experimented, and concluded.

Human beings are intelligent, but if we were omniscient, I don't think God would exist, and so many disasters could have been avoided.

@M3J
What makes you think god is willing to torture his followers? I am saying that most of the 'bad' things happens because of humans not because of some god.
Well about flood, firstly if we are going to discuss this then we have to assume there is a god but the moment we assume that there is no point of discussing it.Reason is, god is pure goodness and all those people were acting evil and warned by god. As you can see we cannot make much comments about it because we have only one source. And according to religions with the last prophet(it change religion to religion) god stopped interfering humans(but not complately I suppose).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(biblical_figure) He was willing to make Job's life horrible just to prove to Satan how loyal Job/his followers are. how is this because of humans?

Killing people and animals for whatever reason isn't goodness, it's still murder regardless of how sinful they were. regardless, he's not doing a good job showing that he is good or cares about his "children."

No you can't say like that, there is no proof that if it was chance or not. Don't forget Urey-Miller experiment made in perfect conditions to create amino acid formations, if there were any electronegativity molecule (like oxygen) other than nitrogen then there will be no amino acid or living. I am not saying it is false but we can't act like it is completely right, Urey-Miller experiment is only one possibility. Anyway that doesn't explain my question, all chemical reactions can continues as long as right there are right conditions but when it comes to livings, the moment those reactions ends the moment that living dies.And why does all those reactions happens, why in cell?
And we can't say "we had to evolve", what about other specieses that lived with our ancestors? Why there is a huge gap between other specieses? What makes us evolve so much but not other specieses?

It wasn't made in perfect condition, it was made based on what the scientists thought was in the air of the Earth around when life first formed. There's plenty of proof it was all chance, while there's no proof that it was God. I'm not acting like it's completely right, but I'm seeing it as likely being right unless and until we have proof otherwise.

I'd say research it. It's fascinating, but then again I enjoy learning about stuff like this. I don't know if you would.

Yes we can say that. If we didn't evolve, we would have likely died out. The gap isn't huge, every single species has evolved and continues to evolve, but in different ways. Evolution doesn't follow the same path, it depends on so many different things. It depends on the environment, genetic mutations, whether the traits allow the animal to survive or not, and much more. Other species may not have needed higher intellect because it was surviving just fine or needed different set of skills to survive like stronger legs or different colored fur. The other species that lived with our ancestors are likely why we had to evolve in order to survive. Evolution isn't just mutations of genes, it's mutation that allows the animal to survive, reproduce, and pass the genes on where its brethren may not have said mutation to help them survive or gets a bad mutation which results in its death before it can reproduce.

If there's no danger to the species' survival, then the species' evolution or changes won't be as noticeable, likely due to the population. The theory of evolution has more evidence and makes more sense than God.

 

[z.5]

It could be more influential in a young brain and less in an established one,but it is shaping the mind with choices it makes at every stage. So,could we not make choices,irrespective of brain's initial constitution,which would shape it the way we want?

I am not sure I understand your question.

But I imagine the answer is still no.

So,could we not make choices,irrespective of brain's initial constitution,which would shape it the way we want?

What would we use to make these 'choices' if not the brain?

Also, the brain develops in a plastic way. It builds upon what is already there, in relation to new inputs and signals which it receives.
This means that 'initial construction' isn't really relevant at the end of the say - well, not in the way which I believe you are using it (again, not sure if I got the question).

This would mean that your "shaping it in the way you want" would merely be the brain 'shaping' itself differently according to new stimuli it receives.

It isn't like you could consciously reshape your brain, without using your brain to consciously do it...

Also, 'young' brains may have a higher degree of plasticity, but they still are bound to the exact same rules as 'older' brains.

 

[takneeque]

It isn't like you could consciously reshape your brain, without using your brain to consciously do it...

It is as you understood it.I think I get your point now.I was arguing for the use of brain to make a choice without getting biased from it's analytic or limbic faculty.My mistake was that such a choice would not amount to any sort of will on my part,will being the word I conveniently ignored.Thanks man.

 

[Philia]

Unfortunately, as much as we may wish it to be otherwise, life isn't 'fair'. It never has been - and I doubt that it ever will be.
Some people will always be able to rig the system.
Some people will always be able to get away with breaking the law.

And we have no choice but to accept that? I understand what you're saying. And you're probably right as well. But that does not make our earth a desirable place to live, from my perspective.

Do you live in Turkey? Pardon my intrusion, you seem to a be a bit turkish for me, and you should probably tell your friend to not worry, whatever she has heard about hijabs, plenty of people I know have heard worst, at the end of the day as long as she does not meet those pricks on a daily basis, she should not start to hate Christianty.

I'm not Turkish. I've only lived in China and UK. Currently UK. And I hope you're right. I've not seen any one being made fun of because he/she was christian. But this probably happens in countries where Christians are minority. In China, Chinese government have been oppressing the Uyghur Muslims for decades. And no one really cares about that.
And yeah, I'm not a Muslim. My father was a Christian(not religious) and mother is an atheist.

 

[g01]

Do you live in Turkey? Pardon my intrusion, you seem to a be a bit turkish for me, and you should probably tell your friend to not worry, whatever she has heard about hijabs, plenty of people I know have heard worst, at the end of the day as long as she does not meet those pricks on a daily basis, she should not start to hate Christianty.

Just out of curiosty,what makes you think that he is turk ?

@zimbardo

Yes but we are not just solving human problems but we also try to solve life&death concepts,we are trying to understand how universe works and we are using those informations for our own interests.

Like you said it is important for us to understand our existence but questioning ourselves means that we are aware of ourselves(not that other livings doesn't but this is the first step of complex consciousness).

Emotions,like you said,hard to test.We can observe brains functions during emotional states but that does not explain much about it.Science(biology, physics, chemistry) remained inadequate to observe emotions that's why people developed a field that more fitting for emotions;psychology.
Psychology is the only think that can supress instincts(for humans indeed),that can even supress the survival instinct.Back then you wrote that we do not have free will and I agree with you on certain degree but humans can actually resist and supress those instincts(it might end up bad for that person but humans can do it).
It is not always useful for us,even at time to time dangerous for us so why do we have such...feeling ?

According to psychology isolated people don't show healty behaviors and at some point they might lose their sanity.Society brings cooperation and cooperation brings lots of benefits like increasing survival chances,increase the number of successful hunt,specialized functions...Society is in general useful for every living(perhaps not for every living but right know I do not have any exception in my mind).All multi-celled livings are result of society,cells come together and started to become organization.

As you can see humans do not need complex feelings that might hurt themselves or complex society or understanding universe and working on it but for some reason we are doing all this.That's why I believe we are in a way special.(An important reminder this is what I believe).

@M3J
Okey there is two view here;
1-Like you said some find it horrible
2-Job resist all all those torments and didn't refuse what he think right,by doing that he generously rewarded by god in life and afterlife.And he became example that if people do not lose their faith and live no matter what happenes them then they will be rewarded.And some find it in this way.
I can not say which one is the right or wrong,this is up to people,for none believer this is wrong but for religious this is actually encouraging thing.

You kinda miss my point there,I was trying to say that we do not have any information other than what religions says so it is hard to make comment about it.
Well that depends,in religions those people didn't die just because they didn't believe in god but did horrible things too(child abusing,murders,rape...).So some may think that they do not deserve to live and some may think no one deserves to die no matter what...
I am saying this again,I can not make much comment about it because we do not know if those people did those things or not.

It was made in perfect condition for reaction,they just putted water,methane,amminia and hydrogen with appropriate voltage.As I said earlier what if there were other electronegativity molecule ?There are antithesis and shortcomings so until it is proven right no one can say this is happened.
In Organic Chemistry,there are so many ways to make organic substances,what if not this one but other reaction took place? And even if this happened,how can we deny god's existence with that ? when we say god created to humans,it doesn't mean that god threw us to earth from sky...

Ahh indeed it is fascinating and I did research it.Actually this year I am taking medical biology and genetics and introduction to biomedical,in these two lessons we see so much about humans and livings too but also learned that no one knows why matter took a form,stated to behave and became cell(living).

Like I said to zimp and kkck,I didn't use right words(sorry).When I said gap I shouldn't use evolution word but I should use consciousness and intelligence gap.
And btw not every livings evolve as much as other livings.Some species(like cockroaches) didn't evolve much because of their shell made of chitin.Sun is important factor for evolution and there are so many creatures that live deep in the ocean which sunlight can not reach(so they did not evolve much too)

The theory of evolution has more evidence and makes more sense than God.

Now this is the problem,you are trying to compare believe system with a theory that can be measured and observed.This is complately against to the rules of comparison.And why do you think "god" and evolution can't exist together ?

 

[Hll]

I'm not Turkish. I've only lived in China and UK. Currently UK. And I hope you're right. I've not seen any one being made fun of because he/she was christian. But this probably happens in countries where Christians are minority. In China, Chinese government have been oppressing the Uyghur Muslims for decades. And no one really cares about that.
And yeah, I'm not a Muslim. My father was a Christian(not religious) and mother is an atheist.

Well in India, some Christians were made fun of since they are generally associated with the task of bartering bread, so yes, in Christian minority countries, Christians are made fun of, though nearly everyone else is made fun of as well, Hindhuus, Sikhs(specially these guys.), oh and the Muslims as well, though you never insult a muslim to his face in India,
Well that is sad to here about those Muslims,I didn't even know that there are still ethnic groups of Muslims in China, I thought most of the migrated.

Just out of curiosty,what makes you think that he is turk ?

He sounded quite a bit like you, sorry if this offended you, I don't want to go around pissing off anyone...

Now this is the problem,you are trying to compare believe system with a theory that can be measured and observed.This is completely against to the rules of comparison.And why do you think "god" and evolution can't exist together ?

Coincedentally Darwin, was a devout Christian, and he had no problem in making an allowance for evolution and God, in fact he described his work and figuring out in minute detail how God operates.

 

[z.5]

Spoilered 'cause long...

Spoiler

Yes but we are not just solving human problems but we also try to solve life&death concepts,we are trying to understand how universe works and we are using those informations for our own interests.

I'd say that these are human problems.

I am not sure what you mean by 'life&death concepts' – maybe you mean things like, what happens to us after we die? Or 'what is the meaning of life?' If so, I can not think of a single animal, other than us, which would have need of an answer to these questions.

How the universe works, also known as physics, is only useful to us as we use it to solve problems/create tools and technologies/to fulfil our deep desire for knowledge.
Can you think of any other animals which would need a greater knowledge of these things?
Even animals like corvids or chimpanzees, which can do some pretty impressive (relatively speaking) tool usage, only need understand enough to solve the tasks relevant to their current needs. They certainly have no need of understanding quantum mechanics or any other complicated scientific subject.

Like you said it is important for us to understand our existence but questioning ourselves means that we are aware of ourselves(not that other livings doesn't but this is the first step of complex consciousness).

I didn't say it was necessarily important for us to understand our existence – I said merely that we find questions about our existence to be very interesting. Unless you deem interest to be synonymous with important.

Consciousness is such a difficult thing to examine that I'd argue it is also hard to accurately quantify - thus ordering animals, us included, by degrees of 'consciousness' seems to be a rather pointless exercise.
Are we likely to be more conscious than a chimpanzee? I am not sure – but even if so, by how much? By a great deal, or by a small degree? Does it even make much of a difference in the end?

Emotions,like you said,hard to test.We can observe brains functions during emotional states but that does not explain much about it.Science(biology, physics, chemistry) remained inadequate to observe emotions that's why people developed a field that more fitting for emotions;psychology.

I'd say that the natural sciences are certainly getting better at explaining emotional states.
The problem isn't that we can not trigger an emotive state and examine a reaction – the problem is more related to what this actually means and also how accurately we can compare between individuals.

Psychology is a highly interesting subject, but I would not say that it is free of issues.
It certainly has the risk of being highly subjective in its methodology.

Spoiler

Psychology is the only think that can supress instincts(for humans indeed),that can even supress the survival instinct.

I am not sure I get what you mean here – could you please elaborate?

Back then you wrote that we do not have free will and I agree with you on certain degree but humans can actually resist and supress those instincts(it might end up bad for that person but humans can do it).

Resist and suppress our free will? Or resist and suppress what our brain is telling us?
I don't believe you could do either – as all resistance would merely be an artefact created by the system itself.

It is not always useful for us,even at time to time dangerous for us so why do we have such...feeling ?

The feeling is probably the same as that which makes one believe that they have free will in the first place. It is a bi-product of the computation and merely the system trying to make sense of itself.

Society is in general useful for every living(perhaps not for every living but right know I do not have any exception in my mind).

What about Jaguars or Polar Bears? They are generally solitary predators – this enables them to not have to fight over limited resources, where a large group of them may find it difficult to catch enough food.

As you can see humans do not need complex feelings that might hurt themselves or complex society or understanding universe and working on it but for some reason we are doing all this.

It may be that complicated emotions and complex society go hand in hand.

For example a greater range of emotions may be very useful in increasing our communicative ability – this helps bind our society together more strongly – which in turn further reinforces the usefulness of these emotions.

 

[g01]

@Hll
lol I like philia,in what way we sound like each other ? and don't worry I am not offended

@zimbardo
Well I meant,prolonging the life and solving the death "problem" (I actually do not see death as a problem,I think death is the most necessary thing in this universe).And I am pretty sure every living wants that.

Before answering others I want to point out something,you say that other animals /livings do not need to know about physics or do not need to ask 'what is the meaning of life?' but why us but no other living ? if they do not need to know about these things then why do we need to know all these ?
We can most definitely survive without them yet we are using physics and asking questions...

Well consciousness actually brings questions like "Who am I" and asking questions give birth to philosophy,in a word it is sign of intelligence.

Yeah we can observe certain hormones or proteins and understand their effects on emotions but we both know that emotions are more than that.For example antidepressants are chemical stimulants that inactivates the agents of unhappiness.(we know which part of the brain active while feeling sadness) but most of those antidepressants also caused psychological diseases.(I do not even say how much it damages liver).So biology needs a while to understand emotions.
And like you said every person act as their own,while some shows similar reaction/emotions,some might shows quite the opposite.

I am not sure I get what you mean here – could you please elaborate?

Resist and suppress our free will? Or resist and suppress what our brain is telling us?
I don't believe you could do either – as all resistance would merely be an artefact created by the system itself.

I am talking about "resist and suppress what our brain is telling us".(although source of our psychology is also our brain,that's why I said instincts)
For example resisting the urge of feeding;a person with psychological disorders(depression) might forget feeding or simply do not care about feeding.As a living our strongest urge is try to survive no matter what,yet people commit suicide even though their insticts say otherwise.
Yeah I know all of these examples are caused by depression but there is no need for depression to suppress your insticts.For example we have the urge of breeding yet some cultures and religions do not welcome premarital sexual intercourse so people actually supress their own desire/instinct by following their cultures/religions.Again some cultures and religions wishes voluntary human sacrifice and followers of those believe systems happily give their life.(I can give plenty of examples,like some religions almost completely forbid every kind of pleasure other than "spiritual" ones).

What about Jaguars or Polar Bears? They are generally solitary predators – this enables them to not have to fight over limited resources, where a large group of them may find it difficult to catch enough food.

Yeah jaguars are solitary predators indeed but if we compare them with,let say lions(which they are in same family,they are living in same habitat and their preys are almost same),jaguars can't reach the lion's number of successful hunting.(they usually abused by hyenas and lose the prey they got)

 

[z.5]

Tonight's wall of text

Spoiler

@zimbardo
Well I meant,prolonging the life and solving the death "problem" (I actually do not see death as a problem,I think death is the most necessary thing in this universe).And I am pretty sure every living wants that.[/QUOTE]
I imagine most animals would never even consider their own mortality.

Intelligence appears to be quite a costly thing to have. Resource wise it isn't so cheap.

Evolutionarily speaking, most animals have done pretty well without spending vast amounts of energy into creating large complicated brains – as most don't really need this.

you say that other animals /livings do not need to know about physics or do not need to ask 'what is the meaning of life?' but why us but no other living ? if they do not need to know about these things then why do we need to know all these ?
We can most definitely survive without them yet we are using physics and asking questions...

Again, I make a clear point of saying that I don't believe it is something we need to know about.

Interest doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessary.

Now, is it useful – yes.

Some things more than others – for example, I consider the 'meaning of life' to not be that important a question. I personally feel that it is asking a question to which there is no real answer.
I, personally, consider increasing our knowledge of the workings of the universe to be far more important.

Now, we can survive without a knowledge of physics – our ancestors did pretty well before.
But it damn well helps to know about it.

It has provided us with so many advances, which has made our lives so much easier, and boosted our life expectancy (if that is really all that important to the survival of a species?) drastically.

Well consciousness actually brings questions like "Who am I" and asking questions give birth to philosophy,in a word it is sign of intelligence.

I am not denying that consciousness is a sign of intelligence – purely it's importance and the degree to which humanity is separated from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Yeah we can observe certain hormones or proteins and understand their effects on emotions but we both know that emotions are more than that.

Yeah, they are strong physiological changes combined with complex electrical activity in the central nervous system.

For example antidepressants are chemical stimulants that inactivates the agents of unhappiness.(we know which part of the brain active while feeling sadness) but most of those antidepressants also caused psychological diseases.(I do not even say how much it damages liver).So biology needs a while to understand emotions.

Well, the brain is a complicated thing – it turns out that when you begin to mess around with things like, for example, serotonin reuptake in the brain and you do it indiscriminately, then it can lead to all kinds of changes.

The problem is that neurotransmitters, like seratonin or norepinephrine, tend to have effects throughout the brain.
So, although you may be effecting the activity of synapses in the areas you want – you also have effects in the areas you don't.

a person with psychological disorders(depression) might forget feeding or simply do not care about feeding.As a living our strongest urge is try to survive no matter what,yet people commit suicide even though their insticts say otherwise.

Well, at the risk of trivialising a horrible issue – their instincts perhaps are not telling them strongly enough not to take their own lives.
People who take their own lives tend to be very depressed – this is obviously weighed into the calculations which their brains are doing and the outcome is that they want to take drastic measures.

I am not quite sure where this topic is going though – I feel it is getting even further away from the thread topic “Religious discussion” than our current conversations about 'free will'.

For example we have the urge of breeding yet some cultures and religions do not welcome premarital sexual intercourse so people actually supress their own desire/instinct by following their cultures/religions.Again some cultures and religions wishes voluntary human sacrifice and followers of those believe systems happily give their life.(I can give plenty of examples,like some religions almost completely forbid every kind of pleasure other than "spiritual" ones).

These are societal factors – if we are still talking about how these things can be accounted for in the theory of evolution, you need to understand that evolution doesn't require survival of the individual, the species is all that matters.

Plus a little extra

Spoiler

Yeah jaguars are solitary predators indeed but if we compare them with,let say lions(which they are in same family,they are living in same habitat and their preys are almost same),jaguars can't reach the lion's number of successful hunting.(they usually abused by hyenas and lose the prey they got)

And polar bears? Platypuses? Leopards? Moles? Tigers? Sloths? Giant Pandas?

There are many, many, animals which live (mostly) solitary lives. Do they all suffer out for not living in large groups?

Would jaguars really do much better if they did?

 

[g01]

I imagine most animals would never even consider their own mortality.
Intelligence appears to be quite a costly thing to have. Resource wise it isn't so cheap.
Evolutionarily speaking, most animals have done pretty well without spending vast amounts of energy into creating large complicated brains – as most don't really need this.

Indeed they didn't but each and every one of them has the urge of live.
Indeed beacuse like you said they didn't need to.

Again, I make a clear point of saying that I don't believe it is something we need to know about.

Interest doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessary.

Now, is it useful – yes.

Some things more than others – for example, I consider the 'meaning of life' to not be that important a question. I personally feel that it is asking a question to which there is no real answer.
I, personally, consider increasing our knowledge of the workings of the universe to be far more important.

But isn't that up to people ? I mean you think it is not important(I think it is not important too) but for some people it is important to know it(and it is philosophy's responsibility to ask this,no matter if it has an answer or not).

Well, at the risk of trivialising a horrible issue – their instincts perhaps are not telling them strongly enough not to take their own lives.
People who take their own lives tend to be very depressed – this is obviously weighed into the calculations which their brains are doing and the outcome is that they want to take drastic measures.

Well perhaps some's instincts are not telling them enough but what about other's instincts telling are telling them enough ?
Depression is a psychological condition,it has nothing to do with instincts.People,just by being sad,can effect their organs activity and become sick.In advanced level of depression or overlapping life problems has a strong effect on formation of cancer.This is the proof that our emotions are the strongest force in human life not our instincts(although during childhood our instincts works more than our emotions I supoose).
Anyway like you said we are kinda out of topic I suppose.

These are societal factors – if we are still talking about how these things can be accounted for in the theory of evolution, you need to understand that evolution doesn't require survival of the individual, the species is all that matters.

No I am not talking about evolution,that was "free will" thing.My point was that people do not live according to their instincts but they are living as their emotions want.A brainwashed man can kill himself and take pleasure the idea of it while his instincts screaming that he musn't do that.

What I am trying to say is,I believe that humans are not just any living but speical one and I believe there is a god that made us who we are now by natural and universal laws.

And polar bears? Platypuses? Leopards? Moles? Tigers? Sloths? Giant Pandas?

There are many, many, animals which live (mostly) solitary lives. Do they all suffer out for not living in large groups?

Would jaguars really do much better if they did?

they don't have to suffer beacuse they are solitary,I am just saying that sociability provides more advantage.As I said before all of those animals bodies are actually are socialized eukaryotic cells. Wouldn't they ?
Anyway I see your point(just figured that what I said does not work on snakes).Although we are kinda out of topic again I suppose.

Anyway good night and thanks for your replies.(sorry if I made any typo I am tired)

 

[z.5]

Spoiler

Indeed they didn't but each and every one of them has the urge of live.

That's not really true – some species, such as the carpenter ant, will sacrifice themselves to save the colony.

The individual's urge to live isn't very strong – especially not when compared to their will for the colony to survive.

...that was "free will" thing.My point was that people do not live according to their instincts but they are living as their emotions want.A brainwashed man can kill himself and take pleasure the idea of it while his instincts screaming that he musn't do that.

In the majority of situations, instincts can not be separated out so freely. They are just a cog in the whole mechanism.

It isn't like they are part of a competing system.

What I am trying to say is,I believe that humans are not just any living but speical one and I believe there is a god that made us who we are now by natural and universal laws.

We love to find reasons why we are special, and somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. However, each time we find something which appears to make us stand out, we often find out that it is not so special in the end – with other animals displaying similar, if not identical, behaviours and abilities.

It has been language, brain literality, cognition, tool use, empathy, jealousy, self-awareness...

Even if humans were somehow 'special', which I just can not see, I still don't see how this relates to any god.

they don't have to suffer beacuse they are solitary,I am just saying that sociability provides more advantage.

But what is to say that they are suffering due to their isolation?

It may be that, for their situation, it is a better situation for them to be in.

The fact that it keeps popping up as a behaviour amongst (particularly predators) animals, suggests that it can't be as much of a hindrance as it possibly could be.

Anyway good night and thanks for your replies.(sorry if I made any typo I am tired)

Enjoy your sleep

 

[xi0]

*psst, this is a discussion thread, spoiler tags aren't necessary*

 

[kannazuki]

One question I want to know, is most of the discussion here only about Christianity and Islam?
I was wondering if there are bits of Judaism here or if there are traces of Hindhusims, Buddhisim here as well, anyways.

In spite of being born a Catholic, I never really felt naturally inclined to this kind of belief, and growing up, I actually got more and more reason to not really buy into this, I don't wish to get into such technical debates, if possible.

But for any devout Christians here, why is so much importance given to the whole story of the formation of Israel, and the story of Jesus Christ Life, not that these things are not important, but...his actual teaching's are just smal footnotes in comparison to this amount of exposition, why is that?

Very good question. There is quite a focus on law (and punishments) in the Old Testament, but you wouldn't know that from speaking to Christians who claim to adhere to it. At the same time, like you say, people focus so much on the superficial narrative of Jesus' story instead of what he actually taught, they've kind of lost track of what he was saying. Personally, if I'm being completely honest, I think most folks with the access to have their voices broadcast in popular media find the main crux of Christ's message politically inconvenient.

 

[M3J]

@M3J
Okey there is two view here;
1-Like you said some find it horrible
2-Job resist all all those torments and didn't refuse what he think right,by doing that he generously rewarded by god in life and afterlife.And he became example that if people do not lose their faith and live no matter what happenes them then they will be rewarded.And some find it in this way.
I can not say which one is the right or wrong,this is up to people,for none believer this is wrong but for religious this is actually encouraging thing.

He was still tortured and had his life played with just because God wanted to prove a point. that's not nice. If God was benevolent, he wouldn't be hurting people just to show no matter what he does, they'll still kiss his ass.

It was made in perfect condition for reaction,they just putted water,methane,amminia and hydrogen with appropriate voltage.As I said earlier what if there were other electronegativity molecule ?There are antithesis and shortcomings so until it is proven right no one can say this is happened.
In Organic Chemistry,there are so many ways to make organic substances,what if not this one but other reaction took place? And even if this happened,how can we deny god's existence with that ? when we say god created to humans,it doesn't mean that god threw us to earth from sky...

Ahh indeed it is fascinating and I did research it.Actually this year I am taking medical biology and genetics and introduction to biomedical,in these two lessons we see so much about humans and livings too but also learned that no one knows why matter took a form,stated to behave and became cell(living).

Like I said to zimp and kkck,I didn't use right words(sorry).When I said gap I shouldn't use evolution word but I should use consciousness and intelligence gap.
And btw not every livings evolve as much as other livings.Some species(like cockroaches) didn't evolve much because of their shell made of chitin.Sun is important factor for evolution and there are so many creatures that live deep in the ocean which sunlight can not reach(so they did not evolve much too)

Now this is the problem,you are trying to compare believe system with a theory that can be measured and observed.This is complately against to the rules of comparison.And why do you think "god" and evolution can't exist together ?

But you're acting as if they set it up to be perfect when from what we know, they set it up as how they think the atmosphere must have existed back then based on the evidence and clues they had. But one can say this likely happened because it's still proof. You can't say it couldn't have happened just because you think there could have been other electronegative molecules.

There are theories for that, and the Urey-Miller presents one possible theory that could be true.

They don't, at least not in the same rate because like I said, there's no need for natural selection to do its job if the species is thriving regardless. Many creatures who didn't evolve much or as rapidly likely don't need to because they can survive. Why do cockroaches need to evolve at a rapid rate when they can already survive almost anything? The animals without the traits needed to survive won't die off, and if the animals with genetic mutations that are favorable are pretty rare or rare, then you're less likely to see the evolution given the population size.

That's not a problem, especially with how people keep saying there's evidence for God. God and evolution can exist together, and I've said this before, but my stance is that God is not real, and evolution is more credible than creationism.

*psst, this is a discussion thread, spoiler tags aren't necessary*

Long discussions can make things annoying because it means longer pages and more scrolling.

Very good question. There is quite a focus on law (and punishments) in the Old Testament, but you wouldn't know that from speaking to Christians who claim to adhere to it. At the same time, like you say, people focus so much on the superficial narrative of Jesus' story instead of what he actually taught, they've kind of lost track of what he was saying. Personally, if I'm being completely honest, I think most folks with the access to have their voices broadcast in popular media find the main crux of Christ's message politically inconvenient.

There's a video out where a group of people took the Bible and disguised it as Qu'ran. They made people read it and then revealed that it was actually the Bible that had these horrific acts as well.

Shows that people are selective readers and/or contradictory.

 

[z.5]

*psst, this is a discussion thread, spoiler tags aren't necessary*

Meh, it looks neater to me - rather than seeing walls and walls of text.

Also,

 

[g01]

That's not really true – some species, such as the carpenter ant, will sacrifice themselves to save the colony.

The individual's urge to live isn't very strong – especially not when compared to their will for the colony to survive.

Yeah perhaps I should of say mammals.(well most likely there are exceptions of what I said,it is really hard to make generalization)

In the majority of situations, instincts can not be separated out so freely. They are just a cog in the whole mechanism.

It isn't like they are part of a competing system.

My point was,normally emotions and instincts are not working against each other but if they some how collide then emotions suppresses and as far as we know this is only happens to humans.

We love to find reasons why we are special, and somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. However, each time we find something which appears to make us stand out, we often find out that it is not so special in the end – with other animals displaying similar, if not identical, behaviours and abilities.

It has been language, brain literality, cognition, tool use, empathy, jealousy, self-awareness...

Even if humans were somehow 'special', which I just can not see, I still don't see how this relates to any god.

Can't we separate ourselves from other animals ? We most definitely can,in fact we are separating every livings based on degree of kinship,organ similarity (simply taxonomy)..
You are saying that "They didn't need to have complex feelings,sociability,understanding of themselves or universe",this is my point,they didn't neeed to so they do not have any of them yet we do so it separate us from them.If you are going to say they could of have these then I am saying that it doesn't matter if they could,we are not talking about possibilities.
No,in some cases(like I said before) they do not show any behaviours that we display.We,humans,do not show same behaviours or even we are displaying
opposite actions while facing with same events.
According to psychology,when it comes to feeling and actions that behavior that caused by feelings,humans are unequaled.

Of course I am not saying there is god just because of all these but there are lot other reasons for me.

But what is to say that they are suffering due to their isolation?

It may be that, for their situation, it is a better situation for them to be in.

The fact that it keeps popping up as a behaviour amongst (particularly predators) animals, suggests that it can't be as much of a hindrance as it possibly could be.

Losing their hunt ?,become more vulnerable to other hunters?,difficulties in the protection of their babies?

As I said,for some it is not useful at all(for snakes what is the point of catching a prey together with other snakes) but some of the isolated species shows social cooperation if there is no problem of prey(especially spiders shows that kind of behavior).
Anyway this is taking longer than I expected,we are out of the topic I suppose.

Ahh thanks, I enjoy it btw thanks for replies

@M3J

He was still tortured and had his life played with just because God wanted to prove a point. that's not nice. If God was benevolent, he wouldn't be hurting people just to show no matter what he does, they'll still kiss his ass.

And he got eternal happness,he will get whatever he wishes.Considering the payment he got there,that pain is nothing.
Well does it matter if god is benevolent or not if we act wrong ?(I am not talking about job's case) according to religions it was a lesson and job didn't suffer for nothing,if he wants he can forget about that pain.

But you're acting as if they set it up to be perfect when from what we know, they set it up as how they think the atmosphere must have existed back then based on the evidence and clues they had. But one can say this likely happened because it's still proof. You can't say it couldn't have happened just because you think there could have been other electronegative molecules.

Well there are other evidences of carbon dioxide, nitrogen,hydrogen sulfide,sulfur dioxide(and this is likely when we consider volcanic eruptions).If we make experiments using these gases we got totally different molecules.
Even if we put water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen,that reaction happens as long as there is no oxygen but there were oxygen molecules.
There are so many things that missing and we still do not know much about moleceles that atmosphere contained back then.Back than I said that organic molecules might be formed by some other reaction.
My point is miller-urey experiment might be true or might be wrong but you are insistently acting like it happened.In science exceptions break the rules,you can't just say "it is likely and we have some proofs that it happened,i think it is right so we should explain the first livings with this experiment".Don't misunderstand me,I am not saying this experiments didn't happen or this can't be true.

There are theories for that, and the Urey-Miller presents one possible theory that could be true.

Yes it is but that doesn't answer my question actually there is no evidence that explain my question.(Urey-Miller showed us how did first organic substances be formed but that does not tell us how and why there is "cell" or "living")

That's not a problem, especially with how people keep saying there's evidence for God. God and evolution can exist together, and I've said this before, but my stance is that God is not real, and evolution is more credible than creationism.

Well that is their wrong,no one can prove god or prove that god doesn't exists.Only follw their own logics and deside if they believe in god or not.

And thank you for your replies too

 

[z.5]

Ahh thanks, I enjoy it btw thanks for replies

As I said before, no need to thank me - it has been an interesting discussion.

However, I feel we have gone far past the point of this thread, and I feel that we seem to have a fundamental difference in our opinions of humanity (especially how special we are in the grand scheme of things), so, before we get into a never ending loop of examples and counter examples, I will stop it here.

Keep on truckin'!