Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Without God is life meaningless?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    estebancambias
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,103 ✭✭✭estebancambias


    Ok USE I am going to have to kill you. LOL.

    The quote I actually had in mind had hints of racism, so I decided not to post it.


  • Options
    #33
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    estebancambias wrote: »
    Ok USE I am going to have to kill you. LOL.

    The quote I actually had in mind had hints of racism, so I decided not to post it.

    :eek:


  • Options
    #34
    adamd164
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭adamd164


    Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!


  • Options
    #35
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    adamd164 wrote: »
    Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!

    :confused:


  • Options
    #36
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    adamd164 wrote: »
    Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!

    mid-19th century. I know you knew that, just a typo!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Lol!


  • Options
    #38
    adamd164
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭adamd164


    Not every typing mistake has to be a slip-of-the-finger, you know. Obviously I know he lived in the 19th century: my entire point about racism would have been fairly meaningless otherwise, no?


  • Options
    #39
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    adamd164 wrote: »
    Not every typing mistake has to be a slip-of-the-finger, you know. Obviously I know he lived in the 19th century: my entire point about racism would have been fairly meaningless otherwise, no?

    Eh? Sorry don't get that. What has Darwin living in the 20th century got to do with racism? (Yes I am a little slow!;))


  • Options
    #40
    adamd164
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭adamd164


    What has Darwin got to do with the question of social politics at all?


  • Options
    #41
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    adamd164 wrote: »
    What has Darwin got to do with the question of social politics at all?

    touché!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    It's hardly important if Darwin was a racist or not, or if he was into water sports and liked dressing in women's clothes......... It's irrelevent


  • Options
    #43
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    Wicknight wrote: »
    We have evolved to accept that killing someone is wrong.


    Where does this thinking come from? Is it wrong by law or wrong morally?

    In some parts of the world it's legal have prisoners executed. Is this killing right or wrong?


  • Options
    #44
    estebancambias
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,103 ✭✭✭estebancambias


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    It's hardly important if Darwin was a racist or not, or if he was into water sports and liked dressing in women's clothes......... It's irrelevent

    I don't think its relevant, I don't think he was racist either.

    "I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."


  • Options
    #45
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Splendour wrote: »
    Where does this thinking come from? Is it wrong by law or wrong morally?

    It isn't thinking, its instinct. I comes from evolution, and manifests itself in the form of emotions, such as guilt.

    There have been some very interesting studies done in times of war over how bad humans are at actually killing people. We have a large number of intinctive biological systems set up to stop us killing others.

    While it obviously doesn't apply to everyone (biological systems don't manifest themselves the same in everyone) it seems that the majority of humans find killing of other people (or even animals they identify as possessing personality) very difficult, to the point that in times of war this can lead to strong mental problems. After the D-Day landings medical doctors found that the only people not effected by the prolonged engagements were those who were probably psychotic already.
    Splendour wrote: »
    In some parts of the world it's legal have prisoners executed. Is this killing right or wrong?

    I believe it is morally wrong, yes. Others rationalise that it isn't. But I believe they are wrong as well.

    The issue that someone humans have is that they feel this isn't good enough. They require a higher authority to decide what is or is not wrong in the same way that a child may look to his parents (God the Father) to make moral rulings when they themselves are unsure or nervous about having to decide themselves.

    In reality though they are simply handing over to another group of humans, and often humans that didn't make particular good moral decisions in the first place (for example the Old Testament).


  • Options
    #46
    estebancambias
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,103 ✭✭✭estebancambias


    Sorry for the bump, but what is your opinion on this quote:

    ''Individuals are insignificant. Only the genes win at the end.''


  • Options
    #47
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    It may (I dunno) be true from a biological perspective, but we have well developed brains, so we can make of life what we wish.


  • Options
    #48
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    estebancambias wrote: »
    Sorry for the bump, but what is your opinion on this quote:

    ''Individuals are insignificant. Only the genes win at the end.''

    It looks like a poor attempt to take a quote from an evolutionary biologist made in a specific context and construe it as if he's talking about society and morals and advocating a society that doesn't "care" about the "individual".

    Am I wrong?

    Also it kind of depends on who "individuals are insignificant" to. To nature and natural selection as a process then yes, probably you could argue that, to the *author* or to *us* in general as humans? Then obviously not.

    To a vengeful, spiteful genocidal God? Most definitely.


  • Options
    #49
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    pH wrote: »
    It looks like a poor attempt to take a quote from an evolutionary biologist made in a specific context and construe it as if he's talking about society and morals and advocating a society that doesn't "care" about the "individual".

    Am I wrong?
    Nope. That's exactly what I thought.

    Exactly the kind of spin that twat from "Expelled" was spouting in the Youtube interview with Pat Robertson.


  • Options
    #50
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    You can't have an individual without genes. Personality is as much shaped by genes as is, say, the immune system. Both are altered by environment of course, but its a very theist sort of notion that the mind is some how exempt from phenotype.


Advertisement