quote:

---

Come to think of it, April 1st might be the perfect day to celebrate "National Atheists Day." Nothing in life is more foolish than denying the existence of God, since He has left indisputable proof!

---

Since we are in the laughing and enjoying a bit of jest mood, this was quite comic to my eyes.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
While we're on it, Dag, I just wanted to tell you that I respect you a lot. There's a lot of points on which we disagree, but you disagree with respect and actually listen to what you are told.
So I love you, in a very platonic way
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I have to second that, Anna. Whenever I read something from Dag I disagree with I really have to stop and analyze why I disagree.

I think we agree more often than not, but when we disagree that fact alone gives me pause. His opinions are among those I respect the most.

[edit for spelling]

[ April 01, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Geez Jay, you're about as good at cracking jokes as an aging prostitute at the end of a long night of cheap sex and crack cocaine.
 

---

Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
 
KarlEd, very well put. Props to Dag.

Whenever I read something written by Jay that I disagree with, I just roll my eyes.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I do that too !
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
<--- Jay smiley?
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Could be.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Guess it’s like that British humor that I don’t get.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I guess that's like a lot of things you don't get.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
*resists**

*well, mostly
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"For those of you easily offended, get off your high horse and laugh a little, it’s a joke!

Well, a joke with a serious twist. Something to think about."

I submit, Jay, that a joke which intentionally offends in order to give someone something to think about is not "just a joke." Give that some thought.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Well said.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Seems that pretty much every joke is offensive to someone. So maybe we should outlaw jokes.

Oh well. I knew there’d be some who couldn’t take the joke. Figured it was worth it none the less. And yeah, it is intended to be more then just a joke.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
If it's "more than a joke" then I guess people could be right to take it as an offense.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I guess if they’re offended something in their heart is bugging them that maybe they need to think about. Good.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
More humor, I love it!
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I'm a believer, and I felt offended on behalf of all the atheists I care for. So I guess there's nothing I should "take time to think about" except maybe how the intolerance of other believers sometimes make me embarassed to belong to their ranks.How ironic would it be if a "firm believer" like you actually made me reconsider my choices and come back to agnosticism ?

[ April 01, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Um, I wouldn't normally reply to this thread but I'm conducting some immaturish thread arrangement.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess if they’re offended something in their heart is bugging them that maybe they need to think about.

---

Or maybe you're being offensive. It could be that.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I believe Jay is a demon. Remember in "Good Omens" when Rampa actually makes more wrong in annoying a lot of people than in damnating one poor soul at a time ?
*sends good vibes to everyone, including herself*
No reason to spend any time to answer this kind of thinking, I'm afraid.

[ April 01, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
Lame. And you probably wonder why Athiests get defensive.


 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You guys are all stupid! Ha ha ha! And I'm only half joking! Ha!

Of course if you don't think it's funny there must be something wrong with you. Jeez, excuse a guy for having a sense of humor...



There are ways this could have been presented that would be funny, even to atheists. This wasn't one of them.

[ April 01, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

Seems that pretty much every joke is offensive to someone.

---

1. That was the point.
2. It's a joke about inclines and gravity rolling the egg across the street.

quote:

---

It's a joke about inclines and gravity rolling the egg across the street.

---

What, that's it?

Fine: Why does the elephant have four feet?
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Eggs are pretty tough.

I don't know. Why does an Elephant have Four Feet?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Because four inches wouldn't satisfy his lady friend.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I figured it was something like that.

*groan*


 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Why did the egg cross the street?

Because the best yolks run.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Ewwww….. now that’s bad…….

It’s also funny because of the irony.
 

---

Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
 

quote:

---

Eggs are pretty tough.

---

We always have at least one break when we boil them. I think they ARE tought, but tend to have "imperfections" in their strong structures that give them a tendency to break when bumped just hard enough in the wrong (right?) place.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
What's ironic about an elephantine penis?
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Names for imporant days in "holy week"

Jesus on his ass Day - Palm Sunday

Ritual Cannibalism Day - Maundy Thursday

Christ on a Stick Day - Good Friday

Jesus is Dead Day - Saturday after Good Friday

Zombie Jesus Day - Easter

Hey, don't get mad Jay, just get off your high horse and enjoy the Joke. Well, a Joke with a serious twist.

(Other christians out there: I'm JUST KIDDING to get under Jay's skin! Don't get upset!)

Pix

(edit: Spelling)

[ April 01, 2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
I think Twinky had his happy hour a bit early today.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
He's been like this all day!
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Which reminds me - does anyone know if Jesus saw his shadow or not?

I don't know if I can take any more winter.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
You don't have spring? We have spring .
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

What's ironic about an elephantine penis?

---

quote:

---

The most perplexing aspect of musth is the continual streaming of urine down the legs of the males. It seems incredible wasteful for gallons of liquids to flow out of an animal that spends most of its time walking between water holes. Besides the waste, there is always the risk of infection, especially seeing the penis becomes coated in an algal layer, giving it a green sheen, and resulting in the nickname of GP-syndrome, or green penis syndrome of the highest level of musth.

---

quote:

---

I think Twinky had his happy hour a bit early today.

---

More accurately, I am approaching an entire happy weekend.

quote:

---

He's been like this all day!

---

You've been watching?
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Today, you've been kind of hard to ignore.

EDIT: I've not been ignoring you either. I'm just not creepy. I do not mean this in a creepy way.

I know I'm not the only person to have noticed.

[ April 01, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Hey Pix you forgot to put those with a bible verse so they made sense like the original joke, which is what made it ironic.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Skillery--that was a fascinating article.

Male elephants in musth sound like Vulcans in "heat".
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Oh and Jesus made for a terrible character witness - he got nailed on cross.

-Trevor

Edit: eek - the dangers of thread-hopping.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Today, you've been kind of hard to ignore.

---

That's it, I'm leaving.

Soon. (In about 25 minutes, to be precise. And then you'll have to do without me for the whole weekend. So there!)
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
When I first saw this thread, I thought, what an a**. And then I thought well, no it's kind of funny, you know, Jay supporting atheists on April Fools day... Eh, whatever.

But when I clicked on the thread I realized I was right the first time.

On behalf of all the atheists I know, Jay and all of the Christians, you are an a**.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

That's it, I'm leaving.

---

I didn't mean it that way! Arg.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I wasn't trying to parody you, Jay.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Did you not notice the last line, which implied strongly that I was kidding?

I've been in a goofy mood all day because I'm excited about this weekend. That, coupled with extreme boredom due to lack of work to do at work (I mean, honestly, they give me a task and expect it to take several hours, then I'm done in several minutes and nobody has anything more for me to do), has resulted in what is probably my highest sustained post rate on any forum ever today.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Tesh is a little high-strung.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I'll keep that in mind for the Hatrack Canada gathering.

Teshi, you know I was kidding with the "You've been watching? " thing too, right?
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Yes I did notice .

I am just continuing my knee-jerk tradition of worrying that I have being misunderstood.

(I'm so misunderstood! )

EDIT: I am not as naive as I claim to be, appear or act.

EDIT: In fact, lets just pretend the last few posts never occured because its really a waste of space.

EDIT:

quote:

---

I'll keep that in mind for the Hatrack Canada gathering.

---

*cries* DON'T. I am not high strung. I can take a joke. See? Now I've dug myself a hole of misconception from which I cannot escape!

The reason I am a freak when it comes to joke-conversation is because it so rarely happens to me because everyone assumes I cannot take the joke. Vicious cycle.

ARG.

[ April 01, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I dunno, I found them amusing. I just wanted to make sure that you did, too.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I’m so hurt. Not!
God is the one who called atheists fools.
April Fools Day is fools day.
So basically anything you’re calling me you’re basically calling God since the site was just quoting Him.
And that’s not very funny.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Given that god doesn't exist, I certainly find that somewhat amusing.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
What exactly do you think athiests will "think about" right after you call them fools, how true The Bible is?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
*sings*

Oh I'm proud to be an agnostic!
Cause at least I know I'm free!
And I won't forget that man who died
on that alleged tree.
And I'll gladly stand up, next to you and defend your right to think differently!
Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land!
*dramatic echo* ...love this land...
Hypothetical God/Universe/Life Force/Nothing At All bless the USA!

[ April 01, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

God is the one who called atheists fools.

---

quote:

---

ARG.

---

I'm sorry, your last edit there really amused me. I will take you at your word, though, and continue to joke around you when I feel so inclined.


 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
I don't believe in atheists.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Thank. You.

*dies*
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
2 Corinthians 11:16 - I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

Proverbs 18:2 - A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs.

---

 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Is that like that the forum rules? Where are those by the way….
Also, I am glad that we have established that atheism is a religion. Now we should separate it from our public schools.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Jay, you have gone way to far.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Hey, Dags, why didn't you quote that at me? Given up? Anyway, my mocking-the-other-side thread went on for seven pages. Bet this one dies in three. That will show you.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, I am glad that we have established that atheism is a religion.

---

Riiiiiight...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Is that like that the forum rules? Where are those by the way….

---

quote:

---

Also, I am glad that we have established that atheism is a religion. Now we should separate it from our public schools.

---

quote:

---

Hey, Dags, why didn't you quote that at me? Given up? [Wink] Anyway, my mocking-the-other-side thread went on for seven pages. Bet this one dies in three. That will show you.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is a scattered and disparate band of people who all share a strong belief that there is no god

---

I thought we recently established that many self-identified atheists don't have a "string belief that there is no god."

You guys need to get organized and let us know what's going on.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Lack of proof does not disprove.

Choosing to believe that God doesn't exist is every bit an act of faith as believing He does exist.

Which forms the basis of a religion.

That said, I kinda like Bev's word - "apathist."

It just slides off the tounge.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

share a strong belief that there is no god

---

quote:

---

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, whether i can see it or not.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure there are some atheists who put some real thought and science behind their reasoning. The rest, and I believe the majority, are just a bunch of lazy addicts (fools).

---

And this distinguishes athiesm from Christianity, how?

You know, it's not all that productive to just out and out disparage an entire group of people, but when the group you belong to is as bad or worse, it doesn't even make sense.

There's plenty to be learned from the conflicting worldviews of atheists and theists, but calling the other group bad as the entirety of your argument is just immature and dumb.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
My Kama has come back to haunt me!



-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Sigh. I know I shouldn't nitpick, but...

quote:

---

Of course, there are plenty of self-proclaimed "apatheists" who admittedly just don't really care. They don't put thought into it because it's not worth giving their thought too.

---

Or they've put a great deal of thought into it, and decided they don't have enough reason to make a decision.

I've recently reread a quote from OSC's Xenocide which describes my religious status perfectly. It's where Han Fei-tzu is talking about the Life of Human.

quote:

---

"I can't be sure, no. Nature has done many strange things, and there is a chance that the Life of Human is genuine and true. Thus I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. I hold it in abeyance. I wait."

---

quote:

---

Or they've put a great deal of thought into it, and decided they don't have enough reason to make a decision.

---

quote:

---

Lack of proof does not disprove.

---

quote:

---

Until you have evidense that something exists, it is a safe assumption that it does not.

---

quote:

---

Most Christians are Christians because they are weak, immature people, and it shows. The same can be said for most athiests.

---

quote:

---

But the basic tenet still holds true, reasonable assumption or not - the lack of proof for the positive does not substitute for proof of the negative.

---

quote:

---

listening to people call me wishy-washy gets boring so I've decided to relax and pick the more whimsical label.

---

Seems like you're kind of screwed either way. If you're an "agnostic" then you're "wishy-washy," but if you're an "apatheist" then apparently you're "lazy." But after giving it a good five minutes I'm still not clever enough to come up with anything better.

Edit: quote

[ April 01, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Now that I'm a Christian, I'll begin by posting words of love from the Bible. For example:

Ps 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
For the record, I never called "apatheists" lazy. And I don't think agnostics are wishy-washy.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

the line of argument you're pursuing

---

quote:

---

Nobody ever declared a crusade over the proper way to hunt for Bigfoot. But belief in God has large implications for the way we structure society, and as I've said before, I think any form of religion, organised or not, is a net loss.

---

quote:

---

If it cannot be proved, it remains in abeyance. It remains in a state of is/not is. The eigenstate has not yet collapsed, if you want to get all quantum about it. Does it make the slightest bit of difference to you if Bigfoot exists or not? If not, if it's not keeping you awake or anything, then why assume his nonexistence?

---

quote:

---

and teach people that they are unable to be good

---

If people aren't able to consistently do good without external help, then your philosophy is fatal to human decency.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You can certainly argue that we cannot prove that Gravity works the way the theory speculates and that it will always function the way we expect it.

Until a better answer comes along, however, we are willing to accept and work within the constraints of the notion.

Accepting that notion, God falls in the same category. Until a better notion comes along that forces a change in the thought process, there is nothing to adequately disprove the existence of God.

I tend to agree - until God or an agent I cannot deny makes His will manifest in such a fashion I cannot blame a bit of undigested bit of beer or an underdone potato, I cannot cast my lot in with the believers.

However, lack of practical proof does not change the existence of God. Long before we had any understanding of how science worked and man clung to sacrificing chickens to make fire work, fire still worked. Rocks, when dropped, fell. We couldn't prove how it happened or why - but we knew it did.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
As opposed to religion's long record of encouraging decency?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
And while nobody has organized a crusade over Bigfoot, I will submit that the occasional government has attempted to squash, squelch and otherwise suppress if not outright exterminate religious beliefs and those who practiced them.

Sweet Goddess, I'm arguing for the theists now.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Decency as defined by the social values of the time?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
No, I don't think that all people are bad. I do think that many people need or want guidance above and beyond "you shouldn't do that" to overcome their own self interests for the benefit of the society in which they live.

A common question when the subject of agnosticism comes up is "but if you don't believe in God and eternal judgment, what's keeping you from running around shooting people?" All that question does for me is point out the obvious collorary: that the belief in God and eternal judgment just might be the ony thing keeping some people from doing just that.

I don't think people are naturally good or bad. I think they're people. I imagine you've worked with plenty of different people in your life. Tell me, how many needed to-do lists and constant nudging and how many worked because they saw what needed doing?

Note to my religious friends: yep, this is a horrible disservice to religion. I'm aware of that; I'm just arguing a small aspect.

[ April 01, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

As opposed to religion's long record of encouraging decency?

---

quote:

---

Jay, who is a pretty good example of a christian with some pretty severe failings?

---

quote:

---

*sings some more*

I'm an atheist and I'm OK.
I sleep all night and I work all day!

---

Telp, I think I love you.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Yeah Dag, the only way I could counter that was if I, who don't hold myself to an external moral system, wasn;t the depraved would be murderous rapist who is only held back by the threat of the police that I must be under your philosophy. Or if there were any examples of all at people who lived empathetic lives without such an system imposed on them. Oh woe, my position is so untenable.

---

quote:

---

If you're going to make an argument against what I'm saying, make an argument, don't just keep throwing assumptions at me.

---

quote:

---

I do what I do because I choose to, because it springs out of who I am. My guiding moral principle is empathy, whcih comes from inside me.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, I've renounced the Christian basis of morality. I choose my actions and not against external constraints. I've organized my approach to the world on very different principles. I am a better person than is average for my society because I reject the system.

---

quote:

---

Christians have been really bad people for most of history.

---

quote:

---

by presenting evidence

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about historical fact. Most Christians have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages through most of history. Their history is one of atrocities and exploitation.

---

*PEOPLE* have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages. That most of Western civilization was Christian for the last couple thousand years is irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

Most Christians have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages through most of history. Their history is one of atrocities and exploitation.

---

quote:

---

Consider the description of various aboriginal Americans as peaceloving, gentle, and altruisitic by their Christian European killers and conquerors

---

quote:

---

Most Christians have been ignorant, cruel, bloodthirsty, power hungry savages through most of history. Their history is one of atrocities and exploitation.

---

quote:

---

don't understand how you can divorce motivation from morality. Morality breaks down into what people do, what people intend to do, or some combination of these.

---

quote:

---

Unless you're either denying free will or saying that what people do is not tied to their motivations, I don't see how motivation isn't the primary force between any of those three.

---

quote:

---

Christian theology historically was aimed towards the powerful, at least starting with Augustine and Constantine. Power corrupts and because power was the central office of Christianity for so long, the immature power seekers and those who appealed to them guided must of Christian theology.

---

quote:

---

Could you give me examples of these wonderful things that the historical Christians did?

---

quote:

---

but I'm willing to stand by the statement that the historical record has it as being bad guys in the majority.

---

quote:

---

And the communities that Luther and Calvin were hardly marked by their charity. Luther himself regarded it as the least of virtues and calvinist thought usually regarded it as against God's plan.

---

quote:

---

Though I do wonder about some of their treatment of POWs during the war.

---

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Good one!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I don't recall us skinning people alive....



Sometimes I think people have forgotten just how cruel humans can be.

I am not trying to justify torture of our POWs. But the comparison pales.

[ April 01, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
So I guess it's ok to throw stones then.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
bev,
There's plenty of evidence that aspects of the structure and beliefs of Christianity are shared by other aggressive, violent, savagish cultures. Most of the things I'm talking about are applied from anthropology, sociology, and psychology after the fact. That is, they were developed without Christianity in mind, but where either applied to Christianity in later sutdies or I'm just doing it here. For example, I've brought up in a couple of thread thats up until at least 1975 (the last study I read was then) American religious tested as significantly higher than American non-religious in prejudicial and authoritarian thinking.

There are reasons for why people and societies take on a certain aspect. It's not responsible to use dismissive handwaving "It's just people" to ignore this when you want to defend a group, especially in a thread that where it was implied that atheists and people like me are necessarily morally inferior because of their beliefs. Other people and peoples don't act this way and it has a lot to do with the patterns and mythologies they are in.

I know my history. I also know my theology and my comparative religion and quite a bit of anthropology. I don't say these things because I think christianity is bad. I think christianity has many negative influences that go unacknowledged because of all these things that I know. If you want to accuse me of bias, do me the curtesy of having facts and interpretations that disagree with mine, not just an accusation.

edit: And jeez, bev, you're agruing with my bias in the history of christianity and you don't even know how the printing press lines up with the Reformation? What the heck do you know that you're basing this on?

[ April 01, 2005, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
A serial killer goes crazy and kills 100 people then says he did it for his wife. Do we blame the wife? Especially if the wife says "love your fellow man"?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I wish most Christians lived by the lessons of the New Testament (well, parts of it are icky - kings rule by divine right and all that - , but I still maintain that Paul is a really good guy taken in context). Heck, I wish that most Christians even knew the New Testament, but even on Hatrack, people's knowledge of the bible sucks. Christianity is so much more than what's in the bible, even if we're just talking about doctrine instead of including other central factors like social patterns, organizational structure, ancillarly mythology, etc.

In this particular instance for example, where we're talking about original sin, that's not actually in the NT, unless you stretch some of Paul's writings. But I'd argue that this is more central to mainstream christianity than "Love your neighbor as yourself" which Jesus held up as, combined with "Love God" which it is equal to, the highest law.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Man, you really are on your high horse today, aren't you, Squick?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

And jeez, bev, you're agruing with my bias in the history of christianity and you don't even know how the printing press lines up with the Reformation? What the heck do you know that you're basing this on?

---

When did I ever claim history was my strong point? It soooo isn't. Just because I don't know how things line up doesn't discount my knowledge entirely. I provided examples and you have not attempted to refute them. So let's try again. In your boundless historical knowledge, do you agree that social programs such as orphanages and charities were started by Christians? Could this be due to their trying to better live their religion? If this were true (and it will have to remain hypothetical since it cannot be proven) ould this be construed as a positive influence directly from Christianity?

You say that you wish more Christians would live their religion. Well, when I speak of Christianity, I am referring to what I believe Christianity is *supposed* to be. I am speaking of the ideal. I assume you are speaking more of the practical--the reality of how people live it. I will agree with you that in practice it often is far from the ideal. But it just drives me crazy when people blame the problems of the world on religion when the evidence just does not support this. I have quoted you in this thread doing just that--making blanket statements about Christians being evil.

So you have problems with some of the ways Christianity is "carried out". You know what? So do I.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooo! I almost forgot.

*throws stones at jebus*


 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

Could you give me examples of these wonderful things that the historical Christians did?

---

Cathedrals
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I think I want to become a Quaker. I am not exactly an atheist, more of a mystic, mor eof a believer that religion and action should be the exact same thing.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
I think you oata become a Quaker too
 

---

Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
 
For some reason I always thought the quakers died out. Which is funny since I live down the street from a quaker school.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Quakers were the group that gave the greatest help to the Irish during the famine.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

How is Japan this amazingly immoral country?

---

quote:

---

Seems that pretty much every joke is offensive to someone. So maybe we should outlaw jokes....[or humorless posters--Morbo]

Oh well. I knew there’d be some who couldn’t take the joke. Figured it was worth it none the less. And yeah, it is intended to be more then just a joke. ...

If it's "more than a joke" then I guess people could be right to take it as an offense. --Anna ...

I guess if they’re offended something in their heart is bugging them that maybe they need to think about. Good.

---

...could care less if you offend anyone. You say "if they’re offended" yadda yadda "Good."

Uncool. Very Uncool. But hardly surprising.

edit to add: Well said, Crotalus.

[ April 02, 2005, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I can't believe this thread has gone on so long while remaining unproductive.

I'd like to say, though, that I categorically disagree with Dagonee and Beverly on fundamental human nature: I believe most people are naturally good and empathic, and possess the ability and fortitude to make good choices, but that some people are not properly trained to take advantage of this natural aptitude.

This training can take many forms, one of which can be disguised as religion. There's no reason for religion to be the only effective method of social conditioning, of course, but for years it was one of the few that possessed internal justification.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd like to say, though, that I categorically disagree with Dagonee and Beverly on fundamental human nature

---

Yeah, but we knew that.

At least you don't seem to go around proclaiming how much better you are than other people.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, just out of curiosity, why do you think, then, that humans throughout time have been so, bloodthirsty, powerhungry, cruel, oppressive, and unkind?

Because they lacked the proper training?

I agree with you that all humans have the capacity to be good--though I concede that there may be a few exceptions. I also believe that all humans have the capacity to *do* evil. I won't say "be" evil because it just seems too strong. While Christianity teaches that all people are fallen, I think that the word "evil" as most of us use it, is too strong to define the actual phenomenon.

"Evil" as most use the word actually doesn't describe very many people. Most people are drawn towards "goodness" as they perceive it, and despite their weaknesses, yearn for it and try to acheive it. Few humans are true monsters--though they do exist. They usually cannot function in civilized society, though.

Edit: A prime example of how, while part of all humans longs for goodness, when left to their own devices, they will not choose it:

Elementary school playgrounds.

We've all been there. When the cat's away the mice will play. When the kids go out for recess and there isn't direct teacher-interaction, they start to behave more unkindly to each other than when the teacher is with them or watching.

I believe in the "Lord of the Flies" model. The longer they are left without supervision, the more cruel children become. Children want to *be* good, but quite often they want to *act* in ways we consider "bad". They aren't very good at being good without guidance.

[ April 02, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Humans are hierarchical. It's something I really hate about this species, the constant need to assert dominance and to hurt others, all the while using the excuse of religion, "God wants us to!" Patriotism. "They are a threat to our way of life!"
When none of this stuff really works. On some level we are meant to be compassion, to have empathy and sometimes that completely gets teased out of us by the time we enter school.
Of course, it doesnt have to be that way. We can, instead, choose to listen to Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi and anyone who speaks of compassion instead of violence, because it really is becoming an epidemic in our culture alone.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

The longer they are left without supervision, the more cruel children become.

---

quote:

---

Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism.

---

quote:

---

The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly.

---

quote:

---

A large fraction of most pseudogenes differ considerably from their alleged parent genes which makes the interpretation of the data questionable.

---

quote:

---

Although some pseudogenes such as LINEs and Alus appear to be hierarchically shared between primates, others clearly are not. An example of such a discordancy is the sharing of SINE elements between evolutionarily more-distant organisms to the exclusion of animals of intermediate evolutionary derivation, despite the presence of intact homologous genetic loci in the latter.

Pseudogene sequences are frequently exchanged. This complicates any interpretation of phylogeny.

---

quote:

---

No. I think it's because they were actively trained to be bloodthirsty and cruel.

---

quote:

---

Plus I’m not the one calling them fools. So why they’re mad at someone they don’t believe in is the true irony here. Their hearts are very hard, so reaching them is next to impossible and I guess my hope was in some way to get them thinking.

---

quote:

---

Their hearts are very hard, so reaching them is next to impossible and I guess my hope was in some way to get them thinking.

---

quote:

---

Plus I’m not the one calling them fools. So why they’re mad at someone they don’t believe in is the true irony here.

---

quote:

---

And speaking of hard hearts, I would like to make exactly the same comment on the hardness of some people's heads.

---

quote:

---

Plus I’m not the one calling them fools. So why they’re mad at someone they don’t believe in is the true irony here. Their hearts are very hard...

---

quote:

---

I just asked for examples.

---

quote:

---

I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.

---

Very nice, yes. Exactly the sort of attitude that gives Christianity its wonderful reputation. Not to mention the belief that AIDS is punishment for sexual immorality.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Squick, feel free to correct me on my interpretation of what you think. I am not saying "this is definitely what Squicky thinks," it is more, "it sounds to me like this is what you think. Is that right?" I am trying to understand where you are coming from, not tell you what you think.

So I will await your explaination when you aren't drunk.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Ok, ok. How about a compromise? I took away the smiley faces and post text to try and make it less offensive. How’s that? I know, to little to late. But figured it was worth a try. If nothing else it’s been an interesting thread.

KoM,
Well, I was really saying both of us have our biases. Meaning that no matter what I say you wouldn’t change your mind that over millions of years and lots of evolution man came to Earth. And no matter what you say I won’t change my mind that God over 6 days about 6 thousand years ago made man and all of creation. That was why I said that. To be truly honest I’m not even close to being qualified to debate you point by point though.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Evidently. So why do you feel you are qualified to hold an opinion at all, if you cannot defend it?

Incidentally, could I ask how old you are? Not really relevant to the argument, just curious.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks, Jay. It helped a lot.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It does, actually. Takes away a lot of the "It's funny because it's true! Ha ha ha!" feeling. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 

quote:

---

So why do you feel you are qualified to hold an opinion at all, if you cannot defend it?

---

Well, now, that's kind of rude. Jay played nice in his last post; you try to do the same!

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion (you know what they say opinions are like, after all)--regardless of whether not they have the rhetorical skill and/or knowledge to defend their opinions.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

What do you mean by "actively"? Were they actively trained with the intent by their trainers that they become bloodthirsty and cruel? Or was it a more subtle teaching that happened because those things were prevailent in the culture and there was a dearth of good role models?

---

quote:

---

If people are innately good more than they are innately evil, why did people not overcome and balance these influences?

---

I believe that, by and large, we are overcoming these influences. It's a work in progress.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If we are overcoming them now, what caused the change?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Relative prosperity has to figure into it. Having less limitations on the general resources means fewer persons must act out of desperation to survive.

Mind you, that's only a part of the story, but I think it factors in. Note, too, that the most consistent risk factor for violence is poverty. That is far from claiming that "all poor people are violent" or "only poor people are violent" -- just that where poverty goes, problems tend to follow.

Of course, this is modulated by expectations -- poverty means different things in different contexts. The margin of sustenence is a pretty clear key, nonetheless.

[ April 03, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, I think that is a good point. It would seem that to some extent we have technology to thank for that.

So are we really headed to a ST:TNG universe rather than a Brave New World? I wonder.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I'm still more than a bit torn about this claim. Can I add a caveat that violent actions are just one subset of immoral behaviors? This is but one possible piece of it all.

[ April 03, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was just thinking, it is pretty common for Mormons to assume that prosperity will usually lead to wickedness, because this is a very strong reoccurring theme in the Book of Mormon.

The idea is that prosperity brings complacency and idleness. People stop being grateful for what they have and begin obsessing about things that aren't important. Their perspective gets more and more skewed because of it. Over time, chaos ensues.

BTW, this doesn't mean we should squealch out that evil prosperity! It means when we do prosper, we need to watch ourselves, especially to think of helping our fellow man, since we are in greater power to do so.

[ April 03, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think even other immoral behaviors are, by and large, declining. In general, I think people are more self-aware and more capable of rational thought than they were even a century ago. We still have unquestioned assumptions, but I think we have fewer of them.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Tom, that, of course, depends on what you consider immoral.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, I think that might be true to some extent. I also chalk it up to an increase in education. Not just formal education, but our amazing technology allows us to "get the message out" so easily. People watch the news and see what is going on on the other side of the world. Our children are being raised to value wearing seat-belts because the idea has been pounded into them from a very early age.

Dora the Explorer: "SEAT BELTS! So we can be safe!!"

If we ever try to drive off without buckling them in ('cause we forgot) they cry! They make a complete hissy-fit! We are very grateful for that.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
If only Tom had said "I think" at the begining of his sentences to make it clear it was a matter of opinion.

[ April 03, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, Megan, I see your point; but evolution versus creation is a question of fact. On morality or faith, I will agree that one might hold an opinion just because "well, that's the way I feel about it". But this is a scientific question, and Jay insists on going against all evidence, without being able to give a good reason for it.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Yes, but that's his right. I'm not arguing his correctness; I'm arguing his right to do so, as long as he doesn't harm anyone else in the process.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I believe that he does do harm, in that his teachings encourage a close-minded, anti-scientific attitude. This is not what we need in the world's most powerful nation.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
As opposed to encouraging a close-minded, anti-religious attitude?
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Ah, you said nothing about teaching or preaching. You questioned his right to hold that opinion.

And he has just as much right to have a close-minded opinion as you have.

[ April 03, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Megan ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, I won't object to what he thinks in his inmost heart, but I do feel he shouldn't try to propagandise for things he admits he cannot argue rationally for.

And Dags, you may not like anti-religious attitudes, but at least they have no history of encouraging warfare and poverty as 'good for the soul'.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, but you've specifically advocated for rounding us all up in camps.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

And Dags, you may not like anti-religious attitudes, but at least they have no history of encouraging warfare and poverty as 'good for the soul'.

---

Communism had intensely anti-religious attitudes which caused much suffering and oppression throughout most of the 20th Century. It continues today in China, Cuba, and North Korea.

Oh, but those aren't your anti-religious attitudes? Well, Jay's religious attitudes (or anti-nonreligious attitudes, if you will) aren't the ones that led to those wars, either.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Yea never have religious people ever been persecuted for their beliefs!

Except for like the holocaust and junk, but no one cares about that.

Edit: Bah, stupid Hitler claimed to be christian though, now that I think about it.

[ April 03, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Well, KoM, Yes I have opinions and so do you. I’m not sure where the actual line is drawn though for where facts and theories come into play. We could each argue till we’re blue in the face about which such theories can be considered facts. I’m sure you have theories you believe are facts as do I. I can’t begin to tell you the development stages of a baby in the womb other then the basics, but to me it’s murder at anytime to abort the baby. Yes yes, life of the mother, but you can do that in a way that isn’t actually killing the baby and more them dying on their own. But anyway…… What I’m trying to say when I sat I’m not qualified to debate you on this is that you’re getting into details that I really have limited education on. I’m sure if you emailed the author of the article they’d be thrilled to answer all your questions and be light years ahead of me in qualifications of knowledge on the subject. I really don’t think I have to have a doctorate in something in order to have an opinion or belief on it. Plus time constraints have to come into play sometime! Anyway….
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
People are making equivilences that just aren't true. It is not true that all other people were just as bad as whatever group you belong to. Cultures and peoples differ in the structure and nature of their beliefs and these differences have direct consequences in the actions and behaviors those cultures.

For much of its history, even in comparison to the Islamic world, which shared many of its cultural components, the Christian world fared poorly in regards to the "badness" of their behavior. (Which is not to say that weren't things about it that were "good" or "better" than other cultures. Cultures - and individuals - are complex systems that interact with their environments and with themselves and it would be a huge mistake to treat them as monoliths that could even be broken down into good or bad). And the statement that because there were cultures better and worse then them, they can be considered in the middle is frankly ridiculuous. Besides intercultural comparisons, there is the fact that, as with any culture, at various times, individuals or subcultures arose within the Christian world that offered changes in the existing structure. Whether they were adopted or which of the competing changes won out and the methods by which a viewpoint won tells us a great deal about the character of the culture.

The idea that all cultures are just as bad is wrong in another way, in that it implies that they are all bad in the same way. Obviously, all societies have major problems, but these problems, just like their virtues, differ. Again, these differences are in part determined by the different ways these cultures are constituted. Asian cultures have such a different outlook on the world that even the way they physically perceive it is different from the way we in European derived cultures do.

For the past 150 years or so, we've been struggling towards a systematic and sometiems even scientific way to study people and culture. This process has been riddled with problems, but it has also developed information and methods of analysis that appear to yeild greater confidence that has otherwise been available. As with any systematic study, one of the central pursuits has been to try and identify the underlying reasons for the similarities and differences among the objects of study, in this case persons and cultures. In some cases, we've been able to say with varying degrees of certainty that a person or a culture that has component X will likely also have component Y and will likely exhibit behavior Z.

Using this sort of process, we can test things such as the central difference between the Augustinian and Pelagian worldviews. That is, is it possible for people to behave well (for a defined value of well) without God's grace. If we assume that God's grace is, as most Christian sects hold true, best or exclusively obtained through being a Christian and participating in Christian rituals, then we can ammend that statement to be "Is it possible to behave well while not being a Christian?" or, to recast it, "What is the effect on being good of being versus not being a Christian?" Put that way, the question is trivially easy to answer. Augustine was wrong, even by his own defnitions. That Christian world regarded many of the people in the Jewish scriptures, who were not Christian, as virtuous. From our lens of history, we can see that not only did other cultures contain virutous people, but that the Christians cultures were far from being the most virtuous. Thus, not only is the initial axiom that only Christians can be virtuous false, but also either being Christian was worse at promoting virtue than some alternatives or virtue was determined by something other than being/not being Christian. And yet, the Pelagian view of the world is still considered a heresy, while the Augustinian view was central to Christianity through much of its history and is still prevalant today, in a watered-down form.

Again using this process, people like Gordon Allport studied aspects of personality that we consider "bad", such as prejudice and authoritarianism. I've gone into it before, but one thing they found was that, in America, self-identifying religious people score significantly higher on tests of prejudice and authoritarianism than non-religious people (keep in mind that this was done in the 50s and 60s, so the social context is somewhat different).

For many reasons, not the least of which that Allport was himself a religious person, they probed further than this. What they found was that the degree of commitment to the religion was a strong determiner of people's scores. Those who were not all that committed tended to score higher than non-relgious, those who were moderately committed tended to score much higher, and those who were strongly committed tended to score about the same or sometimes lower than average non-religious. However, as the moderately commited were by far the largest group in the religious population, taking the mean of that population resulted in a higher scores being inappropriately inferred across the population.

A throw-away part of that description that is actually very important was defining the population as American. The same measures used in other countires turned up similar results, but with a very different aspect. In America, self-identified religiousity was correlated with relatively higher scores on measures of authoritarianism and prejudice. This was also true in other countries like say The Netherlands. However, correlation can be a tricky thing. In a case like this, it's entirely possible that one of correlated factors actually determines the other correlated factor, in this case the level of authoritarianism would account for the levels of prejudice or vice versa and the religiousity actually just keyed the one. To check this, we run equations that attempt to account for the variation in the things observed. In most European studies, authoritarianism, regardless of religiousity, was shown to account fully for prejudice. However, in America, this was not the case.

Suffice it to say, something more was going on here than the brainless religion implies prejudice. Allport, after years of study, came up with a way of categorizing religiousity based on it's components. His conception of intrinsic and extrinsic religion, did an even better job of distinguishing between those religious who had high scores on tests of prejudice and authoritarianism and has become a central idea in the study of religion. Further studies have shown it to be a good predictor of a whole host of other negative psychological traits that religions have traditionally been plauged by. Translations of Allport's ideas to fit the study of more general ideologies have also yielded quite a bit of fruit in terms of predicting certain types of bad things.

There are reasons why people take on these characteristics. We even have a relatively good ideas what some of them are, if only people would actually look at them. I'm going to jump into a brief (for me, anyway, the psychology of morality formation and maintence and its effects is one of my interests. I could (and have) gone on for pages and pages) my conception of morality in my next post.

[ April 07, 2005, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Two experiments that I'm going to reference a great deal are The Milgram Experiment and Muzafer Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment (scroll down past the Asche thing to find it), so I might as well link them and get them out of the way here.

I tihnk the best place to start is with some assumptions. My basic view of people's morality is that there are two interrelated (empathy and selfishness) but often competing systems at work, much like that yin-yang relationship expressed by the Daoist mandala. Selfishness is easy to establish. Not only is it enshrined in the thinking of nearly all religions and secular moral systems, but I wager that we all see it pretty clearly almost everyday.

Empathy, on the other hand, is a bit less of a given. Certainly it exists, but can someone really say that it is a near universal human trait. I think that you can, not through cataloging the good things people do, but rather by examining the bad ones. Consider, people will almost never intentionally do bad things to people that they see as equal to themselves. In order to do so, they must provide some justification to themselves as to why the other person deserves it or is in some way less of a person than they are. The central belief of nearly all negative prejudices is that the concerned group is "subhuman".

You can set up a situation, like the Milgram experiment, where other forces influence people to do bad things to those they consider equals. This almost invariably results in a great deal of emotional distress. Some of various conditions in the Milgram experiment involved changing the perception of the other as a suffering person (in some cases, giving the subject and confederate who was to be fake tortured time to get acquianted, in others making the pain caused more or less visible) showed results that suggest that this distress is engendered by transgressing our empathetic nature. Much of our intial understanding of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder came from studying soldiers who escaped from their careful training in how to dehumanize the enemy and suffered the attendent mental breakdown. One of the unintended consequences of the Milgram experiment was that it gave us a window into a bsaic form of morality formation. In some of the cases, some subjects explained that they conceptualized the confederate as transgressing some rule, or looking for reasons to dislike him and be annoyed with him, so that he actually deserved what he got.

A similar reaction can be seen in the Robber's Cave experiment. The two groups of boys (or girls in other permutations) quickly form a ad-hoc morality that makes the competing group out to be bad people. Oftentimes, they'll sieze upon some irrelevant and previously morally neutral aspect of the other group as an excuse to demonize them. This moral system is almost always attended by a dehumanization where they recognize the diversity of individuals in their own group but insist that the other group is largely homogenous. Later, wehn the groups are brought together by the impinging super-ordinate threat, this moral system and view of the others as being all the same go away.

Extrinsic morality often works like this. It provides a rationale for treating people as less than human. It separates the world into groups. The people like you who you can trust and you can help and the people who it's okay to screw over. This sort of morality, rather than being the device by which we are encouraged to behave, instead serves the purpose of helping us supress and overcome our natural empathetic urges. Those who humans would destroy, they first make not human anymore.

As I've shown, oftentimes this desire to do bad things comes before the formation of morality. It is what drives it.

Consider empathy again, and the highest commandment regarding treatment of others given by Jesus "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." It's the same thing. The central Christian commandment should be to always act with empathy. Why then have Christians historically been so darn bad at it?

In large part, it comes from the followup to Jesus's statement, i.e. "Master, who is my neighbor?" The biblical message was, I think, very clear, but the question got murky as soon as theologians needed reasons to justify doing bad things to people they wanted to do bad things to. It's not fair to lay this all at one person's door, as it was a vast cultural tendency, but a central choice point came with Augustine. One of the central issue of this time period was Christianity's growing power as it was becoming integrated into the Roman society. The pacifism Jesus preached didn't work for a religion or a culture that had become accustomed to expanding through the use of force. One of the concepts Augustine codified was the idea of a just war. While still affirming that an individual had a obligation to pacifism, Augustine posited that it was a ruler's job to strive for justice, first through peaceful means, and failing that, using violent ones. This idea was adopted very quickly and the idea of injustice soon took on the meaning of "not being Christian, or the right type of Christian". To my way of thinking, it's no suprise that Augustine was the one who also codified the idea of Original Sin and that of anyone who was not Christian was doomed to eternal torment.

But weren't there people who were commited to the ideals of pacifism? Of course there were. During the first 3 centuries, Christianity had an enormous number of interpretations. There are some indications that the sects that didn't feel such a strong commitment to pacifism killed some of the others who did and destroyed their writings. Makes sense. We know that this is what happened to some of sects that insisted on what became labeled as the Pelagian heresy.

If you take a look at institutional psychology, you'll find that there is a tendency for any organization to, over time, end up with a certain power-oriented type of person in their leading positions. This tends to not be a great thing for the organization. For one thing, the power-oriented person is usually good at obtaining and maintaining their power but not for much else. For another thing, these people tend to assume that other people have exactly the same motivations as they do. For one more, they tend to prefer things as simple as possible and favour mechanistic explanations and view other people as objects to be manipulated.

A partial cause of and result of this type of person in positions of power is the reward/punishment motivational structure. I imagine people are familiar with this. It's one of the central aspects to American business, religion, and education, along with so many other things. It's manifestation in psychology, behaviorism, is by far America's largest contribution to the field of psychology. It's one of the planks of our shared mythology. It also doesn't work.

We've known that for over forty years. People who set out to see how much we can improve task performance and persistence pretty consistently come back with the opposite result. Applying a reward/punishment structure leads to decreases in the quality of performance and the time people spend doing something.

Consider the classic example of a child who likes to play the piano. If you start rewarding him for playing the piano, you're likely to see a shift from the child enjoying it, throwing himself into, spending hours at it, to him playing just enough, both timewise and effortwise, to get his reward, without expressing much enjoyment of it, and, if you stop providing the reward, they stop playing.

The problem is, you've killed their motivation. Before, I talked about intrinsic versus extrinsic religion. Here we've got intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. My personl thinking is that intrinsic motivation is much more fragile in large part because it relies on constant outlays of effort and yields largely long term benefits. The extrinsic motivation can, in a person who doesn't have a very strong sense of self and attachment to the task, easily overcome this and recast the situation. Where before the person was doing it as something that grows out of himself and it's a form of play, now he's doing it because it's work assigned by someone else for which he will be rewarded or punished. The reward or punishment and getting it or avoiding it, respectively becomes the thing, and the person stops experimenting and learning and playing. There's an old joke about a man who got kids to stop taunting him by oferring to pay them per insult, then paying a little less, and then a little less. When he stopped paying them at all, the kids stopped insulting him, because he had successful cast the situation as them doing it for the reward.

In order to justify using this type of motivational system, people assume that people don't want to work and that children don't want to learn. They have to assume that the motivation to do these things aren't in them. But that's not true. Pre-school aged children delight in learning. It's pretty much what they do, all the time. Experietial Sampling Method (ESM) studies pioneered by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi show that despite people's understanding to the contrary, they enjoy work, especially when their work is meaningful, while the average emotion people have while watching tv is mild depression.

The main thing reward/punishment structures have going for them is that they seem almost designed for the way a power-oriented person sees the world. They confirm their power (or their authoritarian submission to the people who have power over them), they divide your subordinates and turn them against each other, so they're not gunning for you, they remove the focus from the actual thing being worked on and make understanding it irrelevant (all you need to do is wave the carrot and shake the stick), and it is a completely mechanistic process that let's you turn poeple into things.

Alternative motivational techniques that reverse each of these aspects have consistently shown, when properly applied, to be tremendously better. Children learn more and retain a love of learning. Employeee's productivity sky-rockets while sick days plummet (partially because they're actually healthier and partially because people look forward to going to work).

These same things transfer over into extrinsic morality. People come to believe that they have no empathy, that they must be forced to do good against their will. Meaning now comes to be seen as something that only exists outside (I shudder every time someone claims that without God life would have no meaning). They become innately suspicious of other people. They aren't engaged in the rules; they don't try to understand them, only to follow them. The energies that exist in them are blunted by an Ecclesiastical depressive outlook, but find release in the liberating action of attacking others. They become innately selfish and don't even come to realize that other people are like them.

You want to know why I think people, despite having a strong innate capacity for empathy and good, have been savage and bloodthirsty throughout history. That's it in a very brief, thumbnail sketch.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
That was impressive. You've given me alot to think on. Thanks, Mr Squicky!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
That's some serious food for thought, Squick. *munches*

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's a rare day when you write something with which I cannot disagree, Squicky.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I don't know Tom. From my perspective, while we may not like each other that much and we have near completely opposite tastes in entertainment, if there were a simplistic Hatrack ideology poll, I think we'd fall into boxes pretty near each other.

And all this is really mostly a bump so that bev might see it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks for the bump. I only just now saw it.

I don't really think I disagree with what you have said here.

I suppose the question we must ask ourselves is this. What was it about the culture of the Europeans that caused the message of Christianity to be twisted so? I think we can all agree that you have to twist things in order to get hate messages from the New Testament. And it does seem pretty clear that many Christians have managed to do that.

So why did this happen? Is it because early on the scriptures were not allowed to be viewed by the common man, so they were distanced from the actual message? Is it because people just weren't ready to let themselves be that vulnerable, that truly good? Is it that people who were power-hungry saw the potential to further their agendas and used it to guilt people or seduce them into less than honorable paths?

Remember, I believe Christianity is true. I believe that it was nothing but goodness from the source. That people have used it for evil, for me, does not reflect Christianity at all. It reflects the twisted, mutated version that has all too often been taught and accepted by the masses.

Remember, as a Mormon, I believe there was a great apostacy where the true church was entirely lost from the earth and those trying to follow after it either stumbled in darkness or found some light of inspiration by trying to get closer to what was actually written in the Bible. You really don't have to sell me on the idea that Christianity was abused.

But I don't see how that is the fault of Christianity.

[ April 07, 2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

People come to believe that they have no empathy, that they must be forced to do good against their will.

---

quote:

---

My personl thinking is that intrinsic motivation is much more fragile in large part because it relies on constant outlays of effort and yields largely long term benefits.

---

Good way of explaining things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

You call god by the same names and regard some of the same stuff as from him, but your god is a fundamentally different type of being than theirs. In a lot of ways, their theological perspective is closer to Muslims and Jews than it is to you.

---

So I've heard. And it makes sense to me.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
If people are interested, I could go into something longer. There's so much more I wanted to put in there.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I would read it.


 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
I'm all... umm eyes. I would enjoy reading your thoughts.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So I haven't had a lot of free time lately. I had a little bit of time today. Figure I'll try to do this in installments. Here's the first one.

Before, I tried to establish that perspective is one of the most important things when talking about morality. But I didn't really get into how either selfishness or empathy is increased or decreased. So that's what I'll try to do here.

I think it can help to take a wider view, so I'm going to look at overall motivation in order to throw some light on the specific case of morality. I think (in the interests of not going on incredibly long, I'm just going to posit this) that human motivation can be roughly understood as an interplay between what I'm going to call safety and challenge. That is, there is a drive towards establishing a safe, stable environment (taken to the extreme, this could be seen a the desire to do away with all mental and physical activity) and an interrelated and often contradictory drive towards exploring and creating novel aspects of the environment (or the urge to employ one's mental and physical abilities to their fullest). If you think about it from a design perspective, these drives are what you'd want in a machine that is going to be dealing with an incompletely understood, volatile environment. The safety drives do their best to keep the organism intact and provide a stable state, while the challenge drives enable learning and shaping of the environment. As in any daoist type interrelated system, the yin and the yang (here safety and challenge) both oppose and enable each other. Pursuing safety provides the stability and control to allow in-depth challenging interaction with the environment and pursuing challenge leads to a greater ability to predict and control and thus increases an organisms ability to protect itself.

I think this is a good place to introduce Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. To simplify, Maslow held that motivation can be seen as existing in a pyramidal structure consisting of layers where the more basic a need is to survival, the lower and thus wider it is. Maslow held that in this structure, the higher levels depended on the lower ones. For example, a need for food is more necessary than one for love, so starving people will be largely unable to even feel that they lack love. Developmentally, if a person throughout a lifetime is constantly without adequate food, they will be unable to develop love-type relationships. The relationship is rarely as starkly one-dimensional as this (i.e.people, at least currently, are rarely at a state where obtaining food or any other one of the d-needs is the most

One other aspect of Maslow's model is that he divides needs into two categories: deficiency (or d) needs and being (or b) needs. The difference between them being that the d-needs come into play only when some stable state is disturbed, which results in the need imposing itself onto a person's consciousness, while the b-needs are permenantly in existence, i.e. insatiable, but are vaguer and tend to need to be developed and discovered. Also, hierarchically, the d-needs are lower than the b-needs, and thus the pursuit of the b-needs is dependent on meeting the d-needs at some adequate level.

Although Maslow is most famous for his hierarchy, it doesn't actually reflect his primary concern – I'll be getting into that later – and in my opinion, it doesn't do a great job of really explaining what's going on. I'm going to try to build off of the relevant things I think are poorly covered (keep in mind, Maslow was a certified super genius who earned his respect and I'm just some guy).

First off, the standard reaction to threats, even ones as basic as lack of food, is more complex than I think is suggested by this model. People don't actually respond directly to a lack of food. Rather, systems in their body that monitor conditions that are related (closely we hope, but twiddle around with someone's hypothalamus and they could feel desperately hungry after eating a 3 foot hoagie) having adequate nutrition send signals to the brain that provokes an unpleasant sensation. People initially act to quiet this sensation, usually by obtaining food. Second, through the wonders of consciousness, there's a cognitive response where they are able to reflect on what the hunger means and possibly augment, modify, or even, say if they're on a diet, disregard their natural impulses. Third, each instance of this threat contributes to general conscious and unconscious representations of the future in terms of food-havingness/not-havingness.

An important point there that I want to re-emphasize is that it's not the actual threat that is directly responded to. Rather, it's the perception of this threat. Trust me, this'll be important later.

Second, there is bleed among the systems. That is, threats to one d-need can actually provoke responses usually associated with one of the other d-needs. The classic example of this is eating in response to a food unrelated stress. This suggests that besides the specific threat response systems, there is a more general threat perception and response system, a hypothesis that has been borne out by research.

An interesting consequence of this (coupled with cause-effect reasoning) is the growth of second order responses to threat. So, for example, getting hungry prompts you to get food, which is, in contemporary society, generally obtained by using money. Where in a less complex society, people would pursue knowledge of how and where they could get food in the future, modern man now turns most of this into the pursuit of money. So money and the lack thereof develops as a second order response system and threat, initially because it indicates a potential inability to deal with primary threats, but later it also usually takes on an existence of its own.

Mary Ainsworth studied this sort of thing in her “Strange Situation” experiments testing infant attachment. Basically, infants presented with a new situation showed how strong their trust and attachment was to their (in the initial experiements) mother. If it is a secure bond and they understand that she is around, they jump right into the new situation. The potential threats of a new, not understood situation are countered by the second order safety system of “Mom'll be there if I need her.” Children who don't have a secure attachment display a great deal anxiety of or detatchment from the strange situation.

I imagine that all of us can remember at least one time when, as child, you got separated from your parents in a strange place like a store and the dread that this engendered. That's the natural response of a young child. The world is this big scary place that is held at bay by their god-like parents. That's one of the reasons I find the suggestion that because kids left alone for awhile will tend, over time, to get in fights, they need to be taught empathy mistaken. They're in a state where their natural threats are increasing (I like to call this Maslovian calculus) and are also coming into conflicts that they don't have a good resolution strategy for and their primary safety assurance is missing. Of course they're going to act selfish. We expect that from kids that start out cranky. The components of crankiness are building up over time in this situation.

An interesting outcome of cross-cultural research is the realization that contrary to western common sense (and Maslow's hierarchy), other cultures function without regarding self-esteem as an inherent part of humaness. For example, in Japan the word for self-esteem carries with it a strong conotation of selfishness and it is considered something to be avoided.

One of the aspects that Japan and similar cultures carry is a (relative to western cultures) stronger bond and sensitivity to the groups they belong to. A related part of this is the tendency for potentially uncertain or “strange” social situations to have established scripts and rituals. There is an attempt to make the social world as stable as possible, even in the case of approved contexts where it's okay to deviate from the norm. A popular aphorism is “The nail that stands up gets pounded down.” as opposed to the western idea “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

It's my belief that this social stability takes the place of the western reliance on the self and concern with self-esteem and that both of them represent, among all the other purposes they serve, highly complex second order systems for dealing with threats.

For me, this idea came partially out of Weisz, Rothbaum, and Blackburn's(1) work on what they called primary and secondary power. To put it roughly, primary power is the ability to change the external world to suit one's self and secondary power is the ability to change one's self to fit the external world, such as by predicting what will happen or realigning personal goals to fit with what has happened. Not suprisingly, these ideas came out of their comparative studies of American and Japanese culture and they found that there was a remarkable degree of difference between the expressed and actual preferences for these types of powers (guess which country preferred which).

Besides offering up this secondary (I don't actually like that way of expressing it. To my western mind, it makes the one sound like it's better than the other.) power, strong social ties and maintainence of cultural homogeneity also provide good resources for dealing with threats.

Of course, so does cultivating a strong sense of self and concerning oneself with personal achievement. And in a country settled the way America was and having the heterogeneity and unpredictible volatility that it does, relying on primary power makes a lot of sense. One of the things I've noticed is that there is often a direct correlation to how unstable something is and how important is to have a sense of person power over it. For example, around 80% of people consider themselves above average drivers. Compare the anxiety people feel about driving as opposed to that about flying (where they have no control) in relation to actual risk involved and people look crazy. But consider the effect of the second order self-esteem system and it makes sense. It's perception of the threat that's important, not the actual threat. Divorced from one of their main tools of dealing with potential threats, people are going perceive flying as scarier than driving.

(1) Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M. & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955-969.

[ April 17, 2005, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
*bumpity*

That was really interesting, Squick.

[ April 18, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So I did something stupid and took a minor shot to the head (of mechanical, not human, origin) and now I'm staying up for a bit to ward off the unlikely concussion effects and waiting for the ER's to clear of GSWs, car crash victims, and assorted drunken idiots before heading there to get my head stitched up. Or, in other words, here's the second installment.

There's a basic bit of social psychology called the Fundamental Attribution Error(FAE) that illustrates this view of the self as stable. The FAE is what social psychologists call the tendencies for westerners to attribute people's actions almost entirely to the traits of those people's personality while not acknowledging any situational effects. It's sort of what we saw here, where people were seemingly claiming that cultural influences did not have a pre-eminent role in determining behavior and instead held that people were just being people. While people tend to be more flexible and generous when talking about what causes their own actions, there is still this idea that their behavior is consistent across situations, even in the face of conflicting evidence.

A related phenomenon is the tendency for westerners to hold trait as opposed to incremental views of the self. To define, a trait view is the idea that people either have a trait or don't have it, while an incremental view believes that abilities and aspects of the self can be acquired incrementally, such as through training. An example of these conflicting styles could be a trait and incremental each trying and failing to solve math problems. While the trait person would conclude that he just isn't good at math and likely avoid similar problems in the future, the incremental could conclude that he didn't work hard enough or that he didn't have the right knowledge. Inter and intra-cultural studies have shown that people who have a trait view of the self tend to much less persistence in the face of failure and also show a great FAE effect than people who have an incremental one.

Which brings us back to the FAE and in-group/out-group distinctions. In western cultures, the FAE is pretty consistent whether or not the person being evaluated is part of your in-group. The in-group person is seen as having more positive traits (and in-group people are seen as having a larger variety of traits) than the out-group person, but their behavior is held to be pretty much equally determined by these traits. In eastern cultures, however, there is an enormous distinction made between in-group and out-group members in terms of the FAE. In-group people are seen as very situation dependent, while out-group ones are seen as almost entirely driven by the same (generally non-complimentary) traits. While the eastern view of in-group members is significantly less affected by the FAE, that of out-group members is significantly more FAE-affected.

At first glance this eastern acceptance of those closest to you varying their behavior widely according to the situation may seem strange in light of what I held up as their reliance on social predictability and stability. However, if you consider that easterners tend to be highly sensitive to the people around them, I think it makes more sense. They are likely to think in terms of situational factors and to not find this threatening because they are very aware of the effect of situation factors and able to easily gauge and empathize with another person's emotional state.

In epistemology, there's a fundamental divide between what are called nomothetic and ideographic systems of knowing. A nomothetic system (like science) tries to derive overarching abstract rules that can then be applied in specific cases. An ideographic system looks for deep knowledge mostly only applicable in an isolated, specific case. A good marriage would be an illustration of ideographology. (As an aside, these two styles represent a minor controversy in the study of personality and culture. My own take is not surprisingly that they are best melded together in a mandalic relationship.)

From this perspective, one could say that westerns tend to take a nomothetic approach to other people, while easterners tend towards an ideographic one (Even in language. Compare the abstract, utilitarian Roman alphabet with the large, poetically expressive Chinese system of ideograms.) Consider, for example, the traditional english-derived legal system compared to the traditional chinese folk conflict resolution. The english system is based on abstract laws which are applied across all situations. Following the laws (and having laws that are well designed to work across nearly all cases) and determining who is right and who is wrong is the central goal of this system. On the other hand, the chinese folk system involves a third-party mediating between the two people in conflict with the main goal of reaching a mutually agreeable settlement and restoring harmony between them.

This difference in orientation also exists in many other contexts that are relevant here. Westernerr developed logic, which is the apotheosis of nomothetic thinking. It's an abstract system completely devoid of context. One of the central rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction (a<>!a). Easterners, on the other hand, approach the world through a more holistic viewpoint and have no problem accepting contradictory statements as valid.

One of the perennial Hatrack and Ornery (and apparently any other place OSC is discussed) is (cleaned up to remove the often engaged in unjustified exaggerations of "hate-filled" and "bigotry") "How can OSC write such amazingly empathetic works and then engage is such blatant demagoguery? Which one is the real OSC?" To which an easterner would reply: 1) different contexts and 2) he's both. They don't have a problem with people acting in seemingly contradictory ways. They can also do the Maslovian calculus.

I may be coming off as thinking that the eastern way is superior to the western. That's not how I think. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool individualist and a hard-core abstracting scientist. I couldn't have come up with these ideas or written them if I weren't. However, I have been trying to show the weakness in the western system. Also, while I think they both have strong and weak points, I think the western second order system of self-esteem tends to be inherently weaker and less flexible than the eastern one of social stability and connectedness.

<Start exageration and extreme speculation>I think evidence is pretty clear that our culture pretty much fails to develop genuine self-esteem. One of the big benefits of the emphasis on the individual self is that it allows one to go beyond the inherently conservative limits of social stability. Rather than quality being determined by socially accepted standards, it can be determined by an individual's perspective and even by actual reality testing. Individuality makes creativity and novelty much more accessible than collectivism.

I feel like it's almost over-kill to give examples of why I think we're largely missing these things. People consistently rate "speaking in front of people" as their biggest fear. Value is determined by what other people think. Conformity is the norm. Anti-conformists, besides basing their anti-conformity not on their individual perspective, but rather on rebelling from the norm, also quickly form conformist groups. We have freedom of speech, but few people say anything interesting and dangerous (unless their anti-something else). We have freedom of information, but people remain ignorant. We have almost shocking affluence, but we don't build, we don't create. We are afraid of our individuality, of our creative potential, and we're desperate to give them away.

And the group that we're conforming to isn't even one that is going to look out for us or even cares if we're alive. It's barely relevant to our lives. It's not cohesive. It doesn't have group patience and wisdom. It's just this amorphous generalized collection of unconnected individuals who are themselves afraid of and subject to the group. We're afraid of appearing foolish and being laughed at, we desperately want other people to not think bad things about us. And these people barely even care. The biggest sin in America is to break cover, to step out from the "what everybody is doing" camouflage, to show enthusiasm and the punishment is to be laughed at by people who don't know you and you won't ever see again.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Oh, in case you couldn't tell, this stuff is currently making up the basis for a book I'm writing that I'm looking to publish in a couple of years. It's obviously abbreviated a great deal, but I'd welcome criticism and people letting me know where I'm not conveying my point well or what sounds interesting but that I don't really go into.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Again... MrSquicky
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Thanks for sharing your ideas. I found the difference between the Western abstract, broad knowledge and the Eastern specific, deep knowledge to be particularly interesting.

Take care of yourself. Blows to the head are scary!
 

---

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
I'm enjoying your posts, MrSquicky. I don't have a good education in the fields you're discussing, but I am able to follow your flow of ideas. The explanations are working for me.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I've written the post that supposed to go here like 3 times and it hasn't come out right yet. I promise I'll get to it. Honest.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry about your accident!

Here is what I got from what you said. Feel free to tell me if I am wrong: Most children don't need to be taught empathy because it is innate. But they have to feel safe from threats, have the "tools" at their disposal to deal with threats in order to choose to act in an empathetic way rather than a selfish way. I guess I can see that being the case some of the time.

I do believe that people in general have an innate empathy and desire to do good. I believe that they also have innate desires to be selfish. I believe that people will rationalize in order to act in selfish ways and still believe that they are being "good" because most, if not all, people want both. (To be "good" and to be gratified.)

As for me as a child, you might say that I lacked empathy because I didn't have the proper tools to deal with threats. But when you look at the facts, that just doesn't jive in my case. I grew up in an extremely consistent, loving, safe, kind, atmosphere. I probably had a bit of "princess" complex as well. It wasn't until I entered the frightening, threatening outer world that I was so unequipped to deal with for so long that I really began to learn empathy.

Remember, I believe religiously that this life is a test. The test is to see if we will choose empathy over selfishness in the presence of threats. Therefore, threats are designed by God to be an innate part of this mortal life.
 

---

Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
 
bev-
"What do you mean by "actively"? Were they actively trained with the intent by their trainers that they become bloodthirsty and cruel? Or was it a more subtle teaching that happened because those things were prevailent in the culture and there was a dearth of good role models?"

most of the nice people were killed off by the mean ones.

Also, being being cruel/power-mad/oppressive is biologically RIGHT. Someone like Genghis Khan, who rose from being a minor tribal leader to building one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen in his lifetime, is as near perfection from a biological standpoint as possible, because having that power, and the willingness to do whatever it to get and maintain that power give him the greatest chance to procreate and then protect his offspring. Children fall into patterns of cruelty and selfishness because they are biologically programmed to do so. People who are inherently more emapthetic than selfish are flawed, but our intellect has allowed us to reverse that flaw into a beneficial characteristic.

Our ability to forsake selfish feelings and concern ourselves with the well being of others is our fundamental difference from other forms of life. That is what makes us human. Empathy is humanity.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
bev,
A large part of what I've been trying to write for installment #3 is direct relevant to what you describe. If you don't mind, I'm going to hold off answering until I get that out. (I do feel like kind of a jerk saying that, but I really do think it'll be much easier to answer after I get past the tying everything together stage.

edit: And the accident wasn't really a big deal. Four stitches and I got them taken out today. It was more annoying than anything else. I appreciate people's concern tough.

[ May 03, 2005, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I can't help but have problems with both of those concepts...
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
AC,
That's one of the socio-biological viewpoints that I think is very wrong-headed. When Nietzche said "A man is a wolf to another man." he was maligning both wolves and men. We're herd creatures. Just like our primate ancestors, we naturally form communities and those who have stable communities have access to a world of resources and safety nets that aren't available to the monopolar selfish man of socio-biological myth. Empathy most definitely has served to increase the spreading of people's (and animals') genes.

edit: Syn, so tell us what your problems with them are. We'd be interested in reading them.

[ May 03, 2005, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'm just bothered by the concept that life is a test. If God is so omnipotent, wouldn't such testing be unnessasary? Wouldn't he already know how we are and how we'd react?
And the idea of human beings having a biological program that makes us violent and cruel is upsetting because even if this is the case, is it really a valid excuse? Such as the way kids pick on each other in the playground, why do they do this?
Because it's uncool not to. It's uncool to be different, picking on people is a way of regulating behaviour. It's really outmoded and unnessasary and should be changed somehow.
Also, I think animals have compassion and empathy, not just humans, why else can dogs sense if a person is in pain about something?
Also, there are musk oxen to consider, I don't think humans are the only one who can put aside their own needs for others,
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 

quote:

---

If God is so omnipotent, wouldn't such testing be unnessasary? Wouldn't he already know how we are and how we'd react?

---

quote:

---

If God is so omnipotent, wouldn't such testing be unnessasary? Wouldn't he already know how we are and how we'd react?

---

quote:

---

Someone like Genghis Khan, who rose from being a minor tribal leader to building one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen in his lifetime, is as near perfection from a biological standpoint as possible, because having that power, and the willingness to do whatever it to get and maintain that power give him the greatest chance to procreate and then protect his offspring.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure I read something not too long ago which postulated based on genetic markers that eight percent of the population of central Asia -- about a half-percent of the entire world's population -- is now descended from Genghis Khan.

---

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't this be true for nearly any person who left a progeny at the time? From what I understand, given enough time everyone is related to everyone else, and everyone who left progeny from that time has a large percentage of the population that is now their descendants.

Edit: And wasn't Genghis Khan a whole lot nicer and cooler guy than most people are aware of? --his name having been "sullied" by those who wished to discredit him? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Synesthesia: I think that while God might know the outcome of the test, the test must play itself out. It has been discussed here repeatedly that the LDS "version" of God is not nearly so omnipotent as the "version" of most believers. He has natural limits. He can't just download wisdom into our brains Matrix-style and have us suddenly go, "I know Kung Fu!"

Edit: Can't or won't. I do not necessarily believe that God is incapable of it. But I do believe that God holds our free will sacred and lets us choose our own path. In the end, we will see that we are responsible for the choices we made--though God will be merciful in taking into account our weaknesses and how difficult things were for us.

As for selfishness being a part of us and empathy also, I agree with this. This is what I have been trying to say all along. I believe man has a dual nature and we are here in this life to see which nature we will embrace. In the religious model I believe in, in the end nearly all of humanity (who made it this far) will be better off in the end than in the beginning--because the faith in which I believe doesn't end with most people burning in Hell. The only people that *really* end up in that state are the ones who would not accept God's help and guidance *at all*.

[ May 03, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
I'm starting to like this thread....
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Squicky, that's fine. You answer when you are ready.

KarlEd: But why do people bully? Surely these individuals cause a great deal of suffering and display a great lack of empathy? The ones who follow the bully are likely acting out of fear, but what motivates the bully? I honestly wonder. I never bullied and I don't understand the behavior.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Weakness and a fear of having the weakness exposed? They are posturing and pretending to be tough.
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 

quote:

---

Weakness and a fear of having the weakness exposed? They are posturing and pretending to be tough.

---

quote:

---

We're herd creatures. Just like our primate ancestors, we naturally form communities and those who have stable communities have access to a world of resources and safety nets that aren't available to the monopolar selfish man of socio-biological myth.

---

quote:

---

A question to ponder--if for the sake of experiment we removed those from a school situation that had overt bullying tendancies, would new bullies find their way to the surface? Or would we get to a point where the school population would be more kind and empathetic because the remaining children are more likely to act in that manner?

---

quote:

---

A question to ponder--if for the sake of experiment we removed those from a school situation that had overt bullying tendancies, would new bullies find their way to the surface? Or would we get to a point where the school population would be more kind and empathetic because the remaining children are more likely to act in that manner?

---

An interesting thought on this. When I was in 5th or 6th grade, I was part of a group of kids that was pulled out of the normal group to do special activities together. I never did learn what this group was for, but it seemed the people in it were the ones that tended to be picked on, sensitive, and intelligent. I loved being in this group! It was liberating. It was a reprieve from the cruel behavior I constantly faced every day. We were kind and friendly to each other. We enjoyed each other's company. We were all very glad to be there. It was cool.
 

---

Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
 
*agrees with Porter*
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 
Of course, it's not absolute -- there are people that will not make a play for and abuse power.

But I think there are many people who don't abuse powere just because they don't have it (yet!)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Aye, Porter. And I think probably most people fit into the first category, but that it might take some doing before the power would go to their head.

My first impulse is to say that I would *never* fit into the first group. But then, if the whole world revolved around me, how long before I began to abuse that? I certainly abused that "power" in my family--where they were endlessly kind and patient with me, and I was often a brat in response. I knew no matter how bratty I was, they would continue to be kind and patient.

I really hate thinking about that side of myself. So few ever see those tendancies because I keep them as far from the surface as I can. Most people who know me can't comprehend me being a brat. I tend to be everyone's definition of a "nice girl".
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You know, the "Somebody should do a study." or "I wonder if they did a study." thing is terribly frustrating for me. If you can come up with it in like 10 seconds, chances are the study has already been done. Bullying, for example, has been extensively and productively studied for quite some time as has social dynamics and group formation among school-aged children.

In the case of removing the bullying group, results are mixed. Without knowing more about the situation, I couldn't tell you with any certainty what would happen. Sometimes a new (or existing) hierarchical power dynamic grows up. Sometimes the children left utilize a conflict-avoidance strategy, which is what I'm willing to bet bev is talking about. And sometimes other things happen.

One thing I can be pretty sure about is that most people who talk about this sort of thing with sweeping generalizations don't know the first thing about it
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
We need to stop viewing empathy and compassion as a weakness.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It's possible that if our happy little group was allowed to continue like that long enough, new bullies would have popped up. But in the short time we had that group, it never happened. It was an elementary school utopia for the picked on.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
To most bullies, using brute strength/intimidation is probably the only "tool", in Squick's parlance, that they have been taught/discovered to cope with threats. A related issue might be that their threat detection ability may have been skewed by nature and/or nurture.

See Bonzo as an example.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Our oldest has tendancies towards bullying. From what I can tell, he enjoys weilding power over others. It *seems* to me that it isn't so much a lack of other tools that is the issue but the desire for the end result of having power.

He isn't overtly cruel about it, but I have seen him cause some suffering in his siblings and "enjoy" it. Certainly the capacity for cruelty is there if unchecked. Again, from my perspective, it seems that his pleasure in that power overrides his sense of empathy. The empathy is there, and we try to bring his attention to it, but his stronger impulse is to seek and maintain power over others.

So I feel like what we need to do with him is help and encourage him to deny this impulse that tends to be so strong in him in favor of the impulses that will help those around him and make the world a better place.

Edit: On a side note, our youngest has bullying tendancies also. But they are... different. Our middle child, on the other hand, wouldn't bully a fly. She just has no desire for it.

[ May 03, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure I read something not too long ago which postulated based on genetic markers that eight percent of the population of central Asia -- about a half-percent of the entire world's population -- is now descended from Genghis Khan.

---