greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens 273 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  never a jw

  CA

  Man created God and then "God" created man. That's the right order.

  Morals/morality are just a set a rules created by the strong to control the weak (leaders versus led). At a practical level, they work OK for me to create some degree of cooperation and harmony when you live in a community. Maybe that's where the concept of civilization comes from. Morals is a diversion from natural selection. Civilization and morals work well for a while, until it's time for natural selection to continue its inexorable course, which "God" can't do squat to stop.

  By the way CA, you can sell me a god, just don't try to sell me the god of the Jews (Bible). That god has all the bad traits of a very flawed human.
• 

  cofty

  I disagree with your pessimistic description of morality.

  Natural selection has resulted in the success of compassion and cooperation. I would like to debate that in more detail.

  Maybe I will start a thread later
• 

  Pterist

  *** The only version that survives the evidence would be a strictly defined theistic evolution, of the sort that Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller teach.... This raises a lot of other difficult questions but at least its consistent with the facts.****

  I admire your in depth knowledge on your subject, and your honest and fair comment above.
• 

  cantleave

  BUGGER!!! - because I am living a real life now which involves going to work, walking my dog, socialising down the pub and doing shopping on a Saturday morning, I am missing the fun of this thread.

  To Pterist......

  The reason for my question was exactly as stated. How do you define spiritual? Is spirituality only something that can be described in terms of a supernatural experience? Does the spirituality experienced by Hindu count, or does it have to be a christian perspective only. How about the astronomer who knows that god is a myth, but is still filled with awe at the immenisity, and diversity found in the universe?

  Still thinking, injected another aspect; is "spirituality" always a good thing? The islamic fundamentalist feels a spiritual link to his god myth, and results can be catastrophic.

  My question on another thread which you quouted, about why Jesus never shows himself was said to be the antithesis of spiritual, why is that? To billions of spiritual people who are not Christian it would not seem a question that lacks spirituality. In fact if I would say the spiritual should lead us to ask questions just like that. The Idea of Jesus is only a myth until there is evidence to to demonstrate otherwise. Until this Jesus proves his existence I have every right to challenge the concept. In the same way that you probably challenge the concept of Ganesha - does make that you Pterist a person without spirituality?

  Therefore, is sprituality a subjective concept, are you spiritual only in the eye of the beholder and his/her idea of what spiritual is? Or is psiritual just another construct, a creation of each individual's mind, unmeasurable and meaningless?

  One thing for certain it is not science, it is nothing to do with the topic under discussion and it certainly shuold not be something to judge your fellow man by!!
• 

  cantleave

  OK Back to the book, Unstop, you either toally agree with Dawkins or still don't undertsand how evolution works because we have heard no critique of the book from you.

  Please start a discussion on what you thought was good or bad.

  For instance did you not find the idea of sexual selection in Chapter 2 compelling? I found Dawkins discussion showing how sexual dimorphism occurs in some birds, where he used pheasants as an example, a particularly interesting section of the chapter. He points out that the females need to be camouflaged, as they are ground nesting, and the succesful breeders are those that are not spotted by predators whilst incubating their eggs, ie the most drab. By contrast the males are selected for breeding by the females, and the more garish are preferred, the genes of the most colourful are passed on. The result is male and female possess very different morphologies.
• 

  never a jw

  Cofty,

  You sounded very objective until the "pessimistic"part. Either I am wrong or I am not. Since morality is more a subject of metaphysics than science, I am going to call it 50/50 just to throw a number, but "pessimistic" coming from a guy who does such a great job at defending science?
• 

  cofty

  Lets not be pedantic "never a jw". This is an online chat not a science paper.

  To be more precise I think you are wrong about morals.

  Specifically these two comments...

  Morals/morality are just a set a rules created by the strong to control the weak

  I am a moral realist. I think we can make objective statements about morality that are not dependent on either personal preference nor divine fiat.

  Morals is a diversion from natural selection

  Perhaps you are thinking in terms of "survival of the fittest". Often people confuse this idea with survival of the strongest or most powerful. Natural selection has selected for cooperation, empathy and other personality traits that contribute to the suuccess of groups. We have the ability to think from the perspective of others and understand that the welfare of others is in our own best interests in the longer term. What we call morality is simply our attempts to promote the welfare of conscious creatures.

  Sam Harris wrote at some length on this in his excellent book "The Moral Landscape".
• 

  still thinking

  Sam Harris wrote at some length on this in his excellent book "The Moral Landscape"...cofty

  Adding to reading list. Thanks.

  Sam Harris is a great speaker and writer.
• 

  never a jw

  Cofty,

  Morality in humans is a function of their higher intelligence. So I rather keep it simple. Intelligent beings are better equipped for survival. It is precisely intelligent individual of a species that improve the chances of survival of the group with higher intelligence. Having said that, my premise doesn't change. Morality is created by the leaders/strong to control the led/weak for the benefit of the whole species, or sometimes for the exclusive benefit of the strong. However, I see a trap. When there are limited or insufficient resources to be shared or adverse conditions appear in the environment, we go back to the primeval form of survival of the fittest. Morality only works when there's abundant resources to be shared. Morality stregthens the group, but weakens the individual. 1000 years ago, many "weak" children would die because they couldn't survive on their own. Today, thanks to advances in the medical field and morality those children have almost 100 % chance of survival. The human race maybe strong and numerous, but the average individual is weaker. I am only stating the facts as I see them; I am not even hinting at eugenics. Morality is so ingrained in me by 48 years of indoctrination that the very idea of using the word makes me feel guilty. Yes, I have become weaker too.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Intelligent beings are better equipped for survival.

  Bacteria have been around longer and can survice places a human cannot.