does the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
hey, no worries mate (in aussie drawl) no nothing controversial there
I remember reading a post back in the archives somewhere with the question about whether evolution has stopped because man hasnt changed for a couple of thousand years
I dont think you'll be able to say that in a thousand years time
cheers
pak
does the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
Think of how much longer old people stay alive now, to no reproductive purpose
No reproductive purpose but still an evolutionary purpose. For example looking after their grandkids while the parents work to secure the grandkids a better education etc. This can give the next generation a big advantage.
For intelligent species evolution stops or changes drastically
I would agree that it changes, and focuses more on intelligence than physical strength. But evolution can never stop until reproduction stops, or the environment stops changing.
The next hundred years, provided that we don't wipe ourselves out, will be very interesting indeed.
I see man taking some control over his own evolution with genetic technologies. You're right very interesting. Will make or break the human species imho (without trying to be overly dramatic).
i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.
most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.
instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Hellrider
behaviour I expect of myself and the behaviour I expect from others
Sorry my phrasing there was a bit vague (the word expect has several meanings and I used two of them). I try to follow the golden rule most of the time, not because its some moral code, it is just my nice guy nature . I don't however expect (demand) people to treat me like that, it would be nice, but I do expect (anticipate) it from them, somewhat naively on occassion.
You still seem to be saying that its either an absolute moral, or nothing, just a feeling. I see relative morals as stronger than that, sure they may change over time, given new information or situations, but that doesnt make them weak now, "it is reasonable to conclude" that this would make them stronger over time. They are as strong as we decide they are.
And you also keep coming back to the idea that some things are just so heinous, so beyond the pale, that they must be against some absolute moral standard. But who decides where the line is drawn (God? us? the UN?) How do you stop it being abused? Can the absolute morals change ? (if so they are not absolute, if not how do you avoid them becoming outdated and dangerous)
And your example of Africa - what if Aids mutated into a more virulent airbourne virus that could wipeout humanity in days, and had already spread over half of Africa? What then? What if it was not quite so virulent and would only wipe 75% of humanity? 60%? 40%? 10%? Somewhere it goes from being moral to nuke Africa to not being moral - (according to my relative morals) but where? I dont know and they're my morals. Pity on someone trying to work out an absolute moral to fit all circumstances.
What if we decide now that it is absolutely immoral to nuke Africa, and then Aids mutates as above. But we cant do anything cause that would break our moral code.
I am also toying with the thought (havent worked it though fully yet) that many of the examples you have given are only possible if the villians of the piece (Nazis is particular, also terrorists nowadays) believe they have an absolute moral right. We can kill all them people cause we are right and they are wrong. Any comments on this?
cheers
pak
seems a bit extreme but read on.
we all know how fond russell was of the pyramids and their various measurements.
if not check out .
Thanks for posting those scans, they're amazing. So Satan personally oversaw the building of the pyramids. Wished I known that when I was there. Would have looked for his initials carved in the rock.
I didn't realise this was part of the big schism that went on back there. But makes sense, can see comments like that really p*ssing off the Russell faithful.
Kind of stuffs the whole claim to divine inspiration doesn't it. When one president accuses the previous of being inspired by the dark side just to entrench his position.
Swan: thanks, nice to be here
Gerard: I don't think Russell was a satanist either, I just think it's bloody hilarious that Rutherford insinuated it
cheers
pak
seems a bit extreme but read on.
we all know how fond russell was of the pyramids and their various measurements.
if not check out .
seems a bit extreme but read on
We all know how fond Russell was of the pyramids and their various measurements. If not check out
http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/index.php/watchtower_quotes/abandoned-truths/pyramid/
And then in 1928 when Rutherford was ditching Russells beliefs and the pyramids also had to go the Watchtower says
If the pyramid is not mentioned in the Bible, then following its teachings is being led by vain philosophy and false science and not following after Christ.
but wait there's more, the Satanic part
It is more reasonable to conclude that the great pyramid of Gizeh, as well as the other pyramids thereabout, also the sphinx, were built by the rulers of Egypt and under the directions of Satan the Devil… Then Satan put his knowledge in dead stone, which may be called Satans’ Bible, and not God’s stone witness…
So Rutherford admits that the founder of his religion CT Russell formed an important foundation of the religion from reading quote "Satan's bible" unquote. A bit dramatic of him, and not repeated to my knowledge in any other Wts, but still a huge admission.
If anyone has a scan of the above WT I would love to see it.
kudos to quotes
cheers
pak
i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.
most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.
instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Hellrider
It seems that agreement is breaking out all over the place. I thought you were defending the Rex view that absolute moral truths existed.
If there are no "moral absolutes", then there are just differing opinions!
Couldn't have put it better myself. Thats why democracy is so beneficial. It gives the loudest voice to the biggest group not the strongest individual (in theory anyway).
(Does me saying this upset you? Try to isolate that feeling, and analyse it).
No not at all, I'm sitting here nodding my head.
The same goes for everything else. When the Einsatzgruppen marched into the occupied eastern territories in 1942, rounded up all the jews, lined them up in front of the mass graves and shot them, that was perfectly ok. It was just "differing opinions" (in the sense that the unarmed civilian jews didn`t want to get shot, of course), but once the opinion of the one side was silenced with the machinegunfire, the "differing opinions" was stopped, and nothing "wrong" had been done.
During the war those soldiers were heroes, after the war they were criminals. A cynic would say that history decides right and wrong. Although we now have our opinions and can judge whether it was right or wrong, not by some absolute morals, but with our own judgement.
when a pedophile kidnaps, rapes and murders a child, he just had some "different views" on what acceptable behaviour. To bad for the kids parents, but hey, that`s not his problem, as long as he doesn`t have to hear them cry. He did no wrong, because nothing is wrong
I think he did wrong. However I think this not because I compare his behaviour to some absolute moral, but I compare it to the behaviour I expect of myself and the behaviour I expect from others.
The choice with morals is not absolute or nothing. Morals exist but they are relative, relative to the way we ourselves feel. And when a big enough section of society feels the same this becomes the moral norm and then law etc. Therefore morals can change over time, and dare I say it, evolve.
The problem with wanting absolute morals rather than relative morals is that they have to be set by someone, or some group, and then never changed. Alright if you're that someone, or if they agree with you, but otherwise ......
cheers
pak
i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.
most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.
instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Thanks Hellrider, it good to get some specific examples to illustrate the question can I paraphase you and say you are proposing an absolute truth that we shouldn't commit atrocities on individuals, especailly the young, that cannot defend themselves that is something that you believe, I believe, 99.9 of the people reading this will believe, and yet some people do not believe as it happens every day, therefore it is not absolute you and I may believe it absolutely, with every fibre of our being, but it is not with every fibre of everyones being, so it is not absolute
from wiki
absolute
i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.
most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.
instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.
Hi Rex
2 quick questions, but firstly thanks for raising a fascinating topic
First question, are you really 51 (this may have been covered on another topic but there are a lot of them)?
And second, you claim that absolute truths have been admitted, but I havent seen any in this topic - 4 pages and counting. What are the absolute truths we should be aware of. I accept that there may be absolute truths, but I in my ignorance dont know of any. So I guess Rex thats where you come in. What are the absolute truths we should know, and also cause anyone can make this stuff up, what proof do you have?
Cheers
pak
we've lived here for nearly 2 years now, and this is the first i've seen them, and i'm home most of the time.
they caught me as i was taking the rubbish out; i didn't even realise they were in my front garden.
anyway, it was the first warm saturday we've had since last year, and here comes a mother with her young son.
great work, sounds like a wonderful anti-witness was given, gotta love that tms school training - use leading questions, commend the witnoid when they follow simple logic, use illustrations, repetition (knock knock anyone home)
last time witnesses called on me about a year ago I mentioned the UN and they said they would look it up and call back, havent heard anything since
would not surprise me if elders automatically put anyone who mentions the UN on a do not call list (to protect the flock)
cheers
pak
this one is for the politically correct crowd: .
is there no 'absolute truth'?
do you want to live that one out?
And God proceeded to speak to Moses saying, (inter alia)
You must not kill.
You must not commit adultery.
You must not steal.
You must not desire your fellowmans house, wife, slaves bull ass or anything.
Now go over there and kill us some heathens, take their land, rape their wives and daughters, and keep their slaves bulls ass and everything (or else kill all of them as well)
Read that little story somewhere, doesnt prove anything but thought I'd share.
Laws against killing, rape, and stealing arent absolute. they are definatly not inherent in every one of us or else they wouldn't be such popular pastimes.
They are however a groups best defense against individuals seeking advantage at the cost of other individuals. An individual who steals form others isnt producing new goods he is merely transferring from others to himself, not good for the group as a whole so it is discouraged. An individual who kills others for his own advantage is also weakening the group, unless it advantages the group then it may be condoned. And rape, amongst other things, attempts to take away the womens right to select the father of her children (and women generally choose the strongest or healthiest or wisest or best singers) which right is for the benefit of the group.
A group has the rights to make laws, and these laws are generally simlar over the past few thousand years cause humans basically havent changed much, just their tools have. but these laws arent absolute. e.g. is incest absolutely bad?? but in some cultures it was encouraged in royal bloodlines to maintain purity.
edited to add: The 10 commandments only applied within the group, and protected the group. It wasnt in the groups interest for them to apply outside the group as they wanted to kill their neighbours and take their land so this was not outlawed, or seen as immoral.
cheers
pak
