turionx2

I would be curious to know how many people that have tried to learn to be logical have succeeded in learning and executing logic. Have any studies been done?

Ignorance must be bliss.

Evidence please that humans are omnivores. Just because humans do something, doesn't mean that we are.

Some humans smoke... should all humans be smoking?

I have heard someone say that evolutionary theory is not a theory, but a tautology.

Those that are fittest have most children: "fittest" is defined as having the most children.

 

or

Those that survive, survive.

 

I can't see that failing to be true. Can you explain how you think it might do so?

Which tautology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

My opinion is that these do not show that we humans disrespect nature. We disrespect nature in many other ways. But we are part of the food chain. We are omnivores.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that we are omnivores? Any knowledge of neuroscience?

We eat meat (of course also plants). And it is also true that animals may also eat us but that is rare. We really have no natural predators after us.

The food chain IS nature and we are part of it.

You actually eat animals. Meat is a made up word so you can disconnect the animal from your mind that you would and could never kill up close yourself.

Of course we are part of the food chain; when did I say we weren't? Also we are near the middle of the food chain with the elephants.

The hipbone in birds and amphibians has a different purpose because they aren't large animals. Remove the hip bone from a bird and let me know if it is able to fly without control of the rear feather, and remove the hip bones from a frog and let me know if it is able to jump those long distances.

Everything is open to interpretation.

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy to me, but I have to ask if you have any evidence for the assertion I have highlighted in bold.

Its self verifying.

​You can also be an atheist with a religion.

Jainism?

This could quite easily (likely?) be a false memory, though.

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/findex/g/false-memory-definition.htm

You seem to assert that everything needs to be learnt.

Socrates / Plato surely did not think they could not be taught if Socrates' many attempts to get people to start thinking philosophically and critically are anything to go by (although I am trying to remember if Philosopher Kings were born or made). Personally I disagree whole-heartedly with the OP - having spent time teaching critical legal theory I suppose I must believe it is possible to teach and further I found that very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills (cynicism is not enough!).

I dont see how cynicism has anything to do with critical thinking. To me, a person who lacks critical thinking can give the illusion of being a critical thinker by denying what they don't understand and display cynicism from their inability to critically think. -- Unfortunately there is plenty of block heads in society that have been brainwashed by society to believe that they can learn to become geniuses or leaders and later in life have a very hard time accepting their inferiority.

I was scolded in school by teachers for my critical thinking and I had to learn to shut up, memorize the illogical information and regurgitate it when test time came around because if I didn't, I was discriminated for my critical thinking by receiving a lower mark. Teachers disliked to be seen as incompetent.

Out of everyone you tried to teach critical thinking; what is the percentage of students that were able to learn how to critically think?

Whilst it would be silly to deny nature - so many abilities, faculties, and aptitudes have to do with nurture and environment that to look for any strict delineation between instinctive skills and learnt skills is fruitless.

You only say its fruitless because if a delineation is discovered, it would hurt the ego's of many people.

It is arrogant to believe that a person can be made a genius or a leader and very destructive to the minds of those who are born with these abilities.

There are so very few skills that cannot be taught and so many instances of natural talent that to try to place certain concepts in one camp rather than the other is a fool's errand and possibly very disruptive of society.

This made me laugh because this type of thinking is why the economy is in the toilet. You're so worried about not agitating the sheeps to the point where you don't see the damage that you are doing to everyone's psychology by pushing everyone to believe that they can all do anything.

 

Please don't do this. If you have a point, make it yourself and then link to your relevant sites. This way, you're asking us to sift through the links to glean your meaning without knowing why you want us to.

 

Current discussion processes work better than current telepathic processes.

Those are examples of how humans disrespect nature.

How is it wishful thinking, evolution has more evidence than virtually any other theory and nothing in biology makes sense except by applying the theory of evolution.

Do you know the definition of evidence?

The details are being worked out but to make the claim you're making is a falsehood...

Will see when the theory of evolution is able to see over the horizon.

Again, no, to figure out who committed a crime without does not require exact knowledge, the preponderance of the evidence points to evolution via natural selection and how life began is a different issue that has quite a bit of good evidence to support it but it is still not required to know exactly how life began to study how it evolved...

If you're trying to brainwash me and have me accept the half ass collected information, its not going to work.

And this is what makes me believe the whole Intelligent Design movement is purposely deceptive. They create a false controversy by claiming there is a "vs" involved here, that there actually is something to discuss. Then they claim it's the duty of educators to teach both sides in schools so the kids can decide for themselves. Pure deception.

 

Creationists removed the hipbones from the whale skeleton at the Creationist Museum. So, to them, controversy is obviously a one-way street.

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

Even dolphins have hipbones...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Dolphin_anatomy.png/1280px-Dolphin_anatomy.png

If you genuinely ask for love from a higher power, you will receive love.

If you have doubts when asking for love, you will not receive love.

Would be great if everyone stopped clumping God with religion.

https://theconversation.com/the-meat-paradox-how-we-can-love-some-animals-and-eat-others-149

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-colier/can-we-really-do-this-to-_b_3668079.html

 

I think its best we get YOUR definition of morality and compassion before we can go any further ......

The definitions on the internet suffice. Please don't confuse empathy/sympathy with compassion.

Isn't compassion one of the foundations of morality?

Thank you.

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere.

Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

Millions of years? Or six thousand? Why not have the creator pop the universe into existence just as you were born, a few decades ago, complete with deceptive structure that mimics an ancient Earth with trillions of generations before you?

 

Compared to wishful thinking like that, I much prefer the neatly ordered and gathered evidence for evolution. If it's a counterfeit, it's a counterfeit worthy of admiration on its own.

Isn't it strange that so many generations of humans across the globe believe in (a) higher power(s)?

Isn't how evolution is laid out by evolutionary scientists, can be considered as wishful thinking?

You are correct, evolution does not say how life started, only how it diversified after it developed... but we do have a pretty good handle on the evidence of how it formed as well but not as much as evolution

How life diversified is very open to interpretation though. Like the religious books.

There is no doubt that evolution happened, We have not only fossils that shows that complex life diversified over several hundred million years and the genes show the same hierarchy as well, God did not just poof everything we see now out of nothing 6000 years ago...

I am not disputing whether evolution happened or not because it is obvious that it happened and that it is happening. I am saying that no one without knowing exactly how life began, the starting point, can know exactly how life diversified. Hence have any evidence.

Real evidence is available, the fossil record backed up with genetics is evidence of the highest order. All it would take is for someone to find a modern animal in the Cambrian but the fossils don't lie.. no bunny rabbits in the Cambrian...

Fossils just indicate that there was life back then. Fossils are no evidence of how that life form came to be.

There is no scientific evidence for creationism, but there is scientific evidence for evolution.

I wouldn't call organizing information neatly in order as "evidence" for evolution because a creator could of created different creatures with similarities of DNA and none of us would of known the difference millions of years after the fact.

I'm not religious by the way and I will be waiting until real evidence is available.

 

There's no addiction, no withdrawal. You wanted to experiment with heroin for the first time, I was worried you'd hurt yourself so I stole it when you weren't looking. Am I compassionate, or am I a thief?

Shifting the goal post, regardless, its still a form of self-abuse.

Your compassionate unless you're lying and plan to use the heroin later on.

Separate question, let's say our culture is Peruvian and it's our ritual mushrooms instead of heroin, but my concerns remain the same about you. Did anything change morally? Compassionately?

I understand your point and I don't agree with it. The made up morals of the Peruvian society would indicate that its ok to use the ritual mushrooms however my personal morals say its a form of quick reward self-abuse which can lead to dependence.

 

Investing in stocks for personal gain (right things for the wrong reason) or i could save the 10 people and let the 1 die (wrong things for the right reason) etc etc

Nice illusion.

What is the right reason for investing in stocks?

Where does it say that death is wrong?

 

You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right reasons...

Examples?

I hope folks will not focus entirely on the (admittedly poor) example I gave, and will instead recognize the core point. There is a flawed assumption in the OPs definition of morality. That's what I'm trying to illuminate.

Can a person "say" they have(or express) compassion while lacking morality?

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was trying to ask and took every word literally.

I stole your heroin because i'm afraid you'll overdose. Am I compassionate or immoral?

Since addiction is wrong, its self-abuse, your act would be considered compassionate if you also support the addict through the withdrawal phase.

Well, true in the literal sense but our educational system would be lost without such lies, whether parental or state; you don't explain QM without simplifying and to simplify is to lie in one way or another.

Why do you have to simplify QM to explain it? Is it because the majority cannot grasp the complexitity of QM?

Maybe everyone is addicted to pleasure? Driving fast? More salt, sugar and fatty foods? Seems like many addictions in society are the drive for wastefulness.

Understanding what? That lying is ok?

It isn't compassion. Its deception. You lie to the child so he doesn't feel emotional pain, true, but in reality you tell a lie to feel good about yourself.

I'd rather tell the truth to the child, tell him/her calmly why cancer happens and that death is normal. Offer emotional support if it is required in the coming months and keep the child physically active so he/she learns to overcome problems in life.

Death is only wrong because society deems death as wrong.

So morality is required to have compassion and it seems like a lot of fake compassion occurs in society.

And what lie would that be?

A lie will cause cognitive dissonance for the child when they are older. I don't see how telling a lie is compassionate.

 

Arbitrary blind trust is the surest way to get oneself killed. As for trusting the systems that human judgment creates rather than trusting human judgment - I can see parallels with trust in scientific knowledge. It is wise to place trust in peer-reviewed knowledge resulting from the scientific 'method', because (as you may well agree) Science is the most reliable means of obtaining information about objective reality. The peer review process and subsequent attempts to replicate published data mean that any bias or error on the part of individual scientists is gradually sifted out of the collective body of scientific knowledge. It is foolish to place trust in the claims of any one individual scientist whose work has not been subjected to effective peer review nor to scrutiny by oneself. In this sense, I trust Science (in the sense of trusting the scientific approach, when followed correctly, to yield reliable and accurate information about reality); I do not necessarily trust individuals scientists.

You don't believe the genius mentality exists?

As someone who has a significant trust in the scientific method, have you made any discoveries yourself?

To the OP: We've evolved to solve immediate problems required to survive... finding food, shelter, water, avoiding predators. We live in the moment because that's where the biggest dangers have resided for eons. We never had to think about what might happen 100 years from now based on our actions today, and our brains aren't really wired to take that into consideration when making short-term decisions.

Since the advent of technology only a minority of the population lives in the "moment". The majority is either living in the past or the future because of their ADD/ADHD.

Some people's brains can take in large amounts of information and process it and proceed to do what needs to be done. Gandhi comes to mind.

We solve the immediate need at the expense of the future cost. Instant gratification trumps long-term wisdom. What might happen "down the road" is merely an after-thought.

Sounds like addiction, not a description of a healthy mind.