Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why do people say there is no god because of no solid proof but believe the evolution theory like they were there when the "big bang happened" and saw it for themselves. Well jesus was in the history books(not just the bible) and no they couldn't find his bones because he took it with him. As for him being the son of God is another story and another thread.

Many people have a poor understanding of evolution. So, if you understood how evolution works, you would ask, why would someone believe in a fairy tail god when evolution makes so much more sense?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Many people have a poor understanding of evolution. So, if you understood how evolution works, you would ask, why would someone believe in a fairy tail god when evolution makes so much more sense? A fairy tail god ? Well people thought the earth was flat because it made sense.

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
A fairy tail god ? Well people thought the earth was flat because it made sense.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So were you there at the big bang ?

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
So were you there at the big bang ?

So were you there with Adam?

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Why do people say there is no god because of no solid proof but believe the evolution theory like they were there when the "big bang happened" and saw it for themselves. Well jesus was in the history books(not just the bible) and no they couldn't find his bones because he took it with him. As for him being the son of God is another story and another thread.

Actually, your point is valid.

Much like religious people take the word of their religious leader to be true, not being able to check whether its there or not, people take scientist word for it as well without being able to check.

If a well known scientist tells you there are so many billion stars in our Galaxy alone - you believe them, without actually being able to check.

The sad truth is that many people are not familiar with many aspects of science, so if a certain person they deam is of status, tells them something scientifically related, they will believe it, without actualky understaniding it.

Its a bit far fetched to claim that all Athiests are science experts - because they are not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So were you there with Adam? If you read my first post it said why do people complain about this when they believe this. I didn't make no claims or anything.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, your point is valid.

Much like religious people take the word of their religious leader to be true, not being able to check whether its there or not, people take scientist word for it as well without being able to check.

If a well known scientist tells you there are so many billion stars in our Galaxy alone - you believe them, without actually being able to check.

The sad truth is that many people are not familiar with many aspects of science, so if a certain person they deam is of status, tells them something scientifically related, they will believe it, without actualky understaniding it.

Its a bit far fetched to claim that all Athiests are science experts - because they are not.

Hey! your ruining a perfectly good argument here. jk

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
If you read my first post it said why do people complain about this when they believe this. I didn't make no claims or anything.

And nether do I, I just turned your question on it's ear to have fun with it.

way to go lil b

Evidence.

Originally posted by Boris
Evidence.

Evidence?

They can tell you that it is evidence, just like a priest or a mullah can tell you there is evidence for God and Allah, the point is you cannot check it - you naturally assume they are right because they are people of status - scientist.

Average person cannot check how many stars there is in galaxy - they believe what they are told by those who claim they can do so.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Evidence?

They can tell you that it is evidence, just like a priest or a mullah can tell you there is evidence for God and Allah, the point is you cannot check it - you naturally assume they are right because they are people of status - scientist.

Average person cannot check how many stars there is in galaxy - they believe what they are told by those who claim they can do so.

But if you want to double check the information, you can get the reports and do so. People do it all the time, that is why there are scientific populations. If you want to check out how the bible was put together there will come a point were you will need to look in the Vatican archives and they will not let you in.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if you want to double check the information, you can get the reports and do so. People do it all the time, that is why there are scientific populations. If you want to check out how the bible was put together there will come a point were you will need to look in the Vatican archives and they will not let you in.

Aaah, but if you want to check Bible is true, you go to religious people. You cannot claim in order to check bible you go to a scientist, just like you cannot claim in order to check science you go to a religious leader.

We know how the rain is made - because scientists have given us a more plausable explanation. The fact is, you cannot check how the rain is really made - you can make similar experiments, but you cannot check the actual event yourself.

There are reports, true, but who wrote these reports? Scientists did. The same ones, I just said you believe what they say, because they are people of status.

If you can check everything you are told, without reports or statistics, then there would be a different argument alltogether

I'd just like to point out that I got a bit carried away with the argument. I am very science orientated person, but me trying to prove the other side of the argument, kinda took over

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Aaah, but if you want to check Bible is true, you go to religious people. You cannot claim in order to check bible you go to a scientist, just like you cannot claim in order to check science you go to a religious leader.

We know how the rain is made - because scientists have given us a more plausable explanation. The fact is, you cannot check how the rain is really made - you can make similar experiments, but you cannot check the actual event yourself.

There are reports, true, but who wrote these reports? Scientists did. The same ones, I just said you believe what they say, because they are people of status.

If you can check everything you are told, without reports or statistics, then there would be a different argument alltogether

I partly agree, however, in the scientific world, composition is used to validate information. If you publish something everyone is going to check your findings, cause if they can debunk you, it gives them clout, which helps them with their research funding.

The fundamental point of what you are saying is how do we know anything. We must have faith that the system that we now have in place will work toward better ideas. However, the true nature of really can not be understood by humans, and never will be.

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Why do people say there is no god because of no solid proof but believe the evolution theory like they were there when the "big bang happened" and saw it for themselves. Well jesus was in the history books(not just the bible) and no they couldn't find his bones because he took it with him. As for him being the son of God is another story and another thread.

I had read a book from a religious man who claimed the evolution theory never contradicts the catholic view of creation.

Peter Kreeft writes in his book Making Choices: Finding Black and White in a World of Grays says:

Another example would be the contradiction between religious faith and modern science. For instance, doesn't Genesis say we were created by God in his image, while modern biology tells us we evolved over a long period of time from apes? The two most popular "solutions" to this problem are #2 and #3 in our list. Believers in evolution often simply scorn or sneer at religious believers, and believers in creation often ignore the scientific data rather than explaining it. But a better solution (C in our diagram) would be a larger, more complete one . What the Bible tells us is that the soul was created by God, breathed into us by God. That is "the image of God"-the soul. What the theory of evolution (and is only a theory) supposes is that the human body gradually evolved from higher apes, as they evolved from more primitive apes, which in turn evolved from more primitive life forms, etc. Now perhaps the theory is simply wrong scientifically; but what if it is right, it does not contradict the bible account because it says nothing at all about the soul. How could science see souls? Are there fossils of souls embedded in rocks? God could have gradually prepared the human body by evolution and then created the soul and breathed it into the body. That would be a more complete, two part explanation, including both body and soul. C includes both A and B.

(excerpt from Part Three: Five-Twelve Little Boxes Morality Wont Fit Into pg 56 pr.2)

Originally posted by AOR
I had read a book from a religious man who claimed the evolution theory never contradicts the catholic view of creation.

Peter Kreeft writes in his book Making Choices: Finding Black and White in a World of Grays says:

Another example would be the contradiction between religious faith and modern science. For instance, doesn't Genesis say we were created by God in his image, while modern biology tells us we evolved over a long period of time from apes? The two most popular "solutions" to this problem are #2 and #3 in our list. Believers in evolution often simply scorn or sneer at religious believers, and believers in creation often ignore the scientific data rather than explaining it. But a better solution (C in our diagram) would be a larger, more complete one . What the Bible tells us is that the soul was created by God, breathed into us by God. That is "the image of God"-the soul. What the theory of evolution (and is only a theory) supposes is that the human body gradually evolved from higher apes, as they evolved from more primitive apes, which in turn evolved from more primitive life forms, etc. Now perhaps the theory is simply wrong scientifically; but what if it is right, it does not contradict the bible account because it says nothing at all about the soul. How could science see souls? Are there fossils of souls embedded in rocks? God could have gradually prepared the human body by evolution and then created the soul and breathed it into the body. That would be a more complete, two part explanation, including both body and soul. C includes both A and B.

(excerpt from Part Three: Five-Twelve Little Boxes Morality Wont Fit Into pg 56 pr.2)

That is interesting and probably more true than false. However, we did not evolve from apes, we are apes.

I'm pretty sure many people wouldn't like that idea of a definition of a person...

Originally posted by AOR
I'm pretty sure many people wouldn't like that idea of a definition of a person...

People used to think the the sun went around the Earth, and got upset when you told them that we are not the center of the universe. But we got over it.

eh, good point...

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Why do people say there is no god because of no solid proof but believe the evolution theory like they were there when the "big bang happened" and saw it for themselves. Well jesus was in the history books(not just the bible) and no they couldn't find his bones because he took it with him. As for him being the son of God is another story and another thread.

There is more proof of evolution than there is of God, that is why I believe in the theory of evolution.

Were you around when God 'created' the world? No. If you weren't around when He made the world, how can you believe in Him?

Originally posted by Makedde
There is more proof of evolution than there is of God, that is why I believe in the theory of evolution.

Were you around when God 'created' the world? No. If you weren't around when He made the world, how can you believe in Him? so you were at the bing bang eh. Also more proof? because random scientist said so like the earth was flat right...you didn't read the bible or anything for religion knowledge.

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
so you were at the bing bang eh. Also more proof? because random scientist said so like the earth was flat right...you didn't read the bible or anything for religion knowledge.

What proof of God do you have other than an ancient story written aons ago?

Didn't make claims just prooving you wrong and my first post right.

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Didn't make claims just prooving you wrong and my first post right.

Prove to me that God is real. You can't.

Just like you can't prove the big bang exists

Originally posted by AOR
Just like you can't prove the big bang exists

If I can't prove the Big Bang really happened, and you can't prove that God exists, who created the world?

maybe some people cant prove GOD exists, but who are you to say that he dosent, we all need to belive in something greater than us.
I personally cant prove he exists, but I believe in HIM because of certain events in my life, and for some of you people in here to say he doesnt exist is like saying nothing in my life that has transpired by faith or kindness never happened, and that is an insult to me and every other person who believes.

Originally posted by Makedde
If I can't prove the Big Bang really happened, and you can't prove that God exists, who created the world?


three hundred ways of proving God's exsistance, enlighten yourself:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Originally posted by Thorin
maybe some people cant prove GOD exists, but who are you to say that he dosent, we all need to belive in something greater than us.
I personally cant prove he exists, but I believe in HIM because of certain events in my life, and for some of you people in here to say he doesnt exist is like saying nothing in my life that has transpired by faith or kindness never happened, and that is an insult to me and every other person who believes.

You are welcome to believe in God, that's fine, I have no problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with those people who insist that God DOES exist, that He IS real, yet they have no proof. It's one thing to believe, it's another to say that someone exists when there is no proof.

ah the effect of good reason...

People always say this, and by God, this time I'm taking a stand.

Prove it.

Prove that Jesus is given more than, possibly a passing mention in Tacticus.

"Oh, there was a census." Prove it. Tell me where the results of the census were found, who found them, what peer reviewed source they were published in, and who (if anyone) published them into English. If that's not what you mean, give equivilant information for your evidence.

"Jesus was in the history books." Is that a confession that to find any mention of Jesus, you have to go so far into the future that he's considered "history?" What history books?

And if people thought the Earth was flat, it was a long, long time ago. Well before Jesus, as a matter of fact. For heaven's sake, the Greeks calculated its diameter. So if you'd stop spreading that lie, you'd do the truth a favor.

Oh, and ...



Not if you have any sense you don't. "Religious people?" Do you mean Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists? Or maybe you mean Christians? What a wonderful idea! Maybe when we're done, we can ask L. Ron. Hubbard whether Scientology is true! And then we can ask Marshall Applewhite if we shouldn't join the Heaven's Gate Cult! And then we can drink the KoolAid, which will actually be a mercy, because by the time we've finished asking the Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Hidus, Juche, Zoroastrians, and Pagans about their holy scriptures, we'll be believing so much nonsense that the only real alternative to suicide will be a nervous breakdown.

(This is coming off a lot bitchier than I intended, but really, I don't know what else to say to something like this).

Iesus is just Greek-ization of Yeshua, a very common name. Yosef was also a very common name. The permutation Yeshua ben Yosef, would not be difficult to find on a census. Which proves very little of the "existence of Jesus in history."

I need to get to bed, but I wanted to say in closing that

1) I swear I'd forgotten who I was replying to when I accused myself of being "bitchy" and
2) I realize that many Christians aren't literalists, and therefore if you asked them about the truth of the Bible you might not end up, for example, with YE Creationism. But I still think it's a pretty odd suggestion, especially in light of the fact that many (most, actually) of the Christians I know have never read the thing cover to cover;
3) if you want to know the "truth" about the Bible, the best people to ask would be Bible scholar/critics, some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not.

So you mean that you have no idea what the purpose of the thread was.

(F*** sleep; I don't have early classes tommorow)

You made a factual statement; I asked you to support it. In return, you insult me; is this a confession that you do not, in fact, have any evidence, or are you just playing coy with it?

As for understanding the "purpose of this thread," I understood it perfectly. I simply declined to comment on it. Do you honestly believe that threads are static things that go on for pages without changing? If I had popped in here with, for example, a question about tractor-repair, you might have had a valid point. As it is, everything I've said has been a direct response to something someone else said. That's how conversations progress, on- and off-line.

Originally posted by Gregory
it's a pretty odd suggestion, especially in light of the fact that many (most, actually) of the Christians I know have never read the thing cover to cover;
But many people who USED to be christians have...

I have read the bible from cover to cover, and look at me today, I am a Buddhist.

I encourage every Christian to read the bible from cover to cover.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have read the bible from cover to cover, and look at me today, I am a Buddhist.

I encourage every Christian to read the bible from cover to cover.

Indeed:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Indeed:

It was 25 years ago. There were parts that were difficult to get through, like genealogies and the descriptions of temple inside and out. For the NT I borrowed a set of tapes and that was faster to get through.

yeha the fast forward button can be a blessing

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was 25 years ago. There were parts that were difficult to get through, like genealogies and the descriptions of temple inside and out. For the NT I borrowed a set of tapes and that was faster to get through.
Well' that explains a lot. We, Christians do not read the Bible as a bed time story or just to get through it, we study the word of God because it is food for the spirit and soul and only the spirit of God can show you that it is indeed the true Word of God.

Originally posted by sonnet
Well' that explains a lot. We, Christians do not read the Bible as a bed time story or just to get through it, we study the word of God because it is food for the spirit and soul and only the spirit of God can show you that it is indeed the true Word of God.

At the time I was a Christian and I was studying the bible. I never do anything half-ass, so I took my entire spear time, for a long time, and read the bible from cover to cover because no one else, that I knew, had done it. Have you?

Your post is insulting, because you are assume the worst. Please ask me, the next time, instead of accusing me.

yeah the best way to read a book is open it to whatever page you find suitable, thats why I read Two Towers before Fellowship of the ring

Originally posted by finti
yeah the best way to read a book is open it to whatever page you find suitable, thats why I read Two Towers before Fellowship of the ring PM me please.

why you want me to tell you how that book ends?

Originally posted by finti
why you want me to tell you how that book ended?

I need to figure things out, it is not making sense, and I am sorry for what I said to you.

Originally posted by AOR
three hundred ways of proving God's exsistance, enlighten yourself:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

What a load of rubbish, this webiste proves nothing, except people like yourself are gulible.

Originally posted by Makedde
What a load of rubbish, this webiste proves nothing, except people like yourself are gulible.

That was my impression of the site as well. The logic was based on faulty assumptions that were not mentioned.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was my impression of the site as well. The logic was based on faulty assumptions that were not mentioned.

The "arguments" for the existence of God presented on the site in question are not supposed to be taken seriously; they are jokes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The "arguments" for the existence of God presented on the site in question are not supposed to be taken seriously; they are jokes.

Oh! I have seen real stuff just like this, so I thought it was real.

people talk about about the big bang/cosmology and evolution as if they're some abstract concepts impossible for non-scientists to understand when in actuallity they're very easy to grasp if you can understand that-
1. Certain animals once lived that no longer are alive
2. The speed of light is (probably) constant
3.Heavy elements are unstable and decay into lighter elements over a fixed period of time
4. blue is a higher energy wavelength than red
5. organisms develope immunities to toxins

tada, if you payed attention in middle school science classes, you can basically understand the big bang and evolution.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
people talk about about the big bang/cosmology and evolution as if they're some abstract concepts impossible for non-scientists to understand when in actuallity they're very easy to grasp if you can understand that-
1. Certain animals once lived that no longer are alive
2. The speed of light is (probably) constant
3.Heavy elements are unstable and decay into lighter elements over a fixed period of time
4. blue is a higher energy wavelength than red
5. organisms develope immunities to toxins

tada, if you payed attention in middle school science classes, you can basically understand the big bang and evolution.

I think a lot of the people who say things like evolution makes no sense really know nothing about the topic, and are repeating things that they have heard without checking on the validity themselves.

*Note: I am the master of run-on sentences.*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I*Note: I am the master of run-on sentences.*

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The "arguments" for the existence of God presented on the site in question are not supposed to be taken seriously; they are jokes.

And this dope believes it.

'I say God exists so therefore he must exist'? Give me a break.

Sorry But if you think that website is lame Its probably cause its offensive to your type of reasoning... Ala...

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to die.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Like all the best funny stuff its biased partly on reality..

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Sorry But if you think that website is lame Its probably cause its offensive to your type of reasoning... Ala...


The website is lame because it is crap. 'I say God exists so therefore he must exist'? Get a life! Show me some real proof, not some rubbish on a webpage.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Many people have a poor understanding of evolution. So, if you understood how evolution works, you would ask, why would someone believe in a fairy tail god when evolution makes so much more sense?

your so definately right... so enlighten me if you know yourself what is evolution? why is it right? and why cant ppl prove all of this theory? tell me why i c flaw in evolution?... why do i see the world falling apart before my eyes when according to evolution the world is supposively only getting better?

Originally posted by stop_sign
why do i see the world falling apart before my eyes when according to evolution the world is supposively only getting better?

Well, if God was in charge of the world, why doesn't He make it better? God is making the world a miserable place to be.

Originally posted by Makedde
The website is lame because it is crap. 'I say God exists so therefore he must exist'? Get a life! Show me some real proof, not some rubbish on a webpage.

I'm not saying the website it right... I'm commenting on the fact that of all the people who I've talked to about faith they usualy use 1 of those thoughts to prove to themselves that they are right... You will never be able to prove the bible without the aid of a timemachine...

There has been a group of monks in germany who for the last 600 yr(I think) have been trying to prove that the bible is proof of god and jesus... So far they haven't proved anything...

^I understand what you mean now, I think I misunderstood you before.

Originally posted by stop_sign
why do i see the world falling apart before my eyes when according to evolution the world is supposively only getting better?

Wow. Oh ... wow. I never thought that you knew anything about evolution, but this is just depressing.

Originally posted by Makedde
What a load of rubbish, this webiste proves nothing, except people like yourself are gulible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was my impression of the site as well. The logic was based on faulty assumptions that were not mentioned.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The "arguments" for the existence of God presented on the site in question are not supposed to be taken seriously; they are jokes.


what he said

Originally posted by Makedde
The website is lame because it is crap. 'I say God exists so therefore he must exist'? Get a life! Show me some real proof, not some rubbish on a webpage.

How bout you show us some real proof of your religious or "spiritual" beliefs? What you have none? Pity

Originally posted by AOR
So put them all together

People have tried to do that. Read "The Power of Myth".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People have tried to do that. Read "The Power of Myth".

So I would prupose "To each their own.."

Originally posted by AOR
So I would prupose "To each their own.."

Is that surrender?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that surrender?


What?

Originally posted by AOR
What?

When you said to each his own, it sounded like don't try to put the truth together. Did I misunderstand you?

Originally posted by AOR
How bout you show us some real proof of your religious or "spiritual" beliefs? What you have none? Pity There has been proof of workings outside our direct understanding. Healing's by many cultures that are not Christian.

Originally posted by AOR
How bout you show us some real proof of your religious or "spiritual" beliefs? What you have none? Pity

I have my beliefs, I have no proof of the Goddess, just as you have no proof of God.

It's said that what we would call god has both aspects to it. A feminine and a masculine....ie god/goddess.

Everything has a polar opposite....It would explain why we are male and female....just different aspects of the ONE.

Originally posted by Gregory
Wow. Oh ... wow. I never thought that you knew anything about evolution, but this is just depressing.

So you don't see any decay in the world?

Originally posted by Echuu
So you don't see any decay in the world?

Oh, for ****s sake; you people really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? What the hell do you think that species adapting to their environment has to do with the world getting "better?"

Originally posted by Gregory
Oh, for ****s sake; you people really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? What the hell do you think that species adapting to their environment has to do with the world getting "better?"

I think YOU are the one who has no clue what you're talking about. Did I say ANYTHING that had to do with what you just said? No I didn't. I asked you a question and I'm still waiting for an answer.

He(?) asked why the world was getting worse when evolution says it should be getting better, I say he doesn't understand evolution, you say "What, you don't think the world is decaying, huhhuhhuh?" and I pointed out that evolution had nothing to do with whether the world is getting "better" (and therefore, whether the world is decaying is completely irrelevant). Unless you were changing the subject--"forget about evolution, what about the state of the world?"--my response was perfectly relevant.

And no, the world isn't decaying; it's always been like this. Actually, it's getting better in many ways.

Originally posted by Gregory
He(?) asked why the world was getting worse when evolution says it should be getting better, I say he doesn't understand evolution, you say "What, you don't think the world is decaying, huhhuhhuh?" and I pointed out that evolution had nothing to do with whether the world is getting "better" (and therefore, whether the world is decaying is completely irrelevant). Unless you were changing the subject--"forget about evolution, what about the state of the world?"--my response was perfectly relevant.

And no, the world isn't decaying; it's always been like this. Actually, it's getting better in many ways.

That's the problem when you jump into a thread randomly


Poorly constructed points on my part.

Basically if the species is 'getting better' then what about other things.

As far as the 'decay' what about things such as corruption and murder?
If our species is supposed to be passing down these better traits as time passes why do we still have the same decay, the murder/corruption mentioned above, that we've had 500 or 1000 or 3000 years ago, etc.
Granted we have had improvement but still.

I guess I end up bringing up a different question which is how does evolution and the state of mankind's morality interact if we are supposedly improving?

Quite sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Echuu
That's the problem when you jump into a thread randomly


Poorly constructed points on my part.

Basically if the species is 'getting better' then what about other things.

As far as the 'decay' what about things such as corruption and murder?
If our species is supposed to be passing down these better traits as time passes why do we still have the same decay, the murder/corruption mentioned above, that we've had 500 or 1000 or 3000 years ago, etc.
Granted we have had improvement but still.

I guess I end up bringing up a different question which is how does evolution and the state of mankind's morality interact if we are supposedly improving?

Quite sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense.

We are not getting better, because you would have to define what better means. We are always striving for balance with an advantage.

It's not a bad question, but you have to remember what evolution is based on: survival of the fittest. Suppose you have two tribes of people: one of them is willing to steal from neighboring tribes, and the other isn't. There's a draught, crops fail, and a famine results. The tribe that's willing to steal their neighbors food, even though it will result in starvation for the victims, will eat and survive; the tribe that refuses to do this will have nothing to eat, and die. Thus even though most people would argue that stealing is wrong, the tribe that holds those beliefs will be "selected" out of existance. Likewise, if I'm willing to murder a romantic rival, I'm more likely to get the girl and therefore more likely to pass down my genes. On a similar note, a man who's willing to lie to a woman to get her in bed is more likely to pass on his genes than someone who isn't. And so forth. Basically, natural selection is a totally amoral force of nature, which is why it hasn't led to morality in humans.

In theory, I suppose natural selection might be able to result in a highly moral society, but only with some pretty draconian measures. If you wanted to select against dishonesty, for example, you'd have to make sure that dishonest people didn't breed, by, for example, forcefully steralizing anyone caught telling a lie. Assuming that dishonesty is at least partly genetic, you might be able to stamp it out after a few generations.

Originally posted by Gregory
It's not a bad question, but you have to remember what evolution is based on: survival of the fittest. Suppose you have two tribes of people: one of them is willing to steal from neighboring tribes, and the other isn't. There's a draught, crops fail, and a famine results. The tribe that's willing to steal their neighbors food, even though it will result in starvation for the victims, will eat and survive; the tribe that refuses to do this will have nothing to eat, and die. Thus even though most people would argue that stealing is wrong, the tribe that holds those beliefs will be "selected" out of existance. Likewise, if I'm willing to murder a romantic rival, I'm more likely to get the girl and therefore more likely to pass down my genes. On a similar note, a man who's willing to lie to a woman to get her in bed is more likely to pass on his genes than someone who isn't. And so forth. Basically, natural selection is a totally amoral force of nature, which is why it hasn't led to morality in humans.

In theory, I suppose natural selection might be able to result in a highly moral society, but only with some pretty draconian measures. If you wanted to select against dishonesty, for example, you'd have to make sure that dishonest people didn't breed, by, for example, forcefully steralizing anyone caught telling a lie. Assuming that dishonesty is at least partly genetic, you might be able to stamp it out after a few generations.

Ah gotcha...

I've heard that in some Middle Eastern countries(most likely others too I can't recall) that if caught stealing your hands will be chopped off. Quite effective means of stopping people from stealing yet not the greatest course of action you could think of.

so cutting ones hand of aint stealing his/hers chance to be " normal"?

Originally posted by finti
so cutting ones hand of aint stealing his/hers chance to be " normal"?

? uhhh I don't exactly see what you're point is here. I was referring to Gregory's mention of draconian measures.

Originally posted by Echuu
Ah gotcha...

I've heard that in some Middle Eastern countries(most likely others too I can't recall) that if caught stealing your hands will be chopped off. Quite effective means of stopping people from stealing yet not the greatest course of action you could think of. Hey, I heard it works....It would keep me from stealing and deter others I feel..