Originally posted by Regret
All creatures that eat are parasites in the same manner man is. Lifeforms benefit from us, we are a large waste producer, many creatures survive on our waste. There are other benefits man provides, the issue at the moment is that we do not die often enough to maintain the balance that may have existed in the past, so it looks like nothing is benefiting from our existence.
wow, good way to put it
* according to the Bible...
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20
* there is no such thing as "original sin"...
Originally posted by peejayd
* according to the Bible..."The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20* there is no such thing as "original sin"...
This does contradict the idea of original sin. What is the Jewish belief on the subject? Do they have a stance? I would assume that their belief would hold some clues as to the stance that is more correct. If original sin existed then they would have had belief in it from the point of Adam. Or, if original sin did not exist then they would not have the belief. Unless there was no knowledge given men of this until the New Testament? I can't believe God would leave thousands of years of people without knowledge of it if they were subject to it.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think every individual is different....Many people beleive that "evil" or "immorality" is developed through nurture and influences.
I can agree, except for the fact that I beleive "evil" or "cruelty" for a better word, can be nature/genetically given as well.
Why do some loving parents give birth to such a cruel child? Sometimes this happens.....
Why do some hateful and abusive parents give birth to loving and tender children? And i am not counting classroom influences, i am only counting the child's personality on its own......
I wondor....can [b]Cruelty
actually be genetic as well as taught?.....not spiritually given, but physiologically? [/B]
Ah, the classic "Nature vs Nurture" argument.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ah, the classic "Nature vs Nurture" argument.
My opinion on this is twofold:
1) My beliefs and my opinion based on them:
I believe in pre-earth existence as spirits for some period of time unknown. During this time we existed with God. Thus we had an enormous amount of exposure to specific ways of behaving. I believe that that knowledge was for the most part lost when we entered a physical body. The physical body has its tendencies, some of which are in conflict with the behaviors learned as a spirit. This life is partially us learning to control the physical, or natural, man. So preexistence could provide explanation of some behaviors.
2) If I ignore my beliefs:
Man is one of the few creatures that does not have fixed action patterns. Most everything man does is learned. Most thought processes are the result of interaction with the environment in attaining the requirements of the physical form. Complex systems "evolve", are shaped, through consistent patterns during early experience.
Originally posted by Regret
2) If I ignore my beliefs:Man is one of the few creatures that does not have fixed action patterns. Most everything man does is learned. Most thought processes are the result of interaction with the environment in attaining the requirements of the physical form. Complex systems "evolve", are shaped, through consistent patterns during early experience.
So tell me...If all things are "learned" then what would happen if you're abandoned out in the middle of nowhere....Would instincts not kick in for survival?
Now, another example...Two brothers are raised by the same parents. They are treated kindly and fairly. They are taught the same exact things. When they grow up, one becomes a benevolent force. Lending his money out to save the world. The other however, becomes an evil, corrupted man who is selfish down to the core...So, where did the good guy learn to become good? Where did the evil guy learn to be evil?
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
So tell me...If all things are "learned" then what would happen if you're abandoned out in the middle of nowhere....Would instincts not kick in for survival?Now, another example...Two brothers are raised by the same parents. They are treated kindly and fairly. They are taught the same exact things. When they grow up, one becomes a benevolent force. Lending his money out to save the world. The other however, becomes an evil, corrupted man who is selfish down to the core...So, where did the good guy learn to become good? Where did the evil guy learn to be evil?
Don't bother arguing the point unless you actually have knowledge of the subject. I have studied it for ten years at the university level, and worked with it for a few more now. Do some real research, then come argue it with me. I will not defend fact against an ignorant that takes umbrage at my statements.
There are few instincts that would "kick in for survival." You would attempt to eat something. Why, because your stomach would create a sensation that the only way to stop would be to put something into it. You might cover yourself in some way in the cold. Why? Because you would be separating yourself from that cold, instinct? Still don't think it could be enough to keep you from dying if not done properly. If you were abandoned as a baby? Yes, you would die. Without the experiences you have you would not learn to take care of yourself, period.
"They are taught the same exact things." Impossible, will never happen, and has never happened. It's a hypothetical piece of crap that would never occur in the real world. It can't occur because parents are incapable of controlling the environment, the brothers experience will not be the same. Why would it occur? Because the guy learned to be "good", other guy "evil", by the consequence of the actions taken. From a purely scientific stance the whole thing is crap. The psychology that hypothesises such situations is built on inferential statistics alone, with little if any facts involved. These statistical studies most often show a 5% chance of being in error that anyone using them will acknowledge. Given that current psychology outside of Behavior Analysis and Physiological Psychology has studies based on studies based on studies, and etc., that are all based on statistics, the current studies have a huge amount of possible error. Anything based in statistics that uses a study based on statistics as reference compounds possible error, although in the current study they will fail to mention that. Therefore, unless a study is the initial statistical reference, it should be up to high skeptical review.
Now finally, since there is no possible way for this to occur, and that it never has occurred, your argument has no evidence to support it other than your hypothetical that would not occur. Man is a species that would die as an infant if not raised by something. He is horribly under-prepared for the environment because he is too adaptable. If man is raised, then his adaptability becomes an asset, but prior to raising, his adaptability is a result of the absence of the majority of instinct that most of the animal kingdom enjoys, and has no initial value.
Originally posted by Regret
Don't bother arguing the point unless you actually have knowledge of the subject. I have studied it for ten years at the university level, and worked with it for a few more now. Do some real research, then come argue it with me. I will not defend fact against an ignorant that takes umbrage at my statements.
Don't you dare insult my intelligence....You said you wanted a debate did you not? Well if your opinion is the ONLY one that's correct, then in truth, you wanted no debate...You wanted people to praise you for your knowledge.
There are few instincts that would "kick in for survival." You would attempt to eat something. Why, because your stomach would create a sensation that the only way to stop would be to put something into it. You might cover yourself in some way in the cold. Why? Because you would be separating yourself from that cold, instinct? Still don't think it could be enough to keep you from dying if not done properly. If you were abandoned as a baby? Yes, you would die. Without the experiences you have you would not learn to take care of yourself, period.
You answered my question...By over analyzing, you proved me correct...Thank you.
You didn't learn to eat...Your stomach created a sensation...Therefore, it's an instinct to eat.
"They are taught the same exact things." Impossible, will never happen, and has never happened. It's a hypothetical piece of crap that would never occur in the real world. It can't occur because parents are incapable of controlling the environment, the brothers experience will not be the same. Why would it occur? Because the guy learned to be "good", other guy "evil", by the consequence of the actions taken. From a purely scientific stance the whole thing is crap. The psychology that hypothesises such situations is built on inferential statistics alone, with little if any facts involved. These statistical studies most often show a 5% chance of being in error that anyone using them will acknowledge. Given that current psychology outside of Behavior Analysis and Physiological Psychology has studies based on studies based on studies, and etc., that are all based on statistics, the current studies have a huge amount of possible error. Anything based in statistics that uses a study based on statistics as reference compounds possible error, although in the current study they will fail to mention that. Therefore, unless a study is the initial statistical reference, it should be up to high skeptical review.
There are a set of cousins that live down the street from my former Soc professor...They were both home schooled, and basically raised inside the same house...When they entered College level classes, one wanted to go out and travel the world, while the other wished to stay inside his enclosed world....One wanted to lose his naivety, while the other wanted to stay ignorant....So tell me, was that not the real world?
Now finally, since there is no possible way for this to occur, and that it never has occurred, your argument has no evidence to support it other than your hypothetical that would not occur. Man is a species that would die as an infant if not raised by something. He is horribly under-prepared for the environment because he is too adaptable. If man is raised, then his adaptability becomes an asset, but prior to raising, his adaptability is a result of the absence of the majority of instinct that most of the animal kingdom enjoys, and has no initial value.
Adaptability is the single trait that would keep us alive in the wilderness. It's what makes us different, dare I say, better then other animals...I understand what you're saying, but I have a different opinion.
Instinct vs. Moral Descision
Riddle me this? What is stronger Instict or Moral descision. If the only way for you to survive was to eat already murdered human corpses would you do it? Instinct tells you to, moral descision tells you it's wrong. Doe's instinct overcome right and wrong. Now this varys from person to person, but taking an estimated guess here i think most people would follow instinct.
Is man inherentley evil
Now we got to get into the debate that we as people created morals. We only feel bad for are actions because are upbringing told us it was bad. Imagine the perspective from a man that was not never taught morals in a world that lacked them, he would not feel bad for raping a young girl because he has no morals, and from his perspective and from the natural animal perspective he has done nothing wrong. This is basically nothing more then an animal. Though morals and advanced thoughts are how we seperate ourselves, from Animals.
Now is man evil? this comes from one of my favorite quotes(not trying to act smart i don't know that many quotes to begin with).
“To fight is a radical instinct; if men have nothing else to fight over they will fight over words, fancies, or women, or they will fight because they dislike each other's looks, or because they have met walking in opposite directions”
George Santayana
So to answer the question is Man, inherently evil? I beleive yes but it depends on your view of evil.
BTW, i would never rape anybody uhh just thought i should get that out there.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Since morality (good and evil) is a man made concept I think it is hardly possible for men to be inherently evil.
They are not man-made concepts. They are adjectives used to describe things that we as human beings like or dislike...gain pleasure from or suffer from.
The things that we describe as "good" or "evil" already existed before we came up with the words for it.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
They are not man-made concepts. They are adjectives used to describe things that we as human beings like or dislike...gain pleasure from or suffer from.The things that we describe as "good" or "evil" already existed before we came up with the words for it.
Seems man-made it me.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Don't you dare insult my intelligence....You said you wanted a debate did you not? Well if your opinion is the ONLY one that's correct, then in truth, you wanted no debate...You wanted people to praise you for your knowledge.
I apologize for coming off as strong as I did. I had an argument with my wife immediately prior to my post, and I let it come out in that post. I do not typically respond so harshly, ask those that have interacted with me on here.
As far as debate goes, I do not believe that facts are debatable. They are facts and as such are used in a debate as key points. This discussion is around the religious aspect of the question, I do not plan on debating the scientific portion here. If I had wanted to debate that portion this thread would have been placed in the philosophy forum. My career and interest in life is psychology, physiological and behavioral emphasis. I have little respect for the stories that most of the research outside of these areas produce. They do decent research, get some accurate facts, and then write a lot of fiction around the facts. This fiction includes made up stories about cognition, self-esteem, personality, etc. The reason that these are fiction is that the majority of studies can be done with lower level animals and produce the same results. Now I am not saying these things do not exist, only that they are unobservable and as such we are only studying the behavior that we think is tied to this mystical construct. These type of studies are what makes psychology considered a "soft" science. It is demeaning to those of us that do the "hard" science, especially when we are forced to take the title psychologist.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
You answered my question...By over analyzing, you proved me correct...Thank you.
You didn't learn to eat...Your stomach created a sensation...Therefore, it's an instinct to eat.
in·stinct
NOUN:
1) An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2) A powerful motivation or impulse.
3) An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
I do not believe that my description of eating is an instinct, perhaps a reflex, but I do not believe it can be considered instinct. The only instinct, that I am aware of, that has been shown to exist in all humans, is the suckling action. Reflex and instinct are different.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
There are a set of cousins that live down the street from my former Soc professor...They were both home schooled, and basically raised inside the same house...When they entered College level classes, one wanted to go out and travel the world, while the other wished to stay inside his enclosed world....One wanted to lose his naivety, while the other wanted to stay ignorant....So tell me, was that not the real world?
There is only unique experience. No one is capable of having the same experience as another person.
Let us examine for a moment the Bubble boy. He was born into a closed environment. His experience was limited to an enclosed space. It did happen. Now, let us hypothesize that the Bubble boy was a twin, and so there were twins in the Bubble. Let us say that the thought was that any stimulation might negatively impact the children, and so the bubble was opaque, the twins had no visual stimulation outside the bubble. Let us say there is nothing in the bubble, nothing to interact with. The boys will still have differing experience. They see the other one, and the other one sees him. Now their experience is different because the react to each other. This is hypothetical, but it shows the point I am making. There is no way to avoid having the other twin impact the experience of the other. By keeping them together the experience will be different, separating them will have the same impact.
Now, for twins this begins as soon as the embryo are separate from one another. Even at birth, one twin must come out prior to the other. A person cannot respond to one at the exact same time in the exact same way as that person does to the other. Even if we simplified the situation to the point of two buttons on a table, a person would be unable to respond exactly the same and at exactly the same time to the buttons. It is impossible. No one has the same experience as anyone else. And experience builds on experience. So every minute difference will effect the overall experience and very probably the behaviors of the person. So, twins very possibly would end up with extremely different choices.
As to your evil/good idea. Both children at some point do good at exactly the same time. A parent sees this, but responds to one before the other. The second child sess the disparity. next, the second child does something evil at the same time the first does something good. The parent sees these things, and responds, punishing the second quickly because they can't let the evil go unpunished. The second child thus gets attention first due to the evil. The first child already has experience showing that good is rewarded, and so does something good again and gets attention. The second never had experience with good rewarded, but evil was, and so he tends toward the evil. That would be a possible scenario to explain your hypothetical situation.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Adaptability is the single trait that would keep us alive in the wilderness. It's what makes us different, dare I say, better then other animals...I understand what you're saying, but I have a different opinion.
Adaptability does keep us alive in the wilderness as adults. It is not what would keep us alive as an infant alone in the wild. I am glad you understood my statements on that. Our adaptability is what has led to a diminution of instincts. Instincts are detrimental in many animals if they are placed in an environment that those instincts do not work as they are meant to.
Once again I apologize for the abrasive tone of my previous post, I hope you can forgive me for my insult.