1) To a point it is, the preservation of the herd. I don't know dude, i just know if someone needs help and i can help them, i'll do it. And it's not for my own gain.
2) Sure, you really don't know what anyone is capable of, but most sane individuals would rationalize against murder and rape, it's not just a fear of prison or hell. There are people from all types of religious backgrounds sitting in prison right now including atheist.
So then what's it all about?? If not's based on an "I don't know" outlook on the world?
Now by "most people", are you just referring to yourself? If so, then what shit do they know? Since apparently, you're the Official World Agnostic's Spokesman.
I've known many Agnostics in my 40 years, and 9 times out of 10, they're the uncertain-of-themselves-or-their-place-in-the-universe wanderer that I'm talking about. They also tend to shy away from any theological discussion.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Yes. It is based on an "I don't know" outlook just as much as theism is based on "I think there's a God". But obviously, just like theism, it goes beyond that.
No, agnostics I know. That being said at least I am agnostic when speaking about agnostics, while you speak about and for them without any base in reality whatsoever. You call agnostics indecisive and too cowardly to make a decision, what gives you that right? I am not like that...so in this sample group 100% of agnostics aren't.
Well, so it is experience against experience. You must admit though that there can be more to agnostics and that there are agnostics that there is more to. In fact I would assume a 9 out of 10 rate is in fact accurate...as in my opinion that about happens to be the rate of atheists that are unknowledgable and that shy away from any theological discussion as well as theist that are not knowledgeable and shy away from theological discussion.
I can tell you right now that Fords from the 80's and 90's tend to have problematic air conditioning systems. What gives me the "right" to say that? It's an observation.
And I have alot more than you, kid.
Theists tend not to shy away, porque they actually have something to bring to the table beyond "I don't know" and then walk away.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You had twenty years more, granted. Though that doesn't mean shit if you suck at evaluating it.
Obviously nonsense. A large amount of theists do not like discussing their faith (because, if you are honest, they don't have much more than "It's in that book there"), while there are also many agnostics who will not just shy away from discussing their opinions. I find your statements extremely ignorant and stupid to be honest, I wouldn't have expected that from you.
That's because they are mindless Bible thumpers who's definition of debating is quoting the Bible without adding any of their own imput or independant thought.
How are my statements ignorant? Maybe if I had never met a single Agnostic, you could say that.
This percent difference you refer to is polymorphism, right?
Also, where did you get you number of 10%? You were referring to nucleotide sequences, right? Do not misconstrue my point as me calling your numbers "bullshit" as I have great respect for just about anything you post. I believe it was xmarksthespot and I who had an argument about nucleotide sequences of chimps and how they compare to humans and I made a blunder in interpreting data that I had read about years ago. (The blunder I made was related only to 21st pair of chromosomes.)
Very minute amounts of genetic difference account for the measurable differences in the human species.(Physical characteristics like bone length, pigment etc. and other things like number and type of cell site receptors.) In other species, polymorphism is much more pronounced.
Hmmmm, this doesn't occur quite often, but I disagree with you:
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
What has that got to do with it?
So calling all Mexicans smelly, lazy criminals is not ignorant as long as I have met a single Mexican?
Anyways, I agree there's a horde of moronioc agnostics...just as there are loads of moronic atheists and theists. But just as there are smart, well-reasonign theists and atheists there are also those agnostics.
Contributions like "ask god some questions for me since you know him so well"? I'm participating in this thread because of the topic, not for you to tell me that I'm wrong by not discussing what I say and relying solely on the nothing you contribute over and over. So, argue my points if you'd like. But arguing my points doesn't involve opening your face and crying the victim again.
I didn't make up that story, you did.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
So you're saying that if it weren't for the presence of god in your life that you'd have no concept of what 'wrong' is? Obviously not a question you can answer with any real certainty, but you can take a stab at it.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
All very correct. I think my comments that you were responding to were directed at someone else (Mark Question, I think). I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing.
And I used 90% as a rough estimate, because I realize there's some discrepancy in the exact percentages epending on how one measures it. I can't pretend to be an expert on such matters, and I read 90% as a "base level" for similarity in humans once in an article on genetic replication, so that's what I was using as my guidepost.
Hmm. I'll defer to you for the moment and try to check my source on that (it might have even been from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Otherwise, the conclusions we take from such similarities are similar, so functionally speaking it's a moot point.
Not in my experience. In my experience with them, it's been based on the "I can't know" perspective. Which has always struck me as a subscription to the idea that this life matters to what comes after, if anything at all does come after this life. Morals, again, are a human affair. Morals are not at all super-human. In fact, they're one of the only things that seperate us from other animals, which is why so many people want to ascribe them to something that has been handed to us by a god that keeps a list and checks it twice before he comes sliding down the chimney of a trailer that doesn't have a chimney on the date of a long-held "'pagan" holiday based on nature that doesn't actually take into consideration the true birth of their much-loved and exhaulted savior, who may or may not have existed at all.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
I don't think it is anything revolutionary either, but that people would have such a uniform behaviour in a moral situation yet not consciously know the moral principal they are following is, at least to me, fascinating.
absolutely
while this is only speculation, looking for moral commonalities in scriptures could offer a window into understanding our natural tendencies to moral principals... immoral principals also
I disagree. The original point was arguing the singularity or oneness aspect of humanity. If we are much more unique(Because of our many unique characteristics that humans have in common that also differentiate us from other species creating a gap, or, more to the point, an exalted status relative to all other species.) than other species, this gives merit to theists who subscribe to crude creationism. The current point you and I are discussing effectively bestows a certain quality of deity to the genetics of the human species. (From the perspective of a creationist...)
I found something on what I was referring to. I am correct with my 99.9% number so meh memory doesn't fail me this time.
"All of us human beings share 99.9% of the same DNA."
Do humans represent God's final and ultimate amelioration? His "image"/spiritual children? I chose "amelioration" ONLY because I believe that humanity was created over the course of billions of years via an evolutionary process that occurred with our universe and then with organisms. From my perspective, using the word "creation" is an insult to a Being with such a purported intelligence.
As a person of religion, I would call these altruistic behaviors as "the light of Christ" as He was God's hand in creating this universe. Are we not good beings in our own right? Just because our matter was created and organized by Jesus Christ doesn't mean that we are not good. What IF the goodness naturally inherit in humanity DID come from God in the form of altruistic behaviors originating in primitive areas of the brain? That last question stretches too much for me because that would lead down the path the nullifies the existence/essence of our spirits and, therefore, destroy the entire point of asking the question in the first place. And I will come full circle...who the hell defined this word "good" that I keep using? "Altruistic" should be relative to the eye of the beholder and I am measuring the wholesomeness of humanity with my own subjective meter stick therefore I am biased and blinded by my limited questions. But what if this altruistic behavior exhibited by humans transcends any such damming definitions such as " subjective judgments"? What if this behavior is really from the reality that all of our spirits were nurtured by a kind and benevolent God? For me, a creating God would have to subscribe to a Buddhist philosophy: He would seek to harmonize to this complex universe and not try to crudely control it...the latter is an ignorant "inside the box" human construct that humans have held onto for far too long.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 9th, 2008 11:36 PM
