The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (quote, Hang)

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

If right and wrong is relative to the individual, and I, as an individual, believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, then there must not be.

And don't most societies cling to that comforting idea of eternity of the soul?

Well I guess if you dont believe in right or wrong then you cant be either right or wrong in that thinking, by your own edict. All consequences to all decisions would be indifferent, and there would be no motivation to live a good life.


And yes most societies have religions which believe in an afterlife, but I was referring to the frailty of human life. The afterlife of most religions is in the form of "angels" or as a disembodied spirit (or something of that nature) in that particular religion's version of heaven, not as a human.

[cardboard adolescent]

Woah now, you're using two different meanings of "right and wrong" in your argument, which is some sort of logical fallacy. I was talking about right and wrong as in Good and Bad not as in Correct and Incorrect.

And, your argument was that most societies think killing is bad because it ends a human life, but if human life never ends and they just go on and live happily for eternity in heaven or whatever then why does it matter?

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Woah now, you're using two different meanings of "right and wrong" in your argument, which is some sort of logical fallacy. I was talking about right and wrong as in Good and Bad not as in Correct and Incorrect.

And, your argument was that most societies think killing is bad because it ends a human life, but if human life never ends and they just go on and live happily for eternity in heaven or whatever then why does it matter?

B/c like I just explained above, human life does not last forever. The afterlife is in some other form.

[Merkaba]

Originally Posted by oojay

So youre explaining how killing is wrong by telling me about chromosomes? And how can you say that one has no control over their environment? If you dont like where you live, move somewhere else. If you dont like your friends, get new ones. You argument holds no weight. Saying killing is wrong by describing how some british scientist thinks people may be pre-disposed to it makes absolutley no sense. And Im forced to say the same thing over and over and again because you dont seem to be comprehending common sense. I guess it comes down to nature vs. nurture (which I assume is what you were trying to get at in so many words). But your DNA is not what determines how one acts, it is determined by their own personality and free will. Im sure that if they screen many who didnt commit violent crimes, then they would find that exact same chromosome in them as well.

She is pretty much dead right, you know.

Influences are usually a far more determining factor of ones actions than free will. If you come from a domestically violent upbringing than you yourself are more likely to be violent too, free will has close to bugger all to do with it. If freewill over-rode influences than there would be no alcoholics, there would be no drug addicts, there would be no gangsters wasting their lives away for an affiliation they don't even know the meaning of.

It is nature vs nuture, and naturally you act according to how you were nutured.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Merkaba

She is pretty much dead right, you know.

Influences are usually a far more determining factor of ones actions than free will. If you come from a domestically violent upbringing than you yourself are more likely to be violent too, free will has close to bugger all to do with it. If freewill over-rode influences than there would be no alcoholics, there would be no drug addicts, there would be no gangsters wasting their lives away for an affiliation they don't even know the meaning of.

It is nature vs nuture, and naturally you act according to how you were nutured.

Influences are determined by your environemnt. They said you have no control over your environment, how is that correct? And just b/c your parent is an alcoholic or wife beater doesnt determine whethere or not you will be. It may, according to some, give people somewhat of a pre-disposition, but it is not a mahor determining factor. Your ideas may be correct if youre dealing with 12 year olds who have no self confidence and just follow the flow, but most people in the world have a backbone, and choose to use their free will.

[[MERIT]]

And on a side note, how can you determine what caused an action? Who is to say if it was a pre-disposition, free will, or just following the flow (doing it b/c your "influences" did it)?

[swim]

Originally Posted by oojay

So youre explaining how killing is wrong by telling me about chromosomes? And how can you say that one has no control over their environment? If you dont like where you live, move somewhere else. If you dont like your friends, get new ones. You argument holds no weight. Saying killing is wrong by describing how some british scientist thinks people may be pre-disposed to it makes absolutley no sense. And Im forced to say the same thing over and over and again because you dont seem to be comprehending common sense. I guess it comes down to nature vs. nurture (which I assume is what you were trying to get at in so many words). But your DNA is not what determines how one acts, it is determined by their own personality and free will. Im sure that if they screen many who didnt commit violent crimes, then they would find that exact same chromosome in them as well.

You don't decide who your parents are, what country you live in or how much money you have. Everyone can't just move into a different environment. Anyway for the first 18 years of your life, the most important developmental time, you have no control over where you live(your parents decided that), the things you learn(school or parents decide what information you get) or the people you interact with (you can't help what neighborhood you live in or what school you go to).

It's not that simple. Do you know what trisomy 23, XYY means, right? It is significant. They can't help that their mom or dad's didn't perform oogenesis or spermatogenises correctly. Nondisjunction isn't their fault. The point about the chromosones is that they have more testoterone(sp?).

They've done research about identical twins seperated at birth and how similar they ended up being so similiar after being in similar financial and adult support situations.

It's not between nurture or nature. It's a mix of both but, no one has control over.

[swim]

Originally Posted by oojay

And on a side note, how can you determine what caused an action? Who is to say if it was a pre-disposition, free will, or just following the flow (doing it b/c your "influences" did it)?

Don't similar organisms act in similar ways to situations? So why can't you break that down further to that orginisms with even closer dna will act even more similiarly?

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by swimintheundertow

You don't decide who your parents are, what country you live in or how much money you have. Everyone can't just move into a different environment. Anyway for the first 18 years of your life, the most important developmental time, you have no control over where you live(your parents decided that), the things you learn(school or parents decide what information you get) or the people you interact with (you can't help what neighborhood you live in or what school you go to).

It's not that simple. Do you know what trisomy 23, XYY means, right? It is significant. They can't help that their mom or dad's didn't perform oogenesis or spermatogenises correctly. Nondisjunction isn't their fault. The point about the chromosones is that they have more testoterone(sp?).

They've done research about identical twins seperated at birth and how similar they ended up being so similiar after being in similar financial and adult support situations.

It's not between nurture or nature. It's a mix of both but, no one has control over.

I agree with you 100% thats it takes both nature and nurture to determine a person's action, along with free will. And just b/c someone has an over-abundance of the testosterone hormone doesnt automatically mean that they will become addcited to alcohol or commit a violent crime. And while you may not be able to control your environemnt as much for the first 18 years or so of ones life, you can choose your friends, the places where you hang out, and the types of situations that you choose to put yourself into.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by swimintheundertow

Don't similar organisms act in similar ways to situations? So why can't you break that down further to that orginisms with even closer dna will act even more similiarly?

Its a solid concept youve got, but its not always applicable. Humans and apes have something like 98% or 99% the same DNA. But im sure that they would react quite differently if somone decied to point a gun at their head. A human would most likely run awat in fear, while an ape may lick the gun and treat it as a lolly-pop.