Obama = 666?

[minx]

oblahblahblahma

[Bug]

Are you you if you are missing a leg?

All your arms and legs?

Are you the same you you were when you were born? Age 12? 20?

What size are you? What shape are you?

Where do you end? How do you define you as apposed to anything that is not you?

If you were you in many different shapes and sizes over the years, can your body define who you are?

If you eat an apple, does it become you?

If you get a heart transplant, does it become you?

Is it your brain that defines you?

What is your brain? If your brain can be mapped and its processes recorded, has the real you been identified?

[lI1|1!]

 

 

[font:Arial Black] I'M THE ANTICHRIST YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!![/font]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

A set of behaviors and instincts that govern reciprocal behaviors, the rearing of offspring are present in all social animals. These traits are as much a product of evolution as their morphology, or the ordering of base pairs within their genomes. There's no escaping this fact.

 

There's no disputing the fact religion and philosophy have influenced human morality, but it's absurd to claim that either are the source of our moral instincts.

 

Many animals will, on occasion, eat their young.

 

Probably not a big deal in evolutionary terms if the ratio of offspring to parent is sufficiently high, as in the case of a rainbow trout. There's a fairly strong selective bias away from consuming one's young in species that produce relatively few offspring, all of which require a significant biological investment.

 

What exactly are you arguing here? Surely not that humans lacked the capacity for pair bonding, breeding, parenting, happiness, anger, love, hate, etc prior to the advent of religion and philosophy?

 

 

[G-spotter]

Arguments that morality is genetic often fail to recognize that many genetically-based behaviours would be termed immoral. In short, claiming a genetic basis for morality is as silly as claiming a religious basis.

 

On the other hand, a good chunk of philosophy arises directly from the consideration of morals - arguments over what is good and what is bad, and the attempts to derive a system of defining these that is not self-serving or self-contradictory. It would therefore seem that morality gives rise to philosophy, which results in new definitions of morality, and so on. Positive feedback cycle.

 

I will agree that many of the more intelligent animals - primates, birds and so on - have been shown to understand the concept of fairness, in that they get upset when another test subject gets consistently given more treats than they do. But I doubt that Papa Bear considers it immoral when he eats Baby Bear.

[olyclimber]

Are you talking about Papa Bear O'Reilly? If so, then nothing he could do would be considered immoral.

 

[RuMR]

A set of behaviors and instincts that govern reciprocal behaviors, the rearing of offspring are present in all social animals. These traits are as much a product of evolution as their morphology, or the ordering of base pairs within their genomes. There's no escaping this fact.

 

There's no disputing the fact religion and philosophy have influenced human morality, but it's absurd to claim that either are the source of our moral instincts.

 

Many animals will, on occasion, eat their young.

 

too bad yo' mama didn't!

[JayB]

Arguments that morality is genetic often fail to recognize that many genetically-based behaviours would be termed immoral. In short, claiming a genetic basis for morality is as silly as claiming a religious basis.

 

On the other hand, a good chunk of philosophy arises directly from the consideration of morals - arguments over what is good and what is bad, and the attempts to derive a system of defining these that is not self-serving or self-contradictory. It would therefore seem that morality gives rise to philosophy, which results in new definitions of morality, and so on. Positive feedback cycle.

 

I will agree that many of the more intelligent animals - primates, birds and so on - have been shown to understand the concept of fairness, in that they get upset when another test subject gets consistently given more treats than they do. But I doubt that Papa Bear considers it immoral when he eats Baby Bear.

 

It depends how you define "morals." I think that in these discussions, people often use the term to describe an abstract set of ideas about right and wrong, and also as a label that encompasses anything that governs human behavior.

 

I don't think that there are many people out there who are arguing that morality, when defined as an abstract set of ideas about what's wrong and what's right, is genetically programmed. When you define morality in this way, it clearly doesn't make sense to describe the set of instincts that govern the behavior of social animals as "moral." That's obviously not the case, and it doesn't even make sense to discuss the "morality" of involuntary behavior in non-human animals when morality is defined in this way.

 

What people do often argue is that the instincts that shape, inform, and in many cases govern our behavior have deep evolutionary roots that predate our existence as a species - much less our capacity to speak or engage in abstract thought - by hundreds of millions of years. Lust, hate, envy, malice, anger, fear, joy, trust, suspicion have all been with us since times long before we had the capacity to recognize them, much less describe them in abstract terms and assign them to particular moral categories. The same is true for virtually all human behaviors that we subject to moral evaluation.

 

Abstract notions of morality influence human behavior in a manner that extends beyond our instincts, but they certainly aren't the source of those instincts. It's not for philosophy alone that we don't eat our children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[STP]

Ubermensch

[Dechristo]

Arguments that morality is genetic often fail to recognize that many genetically-based behaviours would be termed immoral. In short, claiming a genetic basis for morality is as silly as claiming a religious basis.

 

On the other hand, a good chunk of philosophy arises directly from the consideration of morals - arguments over what is good and what is bad, and the attempts to derive a system of defining these that is not self-serving or self-contradictory. It would therefore seem that morality gives rise to philosophy, which results in new definitions of morality, and so on. Positive feedback cycle.

 

I will agree that many of the more intelligent animals - primates, birds and so on - have been shown to understand the concept of fairness, in that they get upset when another test subject gets consistently given more treats than they do. But I doubt that Papa Bear considers it immoral when he eats Baby Bear.

 

It depends how you define "morals." I think that in these discussions, people often use the term to describe an abstract set of ideas about right and wrong, and also as a label that encompasses anything that governs human behavior.

 

I don't think that there are many people out there who are arguing that morality, when defined as an abstract set of ideas about what's wrong and what's right, is genetically programmed. When you define morality in this way, it clearly doesn't make sense to describe the set of instincts that govern the behavior of social animals as "moral." That's obviously not the case, and it doesn't even make sense to discuss the "morality" of involuntary behavior in non-human animals when morality is defined in this way.

 

What people do often argue is that the instincts that shape, inform, and in many cases govern our behavior have deep evolutionary roots that predate our existence as a species - much less our capacity to speak or engage in abstract thought - by hundreds of millions of years. Lust, hate, envy, malice, anger, fear, joy, trust, suspicion have all been with us since times long before we had the capacity to recognize them, much less describe them in abstract terms and assign them to particular moral categories. The same is true for virtually all human behaviors that we subject to moral evaluation.

 

Abstract notions of morality influence human behavior in a manner that extends beyond our instincts, but they certainly aren't the source of those instincts. It's not for philosophy alone that we don't eat our children.

 

Apparently, you discard G-Spotter's contention of extra-instinctual behavior in non-humans; I believe you're wrong.

 

All that's required for executive, non-instinctual brain function is the presence of a frontal cortex:

 

Humans ~ 30%

Chimps/Apes ~ 15%

Canines ~ 12%

(some) Birds ~ 7%

 

 

Cats - 0%

[marc_leclerc]

where does the bible say anything about the Anti Christ being of Muslim descent? post the scripture reference please.

[Dechristo]

My faulty memory ascribes the reference to Nostradamus' verse which includes the description of a "blue turban".

[JayB]

I certainly don't discard that contention at all. I think it's an indisputable fact.

 

What I've been trying to argue against is arguing against is the notion that all of our concepts of right and wrong have their ultimate roots in religion or philosophy.

 

I remember seeing a show quite a few years ago where a non-alpha chimpanzee discovered that he could frighten and intimidate his peers by banging an empty gas-can against rocks, trees, and whatever else was nearby. This went on for quite a while, and whenever he banged the gas can on something, his peers winced, crouched, and generally signaled their fear and submission with gestures that were both dramatic and overt. Then the rainy season began, and started off with a mighty thunderclap and a crackling bolt of lightning, at which point even the gas-can chimp joined his peers and arguably outdid his fellow chimps in his efforts to supplicate and prostrate himself before the giant monkey in the sky....

 

 

[marc_leclerc]

My faulty memory ascribes the reference to Nostradamus' verse which includes the description of a "blue turban".

 

exactly... nostradamus didnt write the Bible.... his predictions were lucky guesses.. I could say 'someone from brazil will cause great problems and people will die' and it may one day happen... that what Notradamus did. He made vague predictions that would probably eventually happen and then people made a big deal about it.

 

In the Bible the prophets made extremely precise predictions about where Jesus would be born (an example) when he would be born, what line he would descend from and so on, those guys were real prophets.

Edited April 15, 2008 by marc_leclerc

[marc_leclerc]

"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb",

The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

- Nostradamus 1654

 

 

That was a Nostradamus prediction that people say pooints towards 9-11

 

It is so vague, many wars begin with some sort of burning or chaos..

 

a bible prediction referring to christ says in Psalm 22:16-18 that "Brutal enemies attack me like a pack of dogs, tearing at my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones, and my enemies just stare and sneer at me. They took my clothes and gambled for them." Jesus was attacked, beaten, his hands and feet were peirced, his enemies mocked him and gambled for his clothes.. very precise!

 

Thats a good example of what real predictions should be like...

 

 

[Dechristo]

I certainly don't discard that contention at all. I think it's an indisputable fact.

 

What I've been trying to argue against is arguing against is the notion that all of our concepts of right and wrong have their ultimate roots in religion or philosophy.

 

Right. I see it as "Right & Wrong" being at the root of religion and philosophy where those argue what is right and wrong. For me, the "spirituality" aspect from those sources arises when the Great Duality is countered and/or left behind.

 

I remember seeing a show quite a few years ago where a non-alpha chimpanzee discovered that he could frighten and intimidate his peers by banging an empty gas-can against rocks, trees, and whatever else was nearby. This went on for quite a while, and whenever he banged the gas can on something, his peers winced, crouched, and generally signaled their fear and submission with gestures that were both dramatic and overt. Then the rainy season began, and started off with a mighty thunderclap and a crackling bolt of lightning, at which point even the gas-can chimp joined his peers and arguably outdid his fellow chimps in his efforts to supplicate and prostrate himself before the giant monkey in the sky....

 

 

photographic evidence Ben Franklin was inspired divinely

[sexual_chocolate]

Apparently, you discard G-Spotter's contention of extra-instinctual behavior in non-humans; I believe you're wrong.

 

whoa whoa whoa here dogies, let's start with some sort of base-level understanding of what one might mean with "extra-instinctual behaviour" (vs. "instinctual"), in humans as in animals.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

i believe every facet of human behaviour can be understood as expressions of a capacity that developed through evolutionary pressures, selections, etc., putting them squarely into the "instinct" camp (in my book!).

 

it just takes stepping out a bit from one's subjective experience to see this....?

[tvashtarkatena]

Me specifically? No.

Christians generally? Yes.

So why is it OK to talk about Christians as a group but not atheists? Oh I know. It's not PC is it?

 

However, when it comes to bugs, we will outlast humans and probably drive the regeneration of a balanced global ecosystem such as the earth has not seen since the early Bronze age.

 

I didn't lump all Christians in one group. I spoke of "a popular Christian" misconception of atheism. It was an accurate assessment based on an overwhelming body of evidence.

Edited April 15, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

arguments over what is good and what is bad

everything i have to say on the subject of good and bad was stolen by perry ferrell:

 

"I am skin and bones, I am pointy nose;

But it motherfuckin' makes me try.

Makes me try, and that ain't no wrong.

I'll tell you why...

There ain't no right!

 

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Only pleasure and pain.

 

Motherfuckin' bad wind came, blew down my home.

Now the green grass grows.

Bad wind came, blew down my home.

Goddamn goodness knows!

Where green grass grows there can't be wrong.

And goodness knows, there ain't no right!

 

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Only pleasure and pain.

 

Bumped my head, I'm a battering ram.

Goddamn took the pain.

Cut myself, said So what?

Motherfuckin' took the pain.

Said So what? I can't be wrong.

I thought so but there ain't no right!

 

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Ain't no wrong now, ain't no right.

Only pleasure and pain."

[STP]

_ul7X5js1vE

[tvashtarkatena]

Describing human behavior as purely instinctual is a bit simplistic. For starters, humans behavior is affected by many modern types of evolution: the evolution of memes, technology, organizations, all of these are factors in defining morality and in final behaviors. In addition, humans are continually conflicted. Our 'instincts', or deep seated emotional drives and impulses, may drive us to think, feel, or do one thing while our prefontal cortex drives us to think, feel, and do another. The final behavioral outcome can be anything from rational to irrational, random to planned, constructive to self-destructive, but it's certainly not purely instinctual.

 

I do agree that philosophy and religion are two common sources of morality, which is a human construct, but a person who has never been exposed to either is still capable of creating his or her own values and moral code, plus, there are more powerful sources. Governments, of course, are one of the chief engines of morality today. They have become extremely adept (through an evolutionary process of trial and error) at mutilating philosophical, religious, and self generated morals beyond recognition, to the point where a majority of the society believes that dropping a bomb on a civilian city and killing 100,000 is 'a good thing', even though a majority of the society believes that killing is prohibited by God.

[cheamclimber]

lots of people thought lots of people were anti christs, Hitler and Raegan and Hussien to name a couple. Thinking Hitler was anti christ makes sense though

[TREETOAD]

My faulty memory ascribes the reference to Nostradamus' verse which includes the description of a "blue turban".

 

This just means that he could be a greeter at an iranian walmart

[TREETOAD]

Anyway after the Bush and his crew the antichrist would be a godsend. Besides that Obama has no chance now that he threw a gutter ball..a gutter ball for christ sakes...who could vote for him now?