Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

Bees do. Just wanted to point that out.

Some species of worker bee to die as a result of stinging an aggressor, which could I suppose be interpreted in such a way, as a sacrifice to protect "the greater good" of the species/colony.

However I doubt that the humble worker bee is aware of the concept of death as we are, and even knows that its actions will involve the giving of its life. I doubt the bee considers these things, and so the notion of sacrifice in this case is not the same as it is unaware of its consequences and repercusions of its choice.


EDIT: And you have totally ignored the main point of my previous arguement:

"If morals developed as and are a means to advance the survival of a species than how is it that today, you see it morals as an argument to justify engaging in homosexual sex, or to justify the use of contraception or the practice of abortion? These are all contradictions to the suggested purpose morals play in our life."

 

[Name_Taken]

I think that morals are a mixture of what we learn from society (views and forces of family, state, sometimes church and the law) and something we formulate ourselves. I also don't believe that it is something we are born with, since children are unable to grasp concepts of right and wrong from a young age. And of course, morals change. New day morals have replaced old ones to reflect the different views of society.

And yes, I am currently free to do whatever I wish. As are you. But just because I have the option, doesn't mean that I have to pursue it. I mean, I have the option of picking up my kitchen knife and massacre my entire neighbourhood, but my concepts of right and wrong, developed from childhood, tells me that its wrong.

We don't get our morals from the law, the law develops as rules to govern society as a result of the morals we hold. For example, if everything felt it was wrong to wear the colour purple, the law would reflect this, most likely by outlawing it. Morals affect the law not the other way around.

If God dos not exist, as you believe, you must accept that a human has no greater right to life than any other species on Earth, or throughout the universe. As such, why is it that we priooritise things like our ability to do whatever it is that we as individuals want, rather than focus on the biological imperative all animals hold, to reproduce and ensure the encouragement of the species.

Why is it that you can put your hedonistic desires above what should be our biological no.1 priority, the continuation of the human race?

Humans are totally unique in this regard from all other life, and it is because we are created in Gods image and have been blessed by him with free will. If God does not exist, explain this aspect of human behaviour which is unique to us.

And on a side note, you finally have admitted that just because you have the option or a desire to do something, doesn't mean you have to do it, hence homosexuality is a choice (despite the fact that experienceing the desires, to a degree, may not be). The only issue now is a lack of faith in God, else you would accept his morals of right and wrong and not those of which are popular in today's society.

 

[Kwayera]

It is your view that morals evolved (via the mechanism of evolution) to enhance the survival prospects of a species, amirite?.

This would appear a logical argument and I can empathise with you on how you reached this conclusion.

This theory would indeed explain many things. Like for example, how we see murder as inherently wrong, because we are reducing the size of the reproductive gene pool and numbers of individuals who will gain the chance to mate.

Incorrect. Genes do not act for the species; they act for the individual. Genes do not care about the survival of the species, only that the individual survives to successfully reproduce. The motivation against murder, therefore, is something different: an individual that must murder in its clan/group to "get ahead" is inherently inferior to those who do not (see: altruism); this however does not apply to out-group interactions (see: parochial altruism).

Likewise acts like rape could be condemned because it might be shown that the species reproduces more effectively through a means where individuals partner for life (as seen in swans), for various reasons, including possibly that it provides a greater incentive for parents to care for their own offspring and that it diversifies the gene pool by allowing the maximum number of individuals to mate.

Nice idea, except humans aren't monogamous. Monogamy instead arises when there is more chance of a male's offspring surviving if it stays than if it goes, and that itself is rare. Swans aren't true monogamists, either.

This is in contrast to the other systems such as that which occurs in packs of wild cats like lions where only the “alpha” male is allowed to reproduce and all other members care for his offspring.

Lol no, a more apt comparison would be wolves, in which an alpha pair (i.e. the fittest, though this doesn't necessarily mean strongest) generally reproduce and occasionally allow other pairs to do so, depending on how well the prey is running that season. This is also common in birds.

Lion "pack systems" are such that males, often in tandem (i.e. brothers, or a coalition of males), will take over a pride of females, kill all the cubs to bring the females in oestrus (there's no use in expending energy protecting cubs that aren't of your own genepool), sire a fresh lot of cubs, which survive better when living in a pride than when a female is living alone.

Morals under this explanation fail to deal with some issues, like for example explaining what is wrong with stealing, or lying (IDK perhaps they can?) but I will ignore this for the time being.

That's because in human evolved morality, stealing and lying (i.e. artificially increasing your attractiveness to mates) is not wrong. They became wrong under artificial constructs.

If morals developed as and are a means to advance the survival of a species than how is it that today, you see it morals as an argument to justify engaging in homosexual sex, or to justify the use of contraception or the practice of abortion? These are all contradictions to the suggested purpose morals play in our life.

Evolved morals say nothing about the issues such as homosexuality and contraception, because they aren't moral issues. They are social ones. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is often a multiplier of attractiveness to mates, and indeed true homosexuality is not common (i.e. homosexual relationships, as the drive to reproduce is greater than the drive for love/relationships/monogamy). But homosexuality in some animal societies certainly has a place and increases an individual's fitness (i.e. ability to pass genes on) sufficiently that it itself is passed on.

Homosexual sex cannot lead to the creation of life and so it cannot be justified with morals (because they developed purely as a means to advance the species, according to you).

Homosexuality cannot directly lead to the creation of life, no. But that's not the point; otherwise, pack situations in the wild wouldn't exist (or bee hives, or ant colonies, or bird families). Whether its your genes or your sibling's genes that get passed on (preferably your own, but your sister's genes are better than none), the genes associated with homosexuality may also be ones associated with increasing your fitness, or behaviour that increses the fitness of your siblings to pass on your shared genes.

Likewise contraception cannot be endorsed either.

Sure it can. If by you not having children increases the likelihood that others of your genepool will survive, and survive better for it (i.e. having you around as an uncle to look after kids is better than you yourself having kids), then it's fine. Birds and wolves do this all the time.

Abortion is the worst of the three, where despite life having been already created, it is destroyed before the individual is given independence from its mother and the chance to mature and ultimately reproduce itself.

No, because the mother is always more important than the child, genetically, until the child is capable of successfully passing on those genes. As far as ones genes are concerned (if genes could be concerned), a mother is already a proven survivor/passer on of genes and the child is not. In nature, if it comes between the mother's life and the offspring's, generally the mother's will always come first as she can survive to reproduce again.

So under your description of a moral’s purpose (to increase chances of survival etc.) all three of these acts, homosexual sex, the use of contraception and abortion would be the pinnacle of all that is immoral?

Sex itself doesn't necessarily increase the propogation of your genes. Sometimes not breeding and looking after your sibling's kids, or your younger siblings, is better. Therefore no, they are not the pinnacle of "immorality" (in your warped view of morality as something to be judged.) In fact, you're going about it arse-backward. Morality drives behaviour; it is not the arbiter of it.

Something which was apparently formed to promote the reproduction of a species cannot be used to justify acts which do not lead to the survival of that species, let alone acts which could be seen as inhibiting its survival (contraception/abortion etc.).

You misunderstand. See above.

It has been mentioned that morals change. However if morals are a means to increase the likelihood of reproduction (as you suggest), since the human species still reproduces in the much the same manner as it did back in the “cavemen” era when morality was first developed, there is no need for morals, under this definition, to change, as they would otherwise continue to increase the species’ chances of survival.

Human constructs of morals change. The "base morals" behind them do not.

Morals are not used for this purpose anymore, so, in the case of a Godless world, where they only developed as an evolutionary imperative (which hasn’t changed as humans reproduce in the same manner), does that make them redundant today if they are not used as such?

Redundant? Not at all. Hypothetical for you: ever given blood? Ever deliberately or subconsciously prominently displayed the "I gave blood" sticker they give you? That's display behaviour, or open altruism, which increases your attractiveness to females ("I'm so fit I can afford to give blood") by openly displaying this fact - kind of like peacock tails. Note the fact that this can be subconscious. Instinctive. You don't choose to do it; you just do. It's part of your genetic makeup.

Morality drives behaviour. It is not the arbiter of behaviour.

Or is the biological imperative implanted in humans as it is all life suddenly less important to us now than our justification of activities which merely distract us from our original and only biological purpose, the only justification in a Godless universe as to why we exist in the first place (reproduction above everything else).

Depends on how you see it. Why do people work? To earn money. Why do people earn money? To appear more fit and be able to support themselves and a family. Why do they do this? ...fill in the blanks.

Now it would make no sense for morals to change at all because in a Godless universe, a human is simply another life form and has no greater importance than any other animal, plant or bacteria. Like all other life, our only purpose would be the continuation of our own species at the expense of all others.

At the expense of all others? Even the wolf "realises", at a genetic level, that it cannot hunt its prey to extinction lest both species die out. Wolves will even limit their own reproduction to avoid this.

An atheist may believe they can live a selfless life without believing in God but this is not true, for if God did not exist, they’re only purpose in life is the biological imperative to reproduce and continue the species, this is a basic evolutionary premise, involving the success of the “strong” and failure of the “weak” to do so.

No. One's biological imperative is not to continue the species. Genes don't give a shit about the species. One's biological imperative is survive and pass on one's genes. Totally different kettle of fish.

This primitive biological goal is something that is not achieved through self-sacrifice and the supporting of others beyond what is necessary for the species to continue (e.g. sharing food, hunting in pack etc.) which therefore renders such acts meaningless.

YES IT IS. It astounds me how ignorant you are of evolutionary systems with regards to it.

Animals do not have time for hobbies or to chase their desires, they exist to live and reproduce, and this is the sole goal to which all their efforts are ultimately directed.

One could argue that they are not smart enough to do it, but then you look at bower birds, the males of which elaborately and obsessively decorate their nests to attract females. Other animals learn complex song and/or dance routines to attract females (and in some cases, females learn them to attract males); male humpback whales learn new songs every year, which are passed around the globe in a cultural exchange. What is hobby-making and desire-chasing but an evolved form of this behaviour, and play behaviour?

Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the preservation of others in their own species and are not even aware of the concept.

Of course they are not aware of this concept, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Take the bee, who will sacrifice itself with its sting for her sisters (or more importantly, the offspring of her supersister, the Queen, who is the only adult in the colony who can reproduce).

Likewise, humans wouldn’t be able to grasp the concept either (as the thoughts of the individual are only concerned with himself reproduction as to fulfil their biological imperative), if their only purpose on Earth was to reproduce.

Thoughts != instinct, but it does drive behaviour.

In light of this, I reach the conclusion that morals must represent something much more important to the human than what you suggest they are, an evolutionary adaptation to assist and promote reproduction.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the science of evolution, but since the only source quoted as part of the argument behind it is Wikipedia, I’ll go out on a limb and make the assumption nobody else here is an “expert" either. That said, please correct me if I have made a mistake with your interpretation.

/Rant

Hoo boy, have you made mistakes. If you can handle textbooks or relatively dense science books, read these:
Evolutionary Analysis - Scott Freeman and John Herron
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee - Jared Diamond **

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

We don't get our morals from the law, the law develops as rules to govern society as a result of the morals we hold. For example, if everything felt it was wrong to wear the colour purple, the law would reflect this, most likely by outlawing it. Morals affect the law not the other way around.

I thought I was correct on the law bit. What if I was a child growing up in a society where wearing purple clothes were illegal or migrant, coming into a country where it its immoral to wear purple and that the law reflected that. Hence, wouldn't the migrant or child learn that it's immoral to wear purple? Or what if I didn't feel that it was immoral to wear purple shirts and only a minority shared my view? Or is my question jusut stupid?

What if the majority felt that homosexuals had the right to marry? Should the law reflect that?

Why is it that you can put your hedonistic desires above what should be our biological no.1 priority, the continuation of the human race?

As a homosexual, it would be impossible for me to contribute to the continuation of the human race. And rest assured that there's no threat to our population. Homosexuals have existed for hundreds/thousands of years, and yet, our population still thrives. The world population is nearing 6.8 billion, if I'm not mistaken, which places strain on resources and the economy. Maybe homosexuals are gift, sent from god, used to help control our population?

Humans are totally unique in this regard from all other life, and it is because we are created in Gods image and have been blessed by him with free will. If God does not exist, explain this aspect of human behaviour which is unique to us.

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness. [8] In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[9] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[10] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.

Very humanlike I must say.

 

[Will Shakespear]

No, because the mother is always more important than the child, genetically, until the child is capable of successfully passing on those genes. As far as ones genes are concerned (if genes could be concerned), a mother is already a proven survivor/passer on of genes and the child is not. In nature, if it comes between the mother's life and the offspring's, generally the mother's will always come first as she can survive to reproduce again.

Unless we were a semelparous species

oh

At the expense of all others? Even the wolf "realises", at a genetic level, that it cannot hunt its prey to extinction lest both species die out. Wolves will even limit their own reproduction to avoid this.

citation?

i thought they just followed Lotka-Volterra style cycles :O

but yeah Name_Taken has made some sort of jump from "basic moral instincts evolved because we are a social species" to "therefore moral actions must only be those which produce offspring" :S

 

[Name_Taken]

Yeah Name_Taken has made some sort of jump from "basic moral instincts evolved because we are a social species" to "therefore moral actions must only be those which produce offspring" :S

You could say that morals evolved because we are a social species, or to encourage co-operation, for for a vareity of reasons. But ultimatelty, if this is a Godless world, the only reason we evolved such concepts of judging between right and wrong, is becasue it allowed us to be more reproductively efficient than those members of our species who did not grasp these concepts.

Thus, like every other adaptation we have, or any life form has for that matter (be it structural or behavioural), they are to allow us to a) survive in our environment or b) because they (for whatever reason, co-operation etc) lead to the species being more reproductively successful, and thus were passed down through generations.

I never pretended to be an evolutionary scientist or anyone with qualifiications in this area (in doing Bio next year, but like... w/e that doesn't count right? ) I'm simply trying to understand what your alternative explanation of the formations of morality and what its purpose is within humans, if you discount the exitence of a God.

There is no purpose to life at all or reason for it to exist at all, without God. Likewise, the only purpose to our lives would be to reproduce and continue the species (as is the case with every other animal and plant on Earth), so I concluded that, ultimately every one of our adaptaions as humans, inclduing the behavioural adaptations (which morality is one) is targetted ultimately at meeting this purpose. That is humans were more effective at reproducing with morals (following basic principles of right and wrong, which to a degree governed their code of acceptable behaviour) than they were without them.

Where am I going wrong with your* interpretation?

EDIT: * By your I mean like anyone who holds these views, evolution -> morals (no God) etc...

 

[kelly tully]

Morals existed before Christianity.

Just sayin'

 

[Will Shakespear]

You could say that morals evolved because we are a social species, or to encourage co-operation, for for a vareity of reasons. But ultimatelty, if this is a Godless world, the only reason we evolved such concepts of judging between right and wrong, is becasue it allowed us to be more reproductively efficient than those members of our species who did not grasp these concepts.

Well, there are certain limits on what actions can occur in a society without it becoming unsustainable. If a society as a higher murder rate than birth rate, it goes extinct. So there's an absolute limit to murder. After that there's a degree of flexibility, e.g. some tribal societies had a very high murder/human sacrifice rate. Same thing with lying; if everyone lies all the time then communication becomes useless, so there's a trade-off between aversion to lying, and peoples' tendency to lie for their own advantage.

Most obvious example is adultery; there are advantages to an individual propogating its genes to be adulterous on some occasions, so you would expect to see adultery (extra-pair copulations) occur sometimes, while there's a general aversion to it. That is, we try to make sure our partner isn't cheating, because we want them to invest all their energy in the offspring they have with us.

Something like attitudes to polygamy on the other hand is entirely social (environmental); some societies have it, some condemn it (how many wives did Soloman have?).

The God theory of would predict that there should be a universal aversion to non-monogamous relationships in all societies, but this is not what's observed.

Thus, like every other adaptation we have, or any life form has for that matter (be it structural or behavioural), they are to allow us to a) survive in our environment or b) because they (for whatever reason, co-operation etc) lead to the species being more reproductively successful, and thus were passed down through generations.

Individuals never act "for the good of the species", they act to propogate their own genes. A species is just a population that can reproduce with each other, they're not static entity. If you want to understand why adaptations arise you have to look at it from the point of view of an individual maximising its own reproduction, to make more copies of its genes, not to make sure there's more tigers or fruit flies or mushrooms.

There is no purpose to life at all or reason for it to exist at all, without God. Likewise, the only purpose to our lives would be to reproduce and continue the species (as is the case with every other animal and plant on Earth), so I concluded that, ultimately every one of our adaptaions as humans, inclduing the behavioural adaptations (which morality is one) is targetted ultimately at meeting this purpose. That is humans were more effective at reproducing with morals (following basic principles of right and wrong, which to a degree governed their code of acceptable behaviour) than they were without them.

Where am I going wrong with your* interpretation?

EDIT: * By your I mean like anyone who holds these views, evolution -> morals (no God) etc...

So what?

Humans are pattern seeking animals. We need to be, so we can work out where that herd of bison are moving and where they'll be in the next season, or why it is that sprinkling seeds somewhere makes plants appear there next year, so we can eat and survive.

The same pattern seeking thinking might be applied to questions like "what is the purpose of existence?" (other than propagation of our genes). Well, to me the question doesn't even make any sense. We're not 'for' anything. The universe wasn't made with us in mind.

Why does that bother theists so much, that we're not special? We're just bits of carbon, and when we die the materials making up our bodies go back into the earth's nutrient cycles. That's it.

But we have intelligence, and language, and culture. We can assign whatever meaning we want to our own lives. Inventing a magic man to assign meaning (what kind of meaning is that anyway, to worship him for eternity? i'd rather no meaning at all) is lazy as well as anthropocentric. We're also an egocentric species... which would predict that we might assert we were created in the magic man's image, etc.

The fact that we have language and culture means that unlike every other species that we know of, we can create purpose for our own lives and even overcome our 'purpose' in the Darwinian sense, e.g. choose not to have children.

We're also very good at creating models in our own mind, e.g. of other people, what they think, feel, etc. (incidentally a lot of anthropomorphism of things like the Sun, etc. comes from the same thing when applied to non-humans) Morals probably come first from our being a social species and having to live in groups, and secondly from our ability to empathise with one another... hence something like the Golden Rule being found in many cultures.

The magic man explanation fails because theists cherry pick on a massive, massive scale which morals they do or don't accept from their holy books. Well, how do they do this other than through their own inherent sense of morality? God didn't provide us with a companion edition to the bible telling which stories were good morals and which ones were to be ignored.

Otherwise how would you know that killing 200 men to harvest their foreskins so you could purchase a wife was NOT a moral action? (1 Samuel 18)

 

[Name_Taken]

Well, there are certain limits on what actions can occur in a society without it becoming unsustainable. If a society as a higher murder rate than birth rate, it goes extinct. So there's an absolute limit to murder. After that there's a degree of flexibility, e.g. some tribal societies had a very high murder/human sacrifice rate. Same thing with lying; if everyone lies all the time then communication becomes useless, so there's a trade-off between aversion to lying, and peoples' tendency to lie for their own advantage.

Most obvious example is adultery; there are advantages to an individual propogating its genes to be adulterous on some occasions, so you would expect to see adultery (extra-pair copulations) occur sometimes, while there's a general aversion to it. That is, we try to make sure our partner isn't cheating, because we want them to invest all their energy in the offspring they have with us.

Individuals never act "for the good of the species", they act to propogate their own genes. A species is just a population that can reproduce with each other, they're not static entity. If you want to understand why adaptations arise you have to look at it from the point of view of an individual maximising its own reproduction, to make more copies of its genes, not to make sure there's more tigers or fruit flies or mushrooms.

.

Humans are pattern seeking animals. We need to be, so we can work out where that herd of bison are moving and where they'll be in the next season, or why it is that sprinkling seeds somewhere makes plants appear there next year, so we can eat and survive.

The same pattern seeking thinking might be applied to questions like "what is the purpose of existence?" (other than propagation of our genes). Well, to me the question doesn't even make any sense. We're not 'for' anything. The universe wasn't made with us in mind.

Why does that bother theists so much, that we're not special? We're just bits of carbon, and when we die the materials making up our bodies go back into the earth's nutrient cycles. That's it.

But as we are just assembleges of Carbon atoms interacting with other bodies of atoms, and since we serve no purpose, why shouldn't we exceede our murder rate exceede our death rate if we want to? I'm not acting for the "good" of the species, if I kill every other male as a means to prevent competition in regards to passing on my genes, I'm acting in my own self interest, which is only natural, you suggest and cannot therfore be "wrong".

Why should we supress our self interests for the preservation of others, when we only act to spread our own genes? Especially when most, if not all, of these urges assist us in achieving this purpose.

Why is it, that you or I may run into a burning house to save a try and save a stranger from death? Such selflessness is not explainable with this narrow definition of our purpose. Why would we even expend the energy, when we could be using it to continue reproducing in our non-stop orgy based existance or to care for our young, so that one day when they mature, they can do as we are?

Even if we did die out though, so what? Why do we even care about our own survival, let alone that of others like us?The universe wasn't created with us in mind and so it will hardely lament our demise or cease functioning. Why is it important to this collection of organic compounds to continue carrying out the various chemical reactions which permit the unlocking of chemical energy with which to carry out metabollic function, i.e live?

In fact, if I am just an assortment of atoms, how can I think? How am I able to have this discussion with you now? Does this mean trees and bacteria are likewise capable of such thought? And if they are not, why are we able to?

We each formed as a freak of nature, therfore nobody should have the right to tell us what is right or wrong, especially another human, who is just a collection of atoms as you say. What makes their opinion more important than my primeval urges? Why should I listen to anyone? I should only be concerned with propogating my own genetic material.

In fact, since I am composed of inanimmate materials and posses no soul, can I even be held accountable for my actions? My thoughts after all are only the result of electrical impulses, and electricity cannot be evil.

If none of us have a purpose, my killing of another person cannot be condemned by soceity, because as far as the universe is concerned the consequences are irrelevant.

Don't you think there are too many questions left unanswered by your theory for it to be correct?

Sigh, this is a quite a heavy discussion for the holidays

 

[Riet]

Because if you are a known murderer people are likely to a) seek revenge, b) avoid you.

you are mixing up biology and sociology.

 

[Kwayera]

.But as we are just assembleges of Carbon atoms interacting with other bodies of atoms, and since we serve no purpose, why shouldn't we exceede our murder rate exceede our death rate if we want to? I'm not acting for the "good" of the species, if I kill every other male as a means to prevent competition in regards to passing on my genes, I'm acting in my own self interest, which is only natural, you suggest and cannot therfore be "wrong".

As Riet said. Homicidal sociopathy is not an attractive trait to a mate, generally, in a complex society, and so you wouldn't waste energy by killing "competition" when it wouldn't necessarily increase your fitness.

Why should we supress our self interests for the preservation of others, when we only act to spread our own genes? Especially when most, if not all, of these urges assist us in achieving this purpose.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't really suppress my instinct to reproduce. I just artificially prevent anything from coming of it

Why is it, that you or I may run into a burning house to save a try and save a stranger from death? Such selflessness is not explainable with this narrow definition of our purpose. Why would we even expend the energy, when we could be using it to continue reproducing in our non-stop orgy based existance or to care for our young, so that one day when they mature, they can do as we are?

Well, in a purely biological sense, risking one's life to save another (altruism) makes one more attractive to potential mates. "I am so fit I can afford to run into a burning house and save someone who is not even related to me." Behaviours of this type (though generally less dramatic) are seen in the animal kingdom, particularly our close relatives and those who live in complex societies. In this way, altruism increases your fitness and therefore your chances of successfully reproducing.

Even if we did die out though, so what? Why do we even care about our own survival, let alone that of others like us?The universe wasn't created with us in mind and so it will hardely lament our demise or cease functioning. Why is it important to this collection of organic compounds to continue carrying out the various chemical reactions which permit the unlocking of chemical energy with which to carry out metabollic function, i.e live?

Because your biology is a stronger drive than your existential crisis The selfish gene at work again. We don't have to have a reason for existing, just like frogs and algae and whales and mosquitoes do not (and nor do they care).

In fact, if I am just an assortment of atoms, how can I think? How am I able to have this discussion with you now? Does this mean trees and bacteria are likewise capable of such thought? And if they are not, why are we able to?

Because we have extremely complex and sophisticated brains, themselves a product of biology. As evolution favoured complex societies, it required bigger brains and conscious thought. You are as smart as you are now because our ancestors outsmarted their fellows to increase their own fitness.

We each formed as a freak of nature, therfore nobody should have the right to tell us what is right or wrong, especially another human, who is just a collection of atoms as you say. What makes their opinion more important than my primeval urges? Why should I listen to anyone? I should only be concerned with propogating my own genetic material.

Because you live in a society. What about this is so hard to understand?

In fact, since I am composed of inanimmate materials and posses no soul, can I even be held accountable for my actions? My thoughts after all are only the result of electrical impulses, and electricity cannot be evil.

No one argues whether or not anyone is good or evil. You are accountable because you live in a society, and you are self-aware.

If none of us have a purpose, my killing of another person cannot be condemned by soceity, because as far as the universe is concerned the consequences are irrelevant.

Condemnation of homicide comes from shunning of those too violent to be fit as mates. Homicidal genes suit no-one; it's why most species eventually breed out genetic diseases that reduce fitness.

Don't you think there are too many questions left unanswered by your theory for it to be correct?

Such is the nature of science, mate. We don't have a single book that purports to answer more questions than it asks

 

[Riet]

I'd rather a book leave me with a thousand more questions than ask me to succumb to ignorance.

 

[SnowFox]

The Mayans did alright until...
[youtube]sR8I1nicYWo[/youtube]

But we're a species that has never stopped killing eachother, k

Oh hello, what religion were the conquistadores?

 

[Tangent]

Not everyone is religious, and everyone has their own beliefs. Therefore is is pointless to try and justify anything in this thread with christianity, or gods word.

Running through that site that name_taken posted about ten pages ago had more holes in it than swiss cheese.
I like how it constantly contradicted itself. Eg. where it said about newspapers leaving out facts in studies, then also say that homosexual men in the 1990's had a lower life expectancy than heterosexual men. It failed to mention why. Maybe the extra pressures and prejudice that comes with being gay?

Let your own beliefs govern you own lives, and ill let mine govern mine. If anything, it is you that is doing the harming. I dont believe in the greater good, and the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Im sick of some people in this thread speaking like they know everything. Noone knows everything. In fact, lot of people no next to nothing, especially about such issues as this, and all the trials and emotions that come with it. It makes me angry, because i cant live a normal life, there is always this weight on my shoulders, this fear in the back of my mind. I still have hope that the world will change, and some people will stop being ignorant, blinded by faith to the pain their causing. Until then, i will have to wait, and so will many others.

Love cannot be descibed with words. Every time anyone does, they cannot get a firm grasp of the concept. Love is love, nothing more and nothing less. It doesnt discriminate.

 

[0bs3n3]

Let your own beliefs govern you own lives, and ill let mine govern mine.

Moral relativism is evil, k.

by that standard who are you to say Hitler was wrong?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Moral relativism is evil, k.

by that standard who are you to say Hitler was wrong?

Hitler interfered with other people's lives, so by that standard he was clearly doing something wrong.

It's a great standard.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Moral relativism is evil, k.

by that standard who are you to say Hitler was wrong?

Yes, I'm sure homosexuality involves genocide and mass killing based on a certain characteristics that an individual has no control over. Like Race? Skin colour? Or.... maybe even sexuality?

And who are you to tell homosexuals that they're not allowed to love and commit to each other?

 

[0bs3n3]

And who are you to tell homosexuals that they're not allowed to love and commit to each other?

I didn't even say that, why are you so butthurt?....ohh, right.

 

[0bs3n3]

Hitler interfered with other people's lives, so by that standard he was clearly doing something wrong.

It's a great standard.

But why is it necessarily wrong to interfere with other people's lives? There is an objective standard right there?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I didn't even say that, why are you so butthurt?....ohh, right.

So they're allowed to love and commit, but they're not allowed to marry?