Is there such a thing as rational Christianity?

[superluminal]

cole:
What are the chemical constituents of respect?

Good question!

Most likely a complex feedback mechanism between the hormones driving dominance behavior, and those driving submissive or survival behavior. Respect, at it's core, is deference to the station or accomplishments of another. Most probably a key survival feature in group evolution.

So, testosterone, estrogen , and a host of other hormones and endorphins (peptide hormones).

 

[cole grey]

please.

That's a pretty shabby approximation.
But really it doesn't explain anything. If it is a loop, choice enters into the picture somewhere. Unless everyone's actions are detemined by the chemical, gene or mutation that happens to come along, and consciousness is just a chemical joke.

 

[TruthSeeker]

People have different ideas, values and perceptions because it is not purely chemical. Geeeezz.....

 

[mustafhakofi]

truthseeker your basically right.
but I dont think choice comes in to it, if all the stimuli are right.
then there's a chain of events that happen in the body.

Emotions, any emotions, are basically caused by chemicals, and the neural processes of the brain, especially how the neurons react to outside simuli, ie a particular visual stimuli could trigger an image/memory of say a loved pet dying, which then triggers a lost love, thus puting the individual in an extreme state of sadness, due mostly to the visual stimuli causing the neurons and chemicals to react in a certain way, we are yet to understand why, our sense can cause such a chemical reaction in our bodies.
however the other components of emotion are observable.
until such time as we can observe thoughts in process, at least we know that emotions are chemical based.

 

[TruthSeeker]

truthseeker your basically right.
but I dont think choice comes in to it, if all the stimuli are right.
then there's a chain of events that happen in the body.

There is always choice. If everything would depend on chemicals, people wouldn't react in different way. For example, if you see a snake crawling close to you, what do you do? Well, some people will scream and run away. Others will just run away. Those people feel the adrenaline going up and then they fell fear. Other people still feel the adrenaline and the fear, but instead of running away, they freeze or attack the snake. Little children who never seen a snake will not feel any adrenaline nor fear, because they don't know it can be dangerous. Also some people will not be afraid and will have no adrenaline and will simply "fight" with it purely out of reason or reflex.

Emotions, any emotions, are basically caused by chemicals, and the neural processes of the brain, especially how the neurons react to outside simuli, ie a particular visual stimuli could trigger an image/memory of say a loved pet dying, which then triggers a lost love, thus puting the individual in an extreme state of sadness, due mostly to the visual stimuli causing the neurons and chemicals to react in a certain way, we are yet to understand why, our sense can cause such a chemical reaction in our bodies.
however the other components of emotion are observable.
until such time as we can observe thoughts in process, at least we know that emotions are chemical based.

The chemicals are just a part of the whole picture.

 

[mustafhakofi]

[

There is always choice. If everything would depend on chemicals, people wouldn't react in different way. For example, if you see a snake crawling close to you, what do you do? Well, some people will scream and run away. Others will just run away. Those people feel the adrenaline going up and then they fell fear. Other people still feel the adrenaline and the fear, but instead of running away, they freeze or attack the snake. Little children who never seen a snake will not feel any adrenaline nor fear, because they don't know it can be dangerous. Also some people will not be afraid and will have no adrenaline and will simply "fight" with it purely out of reason or reflex.

bad analogy, where is the choice, they can still react in different ways and there be no choice, your simply proving there is none.

all animals including us react to fear in the exact same ways, it called instinct, the instinct is to survive no matter what.

 

[TruthSeeker]

[bad analogy, where is the choice, they can still react in different ways and there be no choice, your simply proving there is none.

That' ridiculous. People can always learn how to handle fear. What you say implies that everyone in the situation will react in the exact same way, it is obviously wrong.

all animals including us react to fear in the exact same ways, it called instinct, the instinct is to survive no matter what.

that's ridiculous. There are people that have snakes as pets and others that let them climb on them. What about the Guiness records that defy survival? Like for example putting a deadly scorpion in your mouth?

You are making a fool out of yourself. Just accept you are wrong or make a decent argument, or you are just wasting everybody's time. :bugeye:

 

[SnakeLord]

People can always learn how to handle fear. What you say implies that everyone in the situation will react in the exact same way, it is obviously wrong

People will react to things as predicted by 'their nature'. It would now mean we have to try and work out what 'nature' is, and why we have it - but do not think for one second that 'choice' means anything.

As an example I would question why you like the music you do. Why, for instance, do you like Vanilla Ice while I like The Eagles? Did either of us actually choose? No. What about food, who we find sexy, etc? Nothing is a choice, but something we literally have no choice over.

As Twain said: "no matter what you do, you cannot get a butterfly to kill. No matter what you do, you cannot stop a tiger from killing. That is their nature."

We will react a certain way to certain stimuli based upon many different things - none of which are personal choice.

 

[TruthSeeker]

People will react to things as predicted by 'their nature'. It would now mean we have to try and work out what 'nature' is, and why we have it - but do not think for one second that 'choice' means anything.

We choose according to internal and external circumstances. For instance, a guy who has smoked for years will have a chemical dependence. One day he might choose to stop, but he will struggle because of the chemical dependence. Still, he is able to stop, if he tries hard, and therefore, he is able to make a choice.

As an example I would question why you like the music you do. Why, for instance, do you like Vanilla Ice while I like The Eagles? Did either of us actually choose? No. What about food, who we find sexy, etc? Nothing is a choice, but something we literally have no choice over.

I choose those things. I consciously chose to like classical music. I consciously chose to dislike too much sugar because I know it is not good for me. I'm perfectly capable or consciously defining what I want.

As Twain said: "no matter what you do, you cannot get a butterfly to kill. No matter what you do, you cannot stop a tiger from killing. That is their nature."

They cannot make conscious choices. That's the basic difference between animals and humans.

Still, better argument then the later....

 

[cole grey]

People will react to things as predicted by 'their nature'. It would now mean we have to try and work out what 'nature' is, and why we have it - but do not think for one second that 'choice' means anything.

What about a situation where a person acts contrary to their nature? That is "their nature"? And when they act according to their nature, that is "their nature" as well?
What about when someone does something as an experiment? They are experimenting because it is their nature, but what part of "their nature" guides the choices an experimenter makes? Prior programming. But what if there is no specific direction pointed at by programming or nature?
What is a guess in your purely chemical world? What are the chemical constituents of a guess?