Time to Evolve?

Nope that’s selfishness if you could die to save others would you, you said no as you need the food for your self first.

Religion or as I like to call it mythology has no values on this sub-forum until you can place evidence behind a claim, so a phrase written by a shaman over 1000 years ago has no value no matter how many people believe it.

As for not killing people, people just made that a law and moral value so they would not have to worry about getting killed. If you look at history many people never gave a dam and kill mercilessly, there is definitely no instinct not to kill people, that’s just a socially implanted policy that keeps everyone alive and well predicted by selfish genetics as the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” policy in which we won’t kill or punish you if you don’t try to kill any of us.

Lets face it humans are animals.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Nope that’s selfishness if you could die to save others would you, you said no as you need the food for your self first.
Click to expand...
No it is not. If I supply myself with food I'm obviously more able to help others. If I save one person by not eating, I'm going to die and that person will eventually die too. But if I feed myself I can still feed not only one person but many, and throughout all my life.

What you can't understand is the separation between need and selfishness!

Religion or as I like to call it mythology has no values on this sub-forum until you can place evidence behind a claim, so a phrase written by a shaman over 1000 years ago has no value no matter how many people believe it.
Click to expand...
I quoted the scripture because it is not only religious but it is also intellectually meaningful.
And of course, because you started to talk about it.

As for not killing people, people just made that a law and moral value so they would not have to worry about getting killed. If you look at history many people never gave a dam and kill mercilessly, there is definitely no instinct not to kill people, that’s just a socially implanted policy that keeps everyone alive and well predicted by selfish genetics as the “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” policy in which we won’t kill or punish you if you don’t try to kill any of us.
Click to expand...
God told that to Moses so that all the people wouldn't kill each other.

Still... it is not on my nature to kill. So what? I'm not human??? :confused:

Lets face it humans are animals.
Click to expand...
Somehow, that's the beauty of it. :eek:
But we can evolve, you know? And that's all that is thread is about... :rolleyes:
 
No I'm saying that if you only had enough food to feed one person (say your trapped with other person somewhere) you would give that food to that other person with no regrets?

Or how about this you would rather eat to potentially save more people later but at the cost of killing people now?

the scripture is only "intellectually meaningful" as theology it provides no evidence for your argument.

its not "your nature" to kill because society as told you other wise, if we lived in a society that encouraged killing even required it to survive you would be murdering people as happy as a bee. The Mongolians did not have a problem with killing, nor did Moiré, as long as killing is needed to provide food and thus survive people will do.

enough I shell be leaving for the day see you tomorrow.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
No I'm saying that if you only had enough food to feed one person (say your trapped with other person somewhere) you would give that food to that other person with no regrets?

Or how about this you would rather eat to potentially save more people later but at the cost of killing people now?
Click to expand...
The problem with hypothetical situation is that they simply don't happen. :bugeye:

the scripture is only "intellectually meaningful" as theology it provides no evidence for your argument.
Click to expand...
This is a philosophical discussion. There's no evidence involved. You cannot prove wheter this way is better then the other way.

its not "your nature" to kill because society as told you other wise, if we lived in a society that encouraged killing even required it to survive you would be murdering people as happy as a bee. The Mongolians did not have a problem with killing, nor did Moiré, as long as killing is needed to provide food and thus survive people will do.
Click to expand...
Nope. That nature I gained from my parents.

enough I shell be leaving for the day see you tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Yep. Me too.
 
While I agree that human's are ultimately animals - I strongly disagree with the implied attitude that we shouldn't strive to be more. Our own self-awareness has sparked this wonderful thing "spiritual evolution". If I were only interested in physical evolution I would very quickly agree with all of Dr Lou's points.

I believe that we have all been given an opportunity to extract more from life. What that is - I don't know. What I do know is the difference between right and wrong. When I do what's right(to me) I achieve a very distinct feeling of satisfaction. This definitely could be considered selfish - but it's that kind of reward that keeps motivated individuals moving in a positive direction. Yes these are very subjective things - but through following your own set of 'right' and communicating with others that operate on this same plane; the door to spiritual evolution starts swinging wide open.
 
Images Are Decieving said:
I strongly disagree with the implied attitude that we shouldn't strive to be more
Click to expand...
I would strongly disagree with such an attitude also.

I believe that we have all been given an opportunity to extract more from life. What that is - I don't know. What I do know is the difference between right and wrong. When I do what's right(to me) I achieve a very distinct feeling of satisfaction.
Click to expand...
Me too.

This definitely could be considered selfish - but it's that kind of reward that keeps motivated individuals moving in a positive direction. Yes these are very subjective things - but through following your own set of 'right' and communicating with others that operate on this same plane; the door to spiritual evolution starts swinging wide open.
Click to expand...
It is very subjective. I think we have become pathetic and I think TS is proposing we become more pathetic.
I think organised violence is imperative for such a species as our own. Cultural evolution is fine, but there is no precedent for escaping real evolution all together which is what we have done and I can see that it has caused countless problems, not only with human beings but with the entire planet. I don't think trying to make everyone comfortable all the time is a noble goal at all if it is to the detriment of everything else. Which it inevitably is and lets face it we can't reach that goal anyway, just trying screws everything up. Its not worth it.
People should still be in clans, have territory, and defend that territory against intruders, killing them if necessarry. Ecology demands this. This doesn't mean we have to be savages. Would you consider people from shakespearian times to be savages? Well they followed this natural law.
Obviously it is not a hindrance on how great we can be. In fact it has much more potential to make humans something truely admirable than the 'structure'( :rolleyes: ) we have now. And truthseekers plan to have no violence at all(which will never happen) would be a disaster even if it could happen. Plus it would be very lame and make earth incredibly boring right up untill it eventually deteriated and forced people to become cannibals untill they became extinct on a barren desolate ugly planet.
Its all very cute to want everyone to just get along. But the reality wouldn't be cute at all and it has no place on this planet.
 
I think when I prophesies science heaven some posts up there, I was say this is what we should try to become. Animals we may be but we have a chance to become something more.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Truthseeker;
You're too simple to talk to. Discussion over.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's one of the best compliments I've ever heard. :)
(No kidding)
 
WellCookedFetus said:
I think when I prophesies science heaven some posts up there, I was say this is what we should try to become. Animals we may be but we have a chance to become something more.
Click to expand...
Again, not what I've been listening from you... :rolleyes: :D ;)
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Well then your hearing is bad, can you state proof of us contradicting are selves?
Click to expand...
[singing]What about, oh wow, the very first post in this pa-age!?!? [/singing] :D :rolleyes:
WellCookedFetus said:
Lets face it humans are animals.
Click to expand...
... :rolleyes:
 
Because you said "let's face it", meaning that it is something that we have no power to change. Your posts implies that since we are animals we act the way we act and that we won't change because we are just animals.
 
and animals don't think beyond them selves? We can can't we? What we need to face is that when having impulses and animalist drive and instinct. Sin is ingrained and has to be constantly fought back. By evolving beyond human form all these emotions, impulses and instincts can be control fully or destroyed once and for all. There for we humans can achieve a state beyond are present form.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
I don't know selfish genetics has a very logical argument: if organism were not selfish they would not survive!
Click to expand...

That's like saying that if an organism wasn't evil they wouldn't survive. The word "selfish" is a derogatory remark that suggests that someone thinks of themself excessively without the consideration of others. Thinking about yourself doesn't make you selfish, not thinking or caring about others is selfish. I suppose that if I pinch someone and laugh that I am malicious also.

Dr Lou Natic said:
I don't see why wanting peace is any less selfish.
The individual wanting peace is just as selfish, he just knows his chances of survival are better without violence.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure TruthSeeker is just trying to increase his chances of survival. He lives in a tough neighborhood you know, his life is in danger everyday.

Dr Lou Natic said:
There is nothing altruistic about truthseeker wanting there to be no more violence.
Click to expand...

Except for maybe the obvious fact that he isn't just thinking about himself.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
And truthseekers plan to have no violence at all(which will never happen) would be a disaster even if it could happen. Plus it would be very lame and make earth incredibly boring right up untill it eventually deteriated and forced people to become cannibals untill they became extinct on a barren desolate ugly planet.
Click to expand...

That's just too funny. Did you see that in your crystal ball?
 
That's right if and organism does not give a dam about its self and its genes over all other things it is not evolutionarily stable, it will die off. This is why people love their children, this is why peopple have children, this is why people fight against each other for there own needs.
 
Last edited:
Saith said:
Yes, I am sure TruthSeeker is just trying to increase his chances of survival. He lives in a tough neighborhood you know, his life is in danger everyday.
Click to expand...
Huh... who said I live in a tough neighborhood?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top