Catholic nonsense

[omaghjoe]

Leonard, we'll start afresh..

Most of our social action is governed by our environment its nothing to do with our makeup, this would certainly be true of Anders Brevik, who I believe incidentally knows what he did was wrong but wants to fly in the face of society for the shear hell of it.

So there is no right and wrong then in your opinion then? Just a perception off, sorry but I'll disagree I believe there are inherent rights and wrongs similar to how maths and laws of nature exist, you believe they exist dont you or did we invent those to?

But again back to that same question. I used the tree as an example because if we cut a tree we dont believe it experiences anything in the way of pain when we do that but it still reacts by growing a branch, so ..why arent we like that?. How do we come to experience thought (and everything else for that matter like pain, smell, sight). Why arent we just robots or zombies with no experience of our thought, for example why dont actions happen automatically.... like I dont need to think if I touch something hot i just take my hand away before I even feel heat or pain, how is it all our actions arent like that?

Lets

I know little of Breivik other than what he did and how to spell his name. I know nothing about his motivations. He is not an individual I have studied.

I do believe in right and wrong. I don't have to rely on mere belief as we can witness the shared views of right and wrong. We can see how these vary from era to era and in terms of geography/ethnic groupings etc. All that is considered wrong or evil in one time and place in one group of people will not represent wrong or evil in every time period (past, present and future), in every geography and with every social grouping. We don't need to merely believe that we can witness it and the record of it.

There is a very clear difference between a snapshot invention and an evolution over the geological time. That is not difficult to understand and doesn't require belief as the record of it is there to be witnessed.

The true wonder of the evolution of species is the complexity of and variation in species. Complex organs are not easy to regenerate but simple orgnanisms and organs are. A human cannot re-grow a lobbed off leg (at one end of the complexity scale) but a star fish at the simpler end of multi-cell animals can. Humans are complex and our development is at the extreme end of the development. The wider primates share much of this. Some senses are acute and suited to our environment e.g. our eye sight is a product of something moving at our speed hunting large mammals on the african plain. The mole has inferior sight conducive to its environment and a product of its apt evolution. A peregrine falcon's eyesight is vastly superior to human's for all the same reasons.Humans's are not alone in being able to think, respond to stimulus, record the response to stimulus and use it in the future (a day old calf knows not to go back to the electric fence). We don't have to believe this, the evidence is all around us. Many spiritualist struggle with this. The whole man in god's likeness doesn't really help with all these similar characteristics in the wider animal kingdom. It doesn't help with the fact that human's didn't just appear on earth but has antecedents and intermediate evolutionary steps. It doesn't help with explaining what god was at all this time. Just messing "in a mysterious way" I suppose?

m confused how can right and wrong truly exist if  as you say they are just dreamed up by humans and change over time? According to your definition they dont truly exist.


Moreover you are just repeating more of the same stuff and still arent answering my question on our experience...

How did we come to experience the sight from which you are ascertaining things to be fact? For example we can make a camera that replicates the function of our eye...but does the camera experience sight? Obviously not, so what extra thing  we do to experience sight? Why arent we robots without an experience?

[LCohen]

Joe

Are you really saying that a collective understanding doesn't exist because it builds up over time in human minds? But that it does it exist if we just say it was placed there by a god? 

Are you denying that things that are considered wrong in one time period/location/culture is considered right in another? Yet how can this be if they are absolutes placed in humans by a single god?

A camera seeks to recreate the capacity to capture an image. Its doesn't recreate the brain or the optical nerve. The camera does not experience sight any more than an eye does. A brain experiences sight as imperfectly captured by the eye. Our brains have developed and we can re-create that development by recreating our species. We have not yet been able to recreate it outside our species (and its not something I long for). None of this points to a god. Not only is a god not required to explain this but a god does not explain it.

[omaghjoe]

Good and evil underlie the actions the people are making the result might be different but the intent is the same.

A brain is billions of neurons firing which are electrical pulses, how do we get from that to the experience of sight? The camera can display an image on it face through similar electrical pulses is it experiencing sight?

[LCohen]

Good and evil underlie the actions the people are making the result might be different but the intent is the same.

You just going to throw out a banal statement or are you going to make a point and back it up?

Be specific - are right and wrong absolutes or are there degrees, variances and changes over time? How does this work with a god explanations versus an evolutionary explanation? The detail you provide here will be key and I note you are still online.

A brain is billions of neurons firing which are electrical pulses, how do we get from that to the experience of sight? The camera can display an image on it face through similar electrical pulses is it experiencing sight?

Senses evolve. We can see this through the varying degrees of sight that are out there today and over time.Some of our ancestors did not have sight but we do. the degree to which we have it is a product of evolution. Different evolutionary requirements would have resulted in a different degree of sight. Again we can see that all around us. A god isn't required to explain this and again does not explain this

[omaghjoe]

The detail you provide here will be key and I note you are still online.

This is one of funniest things Ive ever had fired at me on here and there have been some clinkers....are you a teacher?
Also did you check I was online when you sent your post, how do you know i was looking at this thread? and more to the point why do you care when you get a reply?
Dont you see the pointless stupidity of attempting to make personal insults to a faceless nobody on an anonymous discussion board?

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

So lets stop regurgitating  genetic evolution again. Which does not explain our experience. The key word is experience how do we have one? Again Im not asking how we see, I am asking how we come to EXPERIENCE sight? IF you dont understand the question I would be happy to explain it further but please dont start the genetic evolution thing again because it indicates to me you do not understand the question, as I have said numerous times according to it we should be zombies without an experience doing our thing automatically.

[theskull1]

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?

[omaghjoe]

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?

You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.

As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.

[theskull1]

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?

You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.

As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.

Ummmm 
Are you trying to point out that the comment I've put in bold is the distinguishing point? If so, my comment stands strong and is very much in alignment with what you're saying. Its that very 'inner belief' that you're doing the right thing, regardless of what it is that keeps your conscience clear.

Who other than a devout person of faith would blow them selves and a bus full of innocents up with contentment in their heart and smile as they go to heaven?
Who other than a devout person of faith would torture/stone people they accuse (on scant evidence/heresay) to be a witch/heretic/jew until they recant like they did up until recent centuries round the devout kingdoms on papal decree?   

To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest with oneself

Of course Christianity 'has moved on' now after people thinking gods position as directed by papal decree was infallible for all those centuries. Not quite sure how that squares with Christians today.... fully doubt any really reflect on the inconsistencies of their human led indoctrination across the centuries.   

[muppet]

http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/

[omaghjoe]

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have, which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

If that doesn't expose the dangers of religion I don't know what does. Your 100% correct of course... if someone truly believes in their doctrine of faith and that doctrine says 'persecute the heretic/infidel/traitor' ..... its only right that you follow through on your faith. To do anything less is half hearted. Anyone for another Inquisition?

You either didnt read what I wrote,didnt understand it or just like repeating populist mantra that has no relation to the point being made. I think its a combination of all of them to be honest.

As the opposite is actually true. Our conscience and choice are what ultimately determines if we do the right thing. And that comes from within.

Ummmm 
Are you trying to point out that the comment I've put in bold is the distinguishing point? If so, my comment stands strong and is very much in alignment with what you're saying. Its that very 'inner belief' that you're doing the right thing, regardless of what it is that keeps your conscience clear.

Who other than a devout person of faith would blow them selves and a bus full of innocents up with contentment in their heart and smile as they go to heaven?
Who other than a devout person of faith would torture/stone people they accuse (on scant evidence/heresay) to be a witch/heretic/jew until they recant like they did up until recent centuries round the devout kingdoms on papal decree?   

To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest with oneself

Of course Christianity 'has moved on' now after people thinking gods position as directed by papal decree was infallible for all those centuries. Not quite sure how that squares with Christians today.... fully doubt any really reflect on the inconsistencies of their human led indoctrination across the centuries.   

No it wasnt my main point, perhaps you could tell me what defines right from wrong if not our conscience or where do right and wrong reside if not in our conscience?


But anyway Ill also digress to your red herring...

The short answer about suicide bombers is they are not answering their conscience, they are kids who are following orders from people who have corrupted their religions message, the kids are ignoring their consciences. And what of kamikaze pilots was Buddhism making them carry out their attacks?
Our conscience is our own instinctual guide to right and wrong, we can ignore it or suppress it but its still there and the choice we have of following its guide is still there.
Life experience complicates our relationship with it and makes it more difficult for us to reconcile with it.  That's why the instinctive clarity of a child's conscience is often a better gauge than an adults.
When we use ideologies as a fundamental basis of our decisions it often comes into conflicts with our intuitive conscience. Politics especially, but also Social norms and religion, are not immune to conflicting with our conscience, so we often need to be on our guard and in touch with what our conscience is saying to keep us, politics, society and religion on the right path.

[omaghjoe]

http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/

That great Muppet so your a fan of David Ike, it all starting to become clear

[muppet]

http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/

That great Muppet so your a fan of David Ike, it all starting to become clear

We finally have something in common.

[seafoid]

http://www.annunaki.org/the-annunaki-in-the-bible/

Fields of the Nephilim

[LCohen]

This is one of funniest things Ive ever had fired at me on here and there have been some clinkers....are you a teacher?
Also did you check I was online when you sent your post, how do you know i was looking at this thread? and more to the point why do you care when you get a reply?
Dont you see the pointless stupidity of attempting to make personal insults to a faceless nobody on an anonymous discussion board?

Maybe I was trying to be smart? I'll get over it. Its just that replies were becoming increasingly evasive and non-sensical that I would get you in a flow.

Free will and our conscience would be where right and wrong resides, the right and wrong do not lie in the actions but in our decision. The conscious decision we make from our conscience using our intuition is part of the experience we have,

A confident statement but backed up by absolutely nothing

which is not explained by genetic evolution  a point Im making you dont seem to be getting at all

Genetic evolution offers a perfectly good explanation for right and wrong. What is more is that it offers evidence of the stages of evolution.
You offer a confident statement. But not an explanation and certainly not evidence. 

So lets stop regurgitating  genetic evolution again.

Step away from a sound and evidenced theory if you want but at least offer some evidence??

The key word is experience how do we have one? Again Im not asking how we see, I am asking how we come to EXPERIENCE sight? IF you dont understand the question I would be happy to explain it further but please dont start the genetic evolution thing again because it indicates to me you do not understand the question

Explain how cognitive processing capability cannot be the result of evolution? Explain what level of cognitive processing capability our ancestors had - including the bacterial, sea-life, amphibian, early-mammal and primate ancestors? Had they all the same level of processing capability? The same ability to enjoy, record and recall experience?

as I have said numerous times according to it we should be zombies without an experience doing our thing automatically.

Explain how genetic evolution leads to this conclusion?



Take as long as you like

[omaghjoe]

Leonard,

If you dont believe you have a conscience or freewill more power to you, but I know I have one and its backed up by me experiencing my own conscience, no one else can experience my conscience so there will be no evidence of it, your quite right. You'll just have to take my word for it and consider if you experience your own conscience.

Cognitive processing can be explained of course by evolution but it doesnt explain how we come to experience that processing in the form of monologue or thought. It seems you dont understand the question so I must be doing a bad job of explaining it since I have asked it about a dozen times now. So here it is it most modern format known as the Hard Problem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Another way to think of it is to bring in quantum mechanics. If the Standard Model is indeed the true nature of reality of the Material World then pretty much everything material that we experience is the electromagnetic force or in other words its gauge particle of a photon. These photons are picked up by our eyes and in turn send electrical signals to our brain where they fire neurons, and somewhere somehow after or during that we experience the colour blue (for example) by virtue of the different wave lengths of the photons. How is it that a tiny particle (if thats even the right way to imagine things at a quantum level) which should have no colour in its own true state makes us experience the colour blue?

Course I already know you cant answer it no one can, so I was being a bit of a dick. I was just wondering how you rationalise it, but you obviously had never even considered it. Prehaps you'll take the materialist view that that its an illusion, however I chuckle at this proposal....this basically means the materialism version of the universe is based on an illusion, quite shaky ground if you ask me. Which of course it is anyway when you consider that our perception of the universe is nothing like the basic version of reality of quantum mechanics or the even more mind warping string theory. So what do you BELIEVE our EXPERIENCE is?