Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

welcome back.

Thankyou
The question i asked gave me a headache tough so i am going to bed...zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[KFunk]

How do u ... know what they [morals] should be?

Mu.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

@Kwayera:

If you hold animals in such high esteem, why are you not a vegetarian? We are killing them to benefit ourselves. Is this not against your moral code?

 

[Slidey]

(in fact it's probably unlikely that a vegetarian species could ever reach our level of intelligence, given the protein deficiencies inherent in the diets of vegetarian animals)

That's actually a fairly nonsensical claim. Plenty of animals make all the proteins they need in their own bodies; humans tend to do this for most proteins, so it's perfectly possible for animals to evolve to become intelligent whilst being vegetarian. Meanwhile, it's actually a fallacy that vegetarian diets lack protein and even assuming animals can't self-regulate their protein intake (not that many vegetarians need to; many plants contain the required amino acids), I believe you know enough about evolution to understand how easy it would be for a previously omnivorous species to evolve towards vegetarianism (i.e. acquire ability to create all amino acids, or evolve alternate pathways which circumvent their need). Meanwhile, recent evidence suggests it was in fact discovery and cultivation of tubers, which are high in starch, which was one of the strongest driving forces of intelligence increase in humans. Even so, if we were to assume humans developed intelligence solely due to a diet of meat, it would be absolute folly to project that meat is required for the evolution of intelligence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (and I don't say this lightly in a thread about religion).

But I agree with the rest of the post that came from. To further your point, it is very animal-like behaviour to value the lives of those of your species above the lives of those of other species (i.e. save human lives before animal lives), but I hardly see how this is evidence we should disregard the rights of animals, as NTB was contending (if only to be facetious) and TacoTerrorist unfortunately believes.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

*facepalm*

What? I haven't read the whole thread.

EDIT: Slidey, I do believe that animals have rights to a degree, obviously they feel pain (e.g I don't advocate hunting them for sport), but when people say that animals should have a similar degree of rights to humans is when I become concerned.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What? I haven't read the whole thread.

how's your humans-as-a-whole-new-kingdom research coming along then?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ ...huh? Humans are better than animals and on a higher plane of existence.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

evidence?

considering every field of biology produces a consistent phylogenetic tree with humans safely in the Animal kingdom you've got a lot of work to do

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Since the entire subject is somewhat subjective.

If you want to believe that a monkey is as good or has as much value as a person than be my guest.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

it's not subjective in as much as humans fall entirely within the definition of an animal (and a mammal, and...)

it does not follow that we should treat humans the same way as monkeys

 

[Kwayera]

That's actually a fairly nonsensical claim. Plenty of animals make all the proteins they need in their own bodies; humans tend to do this for most proteins, so it's perfectly possible for animals to evolve to become intelligent whilst being vegetarian. Meanwhile, it's actually a fallacy that vegetarian diets lack protein and even assuming animals can't self-regulate their protein intake (not that many vegetarians need to; many plants contain the required amino acids), I believe you know enough about evolution to understand how easy it would be for a previously omnivorous species to evolve towards vegetarianism (i.e. acquire ability to create all amino acids, or evolve alternate pathways which circumvent their need).

Actually that's not entirely accurate. Vegetarian diets don't lack protein, obviously, but the diets of vegetarians generally have a nutrition intake target of a much higher carbohydrate: protein ratio than do carnivores. Even omnivores such as ourselves have a high carbohydrate: protein ratio intake target, granted, but the protein requirements of carnivores is hugely higher than those of vegetarians, and the only way to efficiently get that is to eat animal proteins, not plant proteins.

(Also, a word on regulating protein intake - most animals, including ourselves, will definitely dietarily regulate our protein intake. In environments that there is a low carbohydrate: protein ratio, carbohydrate will be undereaten to get the required protein, and in high carbohydrate: protein environments, carbohydrate will be overeaten to obtain the necessary protein. This indicates that protein is a limiting factor in animals diets, which is not a surprise, really, except for the fact that it generally invalidates your whole "aquiring ability to create protein" hypothesis).

Meanwhile if you look at the evolution of carnivores and their associated nutritional intake targets there is positive relationship between protein requirements and the shift from herbivore to omnivore to carnivore, with associated behaviour shifts. Herbivores evolved physical "weapons" to evade predators - i.e. running faster - as well as instinctual ones, such as herding behaviour, but carnivores necessarily had to evolve genuine mental behaviours, such as hunting techniques (which are genuine learned behaviours, not instinctual beyond play). Again, as these behaviours developed protein intake increased.

So yes, I put it to you that while correlation does not necessarily equal causation, this is unlikely to be a casual relationship and thinking so would put a lot of evolutionary biologists, animal physiologists and ecophysiologists into a great about of perturbation.

Meanwhile, recent evidence suggests it was in fact discovery and cultivation of tubers, which are high in starch, which was one of the strongest driving forces of intelligence increase in humans. Even so, if we were to assume humans developed intelligence solely due to a diet of meat, it would be absolute folly to project that meat is required for the evolution of intelligence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (and I don't say this lightly in a thread about religion).

You're referring here to the 'gatherer' part of 'hunter/gatherer', and your 'recent' evidence is a good few years out of date. Unfortunately our intelligence was already developed by that stage, in absolute terms, by our need to appropriate hunting techniques of other animals to what we could do with tools, and while I don't disagree that the addition of starch to our diets may have helped matters along, could we have reached this point relying on plant proteins alone? Most physiologists currently don't think so, unless you have brand new research of your own to bring to the table, Slidey - the ecophysiology staff at the University of Sydney would sure like to hear it.


As an aside, our origins are actually hotly debated in anthropology currently. On one hand, you have the agricultural argument, which required an increased population and smarts for cultivation. On the other, you have the hunter gatherers, which necessarily require a small population, and the smarts for detailed knowedge of your home range to both hunt efficiently AND not overhunt.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Probably.

 

[Kwayera]

@Kwayera:

If you hold animals in such high esteem, why are you not a vegetarian? We are killing them to benefit ourselves. Is this not against your moral code?

Because while I like to think of other species in terms of equals - that is, we shouldn't be counting ourselves as superior such that it gives us 'dominion' over them - I'm also very well aware of the fact that we're omnivores. We eat meat, and quite apart from what Slidey has said, most of us need it (given I think that the necessary supplements are generally above what most subsistence farmers in poorer countries can afford over what they already trade for meat if they don't grow it themselves).

I have absolutely no problem with eating meat, as long as it is killed humanely (which most meat animals in Australia are, and no, I do not eat battery hens) and it is not an endangered species.

 

[Enteebee]

but I hardly see how this is evidence we should disregard the rights of animals, as NTB was contending (if only to be facetious) and TacoTerrorist unfortunately believes.

I don't think I ever said we should disregard the rights of animals, I just don't believe that any (practiced) human system of ethics will ever hold their rights to be on par with our own. The reason I earlier said (in response to by what right we are greater) we have the right of might is because I feel that is the only true way to assess rights and when you're asking for a right to hold one of the axioms of human morality I really doubt you're going to get a better answer, or at the very least a more truthful one.

 

[Kwayera]

An interesting article on why people pray, from Freethought Today:

Now what do you suppose is the real meaning behind all this word magic, name magic, prayer magic? What are human beings really doing when they seek to change things in their own favor, by so ephemeral a tool as human speech?

Humans are the verbalizing animals–the ones who have a far more fine-tuned and sophisticated way of communicating than any other life-form. Inventing names for everything is the human talent. Teaching words to the next generation is the human legacy. Manipulating each other’s thoughts and reactions by words is the foundation of human culture. Names and words take on a sacredness in all human traditions.
…

When children learn to speak, new worlds open up to them. They can make their desires more distinctly known. They can acquire knowledge without constantly needing direct experience. They can exercise imagination, with plenty of stimulus in their cultural background of words about myth, fantasy, dream, vision, and religion.

The one thing every child knows from the moment of birth, however, is that if it makes the right sounds, a large, comforting, all-powerful entity will take care of its needs. No matter what part of the world they inhabit, a majority of humans seem to have given this entity the sacred name of Ma, or Mah, or Maa, or Ma-Ma, which linguists say refer to “mother’s breasts” in nearly all languages from Russia to Samoa, and also in the ancient tongues of Egypt, Babylon, India, and the Americas.9 The Divine Mother in Egypt had such names as Ma, Ma-Nu, or Maat. The matrilineal clan of Tibet was called mamata, meaning “motherhood” or “mineness.” In Sumer and Akkad, the Creator Goddess was named Mama, Mami, or Mammitu. The primitive Iranian Moon Mother was Mah, or Al-Mah; that same word in Hebrew meant “woman,” not “virgin,” as the gospels mistranslated it in reference to Mary. Latin Ma-ter and Greek Me-ter, “mother,” had the same roots. The Hebrew Mem-Aleph, MA, was said to be a magic charm of great power, combining the ideographs for “fluid” and “birth,” and by extension “mother’s milk.” This was written on Jewish protective amulets from the ninth century B.C.E.10 There are numerous other examples of the magical efficacy of MA.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2008/may/barbarawalkercolumn.php

 

[maccasjunkie]

i think that god is something people need to believe in... It kinda gives people a hope... Im not strongly religious but someone had to create the world

 

[boris]

*stolen from another thread*

419 pages? i cant believe this many people dont believe in god!?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

*stolen from another thread*

419 pages? i cant believe this many people dont believe in god!?

Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

 

[boris]

Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

lies!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

lies!

Of all the Satan-derived religions, athiesm is the one that gets in my craw the most. Them people are always after "logic" or some other proof that the LORD exists and is involved in our lives in some meaningful way.

Fact is, the only "proof" we have for God is that we each have some ability to sense him. We've all been told from birth that there is some type of God - the muslim have their moon god, the catholics have the queen of heaven, the hindu have that Shiva, etc.

Now we all know that these are false gods, but dang, at least it's a god and because people have beliefs that they've been told from birth just lets me know that it has to be the truth - that there is God. I just happen to know that Jesus is the right one.

Like someone said above, the martyrs didn't get killed over a LIE! They knew the truth and stayed with it because they knew Jesus was real. Even the Muslims today are killing themselves to be martyrs because they know there is a afterlife. They might be wrong about the afterlife, but they definately know that something is there - why would they be willing to die for it if it was all a fake?