Topical Discussion - Please try to get overly angry/upset

[Gandelf]

If we are going to start down the path of talking about vices, then it's also the path of ethics and morality.

In this case, one could argue that the qualities that differentiate humans from animals are not so much intelligence (because all animals have intelligence), but rather a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

The question is, did our sense of morality come from our intelligence, or was it bestowed upon us by a greater being, let's say God?

As far as I am aware, no other creature on this planet has a sense of morality. Yes, animals can be taught a sort of morality, i.e. you can train a dog to know when it's done something wrong or something right, but animals do not have a sense of morality to start off with.

I suspect that morals are what prove the existence of God, because they are something that could not possibly evolve, because morals contradict the theory of evolution, i.e. the survival of the fittest. When did someone first think that doing a particular thing was right or wrong? It just could not happen spontaneously... in other words, some greater being must have intervened to place that thought in the minds of our ancestors.

Therefore, if morals are divinely given, then the whole topic of using animals as guinea-pigs for drugs testing may be acceptable on the grounds that humans have morally determined it is correct to do so.

[Lairiodd]

If we are going to start down the path of talking about vices, then it's also the path of ethics and morality.

In this case, one could argue that the qualities that differentiate humans from animals are not so much intelligence (because all animals have intelligence), but rather a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Murder is wrong (and illegal) because most people would rather live in a society where murder is illegal than live in a society where it is legal.

People "feel" that murder is wrong because murderers didn't do very well when the species was evolving. Other people would feel threatened by a murder and would be less likely to deal with him (and friends of the murdered person might take revenge). This means that as time passes "murderer genes" will be bred out of the population.

Also, people know that murder is not the same as killing another person. People who kill in self defense are not a threat to others. Also, not killing in self defense means that you are dead, so there is little point in not defending yourself, no matter what the consequences.

Further, things like executing murders makes everyone better off, so that is not considered murder. Most opposition to execution is that some innocent people will be killed rather than that killing murderers is wrong.

There is also things like wars, where killing is considered less bad, as that would be tribe vs tribe effects.

If you examine your morality, you will see that it is good advice for operating in the world. Being "nice" to others is a good idea for a social species.

The question is, did our sense of morality come from our intelligence, or was it bestowed upon us by a greater being, let's say God?

evolution gave us our morals.

As far as I am aware, no other creature on this planet has a sense of morality. Yes, animals can be taught a sort of morality, i.e. you can train a dog to know when it's done something wrong or something right, but animals do not have a sense of morality to start off with.

Animals will kill if they are attacked, so they have basic morality. They don't have complex morality though.

I suspect that morals are what prove the existence of God, because they are something that could not possibly evolve, because morals contradict the theory of evolution, i.e. the survival of the fittest.

No they don't. Morals are rules of thumb that help you survive. It might be worth your while in the short term to kill someone or steal his stuff. However, morality tells you not to as it is a bad idea in the long run. People with effective morals do better in the long run.

When did someone first think that doing a particular thing was right or wrong? It just could not happen spontaneously... in other words, some greater being must have intervened to place that thought in the minds of our ancestors.

It was not one person, a person who tended not to commit murder did better on average than someone who killed alot. Thus, most people feel murder is wrong and people consider this was a basic rule. If humans were 99% murderers, then most people would accept that everyone has a right to be a murderer.

The question is not

"why is murder wrong ?"

the question is

"why does everyone think murder is wrong?"

Science (evolution) can answer the 2nd question as it is based in fact rather than opinion.

Therefore, if morals are divinely given, then the whole topic of using animals as guinea-pigs for drugs testing may be acceptable on the grounds that humans have morally determined it is correct to do so.

There is no agreement on morals, so that seems to hint at a more complex source. However, the basics are the same for more people. Killing animals didn't really make much difference when we were evolving so there was less force to make everyone have similar opinions.

[Satyn]

In this case, one could argue that the qualities that differentiate humans from animals are not so much intelligence (because all animals have intelligence), but rather a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Sense of right and wrong has all to do with intelligence.

The question is, did our sense of morality come from our intelligence, or was it bestowed upon us by a greater being, let's say God?

Nope... god has nothing to do with it. Well if you believe in that you can direct everything towards a so called god ofcourse but a sense of moral is something that prolly grew upon us.

I suspect that morals are what prove the existence of God, because they are something that could not possibly evolve, because morals contradict the theory of evolution, i.e. the survival of the fittest. When did someone first think that doing a particular thing was right or wrong? It just could not happen spontaneously... in other words, some greater being must have intervened to place that thought in the minds of our ancestors.

Like i said above if you really believe that then fine by me but I dont think its true. Ppl made their 'god' up cos things happened they couldnt explain, thats why they thought there was a higher source then them. But Gandy, why did 'he' put that thought in the minds of our ancestors? Why not just 'give' it to them when 'he' 'made' humans?

[Xest]

Gandelf, god doesn't exist, the Bible was a story book made up to control people stupid enough to beleive it.

[Gandelf]

Well, yes, I believe in God. Other people don't. There are probably more believers than disbelievers in the world, so I'm certainly not alone in my belief.

Those who don't believe in God can never conclusively prove that he/she does not exist, the same way that I cannot conclusively prove that God exists. If the existence of God had been conclusively proved, then everyone in the world would be a believer. If, on the other hand, it had been conclusively proved that God did not exist then there would be no religions at all in the world (not in the sense that we currently know them).

I could relate to you my own personal experiences of how I know from "inner witness" that God exists, but others would probably have some scientific explanation for those experiences. But this is not a soap box, so I will refrain from relating my experiences.

But, sticking to the topic, obviously from Biblical evidence, there was a time when mankind had no concept of morals. What changed? How did those morals suddenly come to be? Did they all happen at once, or over thousands of years? The Biblical explanation of the birth of morality stems from the story of Adam and Eve (and I think at least three of the world's major religions believe in that story). Shortly afterwards, in the Old Testament we see the 10 Commandments being revealed... probably the most well known moral code in the world.

So, whether you believe in a literal Garden of Eden account of the introduction of morals into human society, or not, you have to accept that at one point, the human race had no morals at all. At that point in history, mankind was no different than the rest of the animal realm and if THAT is the case, then the whole issue of drugs testing on animals becomes very murky indeed.

[Xest]

Those who don't believe in God can never conclusively prove that he/she does not exist, the same way that I cannot conclusively prove that God exists.

Er, actually the laws of physics conclusively proof that there is absolutely no possibility for the existence of god. Likewise, there's a lot of conclusive evidence to prove the big bang theory and evolution. The actual problem is that most religious types prefer to ignore or even in some cases deny the existence of such proof so it's certainly not that the evidence isn't out there.

Generally as intelligence increases, religious beleifs decrease. The US is a very good demonstration of this, there's a very strong corrolation between religious beleifs in the poorer states compared to a lot less people who beleive in any kind of god in the richer states where intelligence thrives. The poorer states are poor because they rely on low-tech industries such as agriculture and mining, contrasting to the rich states which rely heavily on research and hi-tech services and such.

So, whether you believe in a literal Garden of Eden account of the introduction of morals into human society, or not, you have to accept that at one point, the human race had no morals at all. At that point in history, mankind was no different than the rest of the animal realm and if THAT is the case, then the whole issue of drugs testing on animals becomes very murky indeed.

We gained morals as part of our evolution from animals to humans, that's the whole point. Depending on how you define when someone becomes human you could suggest that before humans evolved such properties as morals that they were indeed just animals. Of course, not in the literal sense because even now we're still mammals, just that we prefer to seperate ourselves from them by calling ourselves humans.

[Lieva]

Er, actually the laws of physics conclusively proof that there is absolutely no possibility for the existence of god. Likewise, there's a lot of conclusive evidence to prove the big bang theory and evolution. The actual problem is that most religious types prefer to ignore or even in some cases deny the existence of such proof so it's certainly not that the evidence isn't out there.

i have to disagree there

nasa has found data that the unverse was created from a single place.. ours ;p

[Thandruil]

The Biblical explanation of the birth of morality stems from the story of Adam and Eve (and I think at least three of the world's major religions believe in that story).

That's the fun part about it all tbh.

IF God like u call him in ur religion is really the one who made the earth and it's lifeforms. Then why are there at least 2 other religions thinking the same thing, yet they not agree on everything. Cause if they would, they could as well have the same religion.

Which brings me to.... IF the previous story is correct, then why are there so many different religions??? Why would a God who made Adam and Eve and the rest of the world even allow for millions of other people to have a different religion? Wouldn't be the first time he flooded the world over an arguement.

Guess Al Pacino was right after all:
Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off. He's a tight-ass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never.

Oh and about Adam and Eve, i had a collegue at work once who's a strong believer in them. When i asked him how he could believe in it, referring to dinosaurs and other creatures who lived millions of years ago. The reply i got was: dinosaurs never excisted, they are just skelletons of dogs put together. 20 dogs put together make a dinosaur.... at that point i knew it was time to close the discussion.

[Xest]

[quote="Banana"]i have to disagree there

nasa has found data that the unverse was created from a single place.. ours ]
The universe being created from a single place IS what the big bang theory is all about...

[Haarewin]

drugs have to be tested in at least 2 non-human species and prove non-fatal for therapeutic effect, and an LD-50 (lethal does for 50% of the sample) determined, before they can be introduced into humans for testing.
whoever said pigs were 'best' - not true - pigs do have the best fit cardiovascular system to humans (hence people being given pig hearts). the research that has resulted in glowing pigs and mice will help us to understand cardiovascular disorders.

i've always argued that rats / mice were not perfect for studying how all drugs will work in humans. but they give scientists an idea that can then be tested. a pharmacologist lecturer of mine argues that rats are perfect for testing any drug thats intended effect is on the CNS because their brain / CNS physiology is very similar to ours.

a lot of our physiology is "borrowed" from other mammalian species.

i'm all for animal testing for drugs and other therapeutic interventions if they have a chance to improve the quality of life of people. human testing is obviously a part of drug development that we have to live with - we won't be able to use drugs if they aren't proven in humans. at the moment, tissue cultures aren't advanced enough to be able to be used instead of living animals.
(i disagree with using animals to test cosmetics though.)

edit: i forgot to mention i don't think that humans should be looking to increase their lifespan - overpopulation is threatening the world as it is. my view is that nature is 'creating' new diseases to help 'thin out the herd' and return the population to a 'safe' level. obviously this can sound cold and horrible and whatnot, but an example is cancer: it's very much a disease of the 20th Century.