Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: joswift on August 09, 2025, 12:22:06 PM
-
thoughts?
-
Inner desires and emotional reflection seem to be the prevalent motivators for the base urges.
If you factor in family/community/religious/political influences, it can change to an extent that could either be a plus or minus.
Education, reasoning, and life experiences would be the biggest growth factors imo.
-
Mostly common sense
-
Mostly common sense
I genuinely love this answer
-
Mostly common sense
Common sense isnt that common
Point is we seem to have a moral stance that goes with the consensus, in other words morals based on societal norms.
But what if society as a majority decided that its fine to throw deformed babies in pits like they did at Sparta
Would you go along with it or does your internal moral code spring to life and if it does then where does it come from?
-
In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge used mostly young teenagers as their guards and torturers in the S-21 prison.
They were apparently the most feared from the prisoners as being the most cruel and enthusiastic in their job.
-
Well... not religion
Idk I have some sort of inner compass for justice I think.... I dislike hypocrisy, double standards, and pretense. I think many people don't have that. I try also to not treat others in a way I would not like to be treated, in day to day life.
But then again morals are different for everyone. If I say something controversial like I say things like "women shouldn't vote" or that 3rd world immigration is harmful. That will by someone else lense(the comon woman/or an immigrant) be seen as immoral and cruel. But in the end if I think it is for the better of the future of this nation then for me it is needed to say.
-
In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge used mostly young teenagers as their guards and torturers in the S-21 prison.
They were apparently the most feared from the prisoners as being the most cruel and enthusiastic in their job.
would that be nurture over nature...?
-
Well... not religion
Idk I have some sort of inner compass for justice I think.... I dislike hypocrisy, double standards, and pretense. I think many people don't have that. I try also to not treat others in a way I would not like to be treated, in day to day life.
But then again morals are different for everyone.If I say something controversial like I say things like "women shouldn't vote" or that 3rd world immigration is harmful. That will by someone else lense(the comon woman/or an immigrant) be seen as immoral and cruel. But in the end if I think it is for the better of the future of this nation then for me it is needed to say.
religion has nothing to do with it
is having opinions on subjects really about a moral compass?
Most people agree that murder (unlawful killing) is morally wrong yet people do it all the time
But is it because they dont know its wrong morally or that they just choose to do it anyway?
-
religion has nothing to do with it
is having opinions on subjects really about a moral compass?
Most people agree that murder (unlawful killing) is morally wrong yet people do it all the time
But is it because they dont know its wrong morally or that they just choose to do it anyway?
Well what can be said is the definition of morality. it's said that the definition is- right from wrong. Which is hard to set an objective criteria for. Other than by having Laws(and for some religion). Which is a base for our morality today. Without the base of laws which makes a foundation of guidelines for morality in society, more chaos would ensue. Because self serving people without morals(or their own odd morals) would make life harder for the majority.
About murder. Harming another person for no reason other than some self serving reason. Most, well 99% of all people would say that is wrong, and immoral.
-
Well what can be said is the definition of morality. it's said that the definition is- right from wrong. Which is hard to set an objective criteria for. Other than by having Laws(and for some religion). Which is a base for our morality today. Without the base of laws which makes a foundation of guidelines for morality in society, more chaos would ensue. Because self serving people without morals(or their own odd morals) would make life harder for the majority.
About murder. Harming another person for no reason other than some self serving reason. Most, well 99% of all people would say that is wrong, and immoral.
but the question is what makes it wrong?
-
but the question is what makes it wrong?
Pretty obvious.
If I did it to your wife would you say it's wrong?
Or ff I asked you if it was okay if I did it to you would you agree that i did it to you?
99.9999% of all people would say no thanks to that. Leads to believe it is wrong.
-
If I did it to your wife would you say it's wrong?
Or ff I asked you if it was okay if I did it to you would you agree that i did it to you?
99.9999% of all people would say no thanks to that. Leads to believe it is wrong.
I know, so what makes it wrong is that 99.999999% of people think its wrong did they all learn it or was it always there?
-
I know, so what makes it wrong is that 99.999999% of people think its wrong did they all learn it or was it always there?
Yes majority rule essentially. That goes for most things. Our laws too(used to anyways lol)
-
Yes majority rule essentially. That goes for most things. Our laws too(used to anyways lol)
No, I asked did we learn it or was in "built in" to our DNA?
If society said murder was fine would you change your moral stance?
-
For me my emotions pushed towards being immoral as a youth but then I first felt intense guilt for some of actions. This next time I realized my emotions were correct and it helped created my moral compass.
-
For me my emotions pushed towards being immoral as a youth but then I first felt intense guilt for some of actions. This next time I realized my emotions were correct and it helped created my moral compass.
so did they come from external factors or from within?
-
No, I asked did we learn it or was in "built in" to our DNA?
group evolutionary thing yes.
Something we got hardwired from evolutionary behaviour in groups.
If you go in to a village of 10 people and kill 2 of them. The rest would probably kill you. That taught us not to do that. As goes for most morality. Group evolutionary learned/hardwired traits.
I.e. if you behaved in a certain way in a group you would be left out, thus more likely to die and not carry on your less wanted behavioral genes.
-
group evolutionary thing yes.
Something we got hardwired from evolutionary behaviour in groups.
If you go in to a village of 10 people and kill 2 of them. The rest would probably kill you. That taught us not to do that. As goes for most morality. Group evolutionary learned/hardwired traits.
I.e. if you behaved in a certain way in a group you would be left out, thus more likely to die and not carry on your less wanted behavioral genes.
now we are getting nearer to the point that "they have always been there"
Evolutionary from where?
From apes, do apes have a moral compass?
If so where did they get it from?
If you want to say its evolutionary then you have to accept that morals were present in Amoebas..if that true then who or what put them there?
-
now we are getting nearer to the point that "they have always been there"
Evolutionary from where?
From apes, do apes have a moral compass?
If so where did they get it from?
If you want to say its evolutionary then you have to accept that morals were present in Amoebas..if that true then who or what put them there?
I'm no expert on apes but what I've seen they seem to have inherent moral aspects of their behavior in their flocks. Also group evolutionary hardwired traits. But at a much more primitive level of course, since their IQ is much lower. 60 IQ or whatever it is.
-
I'm no expert on apes but what I've seen they seem to have inherent moral aspects of their behavior in their flocks. Also group evolutionary hardwired traits. But at a much more primitive level of course, since their IQ is much lower. 60 IQ or whatever it is.
so pretty much all living things have a moral compass to some degree and as such we must assume single celled animals have a moral compass
Now, all we need to do is work out where it came from?
-
A good amount of it comes from what I learned in the gym, universal life lessons like needing to put in the effort, come up with goals and a plan, stick to it, consistency, progressive efforts, needing all three legs of the stool (training, nutrition and rest), necessity of a certain amount of natural talent to get to the top, need to try new things if the old isn't working, need to rely on objective proof of gains, etc.
We can't all be Paul Dillett, but applying these took me further than 99% of folks who walk through a gym door.
Also never overcook your eggs past slightly runny or you won't be able to properly absorb the protein (broscience).
-
so pretty much all living things have a moral compass to some degree and as such we must assume single celled animals have a moral compass
Now, all we need to do is work out where it came from?
All our inherent behavioral/cognital and physical traits comes from evolution. Unwanted traits are weeded out, wanted gets to breed thus carry on genes. That is how all lifeforms on earth evolves. No magic about it.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5612AQF74uYCwQcSJA/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1703845909906?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=UO9IptIOKpdu6ljLjSM0h049f3dUTtmzfFdnoCax29M)
-
the weider principles
-
All our inherent behavioral/cognital and physical traits comes from evolution. Unwanted traits are weeded out, wanted gets to breed thus carry on genes. That is how all lifeforms on earth evolves. No magic about it.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5612AQF74uYCwQcSJA/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1703845909906?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=UO9IptIOKpdu6ljLjSM0h049f3dUTtmzfFdnoCax29M)
So if our morals stem from evolution then single celled animals must have had a moral compass or did it just spring from nowhere along the way?
After all something cant come from nothing...
-
So if our morals stem from evolution then single celled animals must have had a moral compass or did it just spring from nowhere along the way?
After all something cant come from nothing...
Morality to a single celled animal is survival, which means food, resources and reproduction. That is carried all through life forms to higher level creatures. At some point after conscious thought occurs there can be ideas that allow a shift away from that to some extent, like with Malsov's hierarchy of needs.
-
Morality to a single celled animal is survival, which means food, resources and reproduction. That is carried all through life forms to higher level creatures. At some point after conscious thought occursthere can be ideas that allow a shift away from that to some extent, like with Malsov's hierarchy of needs.
at what point in evolution did that occur and more importantly how did it occur if it wasnt there before?
-
I have never been really religous and had a belief in a God as I was brought up Catholic and it didnt make sense to me from a scientic point (walking on water and feeding 5000 with a couple loaves and fish, also the virgin birth).
Lately I have beeen toying with the concept of a higher power or creator
This struck a cord for some reason
I wish this could have gone on longer but the asshole host probably wanted to know the girls bodycount
-
So if our morals stem from evolution then single celled animals must have had a moral compass or did it just spring from nowhere along the way?
After all something cant come from nothing...
morality is a group evolutionary trait. Only lifeforms coexisting in groups evolved to having this group behavioral aspect that we like to call morality. When it started who knows, no one can pin point exactly when or what life form was first..
-
morality is a group evolutionary trait. Only lifeforms coexisting in groups evolved to having this group behavioral aspect that we like to call morality. When it started who knows, no one can pin point exactly when or what life form was first..
so now we are back to it being a learned behaviour as opposed to just "knowing" whats right.
You agreed murder was morally wrong from your standpoint, but would your morals change if as a society it decided that it wasnt wrong?
-
so now we are back to it being a learned behaviour as opposed to just "knowing" whats right.
You agreed murder was morally wrong from your standpoint, but would your morals change if as a society it decided that it wasnt wrong?
You have to be able differentiate inherent(genetically hardwired) from learned. Two separate things
I assume my inherent("learnt" through evolution in my DNA) would tell me it's wrong. Even though majority rule said something else.
Peer pressure and fear can override things like morality. (see Covid)
-
You have to be able differentiate inherent(genetically hardwired) from learned. Two separate things
I thought that was what we were trying to do
So, if they are in any way inherant then where do they come from?
did you watch the video?
-
I thought that was what we were trying to do
So, if they are in any way inherant then where do they come from?
did you watch the video?
we're talking in circles now. Inherent are hardwired traits through the process of evolution.
-
I don't care to watch that video as I'm not religious I'm atheist I do not believe in some form of higher consciousness
-
I don't care to watch that video as I'm not religious I'm atheist I do not believe in some form of higher consciousness
amazing, are you a democrat?
Jeez, think of the "superior being" as a computor programmer rather than a god
He doesnt really mention a God, he just uses logic to try and establish something more than mens consciousness.
Think of it this way "you never learn anything from only talking and listening to people who agree with you"
-
Definitely not from some unwed, cum dumpster of a mother back in Columbus Ohio….
-
I don't care to watch that video as I'm not religious I'm atheist I do not believe in some form of higher consciousness
yet you believe to some degree that morals are inherant and not learned..wouldnt that lean towards something higher?
-
Family
Religion
Personal experience
-
Family
Religion
Personal experience
If you say that then its ultimatly a God
-
If you say that then its ultimatly a God
Not necessarily if you believe man created his God(s).
-
Not necessarily if you believe man created his God(s).
yes, man created his gods thats why there are so many of them..
But where did the idea of "God" come from?
I dont really want to argue the existance of a God , I just want to try and establish the origin of a persons moral compass
Where do your morals come from, yours specifically?
-
amazing, are you a democrat?
Jeez, think of the "superior being" as a computor programmer rather than a god
He doesnt really mention a God, he just uses logic to try and establish something more than mens consciousness.
Think of it this way "you never learn anything from only talking and listening to people who agree with you"
What is there to see. I don't believe in the metaphysical, never have never will.
Something else beyond our consciousness/perception means a belief. Means something that has no basis for proof. A blind faith. A childish thought process. Just bullshit
(https://thinkingtobelieve.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/god-of-gaps.jpg)
-
yes, man created his gods thats why there are so many of them..
But where did the idea of "God" come from?
I dont really want to argue the existance of a God , I just want to try and establish the origin of a persons moral compass
Where do your morals come from, yours specifically?
Family
Religion
Personal experience
-
What is there to see. I don't believe in the metaphysical, never have never will.
Something else beyond our consciousness/perception means a belief. Means something that has no basis for proof. A blind faith. A childish thought process. Just bullshit
(https://thinkingtobelieve.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/god-of-gaps.jpg)
the laws of logic exist absent the mind of man, hows that work?
What about mathematics, we discovered it, we didnt create it did we?
A dog is a dog, it cant be a cat or anything else for that matter, its always a dog even if there are no people around to perceive it.
Absent the mind dogs are still dogs
-
Family
Religion
Personal experience
do you know what a circular argument is? ;D
Is it morally wrong to murder someone, if so why?
Also if you agree murder is wrong then would you be OK if society deemed it acceptable?
If you read the thread you can learn from Maxx mistakes before he got a bit pissy.
-
Definitely not from some unwed, cum dumpster of a mother back in Columbus Ohio….
10/10
;D
-
I have never been really religous and had a belief in a God as I was brought up Catholic and it didnt make sense to me from a scientic point (walking on water and feeding 5000 with a couple loaves and fish, also the virgin birth).
Lately I have beeen toying with the concept of a higher power or creator
This struck a cord for some reason
I wish this could have gone on longer but the asshole host probably wanted to know the girls bodycount
Haha that was great! I've seen a video before with Andrew Wilson where a bunch of women walked out of the show. He knows how to push their buttons!
It's more likely that there is a Creator than not. And even if the atheists are correct that there is no Creator, then that version is just as fantastical as the Creator version. The Solar System and everything in it literally formed out of a dust cloud in space with the basic elements in the Periodic Table. Mostly hydrogen, but some heavier elements like gold (Au) as well. That gold was forged in the immense gravity of super massive stars' explosions that expired when they reached the iron stage.
Right before iron (Fe) in a massive star’s life, the core is dominated by silicon (Si) burning — though “silicon” here really means a mix of elements around silicon in the periodic table.
Here’s the fusion sequence in a massive star, starting from hydrogen:
- Hydrogen burning → helium (via the proton–proton chain or CNO cycle)
- Helium burning → carbon and oxygen
- Carbon burning → neon, sodium, magnesium
- Neon burning → oxygen, magnesium
- Oxygen burning → silicon, sulfur, phosphorus
- Silicon burning → nickel (^56Ni), cobalt, and iron (^56Fe)
That last step is the key:
- Silicon burning doesn’t directly fuse Si into Fe in one step — it produces nickel and cobalt isotopes via alpha capture reactions.
- The most common product is ^56Ni, which is unstable.
- After the supernova, ^56Ni decays → ^56Co → ^56Fe.
Timescales shrink dramatically toward the end:
- Hydrogen burning: millions of years
- Helium burning: hundreds of thousands of years
- Carbon burning: centuries
- Neon burning: about a year
- Oxygen burning: months
- Silicon burning: a few days (sometimes less)
So, before Fe is silicon (and a mix of S, P, and other intermediate-mass nuclei).
Once that phase is done, the star’s core is essentially iron/nickel — and that’s when gravity wins.
-
There is no god, hope this helps.
-
There is no god, hope this helps.
Why are you here… and why wouldn’t you be? There was a dust cloud in space a few billion years ago. Now you are sitting there typing on Getbig. Explain how the fuck that happened!
-
Why are you here… and why wouldn’t you be? There was a dust cloud in space a few billion years ago. Now you are sitting there typing on Getbig. Explain how the fuck that happened!
Ron created Getbig and there was light.
-
I have never been really religous and had a belief in a God as I was brought up Catholic and it didnt make sense to me from a scientic point (walking on water and feeding 5000 with a couple loaves and fish, also the virgin birth).
Lately I have beeen toying with the concept of a higher power or creator
This struck a cord for some reason
I wish this could have gone on longer but the asshole host probably wanted to know the girls bodycount
Are you trying to find an alternative to a deity as a source of morality?
I was always of the view that if the only thing holding back a person from committing immoral acts, by any reasonable definition of the word, is a man-made deity, that person is a piece of shit.
-
Why are you here… and why wouldn’t you be? There was a dust cloud in space a few billion years ago. Now you are sitting there typing on Getbig. Explain how the fuck that happened!
That doesn't imply there is a god, you retard. There is no god and never was.
And the Eastern Orthodox deity you and the rest of the abominable Russkiy-mir believe in is so infantile as to be laughable. A god by peasants for peasants.
-
One favorite writer of mine has this basic concept which many here have already mentioned.
Why The Concept Of ‘Evil’ Is A Bad Idea
By Jim Goad
*snippet*
"I strongly suspect that what any given group or individual defines as “good” is nothing more profound than something that ensures their survival. The flip side of that coin is that whatever threatens their survival is “evil” to them.
And that’s the only constant with this ubiquitous and simplistic notion of good and evil—it’s good if it keeps me alive, and it’s bad if it kills me. That’s why I suspect that in every war throughout history, every combatant on every side thought they were the good guy trying to kill all the bad guys.
And did you notice that since they’re killing the bad guys, it’s not murder—or at least it’s not really bad? No, it’s justified. In other words, it’s good.
Whenever they write history books, it’s a miraculous coincidence that the bad guys always wind up losing. And what’s ironic is that by definition, those who win wars are not those with the best morals or the loftiest ideology, but those who are the better killers."
"Throughout most cultures, there’s an idea that it’s wrong to murder another human being—the only variable is that no cultures seem to agree with one another on who exactly is a human being. Are they one of us? OK, then they’re human. Are they one of them? Then it’s not murder if you kill them."
https://thought.is/why-the-concept-of-evil-is-a-bad-idea/
One feature of the justice system is framing deeds as good or evil, that every decent person innately knows what's wrong and right, good and evil. We also have a strong need to be able blame someone, so we don't want to hear about genetic or environmental factors that may have shaped an individual to do "evil." What we want is Justice, but maybe what we really want is just Revenge? We want blood, we want suffering. But I don't know if the justice system could be created otherwise and still sate our needs. Just some thoughts, I don't have fully formed opinions on this... 8)
Since Amalekites were mentioned in the article. We see different conceptions of morality play out in the ME. The only problem might be the hipocrisy, they always taught us we have a common moral obligation, like never kill "innocents," or women and children. Of course what an "innocent" is is of course open to interpretation and pretty meaningless unless defined.
-
Why are you here… and why wouldn’t you be? There was a dust cloud in space a few billion years ago. Now you are sitting there typing on Getbig. Explain how the fuck that happened!
in the end what all creationists/god believers resort to... god of the gaps fallacy...
(https://mike-tanner.co.nz/xrel,P20god,P20gaps,P20wheel,P20of,P20fortune.jpg.pagespeed.ic.l5injk_MkF.jpg)
that's why it's pointless to ever debate a creationist. Because the basis of their thought process(or lack of it) is simplistic and flawed fundamentally. Anything they don't understand and don't see a childlike clear path their answer will always be "then god did it, because you can't fully explain it"
-
Are you trying to find an alternative to a deity as a source of morality?
I was always of the view that if the only thing holding back a person from committing immoral acts, by any reasonable definition of the word, is a man-made deity, that person is a piece of shit.
No, Im trying to find out if there is a source of morality or if its just learned behaviour.
What makes these people wrong is it that we have learned that its wrong or becaus they have learned it it makes it right to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people
Male rites of passage[edit]
Maku: This is the first rite of passage for the boys. They are separated from their mothers at this stage and participate in bloodletting (where long sticks are inserted up their nostrils to make them bleed), therefore ridding themselves of their mothers' presence in them. The Simbari people do not believe that males are born with semen and so, during Maku, the boys participate in fellatio. They are also required to undergo a strict diet during this time period, which is from age 7–10.
To me this is fucking disgusting and should be stamped out, but apart from Western society beleives or has learned its wrong what makes it wrong?
To them its perfectly normal.
-
in the end what all creationists/god believers resort to... god of the gaps fallacy...
(https://mike-tanner.co.nz/xrel,P20god,P20gaps,P20wheel,P20of,P20fortune.jpg.pagespeed.ic.l5injk_MkF.jpg)
that's why it's pointless to ever debate a creationist. Because the basis of their thought process(or lack of it) is simplistic and flawed fundamentally. Anything they don't understand and don't see a childlike clear path their answer will always be "then god did it, because you can't fully explain it"
and if an evolutionist cant explain it they just say "we came from monkeys"
-
thoughts?
ahahahhaahahahah my godddd :D :D :D :D
the guy who thinks dirty about his own daughter and commented about it on getbig talking about " morals "
shut the fuck up you son of a bore ...no wonder whorish american females breeds guy like josfilth
drug addicted pedo worshiper incest piece of shit ;D ;D
-
ahahahhaahahahah my godddd :D :D :D :D
the guy who thinks dirty about his own daughter and commented about it on getbig talking about " morals "
shut the fuck up you son of a bore ...no wonder whorish american females breeds guy like josfilth
drug addicted pedo worshiper incest piece of shit ;D ;D
are your kids ugly?
-
and if an evolutionist cant explain it they just say "we came from monkeys"
by DNA sequencing we can today see how evolution was right and that we are closely related to apes. We are in fact just evolved apes
-
by DNA sequencing we can today see how evolution was right and that we are closely related to apes. We are in fact just evolved apes
Our DNA is closer to a Salmon than a chimpanzee
we also share 90% with cats
did we come from cats as well?
You are blinkered and wont listen to any argument, we have already established that with your behaviour earlier in refusing to watch a 4 minute video
Imagine being so set in your ways that you refuse to listen to an alternative viewpoint than your own
You must have listened to someone else to hold the worldview you have now, why do you think you are right?
-
nowadays we use abortion clinics for that.
Perhaps they should be kept alive and used a s bait support on this site ?
afte reading dj181s post I suspect that already happening
-
Annoyingly, I think about this a lot, and it keeps me up at night. I've also been led down hazy deistic paths before. To attempt to sketch out my current thoughts, I'd begin with the acknowledgement that a theory of nature should have empirical observations. And so in looking at morality from a naturalistic perspective, I observe its rudiments in other species, e.g., our ape cousins displaying culture and an understanding of fairness, and elephants displaying empathy and even what looks like mourning, to give two examples.
This suggests to me that morality is an evolved process that enhances group survival and facilitates cooperation, which then promotes gene propagation. A moral faculty is part of our genetic endowment and it develops much in the same way that other aspects of our physiology develop, meaning that it is mediated heavily by environment. It is therefore not merely learned behavior. Infants are endowed with an intuitive sense of right and wrong, and many variables will affect how this faculty develops - perhaps similar to the way in which nutrition affects one's pre-determined height.
As to whether an evolutionary account of morality supports or undermines its objectivity and one can say that moral judgements are true, it's complicated. One can take the view that if other species and human cultures have different moral adaptations, then relativism wins and we cannot say what is right.
On this point, I don't think that it's correct to say that different species have different moral adaptations. Rather, moral thinking presents itself once a species reaches a certain level of intelligence and social complexity. The more advanced the brain, the more sophisticated the moral reasoning, so it is not that, say, insects have evolved a different adaptation; rather, they simply haven't evolved enough to have any moral faculty at all, and in fact elementary morality looks rather uniform across all intelligent species.
I don't accept the idea that morality is merely preference. It's not only a diminution of our most deeply held convictions, but I also recognize that my moral conclusions do not always align with my preferences or emotions. Personally, I rarely have much empathy for other men. I'd quite like to torture and kill many of them. However, I realize that this is wrong, and I would not want to live in a society where this is viewed as acceptable behavior.
There are clearly differences in our moral sensitivity due to different neurological tuning, but I hold that we can arrive at moral truth through our capacity to reason and our rational reflection on morally relevant traits. And on this point I also reject that idea that moral consideration should only be given to other rational agents: hence my annoying commitment to vegetarianism.
I'm not yet sure if all of this is consistent, and I may well change my mind, but one day when I've saved enough money and I can retire from my current job, I'd love to formally study ethics and develop my thoughts further - especially in regard to our treatment of other species.
-
Annoyingly, I think about this a lot, and it keeps me up at night. I've also been led down hazy deistic paths before. To attempt to sketch out my current thoughts, I'd begin with the acknowledgement that a theory of nature should have empirical observations. And so in looking at morality from a naturalistic perspective, I observe its rudiments in other species, e.g., our ape cousins displaying culture and an understanding of fairness, and elephants displaying empathy and even what looks like mourning, to give two examples.
This suggests to me that morality is an evolved process that enhances group survival and facilitates cooperation, which then promotes gene propagation. A moral faculty is part of our genetic endowment and it develops much in the same way that other aspects of our physiology develop, meaning that it is mediated heavily by environment. It is therefore not merely learned behavior. Infants are endowed with an intuitive sense of right and wrong, and many variables will affect how this faculty develops - perhaps similar to the way in which nutrition affects one's pre-determined height.
As to whether an evolutionary account of morality supports or undermines its objectivity and one can say that moral judgements are true, it's complicated. One can take the view that if other species and human cultures have different moral adaptations, then relativism wins and we cannot say what is right.
On this point, I don't think that it's correct to say that different species have different moral adaptations. Rather, moral thinking presents itself once a species reaches a certain level of intelligence and social complexity. The more advanced the brain, the more sophisticated the moral reasoning, so it is not that, say, insects have evolved a different adaptation; rather, they simply haven't evolved enough to have any moral faculty at all, and in fact elementary morality looks rather uniform across all intelligent species.
I don't accept the idea that morality is merely preference. It's not only a diminution of our most deeply held convictions, but I also recognize that my moral conclusions do not always align with my preferences or emotions. Personally, I rarely have much empathy for other men. I'd quite like to torture and kill many of them. However, I realize that this is wrong, and I would not want to live in a society where this is viewed as acceptable behavior.
There are clearly differences in our moral sensitivity due to different neurological tuning, but I hold that we can arrive at moral truth through our capacity to reason and our rational reflection on morally relevant traits. And on this point I also reject that idea that moral consideration should only be given to other rational agents: hence my annoying commitment to vegetarianism.
I'm not yet sure if all of this is consistent, and I may well change my mind, but one day when I've saved enough money and I can retire from my current job, I'd love to formally study ethics and develop my thoughts further - especially in regard to our treatment of other species.
Jesus Christ dude! English do you speak it? That whole passage just went right over my head😂😂😂
And to that shitheads blowshit claims I would ever ever harm a child is a complete and total fuckking lie
I would NEVER EVER EVER HARM A CHILD or touch them in a sexualized way as he constantly implies
Tell ya what I would do though if I ever crossed paths with him I would beat him so very badly that he would end up in a hospital or possibly just unalive him 😉
-
Annoyingly, I think about this a lot, and it keeps me up at night. I've also been led down hazy deistic paths before. To attempt to sketch out my current thoughts, I'd begin with the acknowledgement that a theory of nature should have empirical observations. And so in looking at morality from a naturalistic perspective, I observe its rudiments in other species, e.g., our ape cousins displaying culture and an understanding of fairness, and elephants displaying empathy and even what looks like mourning, to give two examples.
This suggests to me that morality is an evolved process that enhances group survival and facilitates cooperation, which then promotes gene propagation. A moral faculty is part of our genetic endowment and it develops much in the same way that other aspects of our physiology develop, meaning that it is mediated heavily by environment. It is therefore not merely learned behavior. Infants are endowed with an intuitive sense of right and wrong, and many variables will affect how this faculty develops - perhaps similar to the way in which nutrition affects one's pre-determined height.
As to whether an evolutionary account of morality supports or undermines its objectivity and one can say that moral judgements are true, it's complicated. One can take the view that if other species and human cultures have different moral adaptations, then relativism wins and we cannot say what is right.
On this point, I don't think that it's correct to say that different species have different moral adaptations. Rather, moral thinking presents itself once a species reaches a certain level of intelligence and social complexity. The more advanced the brain, the more sophisticated the moral reasoning, so it is not that, say, insects have evolved a different adaptation; rather, they simply haven't evolved enough to have any moral faculty at all, and in fact elementary morality looks rather uniform across all intelligent species.
I don't accept the idea that morality is merely preference. It's not only a diminution of our most deeply held convictions, but I also recognize that my moral conclusions do not always align with my preferences or emotions. Personally, I rarely have much empathy for other men. I'd quite like to torture and kill many of them. However, I realize that this is wrong, and I would not want to live in a society where this is viewed as acceptable behavior.
There are clearly differences in our moral sensitivity due to different neurological tuning, but I hold that we can arrive at moral truth through our capacity to reason and our rational reflection on morally relevant traits. And on this point I also reject that idea that moral consideration should only be given to other rational agents: hence my annoying commitment to vegetarianism.
I'm not yet sure if all of this is consistent, and I may well change my mind, but one day when I've saved enough money and I can retire from my current job, I'd love to formally study ethics and develop my thoughts further - especially in regard to our treatment of other species.
Finally, a rational response
the bolded bit
We either base or morals on the current consensus or we are the arbitor of morals based on our personal preferences
I agree that murder is wrong morally but if society decides that its not, but I as an individual still do then my morals are simply my personal preferences.
Now what do I put the origins of my personal preferences down to?
-
Jesus Christ dude! English do you speak it? That whole passage just went right over my head😂😂😂
And to that shitheads blowshit claims I would ever ever harm a child is a complete and total fuckking lie
I would NEVER EVER EVER HARM A CHILD or touch them in a sexualized way as he constantly implies
Tell ya what I would do though if I ever crossed paths with him I would beat him so very badly that he would end up in a hospital or possibly just unalive him 😉
get out of this thread you fucking pedo, its not for you
-
Our DNA is closer to a Salmon than a chimpanzee
that is just factually wrong you're a clown
low IQ
-
I don't think morals are in our DNA. I think most people's morals will be formed by some combination of society, religion, and family.
-
Finally, a rational response
the bolded bit
We either base or morals on the current consensus or we are the arbitor of morals based on our personal preferences
I agree that murder is wrong morally but if society decides that its not, but I as an individual still do then my morals are simply my personal preferences.
Now what do I put the origins of my personal preferences down to?
I guess that what you're attempting to explore is the question of if you have arrived at a moral conclusion, e.g., murder is wrong, which seems to go against the prevailing wisdom of society, what is the ultimate source of that conclusion? Is this a mere personal preference similar to the way in which you might state that you prefer coffee whereas others prefer tea, or have you arrived at a moral truth? If it is indeed a moral truth, is it true in the sense of it being simply what rational, impartial agents would agree to once unfettered from bias and environmental influence, or is it true in the sense of it really existing as part of the external universe and we discover it, similar to your point about mathematics, thereby implying a creator?
For me, it is such a horribly complex question, and as human beings we likely just aren't very well equipped to make sense of it all, but I don't currently think we need to view it as implying a creator in the sense you're arguing for. I think that's needlessly anthropomorphizing the metaphysical.
When I, let's say, pick up 1 stone then pick up another stone to have 2 stones, I'm observing a regularity of reality and I can use mathematical language to express that and to articulate patterns that I see. I may not ever comprehend fundamental reality, but I don't ask 'who is the God of math?' any more than I ask 'who is the God of gravity?' Personally, my current view is that math is what we do in response to observing patterns, but if it really is out there as a fundamental aspect of nature, I don't feel that I'd get any further to understanding it all by bringing in God.
-
Why are you here… and why wouldn’t you be? There was a dust cloud in space a few billion years ago. Now you are sitting there typing on Getbig. Explain how the fuck that happened!
Here is something to consider : What if there really is a god? Who created all this. But it isn't YOUR god. In fact, it isn't even a god that has ever existed in any culture at any time on planet Earth. Now what? Every religion in the world is now blasphemy. Or is it?
-
that is just factually wrong you're a clown
low IQ
Is salmon DNA close to human DNA?
What is Salmon DNA? As we age, the mechanisms of cell renewal and repair in our cells deteriorate, one of the most important reasons being the breakdown and insufficient functioning of our DNA repair system with age. Salmon DNA is the DNA most similar to human DNA found in nature.
-
are your kids ugly?
like i said only a pedophile like you will see a child as " ugly " or " beautiful "
just like pedophile trump who want to penitrate his OWN daughter you also wanted to
penetrate your daughter and commented here your dirty thinking about her
so you not only like incest you are a pedophile too ;D ;D
pedophile incest loving american pill whore :D
-
I guess that what you're attempting to explore is the question of if you have arrived at a moral conclusion, e.g., murder is wrong, which seems to go against the prevailing wisdom of society, what is the ultimate source of that conclusion? Is this a mere personal preference similar to the way in which you might state that you prefer coffee whereas others prefer tea, or have you arrived at a moral truth? If it is indeed a moral truth, is it true in the sense of it being simply what rational, impartial agents would agree to once unfettered from bias and environmental influence, or is it true in the sense of it really existing as part of the external universe and we discover it, similar to your point about mathematics, thereby implying a creator?
For me, it is such a horribly complex question, and as human beings we likely just aren't very well equipped to make sense of it all, but I don't currently think we need to view it as implying a creator in the sense you're arguing for. I think that's needlessly anthropomorphizing the metaphysical.
When I, let's say, pick up 1 stone then pick up another stone to have 2 stones, I'm observing a regularity of reality and I can use mathematical language to express that and to articulate patterns that I see. I may not ever comprehend fundamental reality, but I don't ask 'who is the God of math?' any more than I ask 'who is the God of gravity?' Personally, my current view is that math is what we do in response to observing patterns, but if it really is out there as a fundamental aspect of nature, I don't feel that I'd get any further to understanding it all by bringing in God.
I think the curse of humans is that we have the capacity to contemplate the existance of a God/higher power but we are not blessed with the knowledge to ever establish it to be true or not.
-
like i said only a pedophile like you will see a child as " ugly " or " beautiful "
just like pedophile trump who want to penitrate his OWN daughter you also wanted to
penetrate your daughter and commented here your dirty thinking about her
so you not only like incest you are a pedophile too ;D ;D
pedophile incest loving american pill whore :D
You dont know if your kids are ugly or not?
Amazing
Ask your wife if you cant work it out....
-
Annoyingly, I think about this a lot, and it keeps me up at night. I've also been led down hazy deistic paths before. To attempt to sketch out my current thoughts, I'd begin with the acknowledgement that a theory of nature should have empirical observations. And so in looking at morality from a naturalistic perspective, I observe its rudiments in other species, e.g., our ape cousins displaying culture and an understanding of fairness, and elephants displaying empathy and even what looks like mourning, to give two examples.
This suggests to me that morality is an evolved process that enhances group survival and facilitates cooperation, which then promotes gene propagation. A moral faculty is part of our genetic endowment and it develops much in the same way that other aspects of our physiology develop, meaning that it is mediated heavily by environment. It is therefore not merely learned behavior. Infants are endowed with an intuitive sense of right and wrong, and many variables will affect how this faculty develops - perhaps similar to the way in which nutrition affects one's pre-determined height.
As to whether an evolutionary account of morality supports or undermines its objectivity and one can say that moral judgements are true, it's complicated. One can take the view that if other species and human cultures have different moral adaptations, then relativism wins and we cannot say what is right.
On this point, I don't think that it's correct to say that different species have different moral adaptations. Rather, moral thinking presents itself once a species reaches a certain level of intelligence and social complexity. The more advanced the brain, the more sophisticated the moral reasoning, so it is not that, say, insects have evolved a different adaptation; rather, they simply haven't evolved enough to have any moral faculty at all, and in fact elementary morality looks rather uniform across all intelligent species.
I don't accept the idea that morality is merely preference. It's not only a diminution of our most deeply held convictions, but I also recognize that my moral conclusions do not always align with my preferences or emotions. Personally, I rarely have much empathy for other men. I'd quite like to torture and kill many of them. However, I realize that this is wrong, and I would not want to live in a society where this is viewed as acceptable behavior.
There are clearly differences in our moral sensitivity due to different neurological tuning, but I hold that we can arrive at moral truth through our capacity to reason and our rational reflection on morally relevant traits. And on this point I also reject that idea that moral consideration should only be given to other rational agents: hence my annoying commitment to vegetarianism.
I'm not yet sure if all of this is consistent, and I may well change my mind, but one day when I've saved enough money and I can retire from my current job, I'd love to formally study ethics and develop my thoughts further - especially in regard to our treatment of other species.
Great post Phantom, enjoyed it
And yes your reasoning feels consistent to me, essentially based in the bolded bits which, to your subsequent post, does not necessarily require a higher power
Side note, going from this:
This suggests to me that morality is an evolved process that enhances group survival and facilitates cooperation, which then promotes gene propagation. A moral faculty is part of our genetic endowment and it develops much in the same way that other aspects of our physiology develop, meaning that it is mediated heavily by environment.
To this:
And to that shitheads blowshit claims I would ever ever harm a child is a complete and total fuckking lie
Was quite a jolt and encapsulated getbig in a nutshell :D
-
reconsider your google ad sources :-\
fish over the broad spectrum share 70% dna with humans.
Cows 80%
Cats 90%
Chimpanzee ~99%
-
Morality to a single celled animal is survival, which means food, resources and reproduction. That is carried all through life forms to higher level creatures. At some point after conscious thought occurs there can be ideas that allow a shift away from that to some extent, like with Malsov's hierarchy of needs.
Am a big fan of Maslows hierarchy it can be so readily and easily applied to explain any number of individual , community and broader societal decision making causes and movements
-
reconsider your google ad sources :-\
fish over the broad spectrum share 70% dna with humans.
Cows 80%
Cats 90%
Chimpanzee ~99%
so you had to Google it yourself to be sure?
Do you also know that there is no such thing as a fish?
Each species of fish are as distinct form each other as other animal species
Why is there no such thing as fish?
The last-common ancestor of lung fish, sharks, and hagfish is related to pretty much everything except arthropods, various worms/parasites, and things of that nature. So if sharks are fish, everything with four limbs is a fish too. Stephen Jay Gould studied fish and decided there's no such thing as a fish.
-
Regarding us being mere monkeys, this Norwegian philosopher thought that evolution went awry when we developed human consciousness. It was nature's mistake.
Peter Wessel Zapffe, a Norwegian philosopher, viewed human consciousness as a tragic misstep in evolution. He argued that humans possess a self-awareness and capacity for reason that surpasses what is needed for survival, leading to existential angst and a sense of the meaninglessness of life. Zapffe believed this overdeveloped consciousness creates a fundamental conflict between human needs and the world's inherent lack of inherent meaning, a view often associated with philosophical pessimism.
His rather short essay The Last Messiah
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
-
Regarding us being mere monkeys, this Norwegian philosopher thought that ovelolution went awry when we developed human consciousness. It was nature's mistake.
Peter Wessel Zapffe, a Norwegian philosopher, viewed human consciousness as a tragic misstep in evolution. He argued that humans possess a self-awareness and capacity for reason that surpasses what is needed for survival, leading to existential angst and a sense of the meaninglessness of life. Zapffe believed this overdeveloped consciousness creates a fundamental conflict between human needs and the world's inherent lack of inherent meaning, a view often associated with philosophical pessimism.
His rather short essay The Last Messiah
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
evolution went awary or we had a visit from an extra terrestrial species that gave us "humanity"
-
Regarding us being mere monkeys, this Norwegian philosopher thought that evolution went awry when we developed human consciousness. It was nature's mistake.
Peter Wessel Zapffe, a Norwegian philosopher, viewed human consciousness as a tragic misstep in evolution. He argued that humans possess a self-awareness and capacity for reason that surpasses what is needed for survival, leading to existential angst and a sense of the meaninglessness of life. Zapffe believed this overdeveloped consciousness creates a fundamental conflict between human needs and the world's inherent lack of inherent meaning, a view often associated with philosophical pessimism.
His rather short essay The Last Messiah
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
Check your pm bro
Halo is a disappointment
Gonna add methyl tren next💪😎
-
evolution went awary or we had a visit from an extra terrestrial species that gave us "humanity"
Or we are trapped in a video game, a mere simulation. Some "scientists" claim to have worked out when the memory bank in this simulation will run out, then everything just stops :D
Regarding evolution, another clever columnist I've quite liked, Fred Reed, has written all these artcles arguing against evolution, as its currently explained. I know far too little about anything to have a real opinion on it, at all, but evolution just feels (LOL) fantastical. Maybe we did come from outer space?
https://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
^An example of Fred's musings on evolution. If someone here has studied evolution and cares to take a look, tell me if he's a total crank :D
He finds the arrogance and smugness of evolutionists very distasteful.
-
Check your pm bro
Halo is a disappointment
Gonna add methyl tren next💪😎
what have a told you child rapist?
-
Or we are trapped in a video game, a mere simulation. Some "scientists" claim to have worked out when the memory bank in this simulation will run out, then everything just stops :D
Regarding evolution, another clever columnist I've quite liked, Fred Reed, has written all these artcles arguing against evolution, as its currently explained. I know far too little about anything to have a real opinion on it, at all, but evolution just feels (LOL) fantastical. Maybe we did come from outer space?
the world and everything around you is a creation of your subconscious for itself to exist in.
You are God, God is you and when your light goes out so does the Universe.
-
Regarding us being mere monkeys, this Norwegian philosopher thought that evolution went awry when we developed human consciousness. It was nature's mistake.
Peter Wessel Zapffe, a Norwegian philosopher, viewed human consciousness as a tragic misstep in evolution. He argued that humans possess a self-awareness and capacity for reason that surpasses what is needed for survival, leading to existential angst and a sense of the meaninglessness of life. Zapffe believed this overdeveloped consciousness creates a fundamental conflict between human needs and the world's inherent lack of inherent meaning, a view often associated with philosophical pessimism.
His rather short essay The Last Messiah
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
That damn discovery of cooking done doomed us all !
-
Check your pm bro
Halo is a disappointment
Gonna add methyl tren next💪😎
I keep telling you you need to give it some time. It could help you CNS drive even if you don't feel this pathological "rage." Ok so you going to try m-tren. Many feel it mostly just gives them a sense of wellbeing, not hostility towards humans. That was my impression of it after a very limited trial. If you're a good PLer it might be a good trait to be relaxed until just the moment you lift off the bar and then everything "turns on"" automatically in an instant. Long term overexitability, anger and rage, just zaps your strenght and hurts your decision making; many fighters attest to this anway (never fought myself). I know I was always trying to breathe deep and relax as much as possible between sets when maxing, I was mostly stimmed out so tried to fight the adrenaline :D
-
Or we are trapped in a video game, a mere simulation. Some "scientists" claim to have worked out when the memory bank in this simulation will run out, then everything just stops :D
Regarding evolution, another clever columnist I've quite liked, Fred Reed, has written all these artcles arguing against evolution, as its currently explained. I know far too little about anything to have a real opinion on it, at all, but evolution just feels (LOL) fantastical. Maybe we did come from outer space?
My good friend in cbus actually believes this
-
I keep telling you you need to give it some time. It could help you CNS drive even if you don't feel this pathological "rage." Ok so you going to try m-tren. Many feel it mostly just gives them a sense of wellbeing, not hostility towards humans. That was my impression of it after a very limited trial. If you're a good PLer it might be a good trait to be relaxed until just the moment you lift off the bar and then everything "turns on"" automatically in an instant. Long term overexitability, anger and rage, just zaps your strenght and hurts your decision making; many fighters attest to this anway (never fought myself).
Well I got 100 tabs of it so I will use them all and then decide if I will get it again
Cheque drops are going to be a permanent addition for life non fuckking stop
So I got 2 permanent lifetime drugs so far.....
1. Testosterone
2. Cheque drops
I'm not using var again and most likely will not use halo again
The only wildcard is DECA I will use that if I want to "beautify" my physique
All other compounds are for the trash can
-
I keep telling you you need to give it some time. It could help you CNS drive even if you don't feel this pathological "rage." Ok so you going to try m-tren. Many feel it mostly just gives them a sense of wellbeing, not hostility towards humans. That was my impression of it after a very limited trial. If you're a good PLer it might be a good trait to be relaxed until just the moment you lift off the bar and then everything "turns on"" automatically in an instant. Long term overexitability, anger and rage, just zaps your strenght and hurts your decision making; many fighters attest to this anway (never fought myself). I know I was always trying to breathe deep and relax as much as possible between sets when maxing, I was mostly stimmed out so tried to fight the adrenaline :D
hey fucvkface, are you as fucking stupid as he is, keep your shit in his threads.
-
I step away for a few days and everyone tries to turn into an intellectual.
Get the fuck out of here you dunces.
It's all about 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for growth and 13-20 for cuts.
If you start with that as your base, or fucking "compass" as you call it, you can't go wrong.
-
the world and everything around you is a creation of your subconscious for itself to exist in.
You are God, God is you and when your light goes out so does the Universe.
Never tried psychedelics but those that have always stress the feeling of the interconnectedness of all, and how "you" are part of God :D
hey fucvkface, are you as fucking stupid as he is, keep your shit in his threads.
Never claimed to be smart. My apologies, though threads always veer off topic anyway. Let's work Blankins into this. Or not :-X
-
Never tried psychedelics but those that have always stress the feeling of the interconnectedness of all, and how "you" are part of God :D
I was once on acid and worked out the theory of life itself but I mislaid it behind the fridge and then came down from the trip
I believe its still there behind the fridge just waiting to be discovered
On Acid you see fractals all the time
-
I step away for a few days and everyone tries to turn into an intellectual.
Get the fuck out of here you dunces.
It's all about 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for growth and 13-20 for cuts.
If you start with that as your base, or fucking "compass" as you call it, you can't go wrong.
1-5 that is MY REALM AND I OWN IT
Mjs best
-
the weider principles
LOL
-
Benefits, consequences, results. Leave others as they came.
-
Great post Phantom, enjoyed it
And yes your reasoning feels consistent to me, essentially based in the bolded bits which, to your subsequent post, does not necessarily require a higher power
Side note, going from this:
To this:
Was quite a jolt and encapsulated getbig in a nutshell :D
Thanks, bud. And LOL, yes, DJ's input was very thought provoking.
-
Mostly common sense
Whats common sense? Self preservation?
-
I step away for a few days and everyone tries to turn into an intellectual.
Get the fuck out of here you dunces.
It's all about 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for growth and 13-20 for cuts.
If you start with that as your base, or fucking "compass" as you call it, you can't go wrong.
Impossible to argue with this
-
I was once on acid and worked out the theory of life itself but I mislaid it behind the fridge and then came down from the trip
I believe its still there behind the fridge just waiting to be discovered
On Acid you see fractals all the time
why not check you could be on to something.
-
WWJD=WHAT would Jesus DO. ;D ;D ;D Actually mostly it's from your upbringing, if you lay with pigs chances are you're going to smell like shit.
-
Whats common sense? Self preservation?
Learning from past experiences on what is right and wrong. It also helps to avoid dicey situations like getting drunk and attending a jazz festival in the black area of town and calling a dindu the n word at 3AM
-
I read a phrase today in a book, someone loved someone else “like plants love light” Seemed relevant to this discussion. Not just that they depend on for survival or need or want, but that they love the object they so naturally need.
-
That doesn't imply there is a god, you retard. There is no god and never was.
And the Eastern Orthodox deity you and the rest of the abominable Russkiy-mir believe in is so infantile as to be laughable. A god by peasants for peasants.
Hi Raytardo!
And yet you believe the dust cloud arranged itself into DNA, consciousness, and the internet — by accident. That’s a creation myth without a Creator.
-
in the end what all creationists/god believers resort to... god of the gaps fallacy...
(https://mike-tanner.co.nz/xrel,P20god,P20gaps,P20wheel,P20of,P20fortune.jpg.pagespeed.ic.l5injk_MkF.jpg)
that's why it's pointless to ever debate a creationist. Because the basis of their thought process(or lack of it) is simplistic and flawed fundamentally. Anything they don't understand and don't see a childlike clear path their answer will always be "then god did it, because you can't fully explain it"
And your “no-god of the gaps” is just as bad — you fill every gap with “it happened somehow, don’t ask too many questions.” Both require faith; you’ve just chosen yours.
You mock creation, yet you believe a nebula forged stars, planets, DNA, and consciousness. Sounds like creation — you just credit the nebula instead of a Creator.
-
and if an evolutionist cant explain it they just say "we came from monkeys"
We didn’t just come from monkeys — we all come from star stuff. Every atom in your body was forged in a star, from the nebula that formed our solar system. Before that, all matter came from whatever existed before the Big Bang — no one really knows what that was. Call it “God” or “cosmic origin,” either way, it’s mind-blowing and connects everything on Earth.
-
Our DNA is closer to a Salmon than a chimpanzee
we also share 90% with cats
did we come from cats as well?
You are blinkered and wont listen to any argument, we have already established that with your behaviour earlier in refusing to watch a 4 minute video
Imagine being so set in your ways that you refuse to listen to an alternative viewpoint than your own
You must have listened to someone else to hold the worldview you have now, why do you think you are right?
If the Solar System came from a nebula then everything on Earth came from whatever elements the nebula contained. The nebula that formed our solar system was mostly hydrogen and helium but also contained nearly all the elements needed for planets and life — created by earlier stars. It was a cosmic soup with everything from carbon to iron, even tiny traces of heavier elements.
This means we are related to snakes, insects, dinosaurs, lions, gorillas, cats, dogs, mice, bananas, oak trees, rocks, etc. You are related to your car and TV. All of this came from the same basic building blocks.
Both humans and insects belong to the Bilateria group, animals with bilateral symmetry. The common ancestor was probably something like a simple worm-like creature, predating the Cambrian Explosion (around 541 million years ago), when most major animal groups rapidly appeared.
It wasn’t an insect or a human — just a basic, early animal from which many diverse lineages eventually evolved.
All matter that makes up life today — including you and me — traces back to the atoms forged in ancient stars and nebulae.
So in a cosmic sense, yes, those stars and nebulae are our ultimate common ancestors — the original source of all the elements that built every living thing.
Before stars, before nebulae, before time itself — whatever existed before the Big Bang is the ultimate common ancestor of everything. Call it “God,” “cosmic origin,” or “the unknown,” but it’s the source of all that is.
-
evolution went awary or we had a visit from an extra terrestrial species that gave us "humanity"
How did that extraterrestrial species come to be? Do you see them as our "Creators"? The solar system was forged from a nebula, so that nebula, in a real sense, created the solar system. Atheists dismiss the idea of a Creator, but being forged is creation. There’s no escaping that fact.
-
Or we are trapped in a video game, a mere simulation. Some "scientists" claim to have worked out when the memory bank in this simulation will run out, then everything just stops :D
Regarding evolution, another clever columnist I've quite liked, Fred Reed, has written all these artcles arguing against evolution, as its currently explained. I know far too little about anything to have a real opinion on it, at all, but evolution just feels (LOL) fantastical. Maybe we did come from outer space?
https://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
^An example of Fred's musings on evolution. If someone here has studied evolution and cares to take a look, tell me if he's a total crank :D
He finds the arrogance and smugness of evolutionists very distasteful.
But what’s the difference? Whether we live in base reality or a simulation, it’s the same to us — unless we somehow hack the simulation and gain “God” powers like Neo in The Matrix.
I haven’t played the latest 3D games on today’s hardware, even though my computers could handle them easily. Older 3D games had to limit the number of objects drawn in the distance to save memory and processing power.
If we are in a simulation, what if the processing power and memory only serve your point of view? Cities like London and New York might exist, but they’re not fully simulated until you actually arrive. The simulation only needs to render what’s in your immediate perception. The only characters who need consistent, detailed memories are those you interact with directly throughout your life. For example, if you have a brother, the simulation must keep your memories synced. Maybe memory can be freed when one of you develops Alzheimer’s.
More memory might be required for someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or maybe not. Perhaps there’s no full simulation of him, just a shared character we all recognize from movies and public appearances. Lou Ferrigno might overlap somewhat with Arnold, but I only know them from Pumping Iron and videos I’ve seen. I saw Arnold and Lou from a distance and once stood next to Arnold, but that’s all my firsthand knowledge.
-
You dont know if your kids are ugly or not?
Amazing
Ask your wife if you cant work it out....
You dont know if your kids are ugly or not?
Amazing
Ask your wife if you cant work it out....
i dont have kids you retard anxiety ridden incest loving drug addict bitch of a son ;D ;D
-
I think the curse of humans is that we have the capacity to contemplate the existance of a God/higher power but we are not blessed with the knowledge to ever establish it to be true or not.
That`s called having FAITH my friend.
-
thoughts?
My moral compass come from "The Thorn Birds"
(https://i2-prod.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article27845385.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/5_ABC-Archive-The-Thorn-Birds.jpg)
-
IQ and personality constructs, disorders, etc dictate ‘morals’
-
And your “no-god of the gaps” is just as bad — you fill every gap with “it happened somehow, don’t ask too many questions.” Both require faith; you’ve just chosen yours.
You mock creation, yet you believe a nebula forged stars, planets, DNA, and consciousness. Sounds like creation — you just credit the nebula instead of a Creator.
does the Holy Spirit bless chimpanzees, hyenas, elephants, whales, etc with complex social structures?
-
My decision is always the correct decision…so it’s easy for me to understand and interpret my “moral compass” because I know it’s the correct way to proceed.
-
does the Holy Spirit bless chimpanzees, hyenas, elephants, whales, etc with complex social structures?
It’s funny — chimps may have a more complex social structure than some humans who live completely isolated from society.
I think it’s likely there’s a Creator or some being responsible for our Universe. Even if we’re living in a simulation, that still begs the question — who created the simulation? If there are multiple universes, the same question applies. Somehow, it was all forged… out of nothing. That’s a wild concept. The fact that anything exists at all — rather than absolute nothingness — boggles the mind. You’d think the odds would favor nothing ever existing: no space, no time, no matter, no physics, no chemistry. It’s incredible.
I don’t think this Creator is personal in the sense of caring for each being individually. There’s no intervention to stop rapes, murders, or genocides. It seems designed to be organic and random — letting the chips fall where they may.
-
My decision is always the correct decision…so it’s easy for me to understand and interpret my “moral compass” because I know it’s the correct way to proceed.
;D
Against:
This argument is circular and baseless — claiming “my decision is always correct” assumes infallibility without evidence, ignores the possibility of error, and shuts out accountability.
For:
One could defend it by saying that a well-honed moral compass, shaped by life experience and consistent principles, makes one’s decisions reliably correct in practice, even if others disagree.
-
My moral compass come from "The Thorn Birds"
(https://i2-prod.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article27845385.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/5_ABC-Archive-The-Thorn-Birds.jpg)
Rachel Ward was a good looking woman! Good genes. That's her husband on the right. Lucky bastard!
Amazing tits!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gydDL4dAjeU/hqdefault.jpg)
-
My decision is always the correct decision…so it’s easy for me to understand and interpret my “moral compass” because I know it’s the correct way to proceed.
You're a good and decent dude so a tip of the hat to you 🎩
-
the weider principles
:D
-
;D
Against:
This argument is circular and baseless — claiming “my decision is always correct” assumes infallibility without evidence, ignores the possibility of error, and shuts out accountability.
For:
One could defend it by saying that a well-honed moral compass, shaped by life experience and consistent principles, makes one’s decisions reliably correct in practice, even if others disagree.
You are NOT correct with your Against statement. I accept FULL accountability/responsibility for everything that has happened/will happen in my life. All my decisions/thinking are based on everything that has been caused by me. World owes me nothing and the cards are not stacked against me. No, it's not a cruel world. The world is not expected to hold my hand and help me. Perhaps I thought I made errors in the past. But looking back, they were not errors. Everything happened for a reason, and everything happened because of who I am. Whatever I think is a good idea to say or do, I know is not correct. This is because of who I am and how I think. Therefore, the opposite of what I think is a good idea is always the correct choice.
-
You are NOT correct with your Against statement. I accept FULL accountability/responsibility for everything that has happened/will happen in my life. All my decisions/thinking are based on everything that has been caused by me. World owes me nothing and the cards are not stacked against me. No, it's not a cruel world. The world is not expected to hold my hand and help me. Perhaps I thought I made errors in the past. But looking back, they were not errors. Everything happened for a reason, and everything happened because of who I am. Whatever I think is a good idea to say or do, I know is not correct. Because of who I am and how I think. Therefore, the opposite of what I think is a good idea is always the correct choice.
you sound like you are making excuses for things you did wrong
-
Joswift,
I thought you meant where does MY moral compass come from.
Thus:
Family (upbringing)
Religion
Personal experience
-
Joswift,
I thought you meant where does MY moral compass come from.
Thus:
Family (upbringing)
Religion
Personal experience
religion and God are not the same thing
-
religion and God are not the same thing
religion /rĭ-lĭj′ən/
noun
1) The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
"respect for religion."
2) A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
"the world's many religions."
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader
-
religion /rĭ-lĭj′ən/
noun
1) The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
"respect for religion."
2) A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
"the world's many religions."
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader
you can believe in a supreme being without following a religion
-
you can believe in a supreme being without following a religion
You can be a bodybuilding schmoe without ever lifting a weight.
-
You can be a bodybuilding schmoe without ever lifting a weight.
exactly ;D
-
thoughts?
a compass is meaningless unless you know where you are and where you want to go
-
a compass is meaningless unless you know where you are and where you want to go
so how do you work out where you are and where you want to go?
-
you sound like you are making excuses for things you did wrong
NOPE. Opposite. I take full full full full responsibility for all things that I may have done wrong. It's all my fault and all my doing.
-
NOPE. Opposite. I take full full full full responsibility for all things that I may have done wrong. It's all my fault and all my doing.
may have?
See, you still dont admit you did wrong.
Thats some denial.
-
Parents + life experiences.
Not at all from religion.
But from the things my parents- mostly my Dad- taught me and things I have first hand experience of seeing people do to other people.
In short: treat people the way you want to be treated and don't take kindly to disrespect.
-
My moral compass is directed by the lyrics of Nelly Furtado songs
-
My Moral Compass came from this back in the day and stuck with me since the 80s
-
may have?
See, you still dont admit you did wrong.
Thats some denial.
You're wrong and confused again Josy Josy Poo Poo. It's okay though. No worries!
Everything I've done is correct. But others, like yourself, probably will say I've made mistakes. Being I'm correct all the time, others may look at my decision and choices and think I've made mistakes.
-
You're wrong and confused again Josy Josy Poo Poo. It's okay though. No worries!
Everything I've done is correct. But others, like yourself, probably will say I've made mistakes. Being I'm correct all the time, others may look at my decision and choices and think I've made mistakes.
believe you have never done anything wrong in your life
what a fucking moron...
-
NOPE. Opposite. I take full full full full responsibility for all things that I may have done wrong. It's all my fault and all my doing.
First you say you may have done some things wrong - which indicates doubt on your part.
You're wrong and confused again Josy Josy Poo Poo. It's okay though. No worries!
Everything I've done is correct. But others, like yourself, probably will say I've made mistakes. Being I'm correct all the time, others may look at my decision and choices and think I've made mistakes.
Then you say you have done everything correctly - with zero doubt.
All in the same day.
Which is it?
-
You are NOT correct with your Against statement. I accept FULL accountability/responsibility for everything that has happened/will happen in my life. All my decisions/thinking are based on everything that has been caused by me. World owes me nothing and the cards are not stacked against me. No, it's not a cruel world. The world is not expected to hold my hand and help me. Perhaps I thought I made errors in the past. But looking back, they were not errors. Everything happened for a reason, and everything happened because of who I am. Whatever I think is a good idea to say or do, I know is not correct. This is because of who I am and how I think. Therefore, the opposite of what I think is a good idea is always the correct choice.
You’ve shifted from claiming your decisions are always correct to saying the opposite of what you think is correct — which means one of those positions must be wrong. Accepting everything that happens as “right” just because it happened isn’t accountability, but hindsight bias dressed up as wisdom.
-
You’ve shifted from claiming your decisions are always correct to saying the opposite of what you think is correct — which means one of those positions must be wrong. Accepting everything that happens as “right” just because it happened isn’t accountability, but hindsight bias dressed up as wisdom.
hey, even when hes wrong hes never wrong