Believers vs Skeptics

[John Jones]

From experiences.

Oh wow! How do you know your experiences were real, man? Or that they were your experiences?

Maybe it's like you're a dream in the mind of some bong-smoking dude in Columbia who just thinks he has experiences in the dreams.

Dude! Really makes ya think, huh?

[Trent Wray]

Yes the truth is absolute. Absolute truth is the highest authority to be ''shared'' to all whom are willing to accept it when being offered. So it's possible for one to know and understand absolute truth to it's "absolutest"?

Or is it more like holding something in your hand you can define, even though you don't understand every aspect of what makes it that definable thing?

[likelystory]

So it's possible for one to know and understand absolute truth to it's "absolutest"?

Or is it more like holding something in your hand you can define, even though you don't understand every aspect of what makes it that definable thing?

Is your mind within your mind?....... If you can understand that, then you can define the object in your hand and define your hand similtaneously. That's what the supernatural spirit beings can comprehend without losing sleep over it.

[Trent Wray]

That's what the supernatural spirit beings can comprehend without losing sleep over it. How would you know unless you were one of them? Even if you saw one and they told you this applied to them ... how would you know unless you were them?

[likelystory]

Oh wow! How do you know your experiences were real, man? Or that they were your experiences?

Maybe it's like you're a dream in the mind of some bong-smoking dude in Columbia who just thinks he has experiences in the dreams.

Dude! Really makes ya think, huh?

Is dog **** real ?

[likelystory]

How would you know unless you were one of them? Even if you saw one and they told you this applied to them ... how would you know unless you were them?

Truth is taught,then the power of truth becomes at one with the mind, becoming an addition to the mind.

[not daSkeptic]

Is this really how you think/feel? If so, what is it you hope to find in your seeking? Just evidence?

Yes, it's how I really feel. I do not hope to find anything -- it is the journey that drives me. While I may set out in the direction of something or even have certain waypoints in mind, I have not selected (nor am I seeking) a final destination. On route I may come across ideas that I provisionally accept, but I recognize that no matter how much I explore there is always more. Over the next hill I may find that everything I had previously accepted is wrong. I'm cool with that.

And does truth have to be absolute to be truth?

That is the definition I use. That is why I do not claim to have ever found it.

[Trent Wray]

Yes, it's how I really feel. I do not hope to find anything -- it is the journey that drives me. While I may set out in the direction of something or even have certain waypoints in mind, I have not selected (nor am I seeking) a final destination. On route I may come across ideas that I provisionally accept, but I recognize that no matter how much I explore there is always more. Over the next hill I may find that everything I had previously accepted is wrong. I'm cool with that. So why does the journey drive you? Is it akin to saying, "I am alive. Rather than fight against the realities and mysteries of life ... I will roll with them and let them drive me, experiencing the ride simply for what it is at the time."?



That is the definition I use. That is why I do not claim to have ever found it. So is that a truth in and of itself? The idea you can never find the absolute truth is the truth? I essentially agree with this to a point. But I'm still interested in others' answers obviously.

"The truth is that the truth is often a paradox."

Truth is taught,then the power of truth becomes at one with the mind, becoming an addition to the mind. So it's more like existing alongside truth, thus allowing yourself to be part of the bigger picture. I still don't see how this proves spirits/angels/etc. Unless the truth is neutral in regards to reality ... in that sense, even a delusion would be true because it was experienced. The reality of it is relative. It might not have been a manifestation of a spirit (for ex) outside the realm of the mind, but within the realm of the mind, it was "real."

And if you agree with that last statement, then how can we say someone's truth isn't true? How can we say someone has a closed mind? Do we create truth as we go along ... or are there other factors that make choices affecting our truth? At what point do we accept realities as being figments of our imagination ... no more, no less .... and when does it become important to do be able to tell the difference?

[not daSkeptic]

You believe you won't accept anything ''at all'' as the truth, Yet you claim to be actively seeking to find the truth. So in reality you really don't believe yourself to be searching for the truth because you can't believe it's there to find.

It's the same as seeking perfection. One can strive to achieve it, but as an abstract concept created by humans it does not actually exist. It gives us a direction, but specifies no precise destination.

[Twiler]

Truth is taught,then the power of truth becomes at one with the mind, becoming an addition to the mind.

No, it's 'trout'.

Trout is taught, then the power of trout becomes at one with the mind, becoming an addition to the mind.

[Toke]

Trout is taught

No, Trout is caught, and becomes one with the body.

[not daSkeptic]

So why does the journey drive you? Is it akin to saying, "I am alive. Rather than fight against the realities and mysteries of life ... I will roll with them and let them drive me, experiencing the ride simply for what it is at the time."?

In a sense I suppose. I'm driven by seeing what's over the next hill or around the next corner. One could say I seek understanding of what is, even if that's not possible.

So is that a truth in and of itself? The idea you can never find the absolute truth is the truth?

I suppose it would be more fair to say the existence or non-existence of absolute truth is inconclusive. In order for something to be the absolute truth there cannot exist any other explanation. But to say that something does not exist is to claim knowledge of the entirety of existence, and at present we humans cannot even define the entirety of existence.

[Limbo]

It's hard to say. You would have to conceive an experiment that could really be performed, at least in theory. Until the experiment is conducted, no, your theory isn't fully scientific. That can be partially forgiven if you can actually predict future events with your theory, though. What did you have in mind?


What I have in mind doesn't matter. It's conceivable but not feasible. The point is, conceivable events could refute my world-view.

And yes, that is scientific, not scientismic.


It's scientism to think that a world-view must be "scientific" to be worthy. Your world-view is "scientific". But science is a method, not a world-view. You have succumbed to the dark side, you've been blinded by science. :p

[not daSkeptic]

It's scientism to think that a world-view must be "scientific" to be worthy. Your world-view is "scientific". But science is a method, not a world-view. You have succumbed to the dark side, you've been blinded by science. :p

Can you demonstrate the existence of something that science cannot now or ever explain?

[Limbo]

Can you demonstrate the existence of something that science cannot now or ever explain?


That's a meaningless question. All we need to know is whether science has any limits. I think it does. Do you?

[Toke]

Can you demonstrate the existence of something that science cannot now or ever explain?
I think the classic answer is love, but am not sure how much hormone study have advanced since then.:D

[not daSkeptic]

All we need to know is whether science has any limits. I think it does.

What are those limits? Assuming they exist, how do you know anything lies beyond them?

[Limbo]

What are those limits? Assuming they exist, how do you know anything lies beyond them?


I recommend this book:

The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age (http://www.amazon.com/End-Science-Knowledge-Twilight-Scientific/dp/0553061747)

[Toke]

I recommend this book:

The End Of Science: Facing The Limits Of Knowledge In The Twilight Of The Scientific Age (http://www.amazon.com/End-Science-Knowledge-Twilight-Scientific/dp/0553061747)

In case you have read it, could you explain it's relevance to this tread?

[Trent Wray]

In a sense I suppose. I'm driven by seeing what's over the next hill or around the next corner. One could say I seek understanding of what is, even if that's not possible.



I suppose it would be more fair to say the existence or non-existence of absolute truth is inconclusive. In order for something to be the absolute truth there cannot exist any other explanation. But to say that something does not exist is to claim knowledge of the entirety of existence, and at present we humans cannot even define the entirety of existence. So would you agree with this: life consists of probabilities with possible absolutes at the extremes?

[carlitos]

Hey, Limbo's back, and still hasn't said what he experienced that couldn't be explained by science. Go figure. If anyone is interested, maybe you could ask him.

[Elizabeth I]

Hey, Limbo's back, and still hasn't said what he experienced that couldn't be explained by science. Go figure. If anyone is interested, maybe you could ask him.

I think I'm on ignore.

[EHocking]

I think I'm on ignore.Most of us here are.

It makes it easier for Limbo to make his point and claim that they are not refuted.

[not daSkeptic]

So would you agree with this: life consists of probabilities with possible absolutes at the extremes?

I would say that's a pretty good illustration of the abstract concepts, yes. I recall reading in one of Popper's books the idea of a spectrum with contradiction (probability = 0) at one end, tautology (probability = 1) at the other, and meaningful statements found only between these two.

[John Jones]

Is dog **** real ?


Dog spelled backwards is goD! That's some profound stuff right there!


:rolleyes:

[Trent Wray]

I would say that's a pretty good illustration of the abstract concepts, yes. I recall reading in one of Popper's books the idea of a spectrum with contradiction (probability = 0) at one end, tautology (probability = 1) at the other, and meaningful statements found only between these two. hmmm .... which book was that, you remember?

Dog spelled backwards is goD! That's some profound stuff right there!


:rolleyes: We are the stuff of tih$god :)

[Legend]

Is dog **** real ?

Well you've been speaking it throughout the thread the whole time, so yeah, odds are it is.

Alex.

[carlitos]

Just to be clear, you are claiming that it is not possible for you to be mistaken in your understanding of things you experienced?

Most of us here are.

It makes it easier for Limbo to make his point and claim that they are not refuted.

Yeah, it's a little depressing. In another topic, many posters here absolutely begged him to say what exactly he had experienced, and there was no luck at all. He actually seems unwilling to claim anything.

There is nothing I would love more than to engage someone who honestly believes that they have experienced psi / UFOs / whatever. Our friend Limbo appears to be less than honest in this regard, and it doesn't add to the conversation.

[not daSkeptic]

hmmm .... which book was that, you remember?

I believe it was The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

[likelystory]

Can you demonstrate the existence of something that science cannot now or ever explain?

People explain it.

Scientific Instruments can never explain anything, science is a fence sitter, It's always the people who do the explaining.

People ''design'' the science. Not vice versa.

[Jack by the hedge]

People explain it.

Scientific Instruments can never explain anything, science is a fence sitter, It's always the people who do the explaining.

People ''design'' the science. Not vice versa.

People explain stuff by using science.
Scientific instruments merely extend our human senses. It's not their purpose to tell us how to think.

[Elizabeth I]

Yeah, it's a little depressing. In another topic, many posters here absolutely begged him to say what exactly he had experienced, and there was no luck at all. He actually seems unwilling to claim anything.

There is nothing I would love more than to engage someone who honestly believes that they have experienced psi / UFOs / whatever. Our friend Limbo appears to be less than honest in this regard, and it doesn't add to the conversation.

Not making a positive claim makes it easier to go with the "all varieties of experience are grist for the mill" pseudo-profound kind of stuff.

[Mirrorglass]

What I have in mind doesn't matter. It's conceivable but not feasible. The point is, conceivable events could refute my world-view.

Based on your previous statements, if you refuse to describe those events, I'm going to assume this is a lie.


It's scientism to think that a world-view must be "scientific" to be worthy. Your world-view is "scientific". But science is a method, not a world-view. You have succumbed to the dark side, you've been blinded by science. :p

Well, I don't think a worldview must be scientific to be worthy. I think morals and values must be based on something arbitrary, and can't be scientific, but a "worthy" worldview still needs them.

I do think that a view on how the world works has to be scientific to be worthy, though. If that means scientism, then so be it. I also plead guilty to charges of logicalism, observabilitism, coherentism, repeatabilitism, and making-even-an-ounce-of-sensism.

[Limbo]

Based on your previous statements, if you refuse to describe those events, I'm going to assume this is a lie.


What previous statements are you referring to? You can ask me to describe some of those events, and if I feel like opening a can-of-worms, I just might. But I don't really feel like it. I don't really like any of you well enough to go through the trouble right now. So go ahead and assume I'm lying if you wish. At the end of the day, most of you will make some sort of assumptions to protect your world-views anyway. Most will assume I'm a liar or crazy or just plain stupid and will assume Randi is right and noble and the MDC is actually meaningful. So yeah, whatever. Assume what you want. Where you come from, maybe your threats carry some sort of weight. But with me they don't. At the end of the day, I don't much care what some skeptic named Mirrorglass thinks.

In case you haven't noticed from all of Cariltos useless attempts, I don't let skeptics bully me around. I say what I want when I want and if you don't like it then TS.

[Mirrorglass]

What previous statements are you referring to? You can ask me to describe some of those events, and if I feel like opening a can-of-worms, I just might. But I don't really feel like it. I don't really like any of you well enough to go through the trouble right now. So go ahead and assume I'm lying if you wish. At the end of the day, most of you will make some sort of assumptions to protect your world-views anyway. You'll all assume I'm a liar or crazy or just plain stupid and you'll assume Randi is right and noble and the MDC is meaningful. So yeah, whatever.

I was referring to the previous threads, where despite being asked to do so, several times, you never admitted that an exam, upon failing, would disprove your claim. The fact that you continue refusing to reveal your hand leads me to make the assumption (based on backward induction) that you are, in fact, bluffing.

Anyway, I don't need to protect my worldview; all my worldview states is that there needs to be proof for me to believe something. If you could prove to me a paranormal ability, it wouldn't change my worldview at all, just my beliefs. It's your worldview that's inconsistent with reality. That's why you need to go to lenghts to protect it, like claiming a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, cherry-picking the evidence you believe and ignoring/insulting people who disagree with you.

[Limbo]

I was referring to the previous threads, where despite being asked to do so, several times, you never admitted that an exam, upon failing, would disprove your claim.


That's because a single exam is not enough, it would need to be replicated. I tried to explain that to you, but you didn't listen. You guys just wanted to push me into making some kind of premature agreement. I don't respond well to "pushy". People who figure that out stay off my ignore list.


The fact that you continue refusing to reveal your hand leads me to make the assumption (based on backward induction) that you are, in fact, bluffing.


I reveal what I'm comfortable revealing at that time, and if someone tries to change that they end up on my ignore list pretty quick.

Anyway, I don't need to protect my worldview; all my worldview states is that there needs to be proof for me to believe something.


Is "proof" a scientific concept? I thought science deals with probabilities, not "proof". I am suspicious of the word "proof". You want evidence. So go out and get it already. It's out there but debunkers like Randi are not going to help you find it. You could read that list of books I gave you, ya'know. But you would rather rationalize a reason not to, wouldn't you?


If you could prove to me a paranormal ability, it wouldn't change my worldview at all, just my beliefs.


Oh, just your beliefs. :rolleyes:

It's your worldview that's inconsistent with reality. That's why you need to go to lenghts to protect it, like claiming a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, cherry-picking the evidence you believe and ignoring/insulting people who disagree with you.


You seem to be protecting your world-view by inaccurately painting my position as having something to do with conspiracy theories. I know what a conspiracy is, and I'm not claiming that. I've told you that already, but you don't care because it's to your advantage to paint me as a conspiracy theorist (because of the social stigma) whether I deny it or not.

I don't cherry-pick the evidence, and I don't ignore people who merely disagree with me. I ignore people who mock me, insult me, provoke me, or try to bully me or manipulate me. I am very sensitive to that kind of thing. It just so happens that asshats who do that kind of thing strongly disagree with me. Go figure.

Skeptics who conveniently ignore the role being an ass**** plays in going on my ignore list and assert that people are on my ignore list JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME, usually end up on my ignore list. Keep going the way you are gong, Mirrorglass, and you will be on my ignore list very soon. :p

So when you are ready to quit threatening me and pushing me and demonizing me and inaccurately painting me and making assumptions about me, let me know. Til then, ta-ta.

[dafydd]

What previous statements are you referring to? You can ask me to describe some of those events, and if I feel like opening a can-of-worms, I just might. But I don't really feel like it. I don't really like any of you well enough to go through the trouble right now. So go ahead and assume I'm lying if you wish. At the end of the day, most of you will make some sort of assumptions to protect your world-views anyway. Most will assume I'm a liar or crazy or just plain stupid and will assume Randi is right and noble and the MDC is actually meaningful. So yeah, whatever. Assume what you want. Where you come from, maybe your threats carry some sort of weight. But with me they don't. At the end of the day, I don't much care what some skeptic named Mirrorglass thinks.

In case you haven't noticed from all of Cariltos useless attempts, I don't let skeptics bully me around. I say what I want when I want and if you don't like it then TS.

Randi is neither right nor wrong.Just take the challenge and prove that your amazing abilities exist.You will never do that because you know you will fail,just like all the others who have participated in the MDC.

[dafydd]

Is "proof" a scientific concept? I thought science deals with probabilities, not "proof". I am suspicious of the word "proof". You want evidence. So go out and get it already. It's out there but debunkers like Randi are not going to help you find it. You could read that list of books I gave you, ya'know. But you would rather rationalize a reason not to, wouldn't you?





Oh, just your beliefs. :rolleyes:




You seem to be protecting your world-view by inaccurately painting my position as having something to do with conspiracy theories. I know what a conspiracy is, and I'm not claiming that. I've told you that already, but you don't care because it's to your advantage to paint me as a conspiracy theorist (because of the social stigma) whether I deny it or not.

I don't cherry-pick the evidence, and I don't ignore people who merely disagree with me. I ignore people who mock me, insult me, provoke me, or try to bully me or manipulate me. I am very sensitive to that kind of thing. It just so happens that asshats who do that kind of thing strongly disagree with me. Go figure.

Skeptics who conveniently ignore the role being an ass**** plays in going on my ignore list and assert that people are on my ignore list JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME, usually end up on my ignore list. Keep going the way you are gong, Mirrorglass, and you will be on my ignore list very soon. :p

So when you are ready to quit threatening me and pushing me and demonizing me and inaccurately painting me and making assumptions about me, let me know. Til then, ta-ta.

Is proof a scientific concept? Worthy of a stundie.If you are going to ignore anyone who disagrees with you then you will end up talking to yourself here.You have no idea what a debate is.Go the David Icke forums,they will believe anything there.

[Katopale]

Limbo,

If you are unwilling to talk about your personal experience with the paranormal then perhaps, for the purposes of this discussion, you should not use "I know because of my experiences" as an argument.

You have backbone enough not to pushed around by skeptics ( by wielding your mighty ignore button) but seem afraid of what they would do to a description of your encounter with the paranormal. Are the skeptics scarier than the awesomeness you were witness to?

[Elizabeth I]

I also plead guilty to charges of logicalism, observabilitism, coherentism, repeatabilitism, and making-even-an-ounce-of-sensism.

You bigot! How could you?

At the end of the day, I don't much care what some skeptic named Mirrorglass thinks.

In case you haven't noticed from all of Cariltos useless attempts, I don't let skeptics bully me around. I say what I want when I want and if you don't like it then TS.

Oooh, big strong tough guy. Show us how tough you are by taking everybody off ignore and reading what they have to say.

[not daSkeptic]

I reveal what I'm comfortable revealing at that time, and if someone tries to change that they end up on my ignore list pretty quick.

Why are you not comfortable revealing everything about your experiences? What is compelling you to keep some information to yourself?

[Mirrorglass]

That's because a single exam is not enough, it would need to be replicated. I tried to explain that to you, but you didn't listen. You guys just wanted to push me into making some kind of premature agreement. I don't respond well to "pushy". People who figure that out stay off my ignore list.





I reveal what I'm comfortable revealing at that time, and if someone tries to change that they end up on my ignore list pretty quick.




Is "proof" a scientific concept? I thought science deals with probabilities, not "proof". I am suspicious of the word "proof". You want evidence. So go out and get it already. It's out there but debunkers like Randi are not going to help you find it. You could read that list of books I gave you, ya'know. But you would rather rationalize a reason not to, wouldn't you?





Oh, just your beliefs. :rolleyes:




You seem to be protecting your world-view by inaccurately painting my position as having something to do with conspiracy theories. I know what a conspiracy is, and I'm not claiming that. I've told you that already, but you don't care because it's to your advantage to paint me as a conspiracy theorist (because of the social stigma) whether I deny it or not.

I don't cherry-pick the evidence, and I don't ignore people who merely disagree with me. I ignore people who mock me, insult me, provoke me, or try to bully me or manipulate me. I am very sensitive to that kind of thing. It just so happens that asshats who do that kind of thing strongly disagree with me. Go figure.

Skeptics who conveniently ignore the role being an ass**** plays in going on my ignore list and assert that people are on my ignore list JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME, usually end up on my ignore list. Keep going the way you are gong, Mirrorglass, and you will be on my ignore list very soon. :p

So when you are ready to quit threatening me and pushing me and demonizing me and inaccurately painting me and making assumptions about me, let me know. Til then, ta-ta.

All right, I'll stop pushing you. However, if you aren't willing to share all the information you have, I would recommend you don't make statements like "I have some personal experiences which I won't talk about" or "there is a way to falsify my claims, but I won't say what it is". That kind of stuff tends to provoke the scientifically-minded folk.

Also, you do realize that you were making statements like "what you really want is consensus" and "you're just protecting your worldview" before I was. It's a bit unfair to go around calling people names and then get mad when they do the same.

You're free to put me on ignore, of course. But if you choose to do that, I really don't understand what you are doing on this forum. This isn't the kind of place where people pat each other on the back and talk about things they agree on. It's a forum for critical thinking, and that often means criticism.

Heck, my worldviews are perfectly scientific, but in the past three weeks I've gotten to at least three arguments (with other, equally scientifically minded people) that became shouting matches with both sides demanding evidence for every comma of the others posts and punctuating theirs with sneers. That's the kind of place this is.

If the level of harshness in my posts is too much for you to handle, then this forum is simply not the place for you. If you don't want criticism, there's no point in coming here.

I find talking with you rather interesting, and will attempt to stay polite. But I will call bull when I see it. Making ultimatums won't make a difference. You're not so special I'd want to go to lengths to keep you talking. So ignore me or don't, your choice. I'll be okay with either.

[not daSkeptic]

That kind of stuff tends to provoke the scientifically-minded folk.

I think it's only fair to explain why it's provocative. An honest person who for some unspecified reason refuses full disclosure is indistinguishable from a dishonest person who does the same. Limbo may in fact have actually experienced all that he claims, but his behavior is identical to that of someone who has not. Thus one cannot tell the difference between the two, and thus one must go with the explanation that existing evidence says is more likely (i.e. the latter).

[Foolmewunz]

That's because a single exam is not enough, it would need to be replicated. I tried to explain that to you, but you didn't listen. You guys just wanted to push me into making some kind of premature agreement. I don't respond well to "pushy". People who figure that out stay off my ignore list. <snip>

A single exam wouldn't be enough? Are you sure you aren't just falling for the beliefs of scientism, here?

I don't want you to make any premature anything. I want that if you are not willing to discuss what you experienced then you stop offering it up as satisfactory proof. That sort of faith belongs in the Philosophy and Religion sub-forum.

[Stout]

At the risk of getting put on that ignore list, I want to explore this woo vs woo idea with the spirit believers on one side and the parapsychologists on the other. And how far back does parapsychology go ? We know Jesus turned water into wine, so was that done with the power of his mind or did he have a little help from big daddy ?

[Foolmewunz]

I guess by Limbo and LikelyStory standards we "know" that Jesus did that.

[Stout]

With what Limbo was saying last night about RSPK (post #160) and how it relates to the spirit world, we can use that relationship to question just how Jesus did it. I don't know if there's any hard cores in the RSPK world who deny the existence of the spirit world, because I know very little about parapsychology.

I'd like it to be true, I want those super powers and I've even tried, in the past, to develop them. I failed miserably and have no "first hand' experience to lead me to believe PK is anything more than a fable...like ghosts.

Here's a funny story. In the '80s I lived in a house that was supposed to be haunted. Apparently some WW1 war hero was murdered there. I got myself on down to the archives to look for any records that the house had been owned or built by anybody in the military and since I had the hero's name, I also looked him up.

I found nothing on either the house or the man but I did find....GHOSTBUSTERS! Seriously. There was this group operating in the '50s and 60's who would go over to your house and purge it of bothersome spirits. One of these guys I managed to track down and boy was he surprised to hear from me. He said they no longer operate, as most of them are dead themselves but told me it was just something they did for kicks and to the best of his knowledge, they'd never cleared any house of anything.

I also found more archived newspaper clippings of reported hauntings than I had time to read. Hey, we have a haunted golf course.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I think morals and values must be based on something arbitrary, and can't be scientific, but a "worthy" worldview still needs them....Is a bigger brain 'arbitrary' and not scientific? Is better camouflage arbitrary and unscientific in a small prey animal?

Where do you believe morals originate from, something akin to a magic soul, or from evolution of our species?

I fail to see anything about moral decisions or choices of what is beautiful and what is ugly that differs qualitatively from an individual choosing to eat meat vs tree bark. These choices are things which we evolved to prefer. And the fact certain brain damage can leave an individual without a moral compass is clear evidence there is a physical aspect of the brain which affects, if not outright controls, those 'arbitrary' moral decisions you recognize matter, but perhaps don't seem to recognize are just as much a function of nature and nurture as one's food choices.

[Mirrorglass]

Is a bigger brain 'arbitrary' and not scientific? Is better camouflage arbitrary and unscientific in a small prey animal?

Where do you believe morals originate from, something akin to a magic soul, or from evolution of our species?

I fail to see anything about moral decisions or choices of what is beautiful and what is ugly that differs qualitatively from an individual choosing to eat meat vs tree bark. These choices are things which we evolved to prefer. And the fact certain brain damage can leave an individual without a moral compass is clear evidence there is a physical aspect of the brain which affects, if not outright controls, those 'arbitrary' moral decisions you recognize matter, but perhaps don't seem to recognize are just as much a function of nature and nurture as one's food choices.

That's an interesting view, and I'll admit the question has no easy answer. But the fact that morals originated as a result of evolution doesn't mean moral choices are based on scientific analysis.

In my opinion, a "worthy" worldview includes the idea that it's not all right to kill people to get more food, or rape women. Yet both those acts would promote the passing on of genes, and as such, are favored by natural selection. Many people do in fact display a tendency for such behavior, most likely because their moral compass, as you put it, tells them it's the right thing to do - as it is, from an evolutionary point of view.

Of course, since we started living in societies, it's become common practice to put aside personal needs and instead concentrate on improving the overall fitness of the group. That is largely why we now have moral codes that seem to be too altruistic to survive natural selection.

Of course our hereditary tendencies like empathy are a large part of our morals (though it's interesting to note they are remarkably underdeveloped in children brought up by animals). Nevertheless, we have equally strong tendencies that are, at least to me, clearly immoral. What I'm saying is that choosing which tendencies to obey is, or at least should be, done on intellectual grounds and is, in the end, arbitrary. There's no evolutionary reason why I shouldn't go around raping women. Yet I am absolutely certain I should not.

[Jack by the hedge]

What I'm saying is that choosing which tendencies to obey is, or at least should be, done on intellectual grounds and is, in the end, arbitrary. There's no evolutionary reason why I shouldn't go around raping women. Yet I am absolutely certain I should not.

Are you sure there's no evolutionary pressure against rape? It's not my field, but don't you think the extra effort put in to nurturing offspring by a father who believes they're his own might give a sufficiently better survival rate to reduce the trait? I can see that it gives an advantage to the genes of a single male if they opportunistically commit rape, but for a whole group to use that stategy might be self defeating, as (off the top of my head) it might encourage infanticide by males and a disincentive to support offspring they doubt is theirs. That would reduce the survival rate of the whole group.

[Mirrorglass]

Are you sure there's no evolutionary pressure against rape? It's not my field, but don't you think the extra effort put in to nurturing offspring by a father who believes they're his own might give a sufficiently better survival rate to reduce the trait? I can see that it gives an advantage to the genes of a single male if they opportunistically commit rape, but for a whole group to use that stategy might be self defeating, as (off the top of my head) it might encourage infanticide by males and a disincentive to support offspring they doubt is theirs. That would reduce the survival rate of the whole group.

There certainly is evolutionary pressure against all males raping females, but since there still are a steady number of rapes happening all the time, I'm fairly certain that a mixed strategy (something like 1% of the males rape, 99% don't) is a stable strategy, and the one encoded in our genome. I personally think that all humans should follow the same moral standards, but that is not a sound idea from an evolutionary point of view.

[carlitos]

Limbo,

If you are unwilling to talk about your personal experience with the paranormal then perhaps, for the purposes of this discussion, you should not use "I know because of my experiences" as an argument.
This.

We went around and around, trying to get Limbo to say what he "experienced" in some other thread. So far, he has experienced psi, crop circle something, seen a UFO, plus "precognition" as noted here. He asserts that he knows, because of whatever experience, but he won't describe it here.

I find it frustrating, because, as I said before, I find these things fascinating. I spent about a half-hour talking about chakras and auras with a friend yesterday, and at no point did he find me rude or bullying.