Perchoutofwater Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Someone DOES know. You do. Your own inner integrity. Why you people continually insist that the only valid pressure is external, I have no idea. You stop you. You choose not to. That is the only answer. Free choice. 1391669[/snapback] Good point. so what's the evolutionary purpose of that inner guilt, and why should anyone listen to it? is it just that "herd mentality" kid cid is talking about, and if so why shouldn't enlightened individualists feel completely free to override and disregard it? 1391683[/snapback] The religious would say that it is the whispering of the holy spirt. The secular would say that it is an instict. While other animals have hightened smell or hearing, we have a heightened since of self awareness. The guilt as you call it may be true guilt, or it may be "why the hell did I do that, they are going to catch me how do I get out of here, type of guilt which is more like fear which is one of the most basic insticts. I think it is probably both. I think it is a God given instict that we all have that can be sharpened by religion, but that in inherent in all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 so what's the evolutionary purpose of that inner guilt, and why should anyone listen to it? is it just that "herd mentality" kid cid is talking about, and if so why shouldn't enlightened individualists feel completely free to override and disregard it? 1391683[/snapback] Because they choose not to. You have integrity because you choose to. I treat people nicely because I choose to. You rankle struggling musicians because you choose to. Spain buggers sheep because he chooses to. Or you DON'T have integrity because you choose to. People murder people because they choose to. People rape and hate and any number of nasty things because free choice is the fundamental right of a human being. Good or bad; model citizen or sociopath. The reasons for either choice are as varied as the number of souls on the planet. There is no pat answer, and thus you will never get the answer you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I would be curious to know what % of atheists and agnostics initially grew up within religious boundaries. My guess is > 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 so what's the evolutionary purpose of that inner guilt, and why should anyone listen to it? is it just that "herd mentality" kid cid is talking about, and if so why shouldn't enlightened individualists feel completely free to override and disregard it? 1391683[/snapback] to be good to others... it s that simple...like perch said if u are good to others most of the time they are good to u... If u need to survive,and u have been a dick, not sharing you're kill of possum, it could come back to be youre down fall.... Later when u haven't been able to get something to eat and the other guy says" hell no u don't get any of my fresh rat u momofectard" u die and those dick genes are removed from the gene pool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I would be curious to know what % of atheists and agnostics initially grew up within religious boundaries. My guess is > 50%. 1391712[/snapback] all the atheists and agnostics i know were bombasted with religion at an early age Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 There is no pat answer, and thus you will never get the answer you are looking for. 1391697[/snapback] hes looking for " cause GOD put it there" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Someone DOES know. You do. Your own inner integrity. Why you people continually insist that the only valid pressure is external, I have no idea. You stop you. You choose not to. That is the only answer. Free choice. 1391669[/snapback] Az, you've coalesced my thoughts nicely, thank you. cre8tiff, I to a certain extent your right, individuals do exercise free will on occasion. But it's pretty myopic to think that our actions, ethics and morals aren't influenced in a large degree by external influences. I once heard one of those corporate motivational speakers tell this story but it fits pretty well here. You have this room with 5 monkeys in it. From the ceiling is suspended a bunch of bananas; beneath the bananas is a ladder. Eventually, one of the monkeys decides to climb the ladder to get the bananas. When he does this, all of the monkeys are sprayed down with a firehose. In fact, every time a monkey tries for the bananas, all of them are sprayed with the firehose. Pretty soon, the monkeys won't try for the bananas. Now, you replace one of the monkeys with a new monkey that doesn't know about the bananas. When this new monkey tries to get to the bananas, the old monkeys will stop the new monkey because of the firehose. Pretty soon, the new monkey will also stop going for the bananas. Now, another old monkey is replaced with a new monkey. Once again the new monkey will go after the bananas and the old monkeys will stop him. Except this time, one of the old monkeys doesn't know about the firehose, it only knows not to go after the bananas. This continues until all the old monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Now, all of the monkeys know not to go after the bananas. None of them know the reason why. The corporate speakers point was that this is how corporate policy is made. In relation to our question, it shows how the decision making process is affected by outside influences, if in a very simplified fashion. Hence my "herd animal" statement. Human desire to be part of the group is strong enough for us to make exceptionally bad decisions. A classic example of this is the destructive riots in LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Az, you've coalesced my thoughts nicely, thank you. cre8tiff, I to a certain extent your right, individuals do exercise free will on occasion. But it's pretty myopic to think that our actions, ethics and morals aren't influenced in a large degree by external influences. I once heard one of those corporate motivational speakers tell this story but it fits pretty well here. You have this room with 5 monkeys in it. From the ceiling is suspended a bunch of bananas; beneath the bananas is a ladder. Eventually, one of the monkeys decides to climb the ladder to get the bananas. When he does this, all of the monkeys are sprayed down with a firehose. In fact, every time a monkey tries for the bananas, all of them are sprayed with the firehose. Pretty soon, the monkeys won't try for the bananas. Now, you replace one of the monkeys with a new monkey that doesn't know about the bananas. When this new monkey tries to get to the bananas, the old monkeys will stop the new monkey because of the firehose. Pretty soon, the new monkey will also stop going for the bananas. Now, another old monkey is replaced with a new monkey. Once again the new monkey will go after the bananas and the old monkeys will stop him. Except this time, one of the old monkeys doesn't know about the firehose, it only knows not to go after the bananas. This continues until all the old monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Now, all of the monkeys know not to go after the bananas. None of them know the reason why. The corporate speakers point was that this is how corporate policy is made. In relation to our question, it shows how the decision making process is affected by outside influences, if in a very simplified fashion. Hence my "herd animal" statement. Human desire to be part of the group is strong enough for us to make exceptionally bad decisions. A classic example of this is the destructive riots in LA. 1391726[/snapback] I'd forgotten about that monkey story. It's one of the best explanations of corporate thinking I've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Az, you've coalesced my thoughts nicely, thank you. cre8tiff, I to a certain extent your right, individuals do exercise free will on occasion. But it's pretty myopic to think that our actions, ethics and morals aren't influenced in a large degree by external influences. I once heard one of those corporate motivational speakers tell this story but it fits pretty well here. You have this room with 5 monkeys in it. From the ceiling is suspended a bunch of bananas; beneath the bananas is a ladder. Eventually, one of the monkeys decides to climb the ladder to get the bananas. When he does this, all of the monkeys are sprayed down with a firehose. In fact, every time a monkey tries for the bananas, all of them are sprayed with the firehose. Pretty soon, the monkeys won't try for the bananas. Now, you replace one of the monkeys with a new monkey that doesn't know about the bananas. When this new monkey tries to get to the bananas, the old monkeys will stop the new monkey because of the firehose. Pretty soon, the new monkey will also stop going for the bananas. Now, another old monkey is replaced with a new monkey. Once again the new monkey will go after the bananas and the old monkeys will stop him. Except this time, one of the old monkeys doesn't know about the firehose, it only knows not to go after the bananas. This continues until all the old monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Now, all of the monkeys know not to go after the bananas. None of them know the reason why. The corporate speakers point was that this is how corporate policy is made. In relation to our question, it shows how the decision making process is affected by outside influences, if in a very simplified fashion. Hence my "herd animal" statement. Human desire to be part of the group is strong enough for us to make exceptionally bad decisions. A classic example of this is the destructive riots in LA. 1391726[/snapback] Then the monkey bit makes it clear...the golden rule predates Christianity and we forgot why the golden rule came about. So we blamed Christianity for it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) Az, you've coalesced my thoughts nicely, thank you. cre8tiff, I to a certain extent your right, individuals do exercise free will on occasion. But it's pretty myopic to think that our actions, ethics and morals aren't influenced in a large degree by external influences. I once heard one of those corporate motivational speakers tell this story but it fits pretty well here. You have this room with 5 monkeys in it. From the ceiling is suspended a bunch of bananas; beneath the bananas is a ladder. Eventually, one of the monkeys decides to climb the ladder to get the bananas. When he does this, all of the monkeys are sprayed down with a firehose. In fact, every time a monkey tries for the bananas, all of them are sprayed with the firehose. Pretty soon, the monkeys won't try for the bananas. Now, you replace one of the monkeys with a new monkey that doesn't know about the bananas. When this new monkey tries to get to the bananas, the old monkeys will stop the new monkey because of the firehose. Pretty soon, the new monkey will also stop going for the bananas. Now, another old monkey is replaced with a new monkey. Once again the new monkey will go after the bananas and the old monkeys will stop him. Except this time, one of the old monkeys doesn't know about the firehose, it only knows not to go after the bananas. This continues until all the old monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Now, all of the monkeys know not to go after the bananas. None of them know the reason why. The corporate speakers point was that this is how corporate policy is made. In relation to our question, it shows how the decision making process is affected by outside influences, if in a very simplified fashion. Hence my "herd animal" statement. Human desire to be part of the group is strong enough for us to make exceptionally bad decisions. A classic example of this is the destructive riots in LA. 1391726[/snapback] Oh I'm not saying individuals aren't influenced by outside pressures. The question was WHY would someone NOT be unethical when given the chance free of repercussion? Free Choice. Absolutely evolution plays a hand. There have been studies where infants were placed in a room with a large open hole, covered in plexiglass. The infants crawled around the hole, but they would always stop before going over the edge, despite never having run into that sort of thing before. They had no reason not to think they could just crawl on, instinct took over. Back in the thread, I noted we had to cooperate as proto-humans just to survive and no doubt some of those rules can be written in our DNA. However, as thinking animals, we always have the choice to act in any way that motivates us. You can choose to stand on the cliff and look at the scenery or fling yourself off. You can be a law-abiding citizen, then in an instant decide not to be. Weigie is looking for an answer and I truly believe that is the best one that can be given to his question. Free Choice. BTW, I would expect that if one of your new monkeys in the example was an agressive Alpha male, and the older one tried to stop him, he would beat him down, and do it anyway. Now, once he got hosed, that may be a different matter. IN the corporate world, that can be paralleled with changing managers. Edited March 28, 2006 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 BTW, I would expect that if one of your new monkeys in the example was an agressive Alpha male, and the older one tried to stop him, he would beat him down, and do it anyway. Now, once he got hosed, that may be a different matter. 1391759[/snapback] That last part would fit perfectly with people repeating the mistakes of history over and over. The monkeys at least have the excuse of not being able to read. We don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Then the monkey bit makes it clear...the golden rule predates Christianity and we forgot why the golden rule came about. So we blamed Christianity for it then. 1391754[/snapback] There are a whole host of things that should be blamed on Christianity. It was just too easy to lump the golden rule in with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 so what's the evolutionary purpose of that inner guilt, and why should anyone listen to it? is it just that "herd mentality" kid cid is talking about, and if so why shouldn't enlightened individualists feel completely free to override and disregard it? 1391683[/snapback] Because they choose not to. You have integrity because you choose to. I treat people nicely because I choose to. You rankle struggling musicians because you choose to. Spain buggers sheep because he chooses to. Or you DON'T have integrity because you choose to. People murder people because they choose to. People rape and hate and any number of nasty things because free choice is the fundamental right of a human being. Good or bad; model citizen or sociopath. The reasons for either choice are as varied as the number of souls on the planet. There is no pat answer, and thus you will never get the answer you are looking for. 1391697[/snapback] well, you probably know this, but that "either the parachute opens or it doesn't, it's 50/50" stuff doesn't even come close to answering the question. try and think scientifically here. i mean, kid cid has offered one logical explanation, saying that "guilt", "integrity" (and probably pride and self-righteousness as well) are a result of dimly perceived self-interest, perpetuating themselves over the generations via human gullibility and the herd instinct. you see this logic played out pretty impressively in nietzsche. you also see it played out in "notes from underground", which i mentioned above, though ultimately arguing from the opposite perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I, for one, welcome our simian overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 all the atheists and agnostics i know were bombasted with religion at an early age 1391716[/snapback] Agreed. And the majority of these people came to these views on their own, after weighing what they already knew about their own religion. Most of these people tend to be free thinking and informed. Funny how a survey makes this type of person seem somewhat reviled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Agreed. And the majority of these people came to these views on their own, after weighing what they already knew about their own religion. Most of these people tend to be free thinking and informed. Funny how a survey makes this type of person seem somewhat reviled. 1391789[/snapback] Yes, the herd doesn't like it when individuals leave it or more importantly, point out the short comings of their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Yes, the herd doesn't like it when individuals leave it or more importantly, point out the short comings of their beliefs. 1391793[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Yes, the herd doesn't like it when individuals leave it or more importantly, point out the short comings of their beliefs. 1391793[/snapback] Kinda ironic too, because that is the only way progress can be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 It is this herd mentality that has made it difficult for me to come to the conclusion that I don't think I believe in God. See, I can't even say I definitely don't disbelieve... But I know that I don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 It is this herd mentality that has made it difficult for me to come to the conclusion that I don't think I believe in God. See, I can't even say I definitely don't disbelieve... But I know that I don't... 1391833[/snapback] Look up agnostic. I decided years ago my religion would be "Be Nice". Has worked thus far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) It is this herd mentality that has made it difficult for me to come to the conclusion that I don't think I believe in God. See, I can't even say I definitely don't disbelieve... But I know that I don't... 1391833[/snapback] Yup, the path of least resistance is to agree with the majority. It is when logic dictates otherwise that we find ourselves in conflict with the herd. That inner conflict "may" (I'm just spitballing here) be the source of our "conscience". It would take someone with the enlightenment of untateve to answer that question though. Edited March 28, 2006 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 The politically correct version of agnosticism will henceforth be known as Catholically Atheistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 You have this room with 5 monkeys in it. From the ceiling is suspended a bunch of bananas; beneath the bananas is a ladder. Eventually, one of the monkeys decides to climb the ladder to get the bananas. When he does this, all of the monkeys are sprayed down with a firehose. In fact, every time a monkey tries for the bananas, all of them are sprayed with the firehose. Pretty soon, the monkeys won't try for the bananas. Now, you replace one of the monkeys with a new monkey that doesn't know about the bananas. When this new monkey tries to get to the bananas, the old monkeys will stop the new monkey because of the firehose. Pretty soon, the new monkey will also stop going for the bananas. Now, another old monkey is replaced with a new monkey. Once again the new monkey will go after the bananas and the old monkeys will stop him. Except this time, one of the old monkeys doesn't know about the firehose, it only knows not to go after the bananas. This continues until all the old monkeys are replaced with new monkeys. Now, all of the monkeys know not to go after the bananas. None of them know the reason why. The corporate speakers point was that this is how corporate policy is made. In relation to our question, it shows how the decision making process is affected by outside influences, if in a very simplified fashion. Hence my "herd animal" statement. Human desire to be part of the group is strong enough for us to make exceptionally bad decisions. A classic example of this is the destructive riots in LA. 1391726[/snapback] And my question is--what if it were possible for a monkey to get the bananas without he himself getting hit with the hose AND for him to know that none of the other monkeys will ever figure out that the reason they got the hose was because the first monkey got the bananas. What would stop the monkey from going after the bananas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Oh I'm not saying individuals aren't influenced by outside pressures. The question was WHY would someone NOT be unethical when given the chance free of repercussion? Free Choice. Absolutely evolution plays a hand. There have been studies where infants were placed in a room with a large open hole, covered in plexiglass. The infants crawled around the hole, but they would always stop before going over the edge, despite never having run into that sort of thing before. They had no reason not to think they could just crawl on, instinct took over. Back in the thread, I noted we had to cooperate as proto-humans just to survive and no doubt some of those rules can be written in our DNA. However, as thinking animals, we always have the choice to act in any way that motivates us. You can choose to stand on the cliff and look at the scenery or fling yourself off. You can be a law-abiding citizen, then in an instant decide not to be. Weigie is looking for an answer and I truly believe that is the best one that can be given to his question. Free Choice. 1391759[/snapback] What you have described with the baby's instincts and cooperative DNA is the exact opposite of free choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Yes, the herd doesn't like it when individuals leave it or more importantly, point out the short comings of their beliefs. 1391793[/snapback] There are definitely some draw backs living in the herd, however the herd does offer protection. Of course you can leave one herd for another, though it is often difficult to do so. And the new herd is just as likely to a ladder that you are not allowed to climb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.