Do you believe in God?

[UKMikey]

Is evolution about being the biggest bad-ass, or about having more grandchildren than one's peers? I'm not sure how evolution can favour the selfish if it works by favouring traits that give a reproductive advantage over other species.

Greed may breed financial fitness, but evolution allows unselfishness to survive

If greed is good, as Gordon Gekko proclaimed in the 1987 movie Wall Street, then economics ought to be a superlative science. After all, at the core of economic theory sits a greedy idealization of human nature known as Homo economicus. It’s a fictitious species that represents the individual...

www.sciencenews.org

 

[R3V]

Own what?

Your continued poor choice of words and repeated personal digs are the issue here.

I used the words the same way evolutionary biologists use them, as I've linked. You've falsely attributed a literal meaning of the words to my post, instead of the commonly accepted one. Why?

Oh and I'm going to have to ask you for at least a couple of examples of any personal digs I've made.

I do however note the attempt at distraction and the failure to provide evidence that supports your claim.

I would've gladly continued the discussion as normal had you not gotten offended, misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said and made a threat. You're a mod. It would be pointless to discuss anything with you, or anyone here if you're going to make threats.

If you'd like to take back what you said and accept that "nature selecting for traits" is a common metaphor, I can keep posting. I'll even start with one response:

And yet

1 in 5 business leaders may have psychopathic tendencies—here's why, according to a psychology professor

Narcissism involves an unrealistic sense of grandiosity and superiority, manifested in the form of vanity, self-admiration and delusions of talent. This is commonly found in bosses, according to psychology professor Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. But it doesn't always have to be a bad thing.

www.cnbc.com

Oh and

Is evolution about being the biggest bad-ass, or about having more grandchildren than one's peers? I'm not sure how evolution can favour the selfish if it works by favouring traits that give a reproductive advantage over other species.

Greed may breed financial fitness, but evolution allows unselfishness to survive

If greed is good, as Gordon Gekko proclaimed in the 1987 movie Wall Street, then economics ought to be a superlative science. After all, at the core of economic theory sits a greedy idealization of human nature known as Homo economicus. It’s a fictitious species that represents the individual...

www.sciencenews.org

This article clearly states that "greed may breed financial success" and:

Such idealists aren’t likely to fare very well in the competition for payoffs, though. “Idealists will normally get miserable payoffs and have very small reproduction rates,”

Clearly, a portion of humans today are "bad greedy psychotic people". Clearly, being altruistic doesn't fare well unless certain conditions are met. Here's a couple of great youtube videos on the topic:




At best, as the video suggests*, the population is in a balanced ~50/50 split between "doves" and "hawks". At worst, the disproportionate representation of psychopaths (imposters) in the real world will keep increasing, weeding out altruism and destroying humanity.

The belief that "people are bad" is not rooted in religion. It's reality. Which is the original point of discussion. @UKMikey 's linked article (the one you liked) explicitly confirms what that other member was saying.

These “conditional” cooperators play nice with others who play nice, but revert to defection when surrounded by selfish agents

That's what he said. He's skeptical of people because they may be "bad", but "plays nice" and gives them the benefit of the doubt (as he said) while expecting the worst. Here's the exchange:

I give the benefit of the doubt to every individual, but I always expect the worst. I think a significant portion of people are greedy and selfish, even the non-ignorant ones.

From an evolutionary standpoint we don't inherently distrust others within our social group, quite the opposite.

If this is the case, if we were unconditionally cooperative, we're going to be extinct.


*with all the disclaimers that it's a simplified model.

 

[Scaff]

I used the words the same way evolutionary biologists use them, as I've linked. You've falsely attributed a literal meaning of the words to my post, instead of the commonly accepted one. Why?

You haven't, but feel free to keep attempting to distract.

Oh and I'm going to have to ask you for at least a couple of examples of any personal digs I've made.

I don't work for you.

I would've gladly continued the discussion as normal had you not gotten offended, misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said and made a threat. You're a mod. It would be pointless to discuss anything with you, or anyone here if you're going to make threats.

I've not got offended or threatened you.

If you'd like to take back what you said and accept that "nature selecting for traits" is a common metaphor, I can keep posting. I'll even start with one response:


View attachment 1155372

And yet

View attachment 1155373

1 in 5 business leaders may have psychopathic tendencies—here's why, according to a psychology professor

Narcissism involves an unrealistic sense of grandiosity and superiority, manifested in the form of vanity, self-admiration and delusions of talent. This is commonly found in bosses, according to psychology professor Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. But it doesn't always have to be a bad thing.

www.cnbc.com

Oh and

This article clearly states that "greed may breed financial success" and:


Clearly, a portion of humans today are "bad greedy psychotic people". Clearly, being altruistic doesn't fare well unless certain conditions are met. Here's a couple of great youtube videos on the topic:




At best, as the video suggests*, the population is in a balanced ~50/50 split between "doves" and "hawks". At worst, the disproportionate representation of psychopaths (imposters) in the real world will keep increasing, weeding out altruism and destroying humanity.

The belief that "people are bad" is not rooted in religion. It's reality. Which is the original point of discussion. @UKMikey 's linked article (the one you liked) explicitly confirms what that other member was saying.

That's what he said. He's skeptical of people because they may be "bad", but "plays nice" and gives them the benefit of the doubt (as he said) while expecting the worst. Here's the exchange:

The existence of psychopaths doesn't prove the claim you made at all, and now your cherry picking from sources.

Nor is 1% a significant portion of people.

If this is the case, if we were unconditionally cooperative, we're going to be extinct.


*with all the disclaimers that it's a simplified model.

Who made that claim?

 

[UKMikey]

This article clearly states that "greed may breed financial success"

What does that have to do with evolutionary advantage? Nature doesn't select exclusively or even overwhelmingly for psychopathy. It may be good for financial markets but a race of psychopaths will eventually die out, even according to your video.

No wonder so many people here think you're a troll who argues in bad faith. You're literally full of it and spread it liberally around the forum in the way you choose to interact with others.

Good luck to anyone who continues to engage you in any discussion.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

At best, as the video suggests*, the population is in a balanced ~50/50 split between "doves" and "hawks". At worst, the disproportionate representation of psychopaths (imposters) in the real world will keep increasing, weeding out altruism and destroying humanity.

You keep blurring the line about what you're talking about. Are you talking about financial success or genetic success? Very different things. You say "in the real world", do you just mean financially? Or in the population? You say "destroying humanity", do you mean destroying government and society? Or do you mean genetically?

If this is the case, if we were unconditionally cooperative, we're going to be extinct.

Unconditionally perhaps. But conditionally, which is probably the only kind of cooperation you can be meaningfully referring to, no. Although I will mention that ants and bees have members that are practically unconditionally cooperative and they have not gone extinct.

Human beings are deeply hardwired to be what might be called conditionally cooperative. Tit for tat. You pick the fleas out of my fur, I'll pick the fleas out of your fur in exchange (literally). This kind of behavior is the basis of human social structures, and it's why we thrive genetically (and financially). Being unable to work with others, refusing to honor commitments, refusing to render services for contracts signed, refusing to cooperate, is a quick way to financial ruin and possibly jail. Embezzlement, broken contracts, fraud, these are the ways that people who try to cheat cooperative behavior end up ruining themselves. But most people aren't that.

There will be some people like that in social systems, it's inevitable that members of a population will try to cheat. But as the population of cheats increases, it becomes unstable and decreases again because it correlates with trouble procreating in some ways. Regardless, humanity has all but bypassed evolution at this point. We fight directly against natural selection, and our gene pool is basically not being honed anymore. We just propagate without much selection. Anyway, a society of cheats can't maintain at a high population. But it can't hit zero either. We're stuck with a small population of cheats, and most of the population being cooperative.

Some traits for greed might be financially beneficial in capitalism, but it can't be uncooperative, and it doesn't propagate through society, because it doesn't correspond to procreation.

Edit:

At best, as the video suggests*, the population is in a balanced ~50/50 split between "doves" and "hawks".

You misunderstood the video. It was introducing the concept with a simplified set of assumptions and a look at what happens to those balances when the system changes. It made no attempt to simulate the true balance, and showed quite clearly that the assumptions mean a lot when it comes to the outcome. The idea that 50/50 is the answer is the opposite of what the video is saying.

It introduces the concepts that Dawkins talked about in the 1970s book The Selfish Gene, and he goes on to explaining more about how species play this game in reality. The end of the video teases how that's done.

 

[R3V]

You haven't, but feel free to keep attempting to distract.

Um. Here's what you said:

... reads one way.

I've demonstrated another way, through two sources, that the same sentence could be read. You were wrong. You're still wrong. You're not apologizing or even admitting it. That's very disappointing, honestly.

You keep blurring the line about what you're talking about. Are you talking about financial success or genetic success? Very different things.

Not very different under capitalism. You're seeing people my age these days not marrying or having children precisely because of the lack of financial success.

Unconditionally perhaps.

I believe this is what the word altruism means

Does this not imply uncodintional cooperation? If yes, then I'm right and ironically, it was Scaff's poor choice of words that led to this. All I'm doing is pointing out that altruism, unconditional cooperation, has been dying off since the beginning of civilization. Or at the very least, it's dying off now. Slowly.

 

[UKMikey]

LOL you pooped your own guy's video. Oops.

 

[R3V]

LOL you pooped your own guy's video. Oops.

I pooped your post because it's irrelevant and has no context or commentary. You could've at least pointed out which part of the video you want to apply to any part of the discussion.

 

[UKMikey]

I pooped your post because it's irrelevant and has no context or commentary. You could've at least pointed out which part of the video you want to apply to any part of the discussion.

You were pooping it because it was me. He was questioning his earlier video.

 

[Scaff]

Um. Here's what you said:

I've demonstrated another way, through two sources, that the same sentence could be read. You were wrong. You're still wrong. You're not apologizing or even admitting it. That's very disappointing, honestly.

No, you've attempted to walk back on what you said.

Not very different under capitalism. You're seeing people my age these days not marrying or having children precisely because of the lack of financial success.

That still doesn't prove the claim you made.

I believe this is what the word altruism means

View attachment 1155484

Does this not imply uncodintional cooperation? If yes, then I'm right and ironically, it was Scaff's poor choice of words that led to this. All I'm doing is pointing out that altruism, unconditional cooperation, has been dying off since the beginning of civilization. Or at the very least, it's dying off now. Slowly.

No it doesn't imply unconditional cooperation at all, and even when it is unconditional you've offered zero to support the claim of it dying out since the beginning of civilzation.

Quite the opposite is true, society has been on trend of greater inclusion, cooperation and acceptance.

 

[Ghost Lap]

 

[Imari]

The Evolution of Trust

an interactive guide to the game theory of why & how we trust each other

ncase.me

This is a cute little game demonstrating trust in populations using the Prisoner's Dilemma and what amounts to bots following set strategies. Human intuition is notoriously bad at some mathematical things, and so having the ability to play around with these ideas in a "practical" manner is pretty useful.

With regards to the above topics, it shows that there are conditions where pure altruists ("always cooperate") or pure greed ("always cheat") can dominate strategy.

Of course, this is a highly simplified setup. Real life does not work exactly like this, but there are similarities that make it useful for beginning to understand human behaviour with regards to social interaction.

 

[m76]

I think you missed my meaning.

It wasn't a very ambigious statement "Yep, checks out as religious" What else can you mean by that?

Assuming the worst about humanity has been the domain of religious dogma for centuries. "We're not worthy", "we're scum", "we were born in sin", etc. is all very religion.

Except I specifically stated I don't think it is a flaw, it is human nature that helped humanity survive thus far. People can do selfless deeds, when it doesn't threaten or affect their own way of life.

Assume the worst about humanity, and when they're not doing it, tell them they are anyway just in their thoughts. A big part of the way the religions raise god up is to put humanity down. Your comments just struck me as in line with that thinking.

I can't even begin to explain why some people are evil / bad, and why others aren't, unlike religion which professes to have all the answers.

Actually no. And I'd suggest that you read "The Selfish Gene" to learn more about why. Most animals within a population (depending on the species) are not into pure self preservation, and display cooperative, reciprocal behavior. Ants being perhaps the absolute extreme example of this. Humans are very social animals, and will often make sacrifices for the tribe. The reason is because it's your genes that are designed to propagate, and you're hardwired to assume that your tribe shares them.

When I said people put themselves above others I meant other strangers, not tribe members. I'm not going around assuming that my close family members and friends are just as out to get me as random stranger no 563, who is offering an unmissable investment opportunity.

 

[UKMikey]

Transcript:

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell - The Bertrand Russell Society

 

[Danoff]

Does this not imply uncodintional cooperation? If yes, then I'm right and ironically, it was Scaff's poor choice of words that led to this. All I'm doing is pointing out that altruism, unconditional cooperation, has been dying off since the beginning of civilization. Or at the very least, it's dying off now. Slowly.

There are conditions under which humans and other animals act altruistically, and it's consistent with gene propagation. I explained it, you seem to have ignored it.

It wasn't a very ambigious statement "Yep, checks out as religious" What else can you mean by that?

I told you exactly what I meant by that.

Except I specifically stated I don't think it is a flaw, it is human nature that helped humanity survive thus far.

It's incorrect, as I explained.

People can do selfless deeds, when it doesn't threaten or affect their own way of life.

Also incorrect. Species, especially humans, will sacrifice their lives for others. Birds call out, making themselves a target, to protect the flock. The reason for this is what I explained.

I can't even begin to explain why some people are evil / bad, and why others aren't, unlike religion which professes to have all the answers.

But just like religion, you assume the worst about people.

When I said people put themselves above others I meant other strangers, not tribe members.

It's not as simple as that. Just because people are wired to protect members of their tribe because those tribe members probably carry their genes, that does not mean that those same instincts don't also work for strangers and people from outside the "tribe". They can and do. An example would be my adopted daughter, who shares few of my genetic traits, and yet I'm emotionally bonded to her, as you might expect, in the same way that a more genetically similar parent would be expected to emotionally bond with their child.

Human social instincts are based around what works to propagate genes. But those social instincts continue to affect our behavior in modern societies where "tribes" are much more diverse.

I'm not going around assuming that my close family members and friends are just as out to get me as random stranger no 563, who is offering an unmissable investment opportunity.

My family tried to get me into a pyramid scheme so, genetics is probably not what you should base that on.

 

[Scaff]

Surprise, priests abuse and rape nuns and get away with it...

Abused nuns reveal stories of rape, forced abortions

Another scandal is engulfing the Catholic Church. At a time when the Vatican has taken its most concrete steps to address a long ordeal with sex abuse and coverups, a growing chorus of nuns is speaking out about the suffering they have endured at the hands of the priesthood, including rape...

www.pbs.org

 

[UKMikey]

Surprise, priests abuse and rape nuns and get away with it...

Abused nuns reveal stories of rape, forced abortions

Another scandal is engulfing the Catholic Church. At a time when the Vatican has taken its most concrete steps to address a long ordeal with sex abuse and coverups, a growing chorus of nuns is speaking out about the suffering they have endured at the hands of the priesthood, including rape...

www.pbs.org

It's the forced abortion thing that gets me the most. So much for the church's lofty pro-life principles once their involuntarily celibate priests start behaving like wild animals. Not that that'll stop them forcing those principles on others just as their men forced themselves upon their women and kids. After all, authoritarian control is what they're all about.

“What is it the Bible teaches us? Rapine, cruelty and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”
-- Thomas Paine, The Age Of Reason

 

[Daniel207]

Surprise, priests abuse and rape nuns and get away with it...

Abused nuns reveal stories of rape, forced abortions

Another scandal is engulfing the Catholic Church. At a time when the Vatican has taken its most concrete steps to address a long ordeal with sex abuse and coverups, a growing chorus of nuns is speaking out about the suffering they have endured at the hands of the priesthood, including rape...

www.pbs.org

Even if people get away with stuff in this life there is a day of justice, if there is no God there is no justice. We have a sense of right and wrong but which only makes sense if there's a moral fabric to the universe. We might have different opinions of what's right and wrong, that's why we have a conscience. But no one has perfect understanding of right and wrong, only God, or is able to always do what is right. We must all give an account for our life, confess our faults and wrongs and find forgiveness, not in priests, but in Jesus the only Saviour and hope for the world!

 

[Famine]

if there is no God there is no justice

Why?

But no one has perfect understanding of right and wrong, only God, or is able to always do what is right.

Given God's penchant for murder, rape, torture, and slavery, I'm fine having a slightly different "understanding of right and wrong" from that "perfect" one.

 

[Daniel207]

It's the forced abortion thing that gets me the most. So much for the church's lofty pro-life principles once their involuntarily celibate priests start behaving like wild animals. Not that that'll stop them forcing those principles on others just as their men forced themselves upon their women and kids. After all, authoritarian control is what they're all about.

“What is it the Bible teaches us? Rapine, cruelty and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”
-- Thomas Paine, The Age Of Reason

People tend to end up at extremes, and people in the church get stuff wrong and often don't understand the Bible properly. I detest when as you said people, of any religion, use it for control of others. The majority of those who wrote the Bible criticised the establishment and those using power for their own gain. The abortion debate is too complicated with several moral aspects to broadly say for or against in every situation. The Bible doesn't even give any comment on abortion directly because it was written before it was a thing.

God didn't commit debauchery with a woman, it was a unique miracle called the incarnation, outside of the normal principles of biology. Please read what Christians actually understand about the incarnation before saying we believe something we actually don't. You don't have to believe it if you don't want but I will say that just because something is outside our experience and knowledge of the world, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, unless you're knowledge and experience includes everything we can know or has ever being experienced. Just by logical conclusion, we cannot 100% know God hasn't shown himself outside of our personal life knowledge and experience. I believe he did show himself to humanity supremely in Jesus.

 

[UKMikey]

You don't have to believe it if you don't want but I will say that just because something is outside our experience and knowledge of the world, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, unless you're knowledge and experience includes everything we can know or has ever being experienced. Just by logical conclusion, we cannot 100% know God hasn't shown himself outside of our personal life knowledge and experience.

That's a lot of negatives to process in one paragraph.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't matter what I believe. Women and children were raped by representatives of the Church. If that's part of a plan, it's a pretty sick one. I'll save my outrage for the victims.

 

[Daniel207]

Why?

Given God's penchant for murder, rape, torture, and slavery, I'm fine having a slightly different "understanding of right and wrong" from that "perfect" one.

That's a lot of negatives to process in one paragraph.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't matter what I believe. Women and children were raped by representatives of the Church. If that's part of a plan, it's a pretty sick one. I'll save my outrage for the victims.

They might 'represent' the church, but they are far from Christian as following the way of Christ and the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus criticised much of the religious establishment of his own day because of their corruption. I am happy to do the same.

 

[Scaff]

The Bible doesn't even give any comment on abortion directly because it was written before it was a thing.

Untrue on both counts.

Numbers 5:11-31 is quite likely discussing just that, and abortion itself predate the Bible.

History of abortion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Famine]

They might 'represent' the church, but they are far from Christian as following the way of Christ and the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus criticised much of the religious establishment of his own day because of their corruption. I am happy to do the same.

Not sure why I've been quoted here, as your response doesn't seem to be related to my post at all.

 

[Scaff]

Just by logical conclusion, we cannot 100% know God hasn't shown himself outside of our personal life knowledge and experience. I believe he did show himself to humanity supremely in Jesus.

The only thing we can logical conclude from that is zero verifiable evidence exists for any god.

, if there is no God there is no justice

Utter and complete nonsense.

 

[UKMikey]

The only thing we can logical conclude from that is zero verifiable evidence exists for any god.

Yeah, but you can't prove that 100%...

 

[Daniel207]

Why?

Given God's penchant for murder, rape, torture, and slavery, I'm fine having a slightly different "understanding of right and wrong" from that "perfect" one.

There is no justice for those who do not get justice in this life, unless there is a day of justice for all. I cannot believe for instance terrorists who blow themselves up, in the name of religion, will get away with their radical and twisted acts.

God doesn't condone murder, rape, torture and slavery. The Old Testament has a lot of violence, a lot of it is accounts of what people did and God trying to work with people to lead them to a better path.

Murder: The 10 commandments are a broad outline of general morality of which is stated 'do not commit murder' (Exodus 20:13). When God commanded Joshua to kill the Canaanites, there are several key factors to consider:
1. It was God's command. If he gives life he has authority to take it if he sees fit.
2. It was for justice. The Canaanites were corrupt and wicked, even practising child sacrifice.
3. This was to protect the Israelites from falling into the same evil and corruption as a society.
4. The means of humans to kill them, not murder, was unique to the context of the ancient world. It was common and not the first thing God confronted with his people. They had enough trouble listening to God's commands through Moses as it was.
5. There is a progression in the Bible of God gradually confronting violence as a means to bring justice / judgement. It in no way makes sense in our 21st Century context and is in no way condoned by Jesus. Most of the time God brought judgement by his own means, and is strongly against the killing of the innocent even in the Old Testament. e.g. Jeremiah 19:4.
6. There is an argument that Joshua was only commanded to kill combatants. Either way the Bible does not condone murder. Violence as a means of justice was squeezed out of the ancient Israelites over time, to such the point where Jesus said to love ones enemies (Matthew 4:43-44).
7. Jesus didn't just refute murder, but the anger and hatred where murder comes from (Matthew 5:21-22).

Rape: People often bring up Deuteronomy 22:22-27 about this, but it is clear in the context that the woman is not guilty, only if she consents. There are stories of rape in the Bible but they are nowhere condoned. And just because some in the church rape young girls or boys, it doesn't mean it is condoned in Christian doctrine.

Torture: This is not condoned at all, again just because there are stories of these things happening it doesn't mean it was accepted. Again the teaching of Jesus is paramount to shape how we understand the nature of God and Christian morality. Love your enemies and turning the other cheek goes, beyond basically every other cultural understanding of right and wrong, and points to a higher moral standpoint. The way Christians are to confront evil is by showing a better way and to challenge it in society, respectfully, not with violence.

Slavery: It is true that the Old Testament accepts slavery and this is similarly in the New Testament. However there are some key factors in what this actually means:
1. Slaves were a common part of ancient culture. The Israelites were to treat slaves with honour and respect in contrast to rights in many other cultures of the time.
2. The condoning of slaves / servants in the Bible differs vastly from what we commonly think of as slavery.
3. They often benefited as they often had little other means to support themselves, and in one sense it was similar to the practice of having a contract with an employer in our society.
4. Israelites were only to have slaves for 6 years and then let them go free (Exodus 21:1-11). But a slave / servant could be bound to their master for life if hey wished to stay. This highlights an ideal that the slave would actually prefer to stay and serve their master because if was a place of benefit and well-being.
5. In this context the command for slaves, even wives and children (Ephesians 5:21-6:9) to submit is based on the principle of showing the other a better way, and at the same time the master, husband, or parent is command to treat the other with love and respect.

Just a few thoughts.

Untrue on both counts.

Numbers 5:11-31 is quite likely discussing just that, and abortion itself predate the Bible.

History of abortion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's about adultery and a means of preventative warning against unfaithfulness, for Israel under the Mosaic covenant. It is not a broad statement which we can simply plug into 21st century context.

 

[Famine]

There is no justice for those who do not get justice in this life, unless there is a day of justice for all.

Okay. So what?

I cannot believe for instance terrorists who blow themselves up, in the name of religion, will get away with their radical and twisted acts.

What does whether you believe it or not have to do with it?

God doesn't condone murder, rape, torture and slavery.

I didn't say God condones it. I said God has a penchant for it. According to the Bible - the book written by God, lest we forget - he commits all of those acts.

Although given his silence during all recent instances of those events, compared to his previous behaviour, it looks quite like he condones it too.

 

[TexRex]

I cannot believe for instance terrorists who blow themselves up, in the name of religion, will get away with their radical and twisted acts.

Belief isn't a fit substitute for reason in the absence of understanding. I get that it's trying, but it's okay to not understand how someone may perpetrate atrocity and not face punishment as we desire.