Originally posted by no1marauderStrawman and hasty generalization.
You don't understand; all people are total scum but Jesus gives this undeserving trash the "gift of grace". We all suck and are dirtbags, but those few who sufficiently grovel before God's greatness will be rewarded and the rest will get what their evil nature has earned.
Does that help?
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardWe tend to make the common mistake (and not just with cavemen) of assuming that we are more "intelligent" or "rational" because we live in a more technologically advanced age. This is, of course, another form of the "White Man's Burden".
Yes they had the same capacity for rational thinking as we do. It is however very unlikely that they had the same ability as we do today because they where never stimulated to use their brain as much as we are. If they had highly developed minds and where able to think ahead further then a lot of today’s people then why did they live in caves?
The other (and in some ways more serious) mistake we make is that we assume, not just that we have higher IQs, but also that we have higher EQs or social skills. The situation we are talking about is primarily a social situation. There is simply no reason to assume that the ability of cavemen to think through social situations was any less than our own.
If they had developed minds, why did they live in caves? There would be a number of factors that influence the technological development of any culture or tribe - critical mass (i.e. population), stable and favourable environment, interaction with other cultures etc. A race that is fighting for survival against the elements is not going to have the leisure to develop technology beyond those required for food-gathering/hunting, clothing etc.
That doesn't mean, however, that they can't figure out something as simple as "If I save this guy today, we can hunt tomorrow and all of us will be able to eat".
Originally posted by no1marauderStrawman: Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
BS. The language is harsh, but it accurately sums up the point of view of many of the "Christians" here. Please point out specifically how this is a "Strawman" argument.
While you didn't attempt to refute the position (hence it isn't a strawman in the strictest sense of the word), the derogatory contempt in which you worded it was certainly a misrepresentation of Christian doctrine (quotation marks notwithstanding).
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you think that you would use much of your brain capacity if you never had an education or an intelligent debate? Before Thales people explained the world using only their imagination but after him people have become more and more rational. Just because someone has the capacity for rational thinking does not mean that they will use it, they need to be stimulated to do so.
We tend to make the common mistake (and not just with cavemen) of assuming that we are more "intelligent" or "rational" because we live in a more technologically advanced age. This is, of course, another form of the "White Man's Burden".
The other (and in some ways more serious) mistake we make is that we assume, not just that we have higher IQs, b ...[text shortened]... s "If I save this guy today, we can hunt tomorrow and all of us will be able to eat".
If they used their reasoning it is more likely that they would have came to the conclusion that the wounded man would have been a burden to them and that it’s better to leave him behind like less social animals would. But if they did not use their reason and only used their altruistic instincts they would have helped him without thinking about the consequences.
Originally posted by HalitoseFor the second time, how so? Please use the other thread I started to actually make a substantive point rather than merely repeating your assertion without any evidence to back it up.
Strawman: Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
While you didn't attempt to refute the position (hence it isn't a strawman in the strictest sense of the word), the derogatory contempt in which you worded it was certainly a misrepresentation of Christian doctrine (quotation marks notwithstanding).
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the link. The second part of your post is being addressed in another thread, so I'll ignore it here. Just one thing to point out though - I never claimed that all ethical behaviour was learned from religion. The last sentence of your second paragraph is, indeed, a strawman.
Really???? Take a gander at this article http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf
For LH take a look at Part IV esp. pp. 5-7 which discuss empathy in apes and other social animals. Guess they learned it from their religion.😛
It's not surprising that "Christians", who have a low opinion of mankind in general,. deny that people do ...[text shortened]... pathy. Their loathing for their fellow man blinds them to what happens around them every day.
Now, regarding the examples in the link you provided (pp. 5-7):
1. The author defines empathy as a "meta-affective cognitive capacity for grasping another's point of view". It isn't clear what "meta-affective" means here. Does it refer to a cognitive capacity about affections/emotions? Or does it refer to actions that appear to be affective; i.e. that correspond to human emotions when anthropomorphised?
If the first, then there is no reason to go to such great lengths. A wolf preying on an injured calf displays empathy in this sense.
If the second (which seems more likely, given the arguments that follow), then the key assumption the author is making is that animals have "emotions" that are similar to human beings because their behaviour is similar to human beings.
Note: once again, the wolf example can apply here.
2. The author introduces, then discards, the mirror-test as a test for empathy. Once again, it's important to note the anthropomorphism that takes place when she says that it is better to "to ask the more general question of which elements of human intersubjectivity are recognizable in other animals".
3. The final bit uses a quote from de Waal which talks about "Many forms of empathy" that exist in the primate world. The two examples actually provided are of emotional contagion and sympathy, respectively - which implies that de Waal is using a different definition of empathy from the author.
The author then claims that "Cognitive empathy in turn makes
possible the moral emotions of sympathy and compassion, in which we feel genuine concern for the other". I would dispute this claim. One can exhibit sympathetic and compassionate behaviour (which is the criterion this author is using) without possessing empathy. For instance, the ants of an ant colony do not possess any sense of self-consciousness - nevertheless they do commit many acts that would be considered sympathetic or compassionate.
On the other hand, if she is talking about the "feeling" of compassion or sympathy, one can very well think of environmentalists who act in a compassionate manner towards trees (say), but cannot possess any true empathy with the trees.
In other words, it is perfectly possible to be empathetic but not sympathetic and vice-versa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
Originally posted by stockenYou would love Descartes. 🙂
Okeeeeeey?
Let me put it this way. I know that I exist, simply because I am self-aware. So, I don't have to take it on faith that I exist.
Even if I were to "meet" God, I couldn't be as sure about that as I am of my own existence.
Putting this into relation, tells me that the probability of something else like me existing is higher than some ...[text shortened]... not their creation actually exists.
That would be a good one, though. Wouldn't it? 🙂
Nevertheless, the second part of your argument is incorrect. Knowing that you exist does not alter the probability of beings of other kinds existing. For instance, based on your arguments, the probability of humans existing should (from your POV) be higher than that of single-cell organisms. Nevertheless, both empirically and from the evolutionist's pet theory of abiogenesis, that would be incorrect.