Hockey Fan Forums banner

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Do you believe in any God?​


TORONTO — Fewer than three-quarters of Canadians believe in a god, suggests a new Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey.
"Religion in Canada today is not a particularly divisive subject and tolerance levels for different beliefs are high," said Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson. "This is evident in the fact that one in four people feel comfortable saying they do not believe in a god."​


The poll found 72 per cent of respondents said they believed in a god, while 23 per cent said they did not believe in any god. Six per cent did not offer an opinion.​



Let's see where the member of this site stand in comparison to those polled in the article.​



Though there are any number of possible answers to such a question, let's limit it to the three asked of these people, again, so that we can see how the membership of this site compares.​



Do you believe in God? Keep in mind that I'm not asking in your belief (or not) of "God" only in the Christian context, but in that of a deity that could be worshipped.​



-Yes
-No
-No opinion/unsure​



Ground rules:
1. Treat all opinions and other users with respect.​

2. Bashing and flaming will not be tolerated.
3. If you encounter a post which you feel steps over the line, bring it to the attention of the moderators; that's what they're here for.
4. Always remember that we are all responsible for what we, ourselves, say. "He trashed me first" is not a valid reason for doing the same thing.​



Daryl​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Do you believe in any God?​






http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080531.wgodpoll0531/BNStory/National/home

Let's see where the member of this site stand in comparison to those polled in the article.​

Though there are any number of possible answers to such a question, let's limit it to the three asked of these people, again, so that we can see how the membership of this site compares.​

Do you believe in God? Keep in mind that I'm not asking in your belief (or not) of "God" only in the Christian context, but in that of a deity that could be worshipped.​

-Yes
-No
-No opinion/unsure​

Ground rules:
1. Treat all opinions and other users with respect.
2. Bashing and flaming will not be tolerated.​

Daryl​
Lets just say i believe in the possibility of there being a deity that can be worshipped.

I'm agnostic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts

2. Bashing and flaming will not be tolerated.​

Daryl​
[/LEFT]
*hits you with a stick and lights your Jersey on fire*

:cheeky4:






hehe might as well start the battlegrounds with a little humor before all goes to hell ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Lets just say i believe in the possibility of there being a deity that can be worshipped.

I'm agnostic.
That's fine, but you can still answer a yes/no/don't know question.

A - Do you believe in God?

B - No, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

(my answer, btw)

or

A - Do you believe in God?

B - I don't know, but obviously God could exist.

There. Done. It's easy to do.

Daryl​
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
*hits you with a stick and lights your Jersey on fire*

:cheeky4:






hehe might as well start the battlegrounds with a little humor before all goes to hell ;)
Haha!

It *could* turn ugly, but I hope it will not.

Daryl​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts


Haha!

It *could* turn ugly, but I hope it will not.

Daryl​
Bah, living on a border town I do get in many arguments (amazing what a river speperating 2 communities from 2 nations can make them differ so much) with churchy people and it often goes to fists even if I try my best not to offend them while sticking to my belief.
But because it's a touchy topic doesn't mean it's one we shouldn't take on.

On a related note I was amazed talking to a guy froom Iran in Montreal (had been there for 2 weeks) and how we could have such an open calm debate over religion with both of us making valid points with no compramises to our morals, made me sick when I realized that all we see on TV about the mid east making them all out to be living monsters (sure they don't say it but the insinuation sure is there, after all peace isn't shocking enough for FOX news and the likes).

Then I got him drunk and I made out with the waitress :bt

:laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
i am not canadian

i used to believe in a creator

but was introduced to more sophisticated and intellectual reasoning, which saw me swing towards more darwinistic conclusions.

i would say there is no god as readily as i would state there is one.

i have modesty enuff to say that i do not know, but maintain that this world would be a better place is everyone appreciated this as the only 'true fact' in this topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts


That's fine, but you can still answer a yes/no/don't know question.

A - Do you believe in God?

B - No, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

(my answer, btw)

or

A - Do you believe in God?

B - I don't know, but obviously God could exist.

There. Done. It's easy to do.

Daryl​
Heh. Ok. Then I say

Don't know but obviously god could exist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
DO I believe in some essences governing over my spirit throwing around seemingly arbitrary rulings on my moral practises and such.

I have however been quite attracted to a holistic approach to God. So most people are aware My background is Irish Catholic, went to Catholic high schools and church for at least 90% of the Sundays in my life.

I have also disliked the idea of the Catholic God, but mostly I think it was my rebellious nature that constantly had me trying to poke holes in his divine wisdom, as I grew older my arguments were no longer thought legitimate and I was attacked on many accounts of heresy and was given almost threatening orders not to talk to my priest anymore as my questions were "inspired by the devil."

So as of the age of 18 I was a religious outcast. I have never really seen a point in religious debate on God as I have never seen a any benefits from people trying to convince other people that their deepest and most profound beliefs are incorrect. I have always felt that the segment of the population who never truly accepts that there is a god will turn to atheism or agnostic formulations, and maybe there are others like me who think I am part of a great collection of beings.

So I am for the first time in a long time going to explain something I have not spent time on proving and not spent time explaining to any person who was not at least well versed in philosophy. As my belief is in the condition of the universe and how the universe itself is "god" for the lack of a better term.

I am of the belief that the universe is a being, as you or I are, and we are all pieces and part to such a being. Do you have a spirit, I would like to think there is an essences in an individual that dies, but I refer to this as mostly mind and does not necessarily live as long as your body. Do I believe in good or evil? I have taken to myself that the universe, if a being, does not care for dogma, I have a more Kantian approach to ethic, that is best described as: "the means justifies the ends."

Bottom line is that who cares if two men make love to one another, who cares if my girlfriend and I live together, so long as I am not out to harm other beings that share my existence and kinness to the universe, that all the other stuff seems to me semantics.

So, as for the vote I choose number three, and as for my post I hope I did not offend anyone.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,689 Posts
i am not canadian

i used to believe in a creator

but was introduced to more sophisticated and intellectual reasoning, which saw me swing towards more darwinistic conclusions.

i would say there is no god as readily as i would state there is one.

i have modesty enuff to say that i do not know, but maintain that this world would be a better place is everyone appreciated this as the only 'true fact' in this topic.
There is a rumor out there that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed.

Speaking of believing in ferries everyone should read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

I have a PDF version of it if anyone wants it. PM me your email address and I'll send it off.

Btw I voted no opinion but I am leaning towards no. I wish I could say I did because right about now we need a miracle. They say they happen.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Could this be why a Canadian team hasn't won the cup since Montreal did quite a while ago?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
There is a rumor out there that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed.
tis not a rumour but fact. back in the day of the royal bastards and church running the whole show, they threatened charles (coz they're nice like that) that if he weren't to renounce all of his life's work, then his family would receive nothing thru inheritance.

so he did as asked and is buried in westminster cathedral. thankfully tho, his peers lived on to ensure his seminal works gained public attention to this day.

Speaking of believing in ferries everyone should read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
dawkins rocks (even if he loves himself a bit too much).... i would strongly recommend 'The Selfish Gene' and 'Blind Watchmaker'.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
dawkins rocks (even if he loves himself a bit too much).... i would strongly recommend 'The Selfish Gene' and 'Blind Watchmaker'.
First problem I have with this argument is the idea that parentally love is derivative of “selfish-gene” survival. One reason I disagree with this idea is that 1 of 25 men source is raising a child not their own and not known to them. These fathers are making the same sacrifices any regular father would and so long as he is not informed would most likely give his life for his child like any regular father would.

Then there is the idea of how adoption fits into Dawkins theory. Can adopted parents not also make sacrifices for their children? It seems odd since the very concept of adoption is in itself a form of sacrifice.With these two problems in mind one can only concluded two possible things either: The selfish gene is non-sensory and therefore is unable to detect itself in other being, meaning it can be manipulated into thinking it could dwell in any life form, making the behaviour of the individual depended on both their environment and naïveté’s and the second possible conclusion is that the selfish-portion of the gene is non-existent.

Second argument is that the assumption that genes are the soul contributors to an individual’s decision making. The major argument being held thought being that environment can also be responsible for an individual’s psychological establishment. This is further seen in the idea of a surrigent parents and the traits they can be inherit from their non-biological parents, (further information on this can be found in a peer-reviewed journal called: Stepfathers' Symbolic and Emotional Worlds: Bonding With and Appropriating Stepchildren by William Marsiglio Sociology Department). I think successfully arguing that Dawkins point that biology is without a doubt the soul contributor to individual decision making can at least be doubted when introducing a purely environmental aspect.

My final argument is centred around the assumption that a parent with necessarily protect their young, as a matter for fact outside mammals and birds it is very difficult to find other animals that waste their time, protecting their infants, not to mention most find their children part of their day-to-day menu. It is important to remember that Dawkins was talking about all organisms being dictated by genes, not just humans. Then with humans taken into consideration one is thought to remind you of various malicious child abuse/murder cased inflicted by biological parents and then consider the tribes in poorer countries who expose their infant children if they seem like a lot of effort would go into raising them as there are no resources. Dawkins theory of a self-sacrificing gene that give itself to the young/stronger version of itself seems deeply contrast to the ideas of harming its kin to insure its own immediate survival.

Just some thoughts, wonder what you think paulo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
I am glad to have my conviction in Dawkin's lectures tested. It is the scientific approach afterall, to question absolutely every aspect of everything. Let's see what my meagre brain can come up with. It has been a while since I read 'the selfish gene', (so I am hardly going to recite verbatim) and so here goes….

First problem I have with this argument is the idea that parentally love is derivative of “selfish-gene” survival. One reason I disagree with this idea is that 1 of 25 men is raising a child not their own and not known to them. These fathers are making the same sacrifices any regular father would and so long as he is not informed would most likely give his life for his child like any regular father would.
This makes complete sense. However, we 'complex' humans have a certain something that seperates us from the rest of the animals which help support such 'selfish theory'. That something is self awareness. One symptom of this self awareness is ego; manifest in the 'me' society.

It could sound like an excuse to dismiss an apparent anomally in biology reasoning, but humans derive health and thus longevity thru happiness. This is natural. If adoption fulfills a paternal urge that cannot be satisfied thru creating a child of one's own DNA, at least it allows the individual to 'go thru the motions', and could result in at least behavioural inheritance, during the raising of that child.

If the adoption takes the form of the father taking on a woman with a child from a previous relationship, then the child (sorry if this is somewhat cold hearted) is baggage that comes along with a chance to successfully 'breed' your own offspring with a preferred partner.

Of course chimpanzees live in groups dominated by alpha females, who are the primary breeders; who then in turn give the baby chimps to other females to baby sit. The females compromise their chance to reproduce their own genes, for the benefit of the collective. And so the gene being selfish could be seen on a 'species basis'.

Then there is the idea of how adoption fits into Dawkins theory. Can adopted parents not also make sacrifices for their children? It seems odd since the very concept of adoption is in itself a form of sacrifice.With these two problems in mind one can only concluded two possible things either: The selfish gene is non-sensory and therefore is unable to detect itself in other being, meaning it can be manipulated into thinking it could dwell in any life form, making the behaviour of the individual depended on both their environment and naïveté’s and the second possible conclusion is that the selfish-portion of the gene is non-existent.
Philosophical debate suggests that all property is theft. The air I breathe is useless to you and so is consumed by myself to your cost. But I do not care. I need to breathe to survive and survive I must. The will to exist is intrinsic. It might be obvious to say, but why is it so?

The concept of having children, whether thru adoption or of your own is a sacrifice to certain extents ('freedom' and financial being two obvious ones) and yet the good old 'biological clock' causes us to ignore such things and to leap head long into that unknown and life changing role of parent. Why if not thru some kind of predetermined genetic compulsion?

This said… the 'selfish gene' instinct can be fooled I think. Contraception and masturbation can give all the physiological clues to your body that you are mating like Genghis Khan….. When really you are just building a sweat! :D

Second argument is that the assumption that genes are the soul contributors to an individual’s decision making. The major argument being held thought being that environment can also be responsible for an individual’s psychological establishment. This is further seen in the idea of a surrigent parents and the traits they can be inherit from their non-biological parents, (further information on this can be found in a peer-reviewed journal called: Stepfathers' Symbolic and Emotional Worlds: Bonding With and Appropriating Stepchildren by William Marsiglio Sociology Department). I think successfully arguing that Dawkins point that biology is without a doubt the soul contributor to individual decision making can at least be doubted when introducing a purely environmental aspect.
I read and re-read this paragraph but I am unsure of the gist. Could you elaborate? From what I could fathom (and it is not your fault, but mine I am sure), the argument is that a person's decisions are largely if not entirely biased thru genetic traits?

Decisions ie personality ie behaviour are genetic only. If so, then I really do not buy this at all. Environment is a massive influence. As is up bringing a major influence determining the state of this environment. And of course day to day experience of what is required and needed to be adapted to, in order to survive to see another day, are all influential on the decisions made. I think this is obvious and I would be surprised if dawkins suggested otherwise. (or maybe I just misunderstood!?)

My final argument is centred around the assumption that a parent with necessarily protect their young, as a matter for fact outside mammals and birds it is very difficult to find other animals that waste their time, protecting their infants, not to mention most find their children part of their day-to-day menu. It is important to remember that Dawkins was talking about all organisms being dictated by genes, not just humans. Then with humans taken into consideration one is thought to remind you of various malicious child abuse/murder cased inflicted by biological parents and then consider the tribes in poorer countries who expose their infant children if they seem like a lot of effort would go into raising them as there are no resources. Dawkins theory of a self-sacrificing gene that give itself to the young/stronger version of itself seems deeply contrast to the ideas of harming its kin to insure its own immediate survival.
Again not entirely confident I caught your drift….. Are you asking why is it that only humans have extensive parental roles when all other organisms seem not to? Well there is a simple answer to this apparent inconsistency across the species.

As you noted, bringing up kiddies is time and resource expensive pursuit. You have to efficiently frugal. Of course if any of these child raising strategies were inadequate and those kids failed to mature to a point of having kids of their own, then there would be no subsequent generations and thus extinction would follow. It naturally follows that the extent of parental investment is only that which is adequate without being wasteful.

Many other creatures do have prolonged periods of nurture; primates, cats, birds even all exhibit nurturing behaviour for at least the infant periods of newly borns. Those species that do not invest in such labours tho, tend to make their efforts before birth (by laying eggs such as sharks and turtles), by giving birth to fully formed (only small) versions of the adult individual, and / or produce vast quantities of babies so that probability is enuff to ensure at least some survive despite the lack of care.

Not sure how many species knowingly consume their children. Many animals segregate themselves during birthing periods to avoid such a conflict of interest. Of course the consumption of other individual's kids is an entirely different situation (lion infanticide for eg)

As for humans mistreating their kids for whatever reason. Well behavioural constraints see us condemn such acts. Perhaps these themselves are phenotypes of this selfish gene; even cyco parents are part of our species population? And our punishment of these 'mutated whackos' serves as a deterent to help maintain the chance that the next generation of our kind prospers, even if only to indulge our own selfish desire to see what we think is 'right' come to fruition.

Just some thoughts, wonder what you think paulo
Cheers mate. I welcomed the chance to test my reasoning. I would be interested to hear if you think I am full of 'it'. Cheers!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
It could sound like an excuse to dismiss an apparent anomally in biology reasoning, but humans derive health and thus longevity thru happiness. This is natural. If adoption fulfills a paternal urge that cannot be satisfied thru creating a child of one's own DNA, at least it allows the individual to 'go thru the motions', and could result in at least behavioural inheritance, during the raising of that child.
I am not doubting there maybe an urge for parenthood, a need to continue ones linage, but I think if we examine together some examples it can be shown that there are flaws in such a thought. For instances, Rome in the early portion of the Empire (not Republic) was run like a hereditary monarchy, meaning the next Emperor would be the next patra familia of the lead families (e.g. Julio-Claudian Dynasty).

This idea of handing ones empire over to thin kin post-mortem, would seem reasonable under the laws of the selfish gene, for not only do you insure your gene’s survival to the next generation by the soul ability to procreate, but then allow for a stronger opportunity for your next generation to have the same ability by insuring they would have the best opportunities available to pick their ideal mate/mates and product children accordingly.

This worked fine through the first two Dynasty’s of the Roman Empire, but after the passing of Emperor Dominition (sp?) an anomaly occurred that I think might prove troublesome for individuals operating souly on the judgements of their genes. The next Emperor Nerva was old and had no children so he adopted an individual he felt would make a fantastic Emperor, Nerva started with that adoption the Age of the Four Good Emperors. Nerva adopted a young, fetile Trajan who when he became Emperor, had three sons, none thought worthy of the Empire so on his death bed he adopted his successor Hadrian who had a daughter and two sons of his own, one of which was a trusted advisor of his so naturally on his death bed he adopted his successor Lucius Puis (sp?), who had no children but a favoured nephew who was his next successor Marcus Aurelius.

With the exception of Marcus the 4 good emperors of Roman were not elected because of genealogy but on Merit (though Marcus did prove to have deserved his thrown his only real blunder being that he elected his son as his successor).

You might wonder what my point is here and why it relates to Dawkins. The point I was trying to make is that there maybe a selfish gene in existence, I can accept that, but to have declared it the soul contributor to the actions of an individual, at least I feel, far to ambitious an assumption for Dawkins to have made.

If the adoption takes the form of the father taking on a woman with a child from a previous relationship, then the child (sorry if this is somewhat cold hearted) is baggage that comes along with a chance to successfully 'breed' your own offspring with a preferred partner.
An interesting take, so from what I understand you are saying a “step-father” would care for a “step-child” for the soul purpose of procreating with the child’s mother? It’s interesting and reasonable view on the step-father situation, but I was not really addressing that as an issue. It was more about the child being fathered by the mother’s secret lover.

Of course chimpanzees live in groups dominated by alpha females, who are the primary breeders; who then in turn give the baby chimps to other females to baby sit. The females compromise their chance to reproduce their own genes, for the benefit of the collective. And so the gene being selfish could be seen on a 'species basis'.
1) I did not no that

2) This also seems to contradict Dawkins though does it not? The whole purpose of the selfish gene is for the gene itself to survive. I believe Dawkins himself said the soul purpose of an organism was to act as a survival machine. If an organism openly sacrifices its own gene survival in light of a greater good it would appear that the Chimps act in contrast to their selfish desires, that are supposedly the soul contributors to their actions/behaviours.

Also I now wonder how Dawkins/Darwinists (I guess could be a term) would explain homosexuality and pedophilia, both seemingly genealogical suicide. In the first it is impossible for the individual in question to reproduce because the two species performing intercourse are biologically incompatible. In the other example the individual is attracted to a portion of the species that cannot reproduce because one member of the intercourse has yet to develop the biological tools for reproduction. Once again calling into question whether or not the selfish-gene really is the driving force behind an individual.

read and re-read this paragraph but I am unsure of the gist. Could you elaborate? From what I could fathom (and it is not your fault, but mine I am sure), the argument is that a person's decisions are largely if not entirely biased thru genetic traits?
I apologize, I am apparently borderline illiterate, grammar, spelling and sentence construction elude me. My argument was in fact to the contrary. Dawkins argues that the selfish gene is the cause to each action we partake in I was arguing something against it. It was based on the idea that an individuals genes may not determine their persona and it can be seen with Step children inheriting characteristics from their step-fathers.

But apparently we agree

Many other creatures do have prolonged periods of nurture; primates, cats, birds even all exhibit nurturing behaviour for at least the infant periods of newly borns. Those species that do not invest in such labours tho, tend to make their efforts before birth (by laying eggs such as sharks and turtles), by giving birth to fully formed (only small) versions of the adult individual, and / or produce vast quantities of babies so that probability is enuff to ensure at least some survive despite the lack of care.
Like I said outside the realm of mammals and birds you see a lack of care for ones young. I was more concerned with animals that ate their young like the crocodile (which is why baby crocs can climb trees). This seems rather counter Dawkins in the sense that these genes are self-destructive.

As for humans mistreating their kids for whatever reason. Well behavioural constraints see us condemn such acts. Perhaps these themselves are phenotypes of this selfish gene; even cyco parents are part of our species population? And our punishment of these 'mutated whackos' serves as a deterent to help maintain the chance that the next generation of our kind prospers, even if only to indulge our own selfish desire to see what we think is 'right' come to fruition.
My argument was not disciplinary violence towards our young, I was meaning unwarranted, and extensive violence toward our young. Abused/murdered children assaulted by their own parents seems to once again spit in the face of gene survival recognition, if a gene recognizes itself in its kin and then chooses to destroy or hamper the future successes of that gene through violence, this gene moves from being selfish to self-destructive.

Cheers mate. I welcomed the chance to test my reasoning. I would be interested to hear if you think I am full of 'it'. Cheers!
Been a while since I have either debated Social Darwinism and read any Darwinist philosophies so I apologize if I am not the calibre of debater you are use to, but I will try to post something of value and at least keep it interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
I am not doubting there maybe an urge for parenthood, a need to continue ones linage, but I think if we examine together some examples it can be shown that there are flaws in such a thought. The point I was trying to make is that there maybe a selfish gene in existence, I can accept that, but to have declared it the soul contributor to the actions of an individual, at least I feel, far to ambitious an assumption for Dawkins to have made.
I confess I am not well read on the politics and personal backgrounds of roman emperors and who suceeded who. I am happy to accept that the lineage seen, does much to contradict the suggestion that personal geneology is the sole and all important factor.

However I would be surprised if Dawkins did maintain that genetic expression was the sole influence on our end behaviour. This suggestion is invalidated by simple human longevity, more so than any bygone empire.

If it is our sole ambition as multicellular organisms, to ensure a representative of our genetic code into the next generation…. Why do we live so long after such children are born and raised to be independent, or even beyond our child baring age?

Men can fertilise an ovum into their 60s and 70s, but women become barren with the onset of menopause (50 to 60s). However this 'change' doesn't immediately precede death and infact conversely, women despite becoming redundant to fecundity, actually (on average) outlive their male counter parts!

As existence is a burden upon all others (if we breathe air, drink water and eat food then no one else (our children included) can)… why do parents continue to live and place such resource pressures on their children, if they are no longer going to contribute to their share of future gene pools?

An interesting take, so from what I understand you are saying a “step-father” would care for a “step-child” for the soul purpose of procreating with the child’s mother? It’s interesting and reasonable view on the step-father situation, but I was not really addressing that as an issue. It was more about the child being fathered by the mother’s secret lover.
The 'step father - step child' scenario is one that I am happy to say I have personal experience of. And thus I have given much thought to the motives that underlie such a strange relationship, in context with selfish gene theory.

As far as secret fathers are concerned…. Well if there is a secret donor of genetic material, how could the duped father possibly complain? He has blissful ignorance. Hence 'the cuckoo syndrome'.

This also seems to contradict Dawkins though does it not? The whole purpose of the selfish gene is for the gene itself to survive. I believe Dawkins himself said the soul purpose of an organism was to act as a survival machine. If an organism openly sacrifices its own gene survival in light of a greater good it would appear that the Chimps act in contrast to their selfish desires, that are supposedly the soul contributors to their actions/behaviours.
Well that depends on what level of gene survival is being considered. Is the gene related to the individual or the species as a whole?

Evolution is a process where DNA mutation allows a species to adapt to the environment it lives in. DNA which produces lots of fur, will use up a lot of fur making resources. These resources are usefully used for those animals living in the mountains, but are wasteful and thus costly for those in the tropics.

Lady chimps could spend their resources and time fighting each other to be able to get the all important male chimp's sperm… or they could stay quiet... enjoy the protection afforded them by living in a gang… do right by the alpha female by doing baby sitting duties and wait for the day when the alpha dies and they become Queen! Of course, some lesser females also sneak off into the bushes for secret moments of procreation (at their own risk).

Finally, with this all concerning the 'battle of the fittest'…. Often the alpha female HAS TO BE the fittest of that generation (to defend her position) and so such an 'exclusive breeding behaviour' ensures that the fittest traits enjoy an advantage into the next generation. It is therefore self regulating.

Also I now wonder how Dawkins/Darwinists (I guess could be a term) would explain homosexuality and pedophilia, both seemingly genealogical suicide. In the first it is impossible for the individual in question to reproduce because the two species performing intercourse are biologically incompatible. In the other example the individual is attracted to a portion of the species that cannot reproduce because one member of the intercourse has yet to develop the biological tools for reproduction. Once again calling into question whether or not the selfish-gene really is the driving force behind an individual.
The two sexual 'appetites' you have mentioned would indeed limit the ability for genes to survive thru time. But this only occurs if this is the sole interest; Lesbian and gay couples have always wanted and now can 'adopt', where at least one of the couple has their germ cells used in the reproductive process. So despite their 'life style' the urge to reproduce persists.

It is often a religious argument that homosexuality is a willful choice… strange if they chose to support this allegation with evolutionary theory… but of course hetero-parents can give birth to homo-children. Mutations can and will occur.

As for paedophiles…. Again, many are married and have children of their own (often tragically for the abuse born down upon them eg Fritzl) but 'children' can become sexually receptive at (socially) alarmingly young ages. It might be argued that paedophiles are merely acting on a 'first come, first served' (pun not intended) basis, which whilst abhorrent to our societal standards of today, are none the less potentially beneficial for the 'unethical instincts of survival'.

I apologize, I am apparently borderline illiterate, grammar, spelling and sentence construction elude me. My argument was in fact to the contrary. But apparently we agree
That we agree, suggests that I understood your POV well enuff and so please don't apologise.
To confess, I was responding to you at the very end of my working day and was at least rushing a bit to get home!

Like I said outside the realm of mammals and birds you see a lack of care for ones young. I was more concerned with animals that ate their young like the crocodile (which is why baby crocs can climb trees). This seems rather counter Dawkins in the sense that these genes are self-destructive.
Perhaps caring for the young becomes less important once you give birth to babies able to protect themselves, such as by climbing trees. If not, and such neglect was bad for your species, then such animals would not exist today. Do crocs climb trees because of no parent skills or does zero parenting provoke the climbing of trees?

The important thing to bare in mind when looking at such behaviour is that nothing, NOTHING AT ALL is preconceived. It all happens by absolute chance. Those who do a bad job at rearing young see them all die and that is that. Extinction. Those who do enuff, continue to the next generation. For crocs, leaving their kids to climb trees, appears to be enuff (until a human comes to chop all those trees down!)

From examining fossil records, it can be postulated that the quantity species still alive today, is a tiny fraction of all species that at one time lived and failed to adapt adequately to their environment; be they wooly mammoths, do-dos, dinosaurs, sharks, sabre toothed tigers….. That is why conservationists go so bonkers about the rain forests and polar ice caps. When its gone, its gone.

Abused/murdered children assaulted by their own parents seems to once again spit in the face of gene survival recognition, if a gene recognizes itself in its kin and then chooses to destroy or hamper the future successes of that gene through violence, this gene moves from being selfish to self-destructive.
Absolutely true. Such abuse of one's own offspring is completely counter intuitive to the selfish gene logic. However, such occurences are (thankfully) freakishly rare. Whatever excuse is offered by abusive / murderous parents, they are in the minority. Mutants!

I was just suggesting tho, that perhaps how we as a society react to cases of infanticide in humans, enforces the suggestion of our desire to see the survival of the next generation of humans; and so at the level of our species, the selfishness remains. By condemnig what we see as being bad, and punishing the bad person, we promote to everyone else an acceptable conduct which in turn helps each of us to ensure the survival of all of our children?

Essentially, the few are sacrificed for the many.

Been a while since I have either debated Social Darwinism and read any Darwinist philosophies so I apologize if I am not the calibre of debater you are use to, but I will try to post something of value and at least keep it interesting.
I dunno what kinda of calibre you see in me LOL. I just try to elaborate as best I can, the things that swim in my mind. You have no great philosopher on your hands in me…. Just someone who thinks he knows a bit of anything about everything and is burdened with too much time at work, with not enuff to do.

Its all good.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top