That Boat Don't Float!!

[Montalban]

I'm not going to do to others what I don't want done to me. No God needed.

But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?

 

[Montalban]

Man is responsible for the rift between God and man.
And the reason man can no longer control our environment just by willpower.
But even that choice was by God's will.

I agree with you here. Man let sin into the world

 

[sandwiches]

But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?

Probably from the fact that he doesn't want any harm or suffering to come to him.

 

[Freodin]

But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?

Basically, yes.

Or would you be willing to accept that the desire to harm others comes from God?

 

[BananaSlug]

But where does this desire not to harm others come from? Is it just chemicals firing signals in your brain?

Yes, and my desire to not be harmed by others. It's all biology and chemisty.

 

[Freodin]

Are you being serious? Who is feeding you this rubbish? Did you go to school?
If you hit me I will hit you back, if I hit you you will hit me back, it's called self preservation and has nothing whatsoever to do with mythical gods, it's common sense.
People hurt other people it they are weak or they outnumber them or if they think they can get away with it,
we call those people BULLIES, so the desire not to hurt others is not in all of us.

But his question is valid: why? What is the reason we desire this?

Common sense is no answer. It does not answer just what that common sense is.

So you would have to explain, instead of rant. Can you do that?

 

[Montalban]

Probably from the fact that he doesn't want any harm or suffering to come to him.

That's not answering the question. Where does this 'want' (a desire) come from?

 

[Montalban]

Are you being serious? Who is feeding you this rubbish? Did you go to school?
If you hit me I will hit you back, if I hit you you will hit me back, it's called self preservation and has nothing whatsoever to do with mythical gods, it's common sense.
People hurt other people it they are weak or they outnumber them or if they think they can get away with it,
we call those people BULLIES, so the desire not to hurt others is not in all of us.

That simply doesn't answer the question. IF there is no God, where does this desire not to do harm originate? Is it from outside of you, or from within you? If from within, what is the basis for it?

 

[Montalban]

Basically, yes.

Thank you for actually answering. Three or four others seem to have missed the question

Two guys deal with the next bit better than I can...

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
George Gilder -- Evolution and Me
also at
CSC - Evolution and Me

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.
Lewis, C. S., “Mere Christianity” in (2002) "The Complete C S Lewis", (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

Or would you be willing to accept that the desire to harm others comes from God?

The desire to harm comes from man's free will moving himself from God's Will.

 

[AV1611VET]

IF there is no God, where does this desire not to do harm originate?

I always like bringing up Klebold and Harris to evolutionists, and ask them what went wrong on that fateful day.

After all, if we're just animals, what's wrong with the explanation that Klebold and Harris were nothing more than two animals going feral, as animals do?

It's sad watching evolutionists try and squirm their ways out of that point.

Usually the conversation condescends to ridicule w/i a couple of pages.

 

[Hespera]

Thank you for actually answering. Three or four others seem to have missed the question

Two guys deal with the next bit better than I can...

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
George Gilder -- Evolution and Me
also at
CSC - Evolution and Me

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.
Lewis, C. S., “Mere Christianity” in (2002) "The Complete C S Lewis", (Harper; San Francisco), p30.




The desire to harm comes from man's free will moving himself from God's Will.

You will want to notify the APA of this. They probably didnt know.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe you're missing the point.

The point was made that Christianity was 'true' based on the fact that people suffer for this truth.

Lighthorseman then put forward the fact that Moslems also 'suffer' for their faith.

I said the disciples were killed by others as result of their beliefs and testimonies.
I have no idea if they suffered, or how much they suffered.

 

[Montalban]

You will want to notify the APA of this. They probably didnt know.

Who/what is APA?

 

[Montalban]

I always like bringing up Klebold and Harris to evolutionists, and ask them what went wrong on that fateful day.

After all, if we're just animals, what's wrong with the explanation that Klebold and Harris were nothing more than two animals going feral, as animals do?

It's sad watching evolutionists try and squirm their ways out of that point.

Usually the conversation condescends to ridicule w/i a couple of pages.

My second favourit evolutionist is Crick (my first being Dawkins).

So set was he on their being no god that when he came to the problem of the origins of life on earth he ended up speculating that some alien species sent space vehicles out filled with the building-blocks of life, and that one of these came landing on earth. (the theory of "Directed Panspermia"). That's how irrational the 'rational' minds of atheists get... the problem here being in that if it were true it simply moves the problem - because where did the alien's own life begin?

 

[SkyWriting]

So... by this logic, the Muslims are right?

Too big a group of them. Too little info from you.

 

[Montalban]

I said the disciples were killed by others as result of their beliefs and testimonies.
I have no idea if they suffered, or how much they suffered.

It's still missing the point. The point is not whether they were pesecutes, made to suffer, or kill for their faith.

The statement that Christianity is true because of people willing to suffer/be killed/be persecuted is nullified by the fact that other faiths have people in the same situation.

 

[Montalban]

Too big a group of them. Too little info from you.

But Christianity isn't too big a group to be 'true'?

 

[sandwiches]

That's not answering the question. Where does this 'want' (a desire) come from?

Evolution. The drive to survive evolved like any other trait. Those who had the drive where more apt to survive to reproductive age and, therefore, pass their genes to the next generation.

From this, humans developed the simple rule of "I won't do <bad thing> to others, so I won't encourage others to do <bad thing> to me, either."

 

[sandwiches]

I always like bringing up Klebold and Harris to evolutionists, and ask them what went wrong on that fateful day.

After all, if we're just animals, what's wrong with the explanation that Klebold and Harris were nothing more than two animals going feral, as animals do?

It's sad watching evolutionists try and squirm their ways out of that point.

Usually the conversation condescends to ridicule w/i a couple of pages.

For the sake of argument, let's say they went feral, like other animals. And?

 

[Montalban]

Evolution. The drive to survive evolved like any other trait. Those who had the drive where more apt to survive to reproductive age and, therefore, pass their genes to the next generation.

From this, humans developed the simple rule of "I won't do <bad thing> to others, so I won't encourage others to do <bad thing> to me, either."

You're still not quite getting to the answer.

Is it a matter of biology - your feelings towards others?