Reply With QuoteAn answer, yes. Obvious, No.Originally Posted by Dorcus
Hitler and others with brilliant minds and influence over others have no shortage of intelligence, but would be said to have less morallity than your average Cobra.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
An obvious answer might be intelligence. The power of the human mind is remarkable you know!
An answer, yes. Obvious, No.
Hitler and others with brilliant minds and influence over others have no shortage of intelligence, but would be said to have less morallity than your average Cobra.
I'm not sure mortality is relevant. It has no bearing upon love, compassion or insight. By the way I'm not sure I'd ascribe a "brilliant mind" to Hitler. There are many other adjectives I'd prefer.
Others who have looked into this are in no doubt: "Am I wrong for thinking Hitler was a brilliant person who knew what he was doing ?
His estimated IQ is 140. I've looked over "Mein Kampf", his ability to reason and express himself demonstrates intelligence and considering his lack of formal education is impressive.
The people around him who did take an IQ test had IQs of 140 or better.
So he could be called brilliant. He made many mistakes many resulting from his damaged personality. He was distrustful and did not take advise from others but rather depended solely on his own deductions and intuition".
His "estimated' IQ! You can't estimate an IQ without a properly conducted test. People have tried this many times before and failed badly.
Hitler had obvious special qualities: his oration being paramount. He was also likely a strong character with superbly honed political nous. However, he also had failings, as his Generals would have arrested to. His character flaws were spectacular, especially his twisted ethical outlook. No one with intellect needs any God to tell them Hitler was a bad 'un.
You've made my point, intelligence has nothing to do with morality, the question remains that IF we are evolved animals, then why do we have a sense of right and wrong when other animals will simply eat each other for lunch?
Please tell me you've got something better than "Hitler was a person and he was evil" as an argument against the idea that most humans are naturally compassionate without needing to be told to be by a book
As I've pointed out, Superior Intelligence and incidentally even the God fearing bunch eat animals for lunch. By the way animals can display ethical characteristics too but one thing they can't do is purchase their lunch from Sainsbury's...yet!
If using Sainsburys correctly is the mark of being significant then we are in trouble.
Ethics in the main are seen consistently across humanity which makes us distinct from most other life forms; the question is why?
If we take the deeply flawed Darwinian view, then we have to explain WHERE we all obtained our sense of morality from? And WHEN?
I've yet to hear or see anyone do that in over four decades of asking the question.
No nothing you've mentioned here is anywhere near correct. You've got a huge learning curve I'm afraid. I'm not even sure we are distinct from other life forms with reference to ethics. We have barely scratched the surface in terms of understanding animals and I suspect zoologists will tell you there are studies which strongly suggest SOME groups of animals display ethical tendencies.
By the way, many many humans show no evidence of being ethical. Take the murderous clique running the Israeli government and their henchmen. They show less ethical qualities than your average mudskipper.
Incidentally, I'm not trying to influence your beliefs. You're entitled to believe whatever you wish as long as you cause no harm to other humans or animals and keep your beliefs to yourself. I for one believe there are fairies at the back of my garden and no one could convince me otherwise.
Nevertheless, as the plethora of man made religions go, I've always felt the old Manaechian doctrine of humans being part God and part Devil with an eternal fight for dominance by the two psyches is the best explanation of the human plight. It's a never ending struggle for mastery of our collective soul which involves intellectual heft denouncing and finally defeating bestial selfishness.
Are you really pretending to stand on the side of morality?
I have no idea how you define morality but you have claimed on this board that the Israeli government is showing restraint in its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who (I assume from everything else you have posted) you see as squatting on land that your god promised to his chosen people 3000+ years ago, as recorded in the the documents that came down to us as the Old Testament.
You are an immoral, reactionary, cheerleader for ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity - all because you have an infantile belief in a stone age to medieval book that has been mangled over generations of mistranslations and feeds your need for a supernatural explanation for the universe and our place in the world.
Your constant banging on with biblical quotes to support your far right political views is tedious, irrelevant and and offensive. You won't stop, but I can't see any reason to pander to your crap any more. You are clearly fishing, and it would be better if there were no more bites!
Why doesn't he just keep his ridiculous nonsense to himself?
Well?
Not bad for a agnostic/secular construct, but how would that be fair to non intellectuals?
The issue isn't what (for some) is the convenience of morality, but the origin of it?
So is it your belief that the Christian god is resposible for injecting humanity with morals in China (population 1.5 billion), India (population 1.5 billion) and throughout the of Muslims world (population c. 1.8 billion)? numbers
*I used Wikipedia population figures but it's not a hill I would be prepared to die on, as it were. Anyone with any nous will get the thrust of my question.
No, in fact here is what Christ said about the human heart in it's natural state:-
Matthew 15:19 - "For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander"
NB: 15 minutes of Eastenders should provide examples of most of these if clarification is needed.
Thoughts do not come from the heart.
Here is your god 'science' addressing the issue:-
The biological relationship between the heart and the brain
The heart pumps blood. It is needed for survival. The heart does not have components that manifest as thinking but it does show strong changes to emotions, but it can’t itself feel. The brain/mind allows us to think, feel, and act using many systems of neurons that work together. The brain/mind creates emotions and thoughts. We also know that the brain guides the functioning of every other organ, including the heart. Organs respond to each other and work together. They are in a feedback loop.
The heart has about 40,000 neurites (projections from a neuron’s cell body) of its own – commonly called “the little brain[1],” which is also recently 3-D mapped[2]. They monitor and adjust the heart’s functions and send signals back to the brain[3], which indirectly influences perception and decision-making. There are theories that these neurites also participate in habit-style learning and memory. In comparison to the neurites in the brain (100 billion neurons with 50-60 neurites each), 40,000 is almost zero, but not zero.
Emotions cause changes in heart rate[4], and have a unique “cardiac profile” for common emotions. Sadness increases blood pressure and resistance in the circulatory system but reduces the amount of blood pumped. Fear and joy increase systolic blood pressure. Anger increases blood output and diastolic blood pressure. Generally, emotions change 4 very important properties of the cardiovascular system: Blood pressure, heart rate variability, vascular resistance, and heart output. This is why relaxation exercises work – we can consciously control how the heart works to a small extent using emotions.
Changes in heart rate due to non-psychological reasons[5] like food, diet, organ regulation, disease, etc., affect our emotions too. In fact, the James-Lange theory of emotion (re-interpreted with new findings) states that emotions are labeled in the brain after physiological changes. And those changes then affect our perception, which again changes the body’s response. For example, a sudden change in heart rate might cause a person to worry, and then anxious thoughts coming from detecting worrisome information can further increase heart rate after that.
But the relationship between the 2 is more complicated.[6] The medulla oblongata, a part of the brainstem, is one of the most primitive regions of the brain, and it controls automatic processes like heartbeat and breathing. Damage to this area can slowly degrade breathing and heart function. In neurodegenerative disorders like ALS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s, neurons in that area can die or malfunction and eventually lead to death by cardiac arrest.
More physiological changes like physical ticking, facial expressions, pupil dilation, sweating, changes in voice, etc., indicate emotional states. That’s why the idea that emotions are physical also seems accurate in everyday scenarios. We have evolved to experience the mental aspect of emotions along with physical changes. Our sympathetic nervous system and parasympathetic nervous system connect emotions and physical changes. This association is so strong that it continuously reinforces the connection between the heart and emotion. We don’t experience one without the other. Physical changes make emotions tangible and observable to others, too. That is why we can gain some insight into other people’s emotional states by observing their physical states – especially, the heart – the speed of pumping, heaviness, and chest movement.
These observations show the heart is closely tied to emotions at a physical level, but the labeling of emotion occurs in the brain. So, using the word “heart” to represent emotions is quite natural and logical.
The heart is a muscle and pumps blood. It has little to do with morality as far as we know.
As for quoting Jesus, there's no proof he said such a thing or was the son of your god anyway.
"Source - Eastenders" is f**king ballsy, you've got to respect it
You have this weird spin about the word 'science'. It's not a belief system like religion. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Religion (yours anyway): Things written by anonymous people millenia ago writing stories (often contradictory) that often appeared in previous religions and by people who were not witnesses to the event.
Science: The most renowned and respected scientists attach their names to papers they write and provide as much evidence as they can for their peers to review.
Religion: Set in stone. God's word and 'he' is the unarguable authority. 100% true. Can't be modified.
Science: A process of trying to ascertain an understanding of the world and the universe by trial and error. Even the best scientists make mistakes and make wrong assumptions but progress seems to be made in the main. Hence the ability to destroy some cancers, enable space travel and vaccinate against diseease that were once more prevalent. No-one is the ultimate authority. Theories modify and change as more information becomes available. Not knowing something is not a problem for most thinking scientists or members of the public.
Religion Scientists throughout history have been vilified, killed and tortured for espousing theories that were contrary to the teachings of the church. Offers a reward for its believers and punishment for those who are non-believers.
Science Punishment and reward are absent.
Religion Describes non-believers as lesser people in that they are heretics, blasphemers, infidels, apostates and not going to the Christian heaven. Hugely divisive and a contributory factor to wars and conflict as a result.
Science N/A
Religion: Comes up with no evidence that seems pass a test that will satisfy the average person with analytical skills and who wasn't brought up in the religion.
Science: Findings are shared, tests can be made by others around the world and there's no monopoly on the findings (whether they stand up to later informationreceived or not)
If you equate science with your religion you are being rather ridiculous. Science, with its shortfalls due to our imperfect knowledge, is the complete antithesis of religion.
🤣🤣
You have this weird spin about the word 'science'. It's not a belief system like religion. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Religion (yours anyway): Things written by anonymous people millenia ago writing stories (often contradictory) that often appeared in previous religions and by people who were not witnesses to the event.
Science: The most renowned and respected scientists attach their names to papers they write and provide as much evidence as they can for their peers to review.
Religion: Set in stone. God's word and 'he' is the unarguable authority. 100% true. Can't be modified.
Science: A process of trying to ascertain an understanding of the world and the universe by trial and error. Even the best scientists make mistakes and make wrong assumptions but progress seems to be made in the main. Hence the ability to destroy some cancers, enable space travel and vaccinate against diseease that were once more prevalent. No-one is the ultimate authority. Theories modify and change as more information becomes available. Not knowing something is not a problem for most thinking scientists or members of the public.
Religion Scientists throughout history have been vilified, killed and tortured for espousing theories that were contrary to the teachings of the church. Offers a reward for its believers and punishment for those who are non-believers.
Science Punishment and reward are absent.
Religion Describes non-believers as lesser people in that they are heretics, blasphemers, infidels, apostates and not going to the Christian heaven. Hugely divisive and a contributory factor to wars and conflict as a result.
Science N/A
Religion: Comes up with no evidence that seems pass a test that will satisfy the average person with analytical skills and who wasn't brought up in the religion.
Science: Findings are shared, tests can be made by others around the world and there's no monopoly on the findings (whether they stand up to later information received or not)
If you equate science with your religion you are being rather ridiculous. Science, with its shortfalls due to our imperfect knowledge, is the complete antithesis of religion.
Posting Permissions