# Do Christians have a sense of humour?



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

I know what I think.

 What do you say? 

Remember, a sense of humour covers a vast spectrum of what one perceives as funny. How wide or narrow is that spectrum in the mind of a Christian? Are there more or less constraints on how they react to a given situation? And so on.

Come on, people. This should be good for a few hundred posts.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

The ones I know don't. They have so many beliefs, and if something even slightly ridicules some of those beliefs, they wont laugh. Although the religious people, of any kind, I am acquainted with are shockingly stupid as well. That isn't a generalization, it just applies to the people I know, so I'd say the spectrum is narrow. They love homophobic comments though.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> The ones I know don't. They have so many beliefs, and if something even slightly ridicules some of those beliefs, they wont laugh. Although the religious people, of any kind, I am acquainted with are shockingly stupid as well. That isn't a generalization, it just applies to the people I know, so I'd say the spectrum is narrow. They love homophobic comments though.



That sounds like the typical caricature stereotype of the American Christian right.

Christians on this site have to have a sense of humour.  It would never do to start taking Edna seriously.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

Their names are John Francis, Meredith Petut and Yvonne Perth. These are actually people I know, I am not your stereotypical...stereotypicalist? 

I remember a father at St.Albans in England, father David, was really funny and down to earth so of course...okay I'll stop taking it seriously now.


----------



## funnygirl (Aug 25, 2010)

I was brought up Christian, now I don't know if I still believe in a higher power.  However I don't think that I've gotten any funnier since I've stopped going to church. I think it depend on the religion and peoples interpretation of it.  My mother is still a Christian and some of the things she comes out with would even have you boys blushing!


----------



## garza (Aug 25, 2010)

I've known Christians who had a great sense of humour. I've known others who were of the type to lie awake at night worried that someone, somewhere, was having fun, as the old saw says.

You cannot make a general statement about any large group of people. You'll find that as soon as you do, someone will prove you wrong.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

Some do and some don't. They range evrywhere from lax, easygoing guys with great senses of humor, to Puritanical prudes.


----------



## ArcThomas (Aug 25, 2010)

More.
true Christians simply have a lower spectrum of humor for SEX and MURDER.
it's still just as easy fro them to laugh at the understanding of anything else without being insulted.
In addition they get to laugh at Atheists in all their stupidity. that's like comparing the rainbow of humor to the expanding sky beyond.

but overall it's always as in anything. the individual.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

erm...what's funny about murder?


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> erm...what's funny about murder?


 
I suppose a Christian targeted  thread is the right place for you to throw temptation in my path.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

ArcThomas said:


> In addition they get to laugh at Atheists in all their stupidity. that's like comparing the rainbow of humor to the expanding sky beyond.


I hope _you _know what you're talking about. I'm sure no one else does.


----------



## funnygirl (Aug 25, 2010)

When I was younger I wanted more than anything to write a creepy, atmospheric thriller. Whilst describing the murder it just kept on coming out so darn funny, disturbingly so. Needless to say I gave up that little dream.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

The film "The Wrong Box" is worth a mention.  I suppose black comedy hasn't reached the outback.

[video=youtube;j73-5LRVHWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73-5LRVHWM&feature=related[/video]


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

funnygirl said:


> When I was younger I wanted more than anything to write a creepy, atmospheric thriller. Whilst describing the murder it just kept on coming out so darn funny, disturbingly so. Needless to say I gave up that little dream.


Perhaps you should have kept on writing instead of squelching that particular dream. Next time something comes out funny, why not go with the flow?


----------



## vangoghsear (Aug 25, 2010)

Two cannibals were eating a clown, one turned to the other and said, "Does this taste funny to you?"

I went to a comedy club with a group from my church.  The first comedian was hilarious, but a bit off-color in his humor.  There was only one person who came with our group (which included a ninety year old woman who had a blast) that was offended.  She was the daughter of a now retired, overly conservative, Methodist Pastor.  She is also mentally unbalanced (really) and does not know how to deal with life in general, largely due to her overbearing, conservative father.  We all knew before she even got there that she would be offended and wondered why she came with us.

I'm considered by many people to be funny.  I've been nominated for funniest member several years in a row on a very active science website.  I've done stand up routines that I've written, and I write comical plays, puppet shows, and skits.

I agree that sense of humor needs to be evaluated on an individual basis.


----------



## alanmt (Aug 25, 2010)

I am Christian.  I have a sense of humor.


----------



## chimchimski (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm a Christian...I hope I have a sense of humor, the ability to laugh is a wonderful way to enjoy life.  I suppose it's what we laugh at that might set us apart  but it's that way if we are Christian or not.  What I might find funny, wouldn't be funny to my neighbor and vice versa.  Take this thread for instance, it made me laugh and I enjoy the postings of each of you.  I don't laugh at other people and their beliefs.  I will, however, laugh at the guy who was caught "copulating" with his cow.  
It just goes to reason, we are all different even those who believe and worship the same way.


----------



## k3ng (Aug 25, 2010)

alanmt said:


> I am Christian.  I have a sense of humor.


 
Sounds like a T-Shirt right there.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't know about Christians, but Jews...


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

Jews what?


----------



## Matthatter (Aug 25, 2010)

> Remember, a sense of humour covers a vast spectrum of what one perceives as funny.



Maybe you should have kept that in mind when making the title.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

Hitler was a jew, he had a sense of... Woody Allen is a jew.

Jackie Mason, Mel Brooks, Jerry Lewis, Larry David, Lenny Bruce, Garry Shandling. C'mon, don't be silly.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

KangTheMad said:


> Jews what?


 
Have always been involved in American comedy in disproportion to their numbers.

Robin Williams had a recent HBO special (_Weapons of Self Destruction_).  He joked that he went on a German talkshow and they asked him, "Robin, why isn't there more comedy in Germany?" and he responded, "I don't know. Do think that it might be because you killed all the funny people?"

Cracked me up.

Even the Hasids, who could be considered Jewish fundementalists, have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badchen



> a scholarly comedian who traditionally entertains before and after Ashkenazic Jewish weddings. They are generally learned men comparable to a _maggid_ or sermonizer.[1]


----------



## Lamperoux (Aug 26, 2010)

I used to be christian but a couple years ago I just kinda started to think, in such a large universe, who are we to say that we are to be a chosen people by a universal force. It just doesn't make sense like that. I prefer to prescribe to the notion of Deists, that there is a God, but we are a tiny cpeck in a large universe, and we are probably not a chosen race or anything of the sort. I don't exactly like organized religion. My parents don't know anyhitng about this though, as i'm only 15 and i don't feel like getting kicked out of the house, or letting my parents suffer extreme sorrow lateron in thier old age. I guess it'll be a secret for the btter though. 

I think christians have a sens of humor, they're like everyone else.


----------



## garza (Aug 26, 2010)

Lamperoux - You are on the right, though difficult, road in not letting your parents know how you feel. If they are deeply religious and believe that you are, they would be hurt if they were to find out diffrently.

My family was not quite the same. When I was eight years old I read the Bible and became an atheist. When I told my mother, she told me not to let the neighbours hear. She was what I call a 'social Christian'. For her the church was a big social club and your standing in the community depended on your active participation in the club, the same way my father thought of his membership in the country club.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 26, 2010)

Really? But that must have been...horrible for you. I couldn't bear pretending to be something I'm not.


----------



## Lamperoux (Aug 26, 2010)

well here is the issue for me. I don't hate my parents. I wouldn't want to hurt them .Also, telling them now would get me kicked out or something. By the time i finish college and crap, I don't think it's my place to break thier hearts like that. I'm consoled through the fact that I AM being who i am by trying to protect those i love form unneeded heartbreak. In the end, some lies are worth it, at least that's how i see it with this.

and thanks Garza for your support. You really don't know how much it means just because someo ne says something. I go to a catholic school so i'm defintely not going to find someone to relate to THERE!


----------



## badjoke (Aug 26, 2010)

Lamperoux said:


> well here is the issue for me. I don't hate my parents. I wouldn't want to hurt them .Also, telling them now would get me kicked out or something. By the time i finish college and crap, I don't think it's my place to break thier hearts like that. I'm consoled through the fact that I AM being who i am by trying to protect those i love form unneeded heartbreak. In the end, some lies are worth it, at least that's how i see it with this.
> 
> and thanks Garza for your support. You really don't know how much it means just because someo ne says something. I go to a catholic school so i'm defintely not going to find someone to relate to THERE!



Yeah, you'll be okay. You only have to masquerade for a couple more years. It's much easier to hide when you're not living at home anymore. And you'd be surprised by how many atheists there are in Catholic schools. It's hard to find like minds, though, if you can't express your feelings/opinions. That's what the internet is for.


----------



## Lamperoux (Aug 27, 2010)

you won't believe the LACK of aethiests in my school. None, whatsoever. Everyone there uses religion as a facade, a cover to thier promiscuous and generally immoral lifestyles. People say that being an aethiests makes you immoral or soemting like that, i tend to say it goes the other way. When you don't think there is any such thing as a free pass, a life beyond this, you tend to live this life in a much better fashion. 

The one thing i love the internet for is the fact that minds whihc would never meet do meet. There are not many people who have the same interests as me where i live, so its hard to find someone to talk to generally. Thats the reason i don't have a facebook or anything, it's really no use when there's no one that really would liek to see it. You could refer to me as an outcast, but i don't mind it. I am who i am.


----------



## garza (Aug 27, 2010)

Lamperoux - Here's a basic rule of life: People who think for themselves are often outcasts. The social-networking crowd search for that comfortable place where everyone thinks alike and no one is 'different'. 

And here's something to think about. Do you think the software for social networking was written by 'one of the crowd', or by a geek sitting somewhere in a room with a computer, thinking for himself about what next step might be possible?

But being an 'outcast' dosen't have to mean alienating yourself from the rest of the world. I enjoy being with people, around people, people of all sorts, and little do they realise how thorough my mental note-taking can be. My own humanistic-atheistic code of conduct goes like this: To help someone is good. To hurt someone is bad. To be able to help someone and fail to do so is bad. Simple to the point of being simplistic, but it's worked for me for a long time now.


----------



## copperflyingace (Aug 27, 2010)

I'm a born and raised Christian, Quite conservative too, but humor is one of the few worldly things that keep me going. Though, I do tend to have a rather off-beat, situational sense of humor. Humor is humor, and its built in to the human experience and can't really be destroyed unless through outstanding circumstances. The only discrepancy is really _what_ someone finds funny. For example, I don't think cklowns are very funny. Nothing against them, they just kinda creep me out. Same with sex jokes. Its not really that I'm against people making them, I just think its a bit juvenile and there are other things that are a lot funnier. Like kittens!


----------



## JosephB (Aug 27, 2010)

Did you hear the one about the two clowns who were having sex?


----------



## copperflyingace (Aug 27, 2010)

yeah, one clown looked at the other and said, "You taste funny" (I'll let your dirty mind fill in the rest)


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 27, 2010)

Didn't Joe already do that one somewhere as a cannibal joke?


----------



## Lamperoux (Aug 27, 2010)

garza said:


> Lamperoux - Here's a basic rule of life: People who think for themselves are often outcasts. The social-networking crowd search for that comfortable place where everyone thinks alike and no one is 'different'.
> 
> And here's something to think about. Do you think the software for social networking was written by 'one of the crowd', or by a geek sitting somewhere in a room with a computer, thinking for himself about what next step might be possible?
> 
> But being an 'outcast' dosen't have to mean alienating yourself from the rest of the world. I enjoy being with people, around people, people of all sorts, and little do they realise how thorough my mental note-taking can be. My own humanistic-atheistic code of conduct goes like this: To help someone is good. To hurt someone is bad. To be able to help someone and fail to do so is bad. Simple to the point of being simplistic, but it's worked for me for a long time now.



i think you have me wrong here. I"ve never aliented myself. I just feel a bit on the outside. I socialize, and have fun. I've never really been a selfish person either, more of a mellow indiviual. I appreciate differences, i don't like it, though, when people refuse to appreciate mine.


----------



## garza (Aug 27, 2010)

See below. One of the little people apparently messed about with something or other...


----------



## garza (Aug 27, 2010)

Certainly you have not alienated yourself. Had you done so, you would not be such an active participant here.

There must, however, be made a clear distinction between those who have alienated themselves and those who simply stand a  bit apart from the herd, due largely to that annoying habit some of us have of thinking for ourselves, of always asking 'why' and never being quite satisfied with the answers we are given. We are, in a sense, 'outcasts', but never cast out so far as to lose touch with the rest of humanity. We continue to be capable of sitting over a pint in the local, laughing with our mates over the antics of some rogue minister of government and shouting ourselves hoarse at a football match. 

But for all that we do listen a bit more than we talk. We do take note of what is said and we do write it down later. Ten fellows sit at a bar and argue over whether Spain's style of football is outdated, and nine of them won't remember a word that's said come tomorrow. The tenth, who sat a bit apart, who said a bit less, will remember. The commentary he writes about the direction football is going will have an influence far beyond the over-loud opinions of the others at the bar.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 28, 2010)

Typical Mississippian. Always blaming others.


----------



## garza (Aug 28, 2010)

Ay, my grandfather taught me it was the little people who brought distress. But never a word must be said against them, mind.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 28, 2010)

Christianity and humour both cover a wide spectrum, you did read "He called himself a Eutherian"?


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 28, 2010)

Wide spectrum, he says? Most Christians are so narrow-minded they can peer through a keyhole with both eyes at once. \\/


----------



## JosephB (Aug 28, 2010)

Heh. While other narrow-minded people indulge in retarded stereotypes.


----------



## Lamperoux (Aug 28, 2010)

garza said:


> Certainly you have not alienated yourself. Had you done so, you would not be such an active participant here.
> 
> There must, however, be made a clear distinction between those who have alienated themselves and those who simply stand a  bit apart from the herd, due largely to that annoying habit some of us have of thinking for ourselves, of always asking 'why' and never being quite satisfied with the answers we are given. We are, in a sense, 'outcasts', but never cast out so far as to lose touch with the rest of humanity. We continue to be capable of sitting over a pint in the local, laughing with our mates over the antics of some rogue minister of government and shouting ourselves hoarse at a football match.
> 
> But for all that we do listen a bit more than we talk. We do take note of what is said and we do write it down later. Ten fellows sit at a bar and argue over whether Spain's style of football is outdated, and nine of them won't remember a word that's said come tomorrow. The tenth, who sat a bit apart, who said a bit less, will remember. The commentary he writes about the direction football is going will have an influence far beyond the over-loud opinions of the others at the bar.


 
i believe people like you, me, and many others are that tenth person. It's not a bod thing, it's just a...thing. And things like the internet help people like that connect. You can always appreciate differences, but sometimes you need a few people to agree with. Guys like you and a few others, i can agree with, not fully mind you, but for the most part.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 28, 2010)

Well, I've known a few people who think they're the "tenth person" -- that they're marching to a different drummer -- when actually, they're just clueless.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 28, 2010)

From the op
  Remember, a sense of humour covers a vast spectrum of what one perceives as funny. How wide or narrow is that spectrum in the mind of a Christian?

   Olly:- Christianity and humour both cover a wide spectrum, you did read "He called himself a Eutherian"?
  Ox:-  Wide spectrum, he says? Most Christians are so narrow-minded they can peer through a keyhole with both eyes at once.

  In fact you posted in that thread

  I didn't know anyone else did that besides me. When I was much much younger I too described myself as a Christian, on forms asking for religion.

  Hmmm ...


----------



## RoundEye (Aug 28, 2010)

Sometimes I wonder if the forum, Christian or not, doesn’t have a major stoic stick stuck up its collective asses.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 28, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> Olly:- Christianity and humour both cover a wide spectrum, you did read "He called himself a Eutherian"?
> Ox:- Wide spectrum, he says? Most Christians are so narrow-minded they can peer through a keyhole with both eyes at once.
> 
> In fact you posted in that thread
> ...


Didn't you ever learn from your mistakes? I _did _say 'when I was much younger.'


----------



## garza (Aug 28, 2010)

JosephB - Some of us don't march to any drummer atall atall. We make it up as we go along. We don't really go against the flow, we just don't get swept up in it, is all. And as Lamperoux says, each of us on the edge of the herd will sing a slightly different song. 

It's been my experience that even those Christians with a well-developed sense of humour stay pretty much in step with others of their particular faith. There is far less of the self-mockery such as you will find among Jews, for example. 

My paternal grandmother, daughter of a rabbi, would laugh at herself faster than she would laugh at anything else. My maternal grandmother, raised to the age of 14 as an Orange Presbyterian, then converting to Roman Catholicism when she married my Irish grandfather, found nothing in life funny. She combined in her personal belief system the cold austerity of the Kirk with the complex regulations of the Church and kept herself so busy trying not to break any rules that she never had time to laugh.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 28, 2010)

garza said:


> JosephB - Some of us don't march to any drummer atall atall. We make it up as we go along. We don't really go against the flow, we just don't get swept up in it, is all. And as Lamperoux says, each of us on the edge of the herd will sing a slightly different song.



Well, some of us make up some things as we go along -- but sometimes we see that what other people are doing is the smart thing --and we do that. People who are nonconformists, just the sake of it, annoy me.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 29, 2010)

Joe, how are you able to tell whether a non-conformist is being non-conformist just for the sake of it or is a genuine non-conformist? Have you figured out the mind-reading trick? \\/


----------



## Like a Fox (Aug 29, 2010)

garza said:


> JosephB - Some of us don't march to any drummer atall atall. We make it up as we go along. We don't really go against the flow, we just don't get swept up in it, is all. And as Lamperoux says, each of us on the edge of the herd will sing a slightly different song.
> 
> It's been my experience that even those Christians with a well-developed sense of humour stay pretty much in step with others of their particular faith. There is far less of the self-mockery such as you will find among Jews, for example.
> 
> My paternal grandmother, daughter of a rabbi, would laugh at herself faster than she would laugh at anything else. My maternal grandmother, raised to the age of 14 as an Orange Presbyterian, then converting to Roman Catholicism when she married my Irish grandfather, found nothing in life funny. She combined in her personal belief system the cold austerity of the Kirk with the complex regulations of the Church and kept herself so busy trying not to break any rules that she never had time to laugh.



Surely the expression 'marches to their own drum' means the exact same thing as 'sings a slightly different song'. Just mixing up the metaphor there.

As for Christians and their sense of humour - I'm a self deprecating Catholic and write mainly humour because that's what I'm good at.
But humour is so subjective. Going by all the riff raff on dating sites, (a reliable source), everyone thinks they have a 'GSOH'. The 'G' is debatable.


----------



## garza (Aug 29, 2010)

xO - It's easy to tell the difference. 

One who is being different for the sake of being different always draws a lot of attention to himself. He is a poseur without any convictions of his own. He not only stands outside the herd, he runs up and down waving his arms shouting 'look at me'. He tends to dress funny. In a crowd of religious people he will loudly proclaim his atheism, or his belief in some religion totally different from the crowd. His personal ego tends to appear bigger than the collective ego of the herd, but often it's because he feels inadequate, unable to keep up with the herd. He needs somehow to prove his own worth, at least to himself. In making the effort he is often a pain in the tuckus. 

The genuine non-conformist isn't interested in drawing attention to himself. His main distinction is his unwillingness to accept without question the attitudes and actions of the herd. As I said in my previous post, 'We don't really go against the flow, we just don't get swept up in it, is all.' In everyday life he blends in. He dosen't hide his personal convictions on religion or politics, but neither does he go out of his way to proclaim them. He just has that annoying habit, as mentioned before, of thinking for himself.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 29, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *Like a Fox*
> 
> 
> Going by all the riff raff on dating sites, (a reliable source), everyone thinks they have a 'GSOH'. The 'G' is debatable.


 
I always thought that meant 'Great Sex Offered Here'


----------



## Like a Fox (Aug 29, 2010)

Haha. In that scenario the G is definitely debatable.


----------



## citygirl (Nov 23, 2010)

the ones I know sure do........


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 23, 2010)

I think on the whole, Christians can be funny, but in their own way.

I think that most Christians (along with most other religious types) have that belief because they need to believe in something more. It provides a reason for living, and a reward for living well. Sadly, it also gives them the leniency to think of themselves as being better than 'non believers'.

These traits restrict how Christians interact with others, including the humour they're 'allowed' to find funny. 

A Christian may find this funny;
Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says, "you drive, I'll man the guns".

Where there wouldn't find this one funny;
Q. What's six inches long, two inches wide, and drives women wild?
A. Money 

Mostly, religions these days restrict more than they allow. They also encourage people to develop mental disorders. Because, who as a kid wants to believe that every noise they hear at night is an evil spirit coming to steal their soul. Worse that some of these kids do actually see things at night. 

Tell someone that they're going to heaven, where few other people are. Tell them that they cannot lie, steal, swear, have sex (before marriage), drink, etc, etc, or they'll suffer in a fiery torment.. and you'll end up with someone who is set apart from other people, and restricted in how they can live their lives. This, I think, is why Christians develop a different sense of humour to others.

>Note; I'm not suggesting that religions are wrong in any way. Just pointing out some of my views (which are fallible) on what 'symptoms' a person can develop if they are religious.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 23, 2010)

> Sometimes I wonder if the forum, Christian or not, doesn’t have a major stoic stick stuck up its collective asses.



Quick question - is this forum a Christian forum now? I stopped posting for a few years and noticed when I started posting again there are a lot of Christian orientated threads.

In regards to the OP. Everyone has a sense of humour although it's all relative and what may be funny to a group of Christians may not be funny to a group of Muslims.

Does anyone think Muslims, Seikhs and Jews have a sense of humour?


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 23, 2010)

Amber Leaf said:


> Does anyone think Muslims, Seikhs and Jews have a sense of humour?


 
You have to have a sense of humour when you wear a funny hat.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 23, 2010)

> You have to have a sense of humour when you wear a funny hat.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 23, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> I know what I think.
> 
> What do you say?
> 
> ...



Humor is a phenotypic behavior of the human species. One's religion, politics, or educational attainment has little to do with it.


YouTube - Fr Stan Fortuna - Part 1


----------



## JosephB (Nov 23, 2010)

It's pretty silly -- the extent to which some people are willing to stereotype and make generalizations about such a large and diverse group of people.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 23, 2010)

garza said:


> Lamperoux - Here's a basic rule of life: People who think for themselves are often outcasts. The social-networking crowd search for that comfortable place where everyone thinks alike and no one is 'different'.
> 
> And here's something to think about. Do you think the software for social networking was written by 'one of the crowd', or by a geek sitting somewhere in a room with a computer, thinking for himself about what next step might be possible?
> 
> But being an 'outcast' dosen't have to mean alienating yourself from the rest of the world. I enjoy being with people, around people, people of all sorts, and little do they realise how thorough my mental note-taking can be. *My own humanistic-atheistic code of conduct goes like this: To help someone is good. To hurt someone is bad. To be able to help someone and fail to do so is bad. Simple to the point of being simplistic, but it's worked for me for a long time now.*




I believe you have that conviction. I do.

But I'd be curious as to why you do?

Irrespective of religion, politics, education, or race... the world of fighting arts has taken note of a certain universal phenotype behavior among humans. Often times novice male fighters when feeling overwhelmed by an opponent will start tapping their opponent lightly or not at all. Essentially the novice fighter feels that if he touches lightly or fights little then his opponent will take mercy on him and not beat the day lights out of him. 

If no God exists why not eat my neighbor, forcibly take his wife and his possessions? I can't fear punishment of God, so, is it that I fear punishment of either karma or from that of other human beings? 

If karma or God (not the same concepts) does not exist I really don't understand how one logically cashes out with the belief: _To not help Person X when Person X is in need of help is bad_.

But I can understand it possibly... in terms of Game Theory. Are your convictions borne of Game Theory or of a sense of morality and immorality?





Pimp Snooky (from another thread I made) has had plenty of sex and has 23 kids he takes care of. He is a millionaire now too. Surely he fits well within the evolutionary principle of "Fitness." Fitness being reproductive success and and the success of genes and traits to replicate themselves. If God does not exist... how then does one logically cash out at the notion that Pimp Snooky is "bad" or immoral in his relationships with women (or whores)?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 23, 2010)

garza said:


> My paternal grandmother, daughter of a rabbi, would laugh at herself faster than she would laugh at anything else. My maternal grandmother, raised to the age of 14 as an Orange Presbyterian, then converting to Roman Catholicism when she married my Irish grandfather, found nothing in life funny. She combined in her personal belief system the cold austerity of the Kirk with the complex regulations of the Church and kept herself so busy trying not to break any rules that she never had time to laugh.



Was your maternal grandmother of the Celtic stock and a product of Irish or Northern Irish culture?

I ask because the City of Milwaukee in Wisconsin was by the late 1800 over 80% European immigrants. Most of those immigrants were Catholic. The Catholic Germans, Poles, Italian/Sicilians, and Irish could not get a long well. The Italians were thought of as religiously ignorant about their own faith (only knowing to pray to the Virgin and cross themselves) and the Irish were regarded as a very severe and serious people in terms of how they expressed their own Catholicism. 

Some traits are more ethnic than specifically religious. I don't think one can argue well that the Southern Italian culture of the 1600's or the culture of Rio de Janiero of the early 1900's, were more gloomy societies than atheist run societies of Eastern Europe under the communists.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 23, 2010)

I think that the ability to laugh at and lampoon oneself is a virtue unto itself.

[video=youtube;CiUC9qXPWjk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiUC9qXPWjk[/video]


----------



## Patrick (Nov 23, 2010)

In all honesty, I have a very clumsy sense of humour... which is why I laugh when I fall over.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 23, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> In all honesty, I have a very clumsy sense of humour... which is why I laugh when I fall over.



Luckily, you don't fall over when you laugh, otherwise watching Monty Python-while walking a tightrope-with a mouth full of jello squares-between two skyscrapers, could be dangerous.


----------



## Scarlett_156 (Nov 23, 2010)

> *                     Do Christians have a sense of humour?                 *
> 
> I know what I think.
> 
> What do you say?


I don't know.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 23, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> If no God exists why not eat my neighbor, forcibly take his wife and his possessions? I can't fear punishment of God, so, is it that I fear punishment of either karma or from that of other human beings?
> 
> If karma or God (not the same concepts) does not exist I really don't understand how one logically cashes out with the belief: _To not help Person X when Person X is in need of help is bad_.
> 
> But I can understand it possibly... in terms of Game Theory. Are your convictions borne of Game Theory or of a sense of morality and immorality?


Because evolution has developed in us a sense of empathy. That which allows us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. Think for a moment on why people find sports and reality tv shows so exciting... it's because we have empathy. Studies show that the same neurons fire when watching sport, as when playing sport; when watching, we actually feel like we're there.

To help propagate the species, this part of our brain evolved to the point where we felt 'bad' when impinging on another negatively. We feel for them, as if we were them. You see it all the time when females ask that simple question 'how could someone do that'. It's unfathomable to them because they can more easily put themselves in someone else's shoes, and the thought of treating someone poorly grates against their sensibilities. 

People that commit crimes are either desperate, or they have not developed a sense of empathy.

I think, in some ways, people more readily accept religion because that sense coincides with what 'god's will' dictates. They mesh their emotions with gods will, and feel closer to god as a result.

(I use the lower case 'g' with purpose here.. mostly because I believe that the 'gods' of most religions are not true Gods. - there are many levels of spiritual evolution.)


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

KrisMunro said:


> Because evolution has developed in us a sense of empathy. That which allows us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. Think for a moment on why people find sports and reality tv shows so exciting... it's because we have empathy. Studies show that the same neurons fire when watching sport, as when playing sport; when watching, we actually feel like we're there.
> 
> To help propagate the species, this part of our brain evolved to the point where we felt 'bad' when impinging on another negatively. We feel for them, as if we were them. You see it all the time when females ask that simple question 'how could someone do that'. It's unfathomable to them because they can more easily put themselves in someone else's shoes, and the thought of treating someone poorly grates against their sensibilities.
> 
> ...



We observe empathy and altruism among human organisms within a population of human beings. Evolutionary theorists have sought to explain why these things exist and how it fits in the framework of natural selection.

I think your explanation though, Kris, would be more accurately referred to as a "Just So Story" as opposed to anything we could ever hope to quantify as a scientific law.

Propagation of the species does not require "empathy" either. The world of lower animal species is one of brutality. Lower animals can't "murder" per se as that is something legally and ethically distinguished from "killing" (e.g., siblingcides vs self defense). But if many of those killings where regarded as homicides as they would be in the world of humans (like many male animals forcibly take sex from females that humans would regard as "rape"), much of the lower animal world would have homicide rates it has been estimated, roughly 1000 times that of the most violent U.S. cities. Nonetheless, lower animal species still propagate.

But more importantly, "empathy" does not adequately explain how reproducing with a woman through rape is objectively wrong, or how killing off her children produced by another male and impregnating her (as male lions are known to do) is objectively immoral or "bad"?


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 24, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand... I'm a little confused as to the direction you're heading towards, so I'm sorry if this doesn't really connect with your comments.

All animals have some connection with their own species, and treat with them differently than they do with other species. Even within species, there can be conflict between different groups. In selected species, cannibalism is acceptable, much like in some human cultures it has been. Your comments are similar to this, but I'm not sure how you pointing this out cancels out empathy as a desirable evolutionary trait.

A species that is empathic is one that is more likely to survive because they work together. They are more likely to provide for others despite an overall lack in food/supplies. They will also be less likely to harm each other. On the whole, the more empathic a group is, the more likely they are to survive as a group (conditional to their means).

To further support this, there are a variety of species that exile members that do not conform to socially acceptable behaviour. Some even kill them to prevent further mistreatment. Both of these cases reduce/prevent the chances of those traits being continued.

Also, there are numerous studies on imprinting (some also include sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect) which explain that various species are wired to connect to someone/thing in the first few weeks of birth. This connection establishes a bond which usually cannot be shaken. This trait provides a benchmark for appropriate mates, and prompts a desire to be with/near others of the same species, particularly the one upon which the imprinting occurred.

There are numerous other examples of how people connect empathically with others. They all serve a purpose in the propagation of the species.


To pay some attention to your comments; they seem to focus around people performing in socially unacceptable ways. Such as:





> "empathy" does not adequately explain how reproducing with a woman through rape is objectively wrong.


You're right.. but that's not my argument. Empathy cannot tell you rape is wrong, it only allows you to connect with others. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in nature. I challenge you to find me any example, within nature, where there are only two components; only a positive and a negative (nowhere in between). There can be no right or wrong in nature, so applying human reasoning to their method's is a moot point.

Empathy comes into place, in these cases, where there is a perceived suffering. Killing can be good, when it's merciful. I'm not going to get caught up saying rape is good.. because it's clearly not. But we, as a civilised race 'know' this. Animals do not have the same considerations. Their need to reproduce outweighs their empathic nature; remember my comment earlier regarding people being desperate enough..?

On the whole, empathy always works towards the survival of the species over the individual. Something that in a highly desirable trait for any species to have.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

KrisMunro said:


> Empathy comes into place, in these cases, where there is a perceived suffering. Killing can be good, when it's merciful. I'm not going to get caught up saying rape is good.. because it's clearly not. But we, as a civilised race 'know' this. *Animals do not have the same considerations. Their need to reproduce outweighs their empathic nature; remember my comment earlier regarding people being desperate enough..?*



:| I dunno... I subscribe to the belief that all men are potential rapists and that it is only social indoctrination and other pressures (such as punishment e.g., prison, lynchings) that stop men from raping. 



> On the whole, empathy always works towards the survival of the species over the individual. Something that in a highly desirable trait for any species to have.


Well... my understanding of natural selection is that it is a process indifferent to the welfare of the group. So, selection is not working as some sort of "mind" with the goal of propagation of the species, but impacts the species because Organism A is able to pass on and reproduce Gene X of his or her genome. Organism A must prove more successful at reproduction than Organisms B, C, D, and E for Gene X to show a statistical dominance within that organism's population. 

Given that... I hardly see how the "empathetic" male proves more successful than the male that is cunning, ruthless, and "heartless"?

Criminals aren't just "desperate" either. Not if they're white collar criminals. But I think what is more important is that even assuming my understanding about evolution or any biological causes of human empathy are lacking, the particular theory of the evolutionary roots of empathy you have given is suggestive at best. It's not like gravity - everything on earth subject to it. This empathy thing is highly variable.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 24, 2010)

Such is the trouble with making generalisations. Especially when considering that humans as a species have effectively stopped most forms of natural selection.

But I can put forth some more arguments that support the idea of species working towards the group rather than the self, particularly with insects. Many 'hivemind' insects work in such ways, as far as setting up tactics where they sacrifice a few to give the remainder time to prepare defenses. Those few that delay attacks from other insects do so willingly, and with no thought to self preservation.

Crime within human societies isn't so much about empathy, rather it's a lack of genetic evolution moving as quickly as our laws. I do disagree that most men are rapists.. I've never had such thoughts, and am disinclined to believe that others have them. This belief is in place despite research suggesting that roughly 1 in 3 men will rape someone in their lives (which includes those occasions where the woman says 'no' part way through or after the event). I think I've just got a more calmer nature than most.. and I'm more content living in a world where I believe others are the same.

The desire for the self can in certain circumstances outweigh a sense of empathy. And I'm sure this is the case for most criminals. But if you ask them, and I've seen research into this, nearly all criminals consider themselves to be good people. Despite all the things they've done, they can still reason with themselves an 'excuse' for their actions which allows them to be good people. This says to me that they inherently want to be good.. and that means they have empathy; wanting to be accepted by others, and included in the group.


----------



## SilverMoon (Nov 24, 2010)

I once attended a Congregational church service. They had three young boys dressed as the three wise men, rapping "Oh, Holy Night" up the aisle. The whole body movement thang going on. Pretty funny! Cute. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JD_8s57mvk&feature=related


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 25, 2010)

Kris,

I'm taught that selection is blind. That selection as a process is indifferent to the welfare of the group.

Cooperation, empathy, altruism have their part. That said, the individual human organism centuries or thousands of years ago lived in a potentially brutal world where might made right (no police force, courts, moral philosophers etc.). I can't see the empathetic male winning reproductively.

Frankly, a lot of evolutionary theory today... in my opinion... is paralleling the misguidance of Eugenics. That many people can't see some of the blatant contradictions just evidences the political involvement and self deception.

The notion of protecting girls from realization of intraspecies competition with regard to fawning over sexy or beautiful women is hilarious in itself.

Much of evolutionary theory (not all) has become a "Just So Story."

If Genesis is a Babyloinan fable passed down and equivalent to a monkey, my suspicion is much of evolutionary theory today is no more than a monkey with lipstick on. 

If a man can intellectually come to terms with (a) no God existing and (b) karma not existing and (c) that humans have evolved to have "empathy," then the same man should be able to rape, steal, extort, con, intimidate himself into the best possible position. 

I think many men if they believe a then they *fear *b being false and karma existing.

Then you have Jesuit Priests that are medical doctors... they vow celibacy, obedience, and poverty, and by doing so complicate our understanding of evolutionary selection. Assuming they don't reproduce they lack "Fitness."


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 25, 2010)

Jesuit Priest that was one of Chicago's top medical doctors, he give a lecture, and he show humor while at the sane time talking both faith, science, and medicine.

Living Longer: Myles Sheehan, S.J., M.D. | CETconnect Video | Video on Demand



> Myles N. Sheehan, S.J., M.D., discusses the medical aspects of living  longer at the Living Longer: The Medical, Social and Ethical  Consequences conference. Sheehan is senior associate dean for  educational programs at Loyola University Chicago's Stritch School of  Medicine. He is a specialist in internal medicine and geriatrics, and  has been listed as one of Chicago's top doctors every year since 2001. A  Jesuit priest, he was a contributor to the 2001 Illinois Bishop's  Pastoral Facing the End of Life.Video courtesy of Xavier University.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 25, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand: I think the distinction we're making lies in consideration of singular humans as opposed to groups of humans. I agree, that in times past, the strongest rose to power and flourished. But for each 1 person that rises like this, there are many more than reside under his heel. The mistake I think you're making is with the assumption that only the strong flourish.

I'd argue that the division between social compliance and antisocial behaviour stems from these two types of people; the strong who force their way up, and the weaker who have to adapt to survive.

Most people gain a true sense of empathy between the ages 12 to 15. Some get it much earlier, some never. My argument is that those with a delayed, or non-existent, sense of empathy would be those who were much stronger and had no need for it.

I think my stance here is supported purely by the fact that people are capable of empathy. How else could such a think come to be if not from evolution (or as God intended).



> ...that humans have evolved to have "empathy," then the same man should be  able to rape, steal, extort, con, intimidate himself into the best  possible position.


I'm thinking you may not have the same concept of empathy that I do. A strong enough sense of empathy would prevent someone from raping, stealing, extorting, etc. Or do you suggest that they find some pleasure in causing others to suffer?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 25, 2010)

KrisMunro said:


> I'm thinking you may not have the same concept of empathy that I do. A strong enough sense of empathy would prevent someone from raping, stealing, extorting, etc. Or do you suggest that they find some pleasure in causing others to suffer?



I just think a person should be able to override any empathy with knowledge and reason. 

If I have went to school and learned my empathy is biologically derived from evolutionary process that occurred long ago... I should be like the man that learns to fly a rocket to the moon. If neither God nor karma exists then if I see a man with a pot of gold I should strangle him and take it. Assuming the benefits outweigh the risk and costs. If the risk and costs are too high than I should leave him alone or cooperate with him. :|

Other than that... the intelligent and courageous thing to do would be to kill him and take what I want. One should be trying to amass as much property and sex as they can in life. The only possible way to immortality is that your genes live on. Therefore one should be amassing as many wives, concubines, slaves as they can or raping when capable (within the risk/benefit ratio) capable. 

I don't say that to be a smart ass. I honestly view that as the most reasonable thing if in fact no God or karma exists. Bearing in mind other risks and costs of course e.g., prison, members of the prey's family or pack attacking you or your offspring etc.


----------



## caelum (Nov 25, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> If neither God nor karma exists then if I see a man with a pot of gold I should strangle him and take it. Assuming the benefits outweigh the risk and costs. If the risk and costs are too high than I should leave him alone or cooperate with him. :|



I find this a very disturbed way of looking at how to respond to the situation, and besides, it _is_ against human nature and the way we have evolved.  You seem to be arguing humans aren't naturally empathetic, but it is something that we've taught ourselves.  This is wrong.  Humans are extremely empathetic, social animals, hence our wide range of emotions and ability to communicate them, (smiling, frowning, laughing).

Empathy and functioning social relationships that don't involve rape and murder exist because it increases the species' chance of survival.  Killing, stealing, and raping all the time is unnatural, and if everyone behaved like that humanity wouldn't last very long.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 25, 2010)

Most people are born with the capacity for empathy. But empathy comes from experiential learning, mostly what we're exposed to in early development. In a sense, it is something we've taught and continue to teach ourselves.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 25, 2010)

caelum said:


> I find this a very disturbed way of looking at how to respond to the situation, and besides, it _is_ against human nature and the way we have evolved.  You seem to be arguing humans aren't naturally empathetic, but it is something that we've taught ourselves.  This is wrong.  Humans are extremely empathetic, social animals, hence our wide range of emotions and ability to communicate them, (smiling, frowning, laughing).
> 
> Empathy and functioning social relationships that don't involve rape and murder exist because it increases the species' chance of survival.  Killing, stealing, and raping all the time is unnatural, and if everyone behaved like that humanity wouldn't last very long.





JosephB said:


> Most people are born with the capacity for  empathy. But empathy comes from experiential learning, mostly what we're  exposed to in early development. In a sense, it is something we've  taught and continue to teach ourselves.



I didn't mean to suggest or imply that, Caelum.

I would agree with Joseph as well as with you and Kris about our biological ability for empathy.

Empathy after all allows us to "read other peoples minds" essentially.

I just don't understand why one would let empathy get in the way of a more practical way of living in a dog eat dog world if one came to terms with neither God nor karma existing.

I'm also not suggesting belief in God or karma prevents a person from being selfish or harming other maliciously. I believe in God and I've already told one cat the other day who robbed someone we both know... that if him or his family pays me money to come after him, friends or no friends I'm coming at him, and if need be, whoever is around him. 

Frankly, fear of damnation in hell and fear of prison and to a lesser extent fear of being harmed, restrains me in a lot of my behavior. For good or ill I'm to "soft" or empathetic to rape someone. Though, I would not put it past myself if all the world collapsed and I lived in an apocalyptic setting. I was always against using hard drugs like cocaine and never imagined in a million years I would one day use crack, but I did. So, I don't put things past myself.


----------



## caelum (Nov 25, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> I just don't understand why one would let empathy get in the way of a more practical way of living in a dog eat dog world if one came to terms with neither God nor karma existing.



I think there are instances where we should be able to work without empathy whether or not there's a God or karma.  For instance: wartime.  I'm not a pacifist.  If there's a threat out there that needs to be dealed with, we should be ready to fight it without worrying about its feelings.  However, this does not mean we lose the ability to empathize, we just use it selectively.  This is also true in nature.  Even the most brutal animals treat their own kindly.

The threat of punishment shouldn't be all it takes to keep a person orderly.  For many it's necessary, but not for everyone.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 25, 2010)

caelum said:


> Empathy and functioning social relationships that don't involve rape and murder exist because it increases the species' chance of survival.  Killing, stealing, and raping all the time is unnatural, and if everyone behaved like that humanity wouldn't last very long.



There is no species selection within evolutionary theory. There is an understanding that individual genetic units become more predominant within a gene pool than others due to differential reproduction. There is nothing unnatural about rape or murder. Both would have, to some extent, a biological and psychological explanation. The preservation of humanity is a man-made concept and comes from the fact mankind has moral considerations and responsibilities that go beyond the brute facts of biology or physics.


----------



## RoundEye (Nov 25, 2010)

As a whole I think what they find funny is less than a non-Catholic. It used to drive my ex nuts, but she’d walk in the room and I was watching Joyce Meyer. (LINK)

That lady is humorous and has a funny way of telling a story to get her point across.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 25, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> There is no species selection within evolutionary theory. There is an understanding that individual genetic units become more predominant within a gene pool than others due to differential reproduction. There is nothing unnatural about rape or murder. Both would have, to some extent, a biological and psychological explanation. The preservation of humanity is a man-made concept and comes from the fact mankind has moral considerations and responsibilities that go beyond the brute facts of biology or physics.



Well said, Mer.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 25, 2010)

And here we come to another point; people generally see the world as being similar to themselves. They displace their own belief-set and thrust it upon everyone else. Thus, they are 'allowed' to behave in a certain way because 'everyone else does it'.

I'm not sure that empathy can be thrust aside or ignored. A large portion of people that try this end up with psychological problems; coming to terms with their actions. But some people don't have a level of empathy that prevents negative actions, so they feel no remorse. It's these people that I'd not want to be left alone with. 



> I just don't understand why one would let empathy get in the way of a  more practical way of living in a dog eat dog world if one came to terms  with neither God nor karma existing.


The mistake you're making is that there's a choice in the matter. And I'm not sure I can explain this fully to you.. I'd be using descriptions of emotions that I'm worried you wont 'get'. You logically understand the words and meanings, but for you, they don't follow through to produce the result others accept as true.

I think your acceptance of being capable of negative action sets you apart. I cannot say for sure, but at I stand, I'm certain that I could never hurt another person. If I was drafted into the army, I'd never fire a bullet (and die willingly).

Actually.. there are studies on army recruits that support this stance as being normal. I cannot remember the percentages, but a large portion (more than half) of the soldiers shoot over the heads of the enemy, not wanting to hurt them.

I think the world may be quite a bit different than you expect it to be.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 25, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> There is no species selection within evolutionary theory. There is an understanding that individual genetic units become more predominant within a gene pool than others due to differential reproduction. There is nothing unnatural about rape or murder. Both would have, to some extent, a biological and psychological explanation. The preservation of humanity is a man-made concept and comes from the fact mankind has moral considerations and responsibilities that go beyond the brute facts of biology or physics.


 Any chance you could directly relate these comments to why emotions aren't part of evolution? You've used some big words here, but not really countered any argument.

And rape and murder aren't natural. They are absent in animals that are left alone in the wild. I think you've decided that the 'preservation of humanity' as a man made concept voids the reality that species do strive to preserve themselves. This isn't an intentional/individual choice, but one made real by the presence genetic evolution itself. Part of that evolution has produced emotions in humans.

I'd like you to explain how we have positive (supportive) emotions if they didn't serve some benefit to survival; keeping in mind that our emotions are much more developed than any other species on Earth.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 26, 2010)

KrisMunro said:


> You've used some big words here



I apologise.



> And rape and murder aren't natural. They are absent in animals that are left alone in the wild. I think you've decided that the 'preservation of humanity' as a man made concept voids the reality that species do strive to preserve themselves. This isn't an intentional/individual choice, but one made real by the presence genetic evolution itself. Part of that evolution has produced emotions in humans.




I really don't know what definition of unnatural you're using, but I would assume something unnatural to be unrelated to the natural/physical world. You're also quite wrong about animal behaviour. Many creatures eat their own young, siblings, cousins, mates, etc. Animals kill their own kind a lot. There is no conscious thought among fish, for example, to preserve their species. The theory of evolution contends genetic variants perform better in a given scenario than others and these will, with time, predominate a specific gene pool. It has nothing to do with the species.




> I'd like you to explain how we have positive (supportive) emotions if they didn't serve some benefit to survival; keeping in mind that our emotions are much more developed than any other species on Earth.


Well, that's just tough because I never claimed emotions don't aid survival. :read:


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 26, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I apologise.
> ...
> Well, that's just tough because I never claimed emotions don't aid survival. :read:


 I'm a little disappointed with your response here. Firstly, because I was looking for more details on your views (obviously you hold them for a reason). Secondly, at your attitude.. you seem to be sarcastic and offensive. You've taken my words out of context and turned it around to make yourself appear smart, yet avoiding the question makes you look anything but..

I thought I'd find some worthwhile debate here, not only to increase my awareness, but also to help others do the same. You've been here for some time, so maybe comments like these are acceptable.. who knows.

In any case, I'm going to back off and leave you to it.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 26, 2010)

KrisMunro said:


> I'm a little disappointed with your response here. Firstly, because I was looking for more details on your views (obviously you hold them for a reason). Secondly, at your attitude.. you seem to be sarcastic and offensive. You've taken my words out of context and turned it around to make yourself appear smart, yet avoiding the question makes you look anything but..



There's no point in asking me to defend things I didn't say. I've answered the part of your response that actually addresses my post. I don't know why you find that unsatisfactory.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 26, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> There's no point in asking me to defend things I didn't say. I've answered the part of your response that actually addresses my post. I don't know why you find that unsatisfactory.


Again you've missed my point. I could go on about this detailing specifics, but I don't think it's worth the effort. I love a good debate, and I don't want that to transfer to pointing out discrepancies in text/speech. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but I feel we're working on different angles here.


----------



## caelum (Nov 26, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> There is no species selection within evolutionary theory. There is an understanding that individual genetic units become more predominant within a gene pool than others due to differential reproduction.


Where did you hear this?  The survival of the individual directly relates to and aids the survival of the species, so I don't see the strength in your point of view.



> There is nothing unnatural about rape or murder.


Very wrong.  Find a single organism whose choice method of reproduction is rape, or who routinely murders their own kind.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 26, 2010)

Maybe it’s interesting as far as discussion goes -- and I’m being generous -- but whether or not you consider rape or murder “natural” or if there is some evolutionary basis for them is irrelevant. Both are considered abnormal, wrong and unacceptable. When we look at those behaviors today and how we deal with them, we don’t consider what might have motivated rape or murder somewhere along the evolutionary path or whether or not animals  do it.


----------



## Baron (Nov 26, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Maybe it’s interesting as far as discussion goes -- and I’m being generous -- but whether or not you consider rape or murder “natural” or if there is some evolutionary basis for them is irrelevant. Both are considered abnormal, wrong and unacceptable. When we look at those behaviors today and how we deal with them, we don’t consider what might have motivated rape or murder somewhere along the evolutionary path or whether or not animals  do it.


 
It isn't an evolutionary process that's made rape and murder unacceptable.  Both have been an accepted part of warfare from the beginning of history.  It's the Judao-Christian ethic which is a direct result of that belief system.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 26, 2010)

Baron said:


> It isn't an evolutionary process that's made rape and murder unacceptable.



I didn't say there was. I said there might be an evolutionary basis for the behavior.



Baron said:


> Both have been an accepted part of warfare from the beginning of history.



Yes, they have.



Baron said:


> It's the Judao-Christian ethic which is a direct result of that belief system.



The Judeo-Christian ethic is a result of what belief system?


----------



## Baron (Nov 26, 2010)

JosephB said:


> I didn't say there was. I said there might be an evolutionary basis for the behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I meant that the ethic which deems these things wrong came from the Judao-Christian belief system.  I thought that implicit but obviously it wasn't.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 26, 2010)

It wasn't "implicit" because you said it backwards.

Otherwise, I don't think it would take a lot of effort to come up with examples of societies where there was or is no Judeo-Christian influence, yet where rape and murder are considered wrong and unacceptable. Do you really think Christians have the market cornered that -- all over the world and throughout history?


----------



## Baron (Nov 26, 2010)

Perhaps this should move over to the debate forum, Joseph.  I'll start a thread there along these lines.  That should keep Amber happy


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 26, 2010)

caelum said:


> Where did you hear this?  The survival of the individual directly relates to and aids the survival of the species, so I don't see the strength in your point of view.



Mer is correct. Selection works on the organism and there is no selection for the species. Having said that, there are some evolutionary scientists that advocate the theory that selection can work on entire populations also. But this is more to do with evolutionary theory being expanded from the strictly inheritable (genetic) to cultural transmissions. 



> Very wrong.  Find a single organism whose choice method of reproduction is rape, or who routinely murders their own kind.


Evolutionary scientists already accept rape - or what humans would term rape - being quite rampant among lower animal species. In fact when evolutionary theorist hypothesize why homosexuality and lesbianism might exist (it would appear on face value to contradict the principle of "Fitness") among humans they are more perplexed by male homosexuality because they acknowledge lesbians could easily be raped and therefore reproduce and their genes pass on.

As for murder legalized abortion and its popularity would seem to contradict - from the strictest Darwinian perspective that judges fitness by the number of offspring an organism has - the ideas that "murder" only endangers the species and empathy has little correlation to environmental influences. If a man and woman can't "empathize" with their own child developing in the mother and don't know how or why they would have greater empathy for the communist or capitalist trying to disenfranchise them, or the mugger approaching them quickly from behind. 

Frankly, I would rather decapitate my enemy and protect my offspring.

But then I was raised Catholic and believe in large families. :lol:

(That's a little dark humor there if you didn't get it - bringing the thread back full circle)


----------



## caelum (Nov 26, 2010)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> Mer is correct. Selection works on the organism and there is no selection for the species. Having said that, there are some evolutionary scientists that advocate the theory that selection can work on entire populations also. But this is more to do with evolutionary theory being expanded from the strictly inheritable (genetic) to cultural transmissions.


Unless a gene that helps other individuals survive (an empathy gene) somehow helps the gene itself survive (the individual), I can see how it wouldn't make sense.  However, I think that's exactly what's happening, because creatures evolving destructive social behaviour are less likely to survive.



			
				Writ said:
			
		

> Evolutionary scientists already accept rape - or what humans would term rape - being quite rampant among lower animal species. In fact when evolutionary theorist hypothesize why homosexuality and lesbianism might exist (it would appear on face value to contradict the principle of "Fitness") among humans they are more perplexed by male homosexuality because they acknowledge lesbians could easily be raped and therefore reproduce and their genes pass on.


This is pretty interesting.  Male homosexuality doesn't make much sense in terms of reproduction, but the simple fact that it _has_ evolved means there must be some kind of purpose in there even if we can't see it yet.  I haven't formed an opinion on what causes homosexuality; that's a pretty gray area.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 26, 2010)

There's a lot of debate here, most of it interesting.

My thoughts are that homosexuality isn't natural, nor is rape and murder. In reference to sexual acts, animals generally don't participate in activities for pleasure; the goal is reproduction. Generally, this occurs when the female is ready; either by producing a scent that males respond to, or via a season which both genders respond to. As far as I know, only monkey/apes/chimps/etc, dolphins, and humans engage in sex acts for pleasure. And this is where rape and homosexuality come into the picture. Because we're more capable of conscious thought, we have some free will that allows us to think of ways to enjoy ourselves, in some cases at the expense of others.

In general terms, other animals aren't able to do this, and only behave in such ways if they have contact with humans; they see it and learn about it. 

The same is said for murder. Murder amongst humans is a product of our ability to think; a result of our free will and our desires for personal gain (which is something animals aren't able to comprehend). This trait cannot be considered one brought on by evolution, it's a product of 'the human condition'. Animals do not see food and kill their siblings to get to it, they may fight, but this isn't to the death. Even competitions for mates aren't to the death, they engage in 'battle' that does not produce serious injuries in each other. Some of these battles are simply a 'knock your opponent off the branch', with the winner getting the female.

I'm thinking that any suggestion that rape and murder being normal, is more an excuse to believe it's ok to do it. Granted, it's only so 'wrong' as you believe it to be, but it's not something natural that takes place as a standard activity in all species. 

Imagine trying to explain to a jury that you raped someone because the desire for it is part of your genetic make-up. I'm thinking that people have tried this, and failed... and failed for good reason. I'm repeating these comments because I'm hoping people will step aside from the belief that rape/murder is normal. I just cannot get my head around how someone could think of it as being ok... which is part of my inability to counter the idea. 

Back to murder:
I've said before that some species do partake in cannibalism, such as the humboldt squid (a nasty piece of work right there). But this trait aids in their survival; increase in population when food is abundant, and feed off each other when it's not. But for each 1 species that regularly participates in acts like this, there are many many more that do not. And this act isn't 'murder', it is food. I'm actually keen to hear of any species that regularly kills off its members without such a benefit. There are quite a few comments suggesting that this happens, but I cannot think of any that do it. Humans aside.. because that's a result of our self-awareness rather than evolution.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 27, 2010)

> Perhaps this should move over to the debate forum, Joseph. I'll start a thread there along these lines. That should keep Amber happy



LOL! - Can't believe you used me as a scapegoat to avoid answering Joesph's question.


----------



## Baron (Nov 27, 2010)




----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 27, 2010)




----------

