Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

I would say 100% natural unless you have something to show that is not natural. I also only accept it as viable because logic backs it up. What is your logic trail to show it is not all natural? Regards DL
I’m not sure what “it" we are talking about now. I believe in a natural world, so if a baby is demonstrating an ability to choose a helpful character over an unhelpful one, then of course there must be a natural explanation for that. I never said it wasn’t. These babies were old enough to have seen and remembered helpful and non-helpful behavior before and it appeared the population in the study was raised in a healthy environment. There are many natural factors that went into their choices. DNA would be an important one. What was it you were trying to demonstrate with this? We were talking about listening to our “internal feelings" to make decisions about morality. You were using scripture and your apotheosis as some sort of logic to back up your choices. A lot of these terms are very loosely defined. Maybe you could clear that up.
I would say 100% natural unless you have something to show that is not natural. I also only accept it as viable because logic backs it up. What is your logic trail to show it is not all natural? Regards DL
I’m not sure what “it" we are talking about now. I believe in a natural world, so if a baby is demonstrating an ability to choose a helpful character over an unhelpful one, then of course there must be a natural explanation for that. I never said it wasn’t. These babies were old enough to have seen and remembered helpful and non-helpful behavior before and it appeared the population in the study was raised in a healthy environment. There are many natural factors that went into their choices. DNA would be an important one. What was it you were trying to demonstrate with this? We were talking about listening to our “internal feelings" to make decisions about morality. You were using scripture and your apotheosis as some sort of logic to back up your choices. A lot of these terms are very loosely defined. Maybe you could clear that up. All I am saying is that feelings have a place in our moral decisions. I am also saying that those feelings are a product of all that that we have learned and gleaned from a variety of sources including our basic human instincts. If you wish to discard the science I provided just because of it's source then I do not know where you want to go from here. Regards DL
I would say 100% natural unless you have something to show that is not natural. I also only accept it as viable because logic backs it up. What is your logic trail to show it is not all natural? Regards DL
I’m not sure what “it" we are talking about now. I believe in a natural world, so if a baby is demonstrating an ability to choose a helpful character over an unhelpful one, then of course there must be a natural explanation for that. I never said it wasn’t. These babies were old enough to have seen and remembered helpful and non-helpful behavior before and it appeared the population in the study was raised in a healthy environment. There are many natural factors that went into their choices. DNA would be an important one. What was it you were trying to demonstrate with this? We were talking about listening to our “internal feelings" to make decisions about morality. You were using scripture and your apotheosis as some sort of logic to back up your choices. A lot of these terms are very loosely defined. Maybe you could clear that up. All I am saying is that feelings have a place in our moral decisions. I am also saying that those feelings are a product of all that that we have learned and gleaned from a variety of sources including our basic human instincts. If you wish to discard the science I provided just because of it's source then I do not know where you want to go from here. Regards DL I don't want to discard the science. I don't know where you got that I did. You are now saying what I was saying earlier. That is, feelings have a place in our moral decisions, and they come from things we've learned and things we've inherited. It seemed you were more dismissive of the input of other people earlier. You were emphasizing personal revelation of some sort, to the point of presenting it as either/or and I was emphasizing communicating but I never dismissed natural instinct.

“So, based on a 5 minute video you trust the science, right?”
I am pleased that we both trust the science then.
I must have not understood that line above the right way. My bad.
Regards
DL

"So, based on a 5 minute video you trust the science, right?" I am pleased that we both trust the science then. I must have not understood that line above the right way. My bad. Regards DL
I was making doubly sure that you understood what you were doing. In the OP, you made it quite clear that you had no proof for what you were saying. Then when we disagreed about the source of morality, you pointed to some scientific evidence. Now I'm not sure if you're saying that morality comes completely formed in each human mind or not or just where it comes from. You've used terms like "facts" when it seemed you were referring to personal revelation. You've clearly stated now that you trust science, so I'll make sure we stick to that.
You have two choices in whose ideals and ideas you will live by. To go by what others say or go by what your internal feelings and thoughts say. Seems you would rather go by what others say. What can I say. Go ahead. Regards DL
A false choice. One that would be presented by someone who does not want to listen to others. How can you live by the Golden Rule if you don't know what others want? Where do you think your internal feelings come from? Does nurture play no part in your nature? Has no one influenced you ever? Were you awash in a sea of uncertainty and mystery until you had your apotheosis? No I was not. And sure we all learn from others but the lesson is not complete till the law we come up with is written on our hearts. We do learn quite a bit from nurture but should not forget nature. I am just saying that we also have our own thoughts and feelings to consider before just accepting what others are on about. Which of this babies peers taught it? None. was all instinct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA Regards DL I don't have the time to review the research presented but it did seem to me that the babies chose the character that was held closest to them. This is something the researchers should have been aware of because it can skew results. Lois
"So, based on a 5 minute video you trust the science, right?" I am pleased that we both trust the science then. I must have not understood that line above the right way. My bad. Regards DL
I was making doubly sure that you understood what you were doing. In the OP, you made it quite clear that you had no proof for what you were saying. Then when we disagreed about the source of morality, you pointed to some scientific evidence. Now I'm not sure if you're saying that morality comes completely formed in each human mind or not or just where it comes from. You've used terms like "facts" when it seemed you were referring to personal revelation. You've clearly stated now that you trust science, so I'll make sure we stick to that. We are born with the default for competition and cooperation on the cooperation side. That means we are born doing good to others as our best survival method. The rest is nurture that forcrs us to eventually compete as that is where harm or evil comes into play. We have no choice though. This old O P explains that. Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you? And if you cannot, why would God punish you? Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind. That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem. If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you? Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld. Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution. Consider. First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil. In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act. Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times. Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct. This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well. Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil. There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition. These links speak to theistic evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9 If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin. If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you? And if you cannot, why would God punish you? Regards DL
You have two choices in whose ideals and ideas you will live by. To go by what others say or go by what your internal feelings and thoughts say. Seems you would rather go by what others say. What can I say. Go ahead. Regards DL
A false choice. One that would be presented by someone who does not want to listen to others. How can you live by the Golden Rule if you don't know what others want? Where do you think your internal feelings come from? Does nurture play no part in your nature? Has no one influenced you ever? Were you awash in a sea of uncertainty and mystery until you had your apotheosis? No I was not. And sure we all learn from others but the lesson is not complete till the law we come up with is written on our hearts. We do learn quite a bit from nurture but should not forget nature. I am just saying that we also have our own thoughts and feelings to consider before just accepting what others are on about. Which of this babies peers taught it? None. was all instinct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA Regards DL I don't have the time to review the research presented but it did seem to me that the babies chose the character that was held closest to them. This is something the researchers should have been aware of because it can skew results. Lois It can is not it did. If you are to criticise the work you should know the work. Regards DL
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you? And if you cannot, why would God punish you? Regards DL
Your posts are long and contain many assumptions and assertions, so I really don’t know what you’re trying to say anymore. Some things are clear, like, “There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue." Well, I don’t believe there is a God, so I put supernatural belief of any kind in conflict with nature. God is not an explanation for anything. I’ll probably have to quit watching your videos, since you say they make some point for you, but the one about theistic evolution didn’t even mention that until 12 minutes in. Then it quoted some guy saying God had to make the world the way he did. The narrator says this is fascinating. I find it an incredible bore. Someone found reasons to eliminate the need for God, but they didn’t want to do that, so they say he had to do things the way we find them. It’s trying to make God part of nature, some sort of deistic prime mover that doesn’t function except through “natural" means, but we can still contact or receive wisdom or something. You’re just setting up non-falsifiable assertions. I’m not going attempt to argue with them. I agree with the narrator’s thought that this could contain the seeds of the destruction of religion. But, there is nothing “convincing" in that video. It is a report of what some theologians are saying and postulating the consequences of those ideas. Your questions are too vague and make assumptions about what I’m thinking, when you haven’t asked me to clarify what I think. And I don’t know why you would ask me about God punishing me. You set up simplistic dichotomies and ask me to choose between them. We don’t know where evil comes from. It isn’t even always clear what an evil act is. The baby experiment shows morality forming very early, but says very little about where it comes from. Make some shorter statements about what you actually believe then maybe we can discuss them.
You have two choices in whose ideals and ideas you will live by. To go by what others say or go by what your internal feelings and thoughts say. Seems you would rather go by what others say. What can I say. Go ahead. Regards DL
A false choice. One that would be presented by someone who does not want to listen to others. How can you live by the Golden Rule if you don't know what others want? Where do you think your internal feelings come from? Does nurture play no part in your nature? Has no one influenced you ever? Were you awash in a sea of uncertainty and mystery until you had your apotheosis? No I was not. And sure we all learn from others but the lesson is not complete till the law we come up with is written on our hearts. We do learn quite a bit from nurture but should not forget nature. I am just saying that we also have our own thoughts and feelings to consider before just accepting what others are on about. Which of this babies peers taught it? None. was all instinct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA Regards DL I don't have the time to review the research presented but it did seem to me that the babies chose the character that was held closest to them. This is something the researchers should have been aware of because it can skew results. Lois It can is not it did. If you are to criticise the work you should know the work. Regards DL If you are going to defend the work you should know the work.

In case there is any doubt about my position because I criticized one possible flaw in the testing, IMO the studies are correct in showing that babies display natural tendencies to choose the “good” character. It could be a result of natural selection.
I’m a hard determinist, through and through, in case anyone missed that.
Lois

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you? And if you cannot, why would God punish you? Regards DL
Your posts are long and contain many assumptions and assertions, so I really don’t know what you’re trying to say anymore. Some things are clear, like, “There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue." Well, I don’t believe there is a God, so I put supernatural belief of any kind in conflict with nature. God is not an explanation for anything. I’ll probably have to quit watching your videos, since you say they make some point for you, but the one about theistic evolution didn’t even mention that until 12 minutes in. Then it quoted some guy saying God had to make the world the way he did. The narrator says this is fascinating. I find it an incredible bore. Someone found reasons to eliminate the need for God, but they didn’t want to do that, so they say he had to do things the way we find them. It’s trying to make God part of nature, some sort of deistic prime mover that doesn’t function except through “natural" means, but we can still contact or receive wisdom or something. You’re just setting up non-falsifiable assertions. I’m not going attempt to argue with them. I agree with the narrator’s thought that this could contain the seeds of the destruction of religion. But, there is nothing “convincing" in that video. It is a report of what some theologians are saying and postulating the consequences of those ideas. Your questions are too vague and make assumptions about what I’m thinking, when you haven’t asked me to clarify what I think. And I don’t know why you would ask me about God punishing me. You set up simplistic dichotomies and ask me to choose between them. We don’t know where evil comes from. It isn’t even always clear what an evil act is. The baby experiment shows morality forming very early, but says very little about where it comes from. Make some shorter statements about what you actually believe then maybe we can discuss them. Evil is only the result od man competing against man. That result is the only evil and is only from the losers POV. Babies have a default setting that pushes them to co-operate. Only when older do they learn to compete and thus do evil to the losers from their POV. We create their morality be it good or what we would call evil. Nature gives us our default position and nurture teaches us when to go against cooperation and into competition mode. Regards DL
In case there is any doubt about my position because I criticized one possible flaw in the testing, IMO the studies are correct in showing that babies display natural tendencies to choose the "good" character. It could be a result of natural selection. I'm a hard determinist, through and through, in case anyone missed that. Lois
It is natural selection. Survival is more assured if there is no competition when young. Look at any young animal. They play till they get older as that is better for survival. Regards DL
We create their morality be it good or what we would call evil. Nature gives us our default position and nurture teaches us when to go against cooperation and into competition mode. Regards DL
The value of a good theory is that it can be applied in some way and used to discover new knowledge or to somehow improve the human condition. I don't think you have enough evidence to be considered a theory, but let's say you did. How do we filter out the nurturing that leads to evil? How do we encourage progress without competition? How do we even determine what is evil? Is self-defense evil? I'm burning sustain-ably harvested wood to keep myself warm right now. Is that evil?
We create their morality be it good or what we would call evil. Nature gives us our default position and nurture teaches us when to go against cooperation and into competition mode. Regards DL
The value of a good theory is that it can be applied in some way and used to discover new knowledge or to somehow improve the human condition. I don't think you have enough evidence to be considered a theory, but let's say you did. How do we filter out the nurturing that leads to evil? How do we encourage progress without competition? How do we even determine what is evil? Is self-defense evil? I'm burning sustain-ably harvested wood to keep myself warm right now. Is that evil? In a hierarchical system like humans have, it is not possible to not compete unless we want to not have one of us be the fittest. The less fit would inherit the earth and mankind would eventually go extinct I think. We could try communism but even it has proven to not work as there is still a hierarchy in such systems and it is not likely that we will go to a pure communist system with a flat demographic common. We can perhaps reduce the evils of competition but I cannot see how we can get away from our instincts to compete. Regards DL