Okay so now I have two different answers.

jrbogie said:



and to this literal statement the question of course is:

"Implanted? Implanted by what or whom or how was it implanted?"

"Instinctual? From where does this instinct arise?"

Billy said:



To which the question is:

Where exactly did I assume that? How can you assume what I assume? Even if I did assume that, so what? That would be my personal assumption and has nothing to do with my inquiry.

You say you care but you don't say WHY you care. "You care because you care" is not a very clear answer.

Billy said:


No it is not. It is not about morality. Here you go again comparing me to a theist and their dogma as if you are paranoid and putting up a shield around your currently held belief.

You said:


All you are saying here is that you as a human being have the capability and capacity to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Why can't you just say that?

I can believe that LOVE does not require a belief in deities or spirit or an afterlife.

I see your defensive attitude in your remark about "some watchful creator thumbing his nose at our actions or sending us to bad places to coerce us into it either.."

I do not believe in that kind of God anyway and I certainly am not talking about that. Yet you keep dragging that into the conversation.

You seem to still be rebelling against that forced ideology. Get over it so that you can think more clearly about what I am saying and asking. Let down your shield.

not being a biologist schooled in genetics i cannot answer that. perhaps biology itself has not answered that yet. i wouldn't know. i gave you the best i had bean. but because my answer doesn't satisfy you it does not follow that your answer, a designer, is correct. i've never said you were wrong. just as you are doing in this thread, asking questions of atheists, of all people, about the behavior of the species and the make up of the universe, another thread asked for evidence of a designer from those of a spiritual nature such as yourself. evidence falls within the realm of science as far as i'm concerned. i understand that you don't necessarily agree but there it is. when the people here don't see things as you do you simply say that there is no point in continuing the debate and then you begin new threads continuing the debate by basically rephrasing the question of a designer. when you get the same answers you act as though we are all blind or moronic. we are neither. indeed there are some very intelligent people here including yourself who simply enjoy a forum on a dating site where an exchange of views can occure.

I certainly don't think any of you are moronic. I would not ask questions of 'atheists' if I did not respect their opinions above the opinions of theists.

My question are purely FOR MYSELF and not for anyone else.

What I consider "evidence" appears to be different from what you consider "evidence."

I am not a scientist. I reason from my own personal experiences and authority. I am not really concerned what other people believe I am simply interested in why they believe it and how they think and feel about certain things from that point of view.

I am sorry so many people are getting insulted by my questions. It is not my intent to do that. This may seem self serving, but my questions are for my own personal benefit, not yours or theirs.

Perhaps I have heard enough. (I have just been fishing for something I have not already heard before.) I still believe that people are the best source for information.

well bean your analogies such as the elephant and the mouse and your continued use of the notion that we all must be blind not to see what's in front of our eyes is insulting. i'm not insulted but you are insulting when you say such things. i cannot be insulted because i see such debate tactics used often without effecting the furtherence of the point you wish to make. it goes more toward cementing my own position in my mind simply because when you use such tactics it indicates to me that you've nothing more cognative to offer for your argument and so you attempt to discredit my argument. of course this is your right but it still does not make credible your argument.

The problem with that is that people take that remark as a personal insult when it was just painting a picture of my own personal frustrations and feelings.

Don't take how I FEEL personally. I am most probably WRONG for feeling that way. That is a flaw in MY character, not yours.

I am just expressing myself in the most honest way possible. Judge me if you must... but don't take my frustrations personal. Its a personal problem I will have to deal with.

after carefully drinking i've reached this conclusion; we all get frustrated.

My philosophy is that when someone says something mean or insulting to me, I figure it is a personal problem or that they are just having a bad day. Also, if I get 'insulted' by what someone says, then it is my own personal problem to deal with.

and when you say something that someone else finds insulting?

Then its their problem. People can get insulted by a lot of things that are not intended to be insulting.

They should just consider that it is a personal problem and not take it personal as if it were aimed at them in particualr... I don't intentionally insult individuals.

My statement did not speak directly to anyone in particular.

Oh . . . OP problems.
So everything is someone elses problem? I see . . .

No read my post again.

I said: Also, if I get 'insulted' by what someone says, then it is my own personal problem to deal with.

Many believe it is encoded in our DNA; which does not answer the question "from where does it arise", but simply directs our attention to an intermediate repository - a link in the chain.

I've seen a lot of people on these forums try to attack this idea: that natural selection may give rise to genomes which encourage (among other things) altruistic behavior, but they all do so from a place of extremely limited knowledge and understanding.

How much effort are you willing to put into learning about this possibility? It takes both a sharp intellect and a serious and patient study to understand this in detail, and to not get tripped up by a mis-representation of these ideas.

I am not sure what kind of extensive material you are talking about here and I don't relish spending time on what might be faulty science that leads to nothing more than objective observations with no real answers. We can point to DNA for just about everything, but that does not answer the questions that would arise about DNA itself, where it came from, how did it form, how does it work, etc. I don't think they have discovered all of that yet... have they?

Are you suggesting that science is faulty, or only that some science is faulty?

Are you willing to accept that some questions may not be answerable? Or not answerable at this time?
What if you learn a ton about what is, and a ton about what might be, but the big questions are still 'unanswered' - would it be time well spent, or a waste?



There are many unanswered questions! How did DNA originally form or how might DNA have originally formed? I don't think we will ever be able to answer the first question, barring time travel, as the (possible) chemical reactions involved wouldn't have left any lasting evidence.

As for how it works, and how it might relate to behavior, I feel we are just beginning to understand this.

1. am suggesting that some science is faulty, not all.

2. I would have to evaluate the amount of information and time involved and how important it is for me to know those things, then make that determination. Not to mention whether not I have enough current background or knowledge to even understand the information. (I probably don't)

If I had another lifetime left, I may have been a molecular biologist.



Yes I think we are just beginning to understand a lot of things.

I think my word choice may have given the wrong impression - its not like I have a particular set of books in mind for you to study, and I wasn't thinking that you would come to a 'good understanding' within a matter of days or weeks. Long ago, I spent four years (part time, on the side) studying this and related topics while pursuing degrees in other fields, and I still can't answer your question. The point is - its a large and complex issue.

I just wanted to set the question of 'understanding the potential role of DNA in human behavior' in its place... if we expect easy or simple answers, we may be setting ourselves up for misunderstandings.

None of it is 'inaccessible' to us, though - lacking a background just means we have to do a little more learning and thinking, take more time. We may have to develop new ways of understanding things.

I answered your question with questions, because I'm tired of having people (not you) dismiss ideas like this (the possibility that our genomes might play some role in encouraging us to (among other things) care about having children, or care about the species, etc), when they've clearly not put an honest and humble effort into understanding it.

Well as far as that goes I am in total agreement with you. I think our genes have a profound effect on our bodies and our programming and sometimes a huge influence on our behavior too.

But I don't believe that makes us into programmed robots who cannot be held responsible if we kill someone because violence is 'in our genes" or because we come from a line of serial killers or warriors.

I still believe there is something (spiritual) inside of us that can overide our basice instincts and programming

Oh, no, of course not! I'm not aware of ever hearing anyone advocate the view that we are nothing but robots, programmed by our genes.

I have met people who think we are robots, programmed by genes and experiences, but I disagree.




There may be something spiritual inside of us which can 'over-ride our instincts', but I think we also have a non-spiritual capacity to do so.

Would you please describe this non-spiritual capacity? I would like to hear more about that.

Would you please describe this non-spiritual capacity? I would like to hear more about that.


Lets take the fight-or-flight response. Our genes don't directly cause us to have this response - our genes cause us to have certain kinds of structures in our bodies. When those structures receive certain kinds of stimuli, those structures will release chemicals which encourage a variety of physiological changes. So indirectly we can trace the response back to our genes, but the response is also subject to our thinking.

One human being might watch a horror movie in a dark room on a 6' widescreen, and only be amused by the silliness of the script and the special effects. Another might immerse themself in the fictional world, and exploit their fight or flight structures to get an adrenaline rush from the film. Its unlikely but possible that a third person (perhaps drunk, or maybe a 'primitive person') might stumble into the room and mistake something on the 6' screen for reality, and have a full blown, completely authentic flight-or-flight response.

Our responses do not follow from just our genes, and its not just what we sense - how we think about what we sense shapes our response.

I suppose you could say this is 'spiritual' in nature, but I don't see the need to appeal to spirituality for this.