Gemma Therese

Many individual members of humanity and its leaders are fine, upstanding people, no doubt of this. However, taken as a whole, I find humanity to be of dubious moral character at best, with at least as much societal evils as works of good or common charity on its balance sheet.

Despite the love I have for the history of humanity, and its august place in the identity of the world, I for one will breathe a quiet breath of relief, should it be ever dismantled as an organized body.

--------------------------------------------------

Well, no one wonder ya'll are atheists.

Gemma

Gemma Therese

By the way, no on has answered MY question ...

Which gene dictates human goodness?

Panta Pei

<raises hand>

The human genome doth so dictate

Hayden

I have absolutely no idea, and I think that we will eventually find that all humans are equally capable of good.

I also believe that one's upbringing is the ultimate influence in behaviour. If children are taught ethical and socially-aware behaviour, then they soon learn to recognize the consequences of their behaviour, and act accordingly. I disagree with the concept of confession, for example, as this, in my opinion, teaches that sin is acceptable as long as atonement is offered.

Not all aspects of human behaviour are attributable to genealogy.

HR

Galileo

Gemma, a bit of humour is what makes non-religious people also as happy.

in plain enough words, I was poking fun at you to get to your attention so you'll finally get back on track (oh must I be so explicit with you).

entirely agreed.

What i have found ironic from the beginning is why Gemma chose to post such a topic when she sees no tangible evidence to prove the existence of God in the first place.

Gemma obviously believes in God herself purely and absolutely (if that's possible in human terms), and to then question it is contradictory.

The only reason plausible is that she wishes to convince others, even preach if you like to atheists that God does exist.

Interesting thought isn't it. Hmmm, since we can't prove there is no God, and how does one prove there is a god???

Back to my original quote, I say aliens exist.

Galileo

because your question isn't worth answering.
I'll ask you a question, what is the mass of love?
(and no Gemma, I'm not
totally contradicting myself as someone once said)

If your rhetorical question is aimed at convincing people that God is as abstract as human goodness or love and therefore does not need tangible evidence to prove his/her/its existance, then God doesn't exist in real terms.

because human goodness and love are a HUMAN emotions and conscience, and their existence is solely based on the existence of human beings, and if God's existence is based on the existence of human beings, and since we have created "human" goodness and love (for they are the result of humanity) then, stemming from that logic, we've pretty much created God, don't you think?

And since emotions is a very much relative human subjectivity, and is often a figment of our imagination, then in that sense (using purely non-tangible evidence), God also is a figment of our imagination.

What do you think?

lpetrich

A question that implies crude beanbag genetics. It's like asking what's the gene for one's left little finger.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ion

Galileo, I disagree with:
The God described in the Bible appears to be false, considering the incoherences in the Bible that conflict with a supreme intelligence inspiring the Bible.

For example, in Genesis 1.31, I read:
"Then God saw that eveything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.", after God allegedly created universe, including man and woman.

This is not a statement written for science and is not a mistranslated statement, so there are no excuses for what follows in hundreds of pages as being a cacophony of screw ups, including Adam, Eve, Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies galore.

This statement of bogus (i.e. "Then God saw that eveything that He had made, and indeed it was very good."), disqualifies the Bible's God, right on the first half page, never mind the abundance of inner inconsistencies, and contradictions with science that fill the book.

The characters in the Bible including God, appear to be concocted by the the minds of primitive people, 2,000 years ago.

Samhain

Even though I have reason to believe you have put me on ignore...

While "human goodness" may have no proof to be linked to a human gene, there is more than enough evidence to establish that "goodness" comes as a result of social contact and socialization.

Typhon

Gemma,

Why don't you…GET IN LINE, and quit taking cuts.

You haven't bothered to answer a whole lot of questions from us, so forgive me if I have little sympathy for your whining.

You are unable to answer the hard questions, or even face legitimate issues about the faith you so blindly follow. Yet you have the nerve to demand that your trite, ignorant little dig about mythical "human goodness" be answered promptly front and center? Go on, tell us another one Gemma. I suspect it is because you have no answers and nothing better to say.

Where is the gene for human goodness? There is no "human goodness." There is human behavior, which is comprised of a wide scope of what we see as negative and positive social interactions.

Altruistic behavior in our species is well chronicled, and is an established part of human behavior. It plays an important part of our day to day interactions, and hence, our survival. Hell, it's even (altruistic acts) been studied in other primates (and even non-primate species) as well.

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020219080248.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020219080248.htm</a>

<a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/altruism.html" target="_blank">http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/altruism.html</a>

<a href="http://gsoft.smu.edu/lectures/KinSel1.html" target="_blank">http://gsoft.smu.edu/lectures/KinSel1.html</a>

Where is the gene for monkey goodness? Well, just where we'd expect, in the genes. It's not piped in like muzak from on high, I'll tell you that much.

No defense I see for the excesses of the RCC, expect to say that they are just the excesses of all humanity. I don't buy that, except in the sense, that the RCC and the petty little thug they worship, is just another exercise of our own imagination.

.T.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>