And another thing!

[Crispy Critter]

Jesus...I think I will just stick to my "Circle of Life Theory"!

Dude it's only a couple paragraphs and it discribes the circle of life from evolution to the worship of one god. The paragraphs detail how Marx found it to mean communism completes the circle and American founders chose the other means to complete the circle. The unknown is what culture is in a void of the one god? Does it mean back to barbarism or a higher level of human life? Only the future will decide if science or religion will coexist to complete the circle.

 

[Spleefman]

Sounds interesting...I'll check it out.

 

[Silver_dragon87]

spleefman, I just reply to whatever other people say, so I didn't start this process of getting off track, though I didn't try to stop it. Whatever people want to talk about, I'm game. I think the topic itself is pretty much closed anyway; no one seems to have much to say about it without getting deep. On to philosophy!

 

[Spleefman]

I'm game......

 

[Gentilhomme]

Well not to be the psychology asshole (as i have in other fourms) but when it comes down to cruelity theres a few reaosn that run. (People are too damn complicated to toss into one bucket)

Ok, firstly we say the shiz goes like this. A human being is neither good or evil (Asdie form the philosphical debate about wht IS good and evil which we won't bother with) Darwin was mentioned earlier, he was a smart guy but you messed up his stuff some. We are here to survive and have sex. Thats the jist of Darwin, so whtever helps us fulfill these goals is to be the first response in almost anysituation. (Not getting an abortion may leave a mother poor and to die, she is her primary concern at that point) The thing with all of these instincts is that since we humans are so damn malable, to what extent instict plays a role in our lives depends on the perosn's experiences envorionment (Society, household etc..) Which ever influence most directly affects the individuel is the one thats going to change them the most. However, depending on other influences that response to direct experience will change from person to person (as i said, we're too dman complicated)
Example: I've a friend who was an abused child. He really took his whoopins and this led him to become btter, hatful, destructive and addictive.

I too was an abuse child but my path was not the same. I intsead learned to empathize with those who suffer, and this what was done to me should not be done to anyone. I believe somebodys signature is "i've learn tolerence form the intolerent etc.." well that was pretty much me. So were i BORN to be violent, then why would i not become violent uin the wake of something that threatened my existance (As your 'Darwin' theory would have me do) My friend followed that path, but i couldn't have been nature if it wern't common.

Why did my friend not follow the same root? I really couldn't tell you. I got a theroy that goes like this;(mind you, i';m still debating this issue with myself and others..its a thinker...) What i'm currently thinking is that maybe intelligence (brain capacity anyhow) Plays a role in how we roll. In no bragging way, but i got a head on my soldier, my friend dosn't really. Not the quickest whip. So therefore, without the ability to reaosn in extreme situations he is more likly to toss reaosn aside (reason relating to the less life threating, and therefore darwin like, response on non-violence. we would not risk our lives if the options there) But if the mind can't reach that type of though, it turns to emotuional reaction. Anger being a very prominat and quick survival emotion.

As a wise man once siad "fear leads to anger. anger ;eads to hate. hate..leads to suffering" Yoda, Phantome Menace. (i'm a geek, sue me. i also can fight like a madman!)

So if a 'lesser' mind gets into any situation that makes him feel threatened (others influenceing his children, country were such example) then with an emotioal response of anger, he toddles down the kill train. But humans naturally reconize that other humans benefit them and would therefor not wish to kill them off. (unless they are, as staed above, threatened)

Another option is that they are Psycotic, in whihc case they live in a world that revolves around themselves without any snese of 'other peopl' and killin one is no different then stepping on a branch. this is an abnormality however so it dosn't really apply to the mass

 

[Crispy Critter]

The reason I brought the anthropology into the discussion was because in the study people were considered to be in a barbaric state and then evolve as they go through phases of religion.

I equate barbaric equal to the pecking order in the hen house, which has about a 40% survival rate from the new generation as nature seeks out the strong to survive. There is a total void of spiritual belief or compassion in this level of barbarism.

All people alive may attribute being here to the will to survive, the strength to will it so, or from compassion from the strong for those of us not having the strongest traits of our species. People are definitely complex creatures and products of environment in which they are reared. I think all humans have the barbaric side deep inside them waiting to be unleashed and it is controlled by a counter desire most obvious in the female but shared by the male to make life better for the child they produce. The human

 

[Vortex]

My conclusion is that people seem to be less barbaric in a family unit supporting one god than other degrees of transition from barbarism as compassion for offspring is available for the weak of that supposedly superior group of humans. By thinking in this manner I