Human Nature - Explained!

[Blind Sight]

Oh God I have to keep this post short, I study history, political science, and philosophy and I really don't want to go into a huge argument over this subject (as I do this about 15 hours every week). Basically many of the examples you've provided have changed through history over and over again, that's a product of societies. In taking part in the 'social contract' many of our natural instincts must be surrendered in order to function successfully with others. Hobbes pointed out that we surrender our natural rights once we enter a society, as the way we acted within nature was simply to protect ourselves. We give up absolute liberty for security, that's how societies go. Concepts like 'murder' and 'theft' are shunned because it acts against the social contract, it's deliberately damaging the system of order and forcing a 'return to nature'(Hobbes was clear that this is bad, the lives of those in nature are 'nasty, brutish, and short').

You're right about morality though, it's not a product of religion, morality is actually a product of society and the social, political, and economic factors that affect it. Religion is then shaped by this morality, hence why throughout history religious groups have picked-and-choose what passages they believe to be holy, as these passages are the ones that their societal values are reflected in.

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

Uh... that's cool and all, though you seem to be pointing out the obvious here. (or maybe that's just me?) Plus, as already stated, one's views on these things are subjective.

Was this intended to assist any aliens trying to blend into human society?
http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/8/88/Hughman.jpg/225px-Hughman.jpg

Hey, it's Hugh Man. What does he have to do with aliens?

Why nothing! After all, he's most definitely not a space alien. Now about those secret codes....

 

[randomsix]

Human Nature in itself is irrational and follows no set pattern. That's why there is no set definition and set human mental machinations. But to each their own.

I would say that human nature isn't irrational, but is dictated by so many variables that we could never tabulate them all, and as such, might as well be irrational to the observer.

Of course, I am a determinist, so maybe this analysis is biased.

 

[randomsix]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

To necessitate such a proof, we must first determine whether God makes morality or whether God enforces morality. If he enforces morality, then yes, what God says on the subject matters, but not because God says it. If God makes morality, then such morality is arbitrary and bereft of intrinsic value.

 

[DMonkey]

Sex is FREE!?

Glad someone else picked up on that. The op obviously doesn't have a clue about the price of alcohol, or upkeep of girlfriends these days.

__
Human nature, erm. Um. No clue man. You bring up some interesting points, but, personally, I think people take this shit way too seriously. Think there comes a point when having an open mind turns people in circles.

 

[DarkDain]

I had no idea that we were living in a super moral and high standard society, I thought the world was crawling with lying cheating bastards while morals are completely drowned out save for the frenzied overcompensation perpetuated by loud people.

 

[Berethond]

We're not a monogamous species.

No, that's not quite true. You see, there are two basic sets of human instincts about sex, male and female. The male instinct is to get your seed in as many women as possible (not monogamous). However, the female instinct is to get one man, because she's vulnerable while she's pregnant and for a while after. So, while you are partially correct, remember that 50% of the population is evolutionarily inclined towards monogamy.

 

[2fish]

Sexual Intercorse, or recreation - Yes! Sex! It's actually GOOD for you, wheather you're a man or a woman, it doesn't really matter. It's healthy and most importantly - free!


P.P.S. but please - no dimwitted posts! Thank you, again![/b]

It is free? What women/men do you know? It is never free there is always some threat or fee even if it is not money.

Spoiler

I mean for free sex I need to get duct tape, a van, condoms and a weapon

OR

A lot of booze

that ain't free

You forgot to look into power and the part it plays. These rules may not exist as you say, but those with power stand to benfit by these rules. So they give you a choice follow the rules or we will break you. Rules are like rights, they exist as long as enough people belive they exist.

Oh no dimwitted posts, I guess I shouldn't post here.

Tough luck I post anyway!

 

[Berethond]

We're not a monogamous species.

No, that's not quite true. You see, there are two basic sets of human instincts about sex, male and female. The male instinct is to get your seed in as many women as possible (not monogamous). However, the female instinct is to get one man, because she's vulnerable while she's pregnant and for a while after. So, while you are partially correct, remember that 50% of the population is evolutionarily inclined towards monogamy.

There is thought that in some very early cultures it was more like a Lion pride type of deal. Or closer to home, like a Gorilla's colony. With many females that lived in a colony that had 1 alpha male who impregnated all of the females. Then they'd rear young until maturity. Then young males would travel off in packs and live together until one attracts females of their own and so on and so forth.

I don't think that behaviour is likely to have changed until some form of complex culture was formed. Like an early tribal deal.

I couldn't back that 100% though as, as far as I know it's just a theory.

That makes sense too, except that most of the males' genetic lines die off because of a lack of partners, leading to more female births. And as we know, our rate is still 50/50.

 

[Nieroshai]

Spoiler: snip

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

And no, Hawking's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. "God doesn't exist because he's not necessary for the universe to function"? Lots of things exist that aren't necessary. Many of which we make ourselves. Who's to say that the laws of physics weren't written BY the one who made the universe? THEORETICAL physicists can't know anything about what they predict, only to make it as plausible as possible. Hawking's hypothesis is plausible, at least to non-supernaturalists, but not proven by any stretch. It's also plausible that there are intelligent, space-faring extraterrestrials do in fact exist, but we haven't proven a thing so far so the jury is, soundly, out. We cannot say that just because we don't KNOW whether something exists, that this anonymity is in fact PROOF that it does/doesn't exist.

I had thought about talking about religion in the post I made just prior to yours, but decided to leave it out for the sake of headaches. While I feel that any person is allowed to believe in whatever religion they so choose, you ask us, (or the OP for that matter,) to disprove god for you. Instead of disproving God to you, would you be able to prove God to us?

You say state that if there was no God, sex is sex and murder would just be the casual, which implies that through the morals taught by God and religious voices passed down through churches, that these are things that you shouldn't be doing.

On the other hand though, throughout history, there are many cases where people societies have gone to war in the name of God and their religion. Which is sort of what I was touching on when I was talking about those in power passing their immoral values onto those below them.

You say that if there was no God, these immoral acts would be the norm, but really if you think about it, these immoral acts are kept at bay due to law, and those that enforce the law by teaching these laws to people and explaining the consequences of breaking said laws.

Religion plays an important part of passing morals throughout society, but it's important to keep in mind that there have been things that have happened in the past in the name of religion that would be deemed immoral today, heck, there are even things that happen today in the name of religion that can be easily deemed as immoral.

No one can disprove God for you, because you choose to believe in God, those beliefs are untouchable because they are true to you as a person. It comes down to what I've said in the post above me about those that push their morals onto others. That's what you'd be asking me to do, and therefore I choose not to. It is something that I need not do.

1. Just because you catch religious people doing bad things doesn't mean what they do is the will of God.
2. Why stop immoral things when according to the original post, there IS NO WRONG? If it's not wrong, why stop it from happening? The reason "immoral" things are illegal is because we still somehow believe these things are immoral, and therefore believe in a moral code.
3. Let me quote Gandhi. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Once again, Christians do not always doo what is right just because they're Christians. This fallacy is idiotic, to assume that every Christian's misdeeds are done because their god thinks its ok. "in the name of religion" is really "in the will of usurpers," and rarely the will of any god as revealed to his worshippers. Do christians murder? Yes. But are they told not to by their god? YES. As for proving God, let me remind you that as a child you took some convincing that something could be invisible such as air, or untouchable such as an optical illusions. We don't know everything about reality yet, and our human senses are most likely insufficient to detect 99% of the stuff in the universe yet to discover. We accidentally discovered radiation, not because we could perceive it but because we could see its effects. To prove the existence of an interdimensional entity takes more technology than we currently have, but that does not rule out the possibility of existence. Neither can I YET scientifically prove God than can you scientifically disprove him. And disproof is the only qualification for something definitely having no chance in Hell of existing.
We're both shipwrecked on an island we'll probably die on. You have never seen or heard of a horse, and I claim they exist. You don't believe me and say they cannot exist because such a thing has never perceived. And, stranded, you'll never see one. But that's not to absolutely claim they do not exist.
Once again, you are free to disbelieve, it doesn't hurt me any. But I wish it known that it is possible. Maybe he's real, maybe he's not, but he's possible.

 

[Nieroshai]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

To necessitate such a proof, we must first determine whether God makes morality or whether God enforces morality. If he enforces morality, then yes, what God says on the subject matters, but not because God says it. If God makes morality, then such morality is arbitrary and bereft of intrinsic value.

A god that makes up a morality has no faith in its own behavioral traits as a model and is imperfect. A god that wants humans to behave as he would, would have more of a right to enforce without being a hypocrite. I may be misreading, but I see either he makes or enforces as meaning you can make but not enforce or enforce but not make. Am I goofed here? Because the ideal is both. A god who enforces something without having made it makes no sense, and a god who makes but does not enforce is simply a world builder who makes and moves on, i.e. Deism, which is possible but will make discovering him that much harder. As to the point of free will, however, enforcement takes the form of either reward or consequences, most of which simply karmic, at least as well as I can guess. A god that enforces is either a tyrant or a caring parent, depending on the intent and method of enforcement. Note I'm only trying to argue for the existence of a supernatural being here, not a denomination.

 

[snow]

snip.

1. Just because you catch religious people doing bad things doesn't mean what they do is the will of God.
2. Why stop immoral things when according to the original post, there IS NO WRONG? If it's not wrong, why stop it from happening? The reason "immoral" things are illegal is because we still somehow believe these things are immoral, and therefore believe in a moral code.
3. Let me quote Gandhi. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Once again, Christians do not always doo what is right just because they're Christians. This fallacy is idiotic, to assume that every Christian's misdeeds are done because their god thinks its ok. "in the name of religion" is really "in the will of usurpers," and rarely the will of any god as revealed to his worshippers. Do christians murder? Yes. But are they told not to by their god? YES. As for proving God, let me remind you that as a child you took some convincing that something could be invisible such as air, or untouchable such as an optical illusions. We don't know everything about reality yet, and our human senses are most likely insufficient to detect 99% of the stuff in the universe yet to discover. We accidentally discovered radiation, not because we could perceive it but because we could see its effects. To prove the existence of an interdimensional entity takes more technology than we currently have, but that does not rule out the possibility of existence. Neither can I YET scientifically prove God than can you scientifically disprove him. And disproof is the only qualification for something definitely having no chance in Hell of existing.
We're both shipwrecked on an island we'll probably die on. You have never seen or heard of a horse, and I claim they exist. You don't believe me and say they cannot exist because such a thing has never perceived. And, stranded, you'll never see one. But that's not to absolutely claim they do not exist.
Once again, you are free to disbelieve, it doesn't hurt me any. But I wish it known that it is possible. Maybe he's real, maybe he's not, but he's possible.

I believe I may have struck a note when I returned your request to disprove God with a request of my own to in return prove him. I do apologize for doing so, but in return I see you realize that in return you have struck a note with me.

Before I go further I must commend you for being one of the few religious people I've spoken to that didn't shun me or not allow me the freedom to walk away as a disbeliever, there are many that I have spoken with that instantly looked down upon me or tried to change my beliefs after I in turn have stated that I am in no way trying to shake the foundations of theirs.

Let me look at your post again.

1. I don't believe I said that it was the will of God that made those of the past and present do what they did, though they will, and have made others believed that it was Gods will, which falls back to my original post before yours about those in power with immoral values trying to pass them off as moral to their followers. Was it really Gods will? Most likely not, but Kings have made entire civilizations believed that it was and sent armies to their deaths over it.

That and I recall some civilizations sacrificing people to their Gods, something that is considered immoral today that back in that era and that society was a moral thing to do to please their God. When I spoke of religion, I meant all of them, not just Christianity. So I hope you're not taking my responses towards your specific religion, for that is not my intent.

2. The original post is indeed valid, there is no right or wrong. We stop these things from happening because in order to stick together as a society, they need to be outlawed. There are things that are deemed immoral in one society that are completely legal in another society, and as such are considered normal there. It all depends on what kind of society you're trying to build.

Killing is something that is considered immoral these days in a large portion of the world (if not all of it by now.) Because killing one another in your own society will keep that society from growing. However whenever a war breaks out, aren't those of which are from a different society other than your own instantly considered immoral? (Maybe not to you alone,) We are reprogrammed to think they are the bad guys and that it is okay for them to die, and moral for us to kill them, even though in reality we might be the ones doing bad.

3.The first half of this kind of falls under what I said in number 1. I wasn't trying to say that it was the will of God that made people do what they did, it was those in power using the will of God as an excuse to do things that they wouldn't normally get away with. It's happened a lot in the past, and continues to happen today. It truly is a shame.

I do like the rest of 3 though, it was kind of what I was looking for in an answer, and I'm glad that you gave it. To ask others to disprove God is just about as impossible for you to prove it, at least at this point in time. Hopefully as we advance, we will figure out what is true and what is false in this world.

I don't think I can thank you enough for responding maturely. It's not something that happens often when it comes to the topic of religion, though I do believe the OP wanted us to keep it strictly to human nature and not divine nature. Which from my understanding was him/her requesting that religious beliefs be left out of it, but then again, I think we discussed this very well in the aspect of keeping it to Human Nature, for religion is indeed part of it and plays a role in it.

 

[Death God]

You do have an interesting input that is for sure. Though some I must have to argue with.

 

[n00beffect]

Sexual Intercorse, or recreation - Yes! Sex! It's actually GOOD for you, wheather you're a man or a woman, it doesn't really matter. It's healthy and most importantly - free!


P.P.S. but please - no dimwitted posts! Thank you, again![/b]

It is free? What women/men do you know? It is never free there is always some threat or fee even if it is not money.

Spoiler

I mean for free sex I need to get duct tape, a van, condoms and a weapon

OR

A lot of booze

that ain't free

You forgot to look into power and the part it plays. These rules may not exist as you say, but those with power stand to benfit by these rules. So they give you a choice follow the rules or we will break you. Rules are like rights, they exist as long as enough people belive they exist.

Oh no dimwitted posts, I guess I shouldn't post here.

Tough luck I post anyway!

Your post wasn't dimwitted, on the contrary. You're quite right

 

[Nickolai77]

*snip*

The reason why we don't murder and steal is because humans are social animals who live in groups. Murdering and stealing property from another group member isn't going to go down well with the group as a whole, and threatens the survival of the group.

It may be human nature to some to steal and kill, but it is not also human nature to protect one's property (or the property of the group) and seek revenge when injustice is done?

Likewise with sex, a reason why a few society's limited sex and demonized it is because the threat of STD's. In some soceities, not having sex before marriage was so important because it was of vital importance that everyone had a farther. In British-Celtic society, a husband could divorce his wife if he found her not to be a virgin- this may have been because there was the chance that she mothered bastard offspring before they met. In the day's before contraception, there were many reasons, not necessarily reasons we would value today, for limiting sex.

Likewise with deceit and lying, some people feel the need to do it for whatever reason. And their victims do, naturally seek justice for their injuries.

So, i would argue that while the things you mention may well be human nature, but the desire to counter such evils is both also human nature and social necessity. If nobody respected basic moral social agreements, society would not work.

Edit: This also applies to the debate between Snowfox and Nieroshai. You don't need God for moral laws because moral laws stem from human nature and socio-cultural standards.

 

[n00beffect]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

And no, Hawking's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. "God doesn't exist because he's not necessary for the universe to function"? Lots of things exist that aren't necessary. Many of which we make ourselves. Who's to say that the laws of physics weren't written BY the one who made the universe? THEORETICAL physicists can't know anything about what they predict, only to make it as plausible as possible. Hawking's hypothesis is plausible, at least to non-supernaturalists, but not proven by any stretch. It's also plausible that there are intelligent, space-faring extraterrestrials do in fact exist, but we haven't proven a thing so far so the jury is, soundly, out. We cannot say that just because we don't KNOW whether something exists, that this anonymity is in fact PROOF that it does/doesn't exist.

You wish for me disprove your god?

 

[Stoic raptor]

There is a reason we have morals. Its because human nature sucks.
All of your points don't make sense either.
How are they good? If one person does it, no ones happy about it, and rarely do people live by them selfs

 

[n00beffect]

There is a reason we have morals. Its because human nature sucks.
All of your points don't make sense either.
How are they good? If one person does it, no ones happy about it, and rarely do people live by them selfs

I am not saying they're good, I am just saying they're natural and that's something we should always bear in mind, no matter how morally-correct we strrive to be.

 

[Lullabye]

Once again, you are free to disbelieve, it doesn't hurt me any. But I wish it known that it is possible. Maybe he's real, maybe he's not, but he's possible.

How?

OT:
huh, well, whilst alot of this is kinda common sense, it's still really quite interesting. i'll be taking a course on behavioral studies of societies next year, mayhap I'll study further into this whilst doing the course.

 

[gl1koz3]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

And no, Hawking's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. "God doesn't exist because he's not necessary for the universe to function"? Lots of things exist that aren't necessary. Many of which we make ourselves. Who's to say that the laws of physics weren't written BY the one who made the universe? THEORETICAL physicists can't know anything about what they predict, only to make it as plausible as possible. Hawking's hypothesis is plausible, at least to non-supernaturalists, but not proven by any stretch. It's also plausible that there are intelligent, space-faring extraterrestrials do in fact exist, but we haven't proven a thing so far so the jury is, soundly, out. We cannot say that just because we don't KNOW whether something exists, that this anonymity is in fact PROOF that it does/doesn't exist.

What made you think there IS a god controlling Universe in the first place? I never saw him. Never heard of him. I can watch kittens die because of minor injury in a cold winter day. I can find an another dead cat with his intestines pulled out through a hole in his back (supposedly by some kids). Yet I'm still here. And I had to walk away. Things pretty much happen on their own.

As for the need to "find a creator". Why would you? A simple thing to understand, if you try for an eternity, you'll find a solution. The moment you found a solution it is no more an eternity. Thus we are here, but the eternity (or infinity) still exists but will never be reached. I think this is what Hawking tries to say, but I don't know much else, nor I have access to his books.

Why would one think there is a god? Only to explain one's imperfection; to coup with unexplainable things (that require no explanation anyway - a life wasted to think about them). This way one tries to fix insecurity by looking for a provider (a leader). But this is only a human and moral image. There is no correlation between this moral god of a religion and the way Universe works, as I explained how infinity works.