[aldo_14]

There are lots of laws passed on belief.  Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc.  We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.

Wait a minute; none of these are baseless issues of belief, they're issues where you can measure the societal benefit or damage of an act and legislate accordingly.   It's more likely that religion evolved codes to enforce these laws, not created them; especially as they are common across disparate human society.

I attempted to argue from a scientific, medical, and logical basis on the SectorGame thread.  And I thought my arguments were pretty coherent and firmly grounded, but I didn't manage to convince anyone.  So I tried the religious tack on this thread.

I think both the scientific and religious approaches hold up equally well in an argument.  But I think the religious approach is more reliable because scientific conclusions have been amended and overturned in the past, while God remains the same yesterday, today, and forever.

So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments.  I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater.  Probably both.

You know I don't think you have a scientific basis to stand on.  However, the religious arguement is essentially an arguement of one belief over another; and that is always wrong IMO.

EDIT; what I find interesting is that you're assuming you're right and it's just that 'other people don't get it'

This is a different issue.  Whether a person accepts a transplant or not will only affect him, while allowing fetal stem cell research will harm fetuses more than it helps patients.  Outlawing transplants is an attempt to control a person's own moral decisions, while outlawing fetal stem cell research is an attempt to protect the rights of a defenseless person.  That's a significant difference IMHO.

Again, you're making this huge 'defenseless person' assumption.

One person's rights end where another person's rights begins.  A cancer patient does not have the right to be healed at the expense of an innocent person's life.

And when that 'innocent person' isn't a person?

Laws are neither based on science nor logic.  They're based on ethics and morality - traditionally, religion.  Laws are passed by common consent on shared values.  In Islamic countries they pass laws based on the Koran, and in Christian countries they pass laws based on the Bible.

The only place you're going to get laws passed on "rational evidence", logic, or game theory is in a country run by athiests.

No.  The majority of laws are based upon the rather simple rational law of the common good of society, basic conventions of civilisations.  Religion, I think, is likely to have been created or modified at least partially to enforce those laws.  If you look across most societies, you'll find the commonalities to evidence that, even in tribal ones that are effectively isolated from modern civilisations.  There are also evolutionary benefits in certain behaviours, that would lead to their adoption as standard.

When we come to purely religious laws with no measurable benefit, like the stoning of adulterers or forcing women to cover up, then it becomes very hard to justify them IMO.

I think what you'll find, is that secular countries pass laws based on rationality, evidence and logic rather than holding one religious belief as being over all others, and forcing it upon those others by legislation.  Or you could pass in, say, Iran as an example of primarily religious legislation.

EDIT; I'd note also that both N.Korea, China and Soviet Russia all seek/sought to create a religious cult of the leader (Jong-Il, Mao, Stalin) in order to try and control the people; so they're not actually aetheistic states.  I'd also note the UK is also the most secular nation in the world based on a poll in Feb 2004, and the French (for example) have a clear policy of secular state.

[Goober5000]

Doesn't America have a founding law regarding the mixture of Church and State?

There are only a few places that approach something like this in the Constitution.  One is a prohibition on the use of any religious test as a qualification for office.  Another is a prohibition on Congress passing laws giving preference to a particular establishment of a religion.

The original intent was to prevent any sort of situation where there would be a church run by the state (like the Anglican Church in England) or a state run by the church (like Vatican City).  Power politics inevitably cause corruption in this sort of arrangement.  This was only intended to prevent the church from taking orders from the state or the state taking orders from the church - never to prevent a government official from governing according to his beliefs.

There are lots of laws passed on belief.  Marriage laws, rape laws, ethics laws, etc.  We don't cite game theory when writing ethics laws; we appeal to the common good.

Wait a minute; none of these are baseless issues of belief, they're issues where you can measure the societal benefit or damage of an act and legislate accordingly.   It's more likely that religion evolved codes to enforce these laws, not created them; especially as they are common across disparate human society.

Oh really?  Next time you see a rape victim, ask her if she supports anti-rape laws because of the societal impact or because of her personal belief that rape is wrong.  She may say both, but her primary reason will be belief.

A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.

As for the others, yes, many of them can be supported with scientific studies showing that they have a positive effect on society.  But that's not why they're written.  They're written in accordance with certain beliefs.  Justification after the fact has nothing to do with it.

EDIT; what I find interesting is that you're assuming you're right and it's just that 'other people don't get it'

Yeah, but that's not on account of dogma or control or anything like that.  It's because I've seen too much evidence, both firsthand and through others, for me to doubt it.  I'm a naturally skeptical person, but I've become convinced through sheer weight of experience that what I believe is true.

You can choose to believe, or not to believe, and I won't stop you from making that choice.  But it would be heartless for me to keep silent when I know that thousands of children being murdered each day.

No.  The majority of laws are based upon the rather simple rational law of the common good of society, basic conventions of civilisations.  Religion, I think, is likely to have been created or modified at least partially to enforce those laws.  If you look across most societies, you'll find the commonalities to evidence that, even in tribal ones that are effectively isolated from modern civilisations.  There are also evolutionary benefits in certain behaviours, that would lead to their adoption as standard.

When we come to purely religious laws with no measurable benefit, like the stoning of adulterers or forcing women to cover up, then it becomes very hard to justify them IMO.

Let me ask you which of two scenarios makes more sense:

1) A tribe shares a common set of beliefs.  They decide to govern themselves according to those beliefs, and they eventually develop a set of laws (written or oral) putting those principles into concrete form.

2) A tribe experiments with a series of laws, trying to determine which ones are most beneficial to their long-term survival.  Once they have a series of laws that seem to work well, they set up a belief system to enforce them.

Scenario 2 doesn't make any sense IMHO.  Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.

[Ghostavo]

A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.

 

You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.

That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.

[aldo_14]

Oh really?  Next time you see a rape victim, ask her if she supports anti-rape laws because of the societal impact or because of her personal belief that rape is wrong.  She may say both, but her primary reason will be belief.

A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.

As for the others, yes, many of them can be supported with scientific studies showing that they have a positive effect on society.  But that's not why they're written.  They're written in accordance with certain beliefs.  Justification after the fact has nothing to do with it.

Goober, that's complete and utter rubbish and you bloody well know it.  Rape is damaging for many reasons, particularly upon the womens physical and mental health and the consequences that trauma has upon the children (assuming born).  Not to mention the social damage that would be inherent by having that type of society (namely, the breakdown of sexual selection and the inherent evolutionary benefits that conveyed, such as charity and caring), nor to mention that any societal permissiveness towards rape would be rapidly destroyed by a society of children without parents.  And of course the characteristics associated with rapists (i.e. that would be contributed to the genetic pool) are universally negative (sociopathic, for example).

You are, frankly, talking out your arse, and that is a repulsive statement which I can only hope was made in ignorance rather than intentional bias.

Yeah, but that's not on account of dogma or control or anything like that.  It's because I've seen too much evidence, both firsthand and through others, for me to doubt it.  I'm a naturally skeptical person, but I've become convinced through sheer weight of experience that what I believe is true.

And yet sheer weight of evidence convices me of the converse.....increasingly so.

You can choose to believe, or not to believe, and I won't stop you from making that choice.  But it would be heartless for me to keep silent when I know that thousands of children being murdered each day.

And it's not heartless for me to ask for people to be given the chance to make their own choice, not to hold one belief over another and deny hope because of it.

Let me ask you which of two scenarios makes more sense:

1) A tribe shares a common set of beliefs.  They decide to govern themselves according to those beliefs, and they eventually develop a set of laws (written or oral) putting those principles into concrete form.

2) A tribe experiments with a series of laws, trying to determine which ones are most beneficial to their long-term survival.  Once they have a series of laws that seem to work well, they set up a belief system to enforce them.

Scenario 2 doesn't make any sense IMHO.  Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.

Well, frankly, I think you're completely wrong in that.  If it was solely belief, there wouldn't be the level of constancy we see across cultures with regards to things like, say, stealing, murder, etc.  Moreso, you have absolutely no reason why those beliefs would emerge, nor what the beneficial aspect of them is; if, taking your example, legislation by logic leads to rape (ignoring the cases where things like Shariah law see women stoned to death for adultery when they are raped) and soforth being legitimised, why and how could a belief system emerge that condemmed it?

Of course, you've twisted this anyways.  Laws are not 'experiments'.  Laws are the codification of societal behaviour that is beneficial to the group.  Now, you may wish to spin it as if these (laws) are random - shame on you if so.

But it's really very simple and rather basic group dynamics, and I expect you're making some rather odd assumption that 'law' came before behaviour.

Take a basic hunter-gatherer society;
is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food?  Yes. 
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering?  No. 
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying?  No. 
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? Yes (sexual selection plays into beneficial behaviour). 
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities?  Yes.

Now imagine this spun out over thousands of years of societal and individual evolution, where these beneficial characteristics are not just propagated by society but in some cases may be genetic traits.

[Herra Tohtori]

Laws proceed from beliefs; beliefs do not proceed from laws.

I think we have a different concept of "belief".

I see "belief" as just such; belief without any proof or grounds necessary. That is a belief IMO. And laws should *not* be derived directly from them.

Then there are "opinions" which can be based on either facts or beliefs. There's a subtle but meaningful difference in there. Opinion can be either a belief or a fact-based statement, belief can not (by definition) have basis on fact.

[The irony is that by definition, a fact is "a belief that is commonly accepted to be true".]

These opinions are the ones that form the base of ethic system (morality, if you wish) in a community. Make enough people think along same lines of thought, and you have an almost unanimous set of opinions. These opinions then become rules and taboos and traditions, and when the community gets more organized, the name of these things (well, some of them) changes into "legislation". In the beginning, very many laws were based on opinions originally based on beliefs, but also many were based on solid logics or fact. And during time, most cultures have reduced the amount of laws having basis on beliefs and increased the relative amount of laws based on other common opinions (that is, ethics/morality/whatever).

So what I'm trying to say is that beliefs do contribute to legislation more or less, but in most cultures and legal systems to day the beliefs contribute to legislation indirectly, by first becoming an opinion and if enough people think it is a good opinion, fine; let's make it a law. This is a big difference between, say, Sharia, which just is and cannot be changed if it's not liked. It either is, as whole, or isn't. And it is based solely on beliefs. Most laws in most countries are based more on fact and opinions derived/based on fact. Of course there are many laws that have solid basis on religion - say, marriage, for example. But, it is a really old tradition and as such it has become more of an opinion of how things should be, and until that opinion changes, well, I can't see marriage as an institution going anywhere, even though common-law marriages are, well, quite common nowadays.

By the way, almost all the teachings of christianity (at least the most basic ones) concerning interaction between people can be (and has been) achieved by solid logics. Take, for example, the single most important direction old Jese gave in the gospels - "do to your fellow man as you'd wish to be done to yourself", and compare this with the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative: ""Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

It's really just the same thing and can be achieved with common sense... One shouldn't need a priest to tell one that you should think like this. It should be quite clear as it is.

But, as it is, I really don't know if this is the fact. What is clear to me is partially because I've always lived in a culture greatly based on ethic base laid on top of christianity, and thus I do hold important a lot of values considered christian. Nevertheless I think all religions as equal crap and also so treat them - in my mind. In interaction with representatives of different religions, I tend to not talk about my opinions if not directly asked, and even then I usually try to tell my thoughts in a respectful way. I could go bashing their deities again and again but it wouldn't get me anywhere and could cost me a friend or a few. I really didn't want anyone come bashing me because I'm an agnostic, saying that I'm a piece of crap because I don't think like he or she do. I'd just leave him or her to their own solitaire magnificence, and I know other people would do the same to me if I tried that.  

I think it's fascinating how people of quite the same background can think so differently of things.

[NGTM-1R]

You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.

That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.

 

Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?

Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.

[Ghostavo]

You realise your "strictly scientific evaluation" would lead to either a dark ages society (which ironically would cause a reverse in human development, teaching, etc...) or completly destroy civilization.

That is not scientific, that's your belief (preconception if you will) that science is a cold hearted, evil evil thing.

 

Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?

Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

[Bobboau]

well, hows about this, while we work on trying on comeing up with a way to save lives with stem cells you wrok on comeing up with an experiment that will conclucively determine if they do or do not have soal or not.

[aldo_14]

Pitching it a little high, there? Or perhaps a whole frickin' lot too high?

Much of the secondary damage you cite, aldo comes from the societal stigma of it; the traits you cite certainly come from the fact it is illegal. If rape were an accepted part of society, as it has been in the past, then those things would be of much lesser degree at the very least. Goober is not as insane as you'd like to think.

So how come soldiers get shell shock when there isn't/wasn't a societal stigma on war?  Trauma is not an environmentally caused problem.

Think about it.  Goober is saying science justifies rape as it is a reproductive excercise; "A strictly scientific evaluation should lead to rape being legalized, as it leads to an increase in the population.". 

That is complete and utter bollocks.  Let's look at this from a simple reproductive scientific POV. 

Firstly, human females hide their ovulation far more than other primates.  Even if rape was for sexual purposes (rather than violent domination), it would be mostly ineffective as a reproductive method - how many women in the street can you look at and say whether they are ovulating or not? 

Secondly, rape itself is an act of violence; it requires the attacker to use up - bluntly - energy reserves and risk serious injury when the victim fights back (especially if we consider early human society when women would be very strong). 

Thirdly, rapist characteristics are negative; from a scientific standpoint they are not ones you wish conveyed to the next generation through inheritance.  Also, human reproduction is characterised by best-mate selection; rape (for reproduction) actually counteracts the 'reproduction of the fittest' mechanic, damaging society wholesale.

Fourthly, 'anti-rape' characteristics - i.e. those which contribute to a male assisting in the prevention or punishment of rape - are sexually attractive and thus propagated via sexual selection, meaning that individuals who act to stop rape are more likely to procreate (see the first point about hidden ovulation). 

In fact, there is not actually any form of scientific benefit to rape, as Goober would like us to think.  Of course, he also said using science or rationality as a basis would lead to us living in the USSR or North Korea......

I'd like you to cite, though, a society which tolerated rape (the sexual meaning of the word) upon it's own members.

[Grug]

So I haven't been able to convince anyone using either scientific or religious arguments.  I'm not sure whether that points to others' stubbornness or my lack of skill as a debater.  Probably both.

That's a form of extremism. I'd go so far as to say nigh on your whole argument pivots on a form of an extremist viewpoint.

You fail to even consider the other side of the fence, backing up your arguments with stretched science and personal beliefs. of your viewpoint hinges around your personal experiences. What if I said I could come visit, see all the same things you do, experience all the same things you do, yet still refute your views?
What would you say then, to someone who has shared the same or similar experiences, yet still doesn't see things the same way you do?
I would say welcome to humanity, welcome to individuality, welcome to freedom of individual thought.

Everyone sees things differently. I can accept that. You however declare that everyone must see this particular thing the same way you do (that stem cells have souls). Why?
Stem cells are people too?
Bull. There is no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest what you are proposing. That is your belief, fine.
When it comes down to it, there is no single foot you stand on that doesn't rely on your belief system being true.

"God" gave us the intelligence to find this knowledge, God didn't make any clear indication in science that it is wrong to gain this knowledge. God isn't going to be upset over us gaining so much benefit to mankind over using a potentially grey area as seen in some possibly old fashioned people's eyes.

[Goober5000]

Goober, that's complete and utter rubbish and you bloody well know it.  Rape is damaging for many reasons, particularly upon the womens physical and mental health and the consequences that trauma has upon the children (assuming born).  Not to mention the social damage that would be inherent by having that type of society (namely, the breakdown of sexual selection and the inherent evolutionary benefits that conveyed, such as charity and caring), nor to mention that any societal permissiveness towards rape would be rapidly destroyed by a society of children without parents.  And of course the characteristics associated with rapists (i.e. that would be contributed to the genetic pool) are universally negative (sociopathic, for example).

You are, frankly, talking out your arse, and that is a repulsive statement which I can only hope was made in ignorance rather than intentional bias.

If you think it through deliberately instead of following a knee-jerk response, you'll see that it's not as unlikely a possibility as you may think.

Rapists tend to have more partners, thus spreading their genes farther.  They're stronger, more motivated, and more competitive, especially if they're up against other rapists.  And their children, being fatherless and presumably less well-adjusted, will be more likely to become rapists themselves.

So if you evaluate it strictly from the sense of how well it propagates the species, rape is clearly an evolutionary advantage.  Why, then, is it wrong?  Because we believe it's wrong.

Well, frankly, I think you're completely wrong in that.  If it was solely belief, there wouldn't be the level of constancy we see across cultures with regards to things like, say, stealing, murder, etc.  Moreso, you have absolutely no reason why those beliefs would emerge, nor what the beneficial aspect of them is; if, taking your example, legislation by logic leads to rape (ignoring the cases where things like Shariah law see women stoned to death for adultery when they are raped) and soforth being legitimised, why and how could a belief system emerge that condemmed it?

Simple.  God has a standard, and the various cultures' beliefs are their attempts to measure up to that same standard.  Since it's the same standard, they're all going in the same direction, but since they're only human, they can only measure up to it with varying levels of success.

Take a basic hunter-gatherer society;
is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food?  Yes. 
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering?  No. 
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying?  No. 
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? Yes (sexual selection plays into beneficial behaviour). 
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities?  Yes.

This isn't universally true.  This works well if resources are scarce, but imagine if resources are abundant (say, in a particularly lush area of Africa or in the Fertile Crescent).

Is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food?  No.  In fact, since food isn't a problem, competition will increase the members' fitness and reproductive attractiveness.
Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering?  What does it matter if a few women are injured?  Others can do the gathering, and in the meantime these women can bear children.
Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying?  Inapplicable; abundance of food.
Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? No; see the first point.
Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities?  No.

Secondly, rape itself is an act of violence; it requires the attacker to use up - bluntly - energy reserves and risk serious injury when the victim fights back (especially if we consider early human society when women would be very strong).

Actually, polygamy increases sexual dimorphism - the males get larger, and the females get smaller.  Only comparatively recently has monogamy become the norm, and then only in Western societies.  Even in Western societies, women never compete on the same terms as men.  Basketball, golf, soccer, track, martial arts, etc., all rank women on a separate scale than men.

Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been?  Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight.  I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.

Thirdly, rapist characteristics are negative; from a scientific standpoint they are not ones you wish conveyed to the next generation through inheritance.  Also, human reproduction is characterised by best-mate selection; rape (for reproduction) actually counteracts the 'reproduction of the fittest' mechanic, damaging society wholesale.

Depends on how you define "fit".  Rapists are strong, competitive, motivated, and prolific.  If the sole concern is how many babies you father - not how much you contribute to society - then rape is a very attractive prospect.

Fourthly, 'anti-rape' characteristics - i.e. those which contribute to a male assisting in the prevention or punishment of rape - are sexually attractive and thus propagated via sexual selection, meaning that individuals who act to stop rape are more likely to procreate (see the first point about hidden ovulation).

Doubtful.  First of all, the same characteristics that help a male prevent rape (strength, intimidation, competition, etc.) also help a male commit rape.  Second of all, a woman rescued from rape (having been traumatized and possibly injured) is in no mood to willingly reproduce with her rescuer.  For a male to gain any reproductive benefit from the rescue, he'd have to rape her himself.

I'd like you to cite, though, a society which tolerated rape (the sexual meaning of the word) upon it's own members.

There are societies which do this even today.  Some Islamic societies, as mentioned above, do - because, if they wished to punish the rape, they'd stone the rapist, not the victim.  Some African American urban cultures do as well - he who has the most power, or drugs, or bling, gets the girl; and who cares what the girl thinks.

You fail to even consider the other side of the fence, backing up your arguments with stretched science and personal beliefs. of your viewpoint hinges around your personal experiences. What if I said I could come visit, see all the same things you do, experience all the same things you do, yet still refute your views?

You're welcome to come visit and see for yourself.  I doubt many people would long continue doubting Christianity if they experienced it firsthand.

What would you say then, to someone who has shared the same or similar experiences, yet still doesn't see things the same way you do?

I would say that they are either blind (prevented from seeing by spiritual forces) or have some overriding concern or protest that prevents them from accepting it.

"God" gave us the intelligence to find this knowledge, God didn't make any clear indication in science that it is wrong to gain this knowledge. God isn't going to be upset over us gaining so much benefit to mankind over using a potentially grey area as seen in some possibly old fashioned people's eyes.

God gave us science, yes.  But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.

[aldo_14]

If you think it through deliberately instead of following a knee-jerk response, you'll see that it's not as unlikely a possibility as you may think.

Rapists tend to have more partners, thus spreading their genes farther.  They're stronger, more motivated, and more competitive, especially if they're up against other rapists.  And their children, being fatherless and presumably less well-adjusted, will be more likely to become rapists themselves.

So if you evaluate it strictly from the sense of how well it propagates the species, rape is clearly an evolutionary advantage.  Why, then, is it wrong?  Because we believe it's wrong.

Wrong (again).  I've already explained why rape is inefficient from a reproductive perspective, with respect to energy expenditure, risk, and timing (ovulation).  Moreso, you can say it is a distinct evolutionary disadvantage because it firstly encourages anti-social offspring (if we take rape as genetic) damaging group survival,and secondly because it 'breaks' sexual selection.  Additionally, rape characteristics are converse to positive sexual selection (consensual reproduction) characteristics; basic sexual selection shows charity and caring as beneficial sexual traits, as they show that the giver is fit (i.e. good for mating) based upon the amount of energy, time or effort they can freely expand for no immediate gain (as we see in modern society with males, etc, splashing out on shows of wealth or competing at sports).

I've already explained all this, and you've ignored it.  i'm not writing that again.

Simple.  God has a standard, and the various cultures' beliefs are their attempts to measure up to that same standard.  Since it's the same standard, they're all going in the same direction, but since they're only human, they can only measure up to it with varying levels of success.

So you remove God from any responsibility for human negativity,and yet give all responsibility for beneficial behaviour?  In other words, then, there is no need for God unless you twist rationality to be 'evil'.

This isn't universally true.  This works well if resources are scarce, but imagine if resources are abundant (say, in a particularly lush area of Africa or in the Fertile Crescent).

If resources are abundant, then there exist benefits of charity in terms of sexual selection (even food gathering takes time; for the fitness indicator value of this, see in particular the male tendency to hunt for hard, large game rather than easier abundant game).  See 1st part.

Is it beneficial if the members aren't killing each other over food?  No.  In fact, since food isn't a problem, competition will increase the members' fitness and reproductive attractiveness.

Negative.  This runs contrary to sexually attractive characteristics.

Is it beneficial if the males are raping the women, injuring them (females are usually the primary foragers, despite the male hunter image) and preventing them from gathering?  What does it matter if a few women are injured?  Others can do the gathering, and in the meantime these women can bear children.

Wrong, again.  In most hunter-gatherer societies the majority of food gathering is done by women, and males focus on big game (see, again, sexual selection).

Is it beneficial if individuals are stealing and hoarding food, leading to others dying?  Inapplicable; abundance of food.

Applicable.  Regardless of abundance, obtaining food still requires time and effort.

Is it beneficial for (as a slight tangent) for males to share food? No; see the first point.

Yes.  Sharing - charity - is a valuable fitness indicator in sexual selection (see, for example, the peacocks tail as a wasteful yet reproductively beneficial feature).

Is it beneficial to have mutual respect and co-operation alongside a clear hierarchy of responsibilities?  No.

Always.  Group survival and expansion.

EDIT; wait a minute, you're trying to use the bloody garden of Eden as an analogy, aren't you?

Actually, polygamy increases sexual dimorphism - the males get larger, and the females get smaller.  Only comparatively recently has monogamy become the norm, and then only in Western societies.  Even in Western societies, women never compete on the same terms as men.  Basketball, golf, soccer, track, martial arts, etc., all rank women on a separate scale than men.

Yes, i believe I mentioned that before to you.  The human dimorphism is about 10% (mild polygamy).

Let's also note, though, that male sports are higher regarded because of the male urge to impress their reproductive fitness through competition; i.e. sexual selection.  Note that this competition is not in general harmful; most threat displays by animals tend to be purely that - displays - rather than harmful.

Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been?  Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight.  I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.

Oh, really?  That's classic sexism.  Remember the majority of human characteristics are originating from evolution in a small initial population in Africa.  Women in these hunter-gatherer societies would be tremendously fit and strong. 

Depends on how you define "fit".  Rapists are strong, competitive, motivated, and prolific.  If the sole concern is how many babies you father - not how much you contribute to society - then rape is a very attractive prospect.

Again, you've completely managed to miss my point.  Frankly, I'm getting sick of this twisting.  Firstly, rapists are not usually all that strong; they rely upon fear and usually weapons.  What they do have, is a lack of basic compassion and a willingness to use extreme violence and intimidation.  They will prey on weak, vulnerable targets.

Secondly, for the 3rd time, rape is not effective reproduction.  Can you look at a women in the street and judge if she's ovulating?

Thirdly, evolutionary benefit - for selection - is not purely physical.  Both society and sexual selection reward what we'd term 'moral' or charitable acts, because a good person is attractive.  That doesn't mean these acts are done to get laid, it means society and people have evolved to view them as beneficial through their evolutionary adoption.  I've made this whole point umpteen times.

Doubtful.  First of all, the same characteristics that help a male prevent rape (strength, intimidation, competition, etc.) also help a male commit rape.  Second of all, a woman rescued from rape (having been traumatized and possibly injured) is in no mood to willingly reproduce with her rescuer.  For a male to gain any reproductive benefit from the rescue, he'd have to rape her himself.

You have completely missed the point here. 

Firstly, we're not talking about physical but mental attributes; i.e. charity.  I've explained the benefit of charity multiple times RE: sexual selection. 

Secondly, the characteristics such as charity are uniformly attractive and in general (I also explained this) would increase the chance of sexual selection from most women (accounting for some taste variations), and the formation of a long term reproductive relationship. 

And you've drawn a nonsensical conclusion totally at odds to what i said.

There are societies which do this even today.  Some Islamic societies, as mentioned above, do - because, if they wished to punish the rape, they'd stone the rapist, not the victim.  Some African American urban cultures do as well - he who has the most power, or drugs, or bling, gets the girl; and who cares what the girl thinks.

Islamic, eh?  So that's a religious viewpoint.   Are you saying, though, all African American cultures condone rape?  Or just a small segment of lawless individuals already running contrary to societal group benefit logic?  Is this a position supported by the women?  Can you actually put this down to cultural acceptance, or acceptance caused by fear?  Any sources to cite?

What i find interesting, Goob, is the last few pages.  Now, i do actually have a lot of respect for you, at least till justnow.  But the past few posts you've done nothing but try and twist my posts in ways that run contrary to what i've said, ignoring basic arguments - facts even - I've said several times.

You seem to be hell-bent on creating some ridiculous strawman, totally in the face of basic logic, that thinking rationally leads to rape and Stalin.  That, frankly, disgusts me, because it is downright wrong.  And to me it seems you now view the opposing viewpoint in the same manner as viewing a convicted criminal, presuming we are 'blind' (one could infer being 'prevented from seeing' as meaning by the Devil....).

I honestly expected better, because I don't think I've ever been so pissed off at wilfull misrepresentation as to post anything like the prior 2 paragraphs.

EDIT;  I'm sorry if that seems rather an angry rant.  Perhaps you just didn't get the point I was making, which is a rather well established one.  However, in my eyes what you seem to be trying to do is to chalk up every positive aspect of human behaviour as down to God or religion, even when this aspect can be perfectly well explained without the supernatural, and ergo move on either branding aetheism as evil, or claiming that anyone who is in any way 'good' must be in some way religious.  And i'm sorry, but if that is what you are trying to do, then it deeply offends me because it's one of the most bigoted, biased and sectarian things you could say.  If that's what you were trying to say.

[Herra Tohtori]

God gave us science, yes.  But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.

Nope.

You think God gave boundaries, I don't think so. Am I not to cross boundaries you feel offensive but are not that to me?

If that's true, then you also shouldn't eat ham because there are a lot of people that believe the God has forbidden eating pig. Also, you should not eat cow meat for same reasons (except for that in that case there would be multiple gods and the law of Karma behind the idea.)

You also shouldn't drink any alcohol (not sure you do, but anyways). You also must be very careful about what you say or do in any regards, because some people believe their God has forbidden them to do something, or to do that particular thing in a particular way.

Also, the president of the United States of America believes he has been given a mission by god, therefore all his actions are justifiable, eh?  A line from The Blues Brothers crossed my mind... "They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God." -Elwood Blues

Actually, there are more than one religions stating that heretics must die because they have wrong beliefs. Therefore, all the people have to die because all of us are by definition, and effectively, heretics. 

Can you see where it leads if we start using religious authority in legislation? How do we know which religion is the right one? The one that has (all the directions combined) the most followers (remember hear the analogy about **** and flies)?

Nope, no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.

Granted that religious views might (and do, sometimes significantly) affect the general moral standing of population, but there is a slight difference between this and using plain religious beliefs as basis of law. I understand the religious background on some older, existing laws (say, about blasphemy, marriage and other things like that) but I frankly couldn't accept legislative forbiddance on research, especially when the subjects of the research would die anyways, as has been stated multiple times on this thread.

And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?

[Goober5000]

Wrong (again).  I've already explained why rape is inefficient from a reproductive perspective, with respect to energy expenditure, risk, and timing (ovulation).  Moreso, you can say it is a distinct evolutionary disadvantage because it firstly encourages anti-social offspring (if we take rape as genetic) damaging group survival,and secondly because it 'breaks' sexual selection.  Additionally, rape characteristics are converse to positive sexual selection (consensual reproduction) characteristics; basic sexual selection shows charity and caring as beneficial sexual traits, as they show that the giver is fit (i.e. good for mating) based upon the amount of energy, time or effort they can freely expand for no immediate gain (as we see in modern society with males, etc, splashing out on shows of wealth or competing at sports).

I've already explained all this, and you've ignored it.  i'm not writing that again.

I haven't ignored it.  I'm saying that that doesn't apply in every scenario.  Let me back up and try to lay out my argument in its entirety:

Take cholera transmission.  In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent.  Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious.  On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.

Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment.  In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant.  Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can.  In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply.  If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread.  Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.

So I'm assuming, based on this example, that there's a similar equilibrium of fecundity in humans.  Admittedly it's an extrapolation, but I think it holds.  In populations with easy and plentiful access to food, humans are likely to reproduce rapidly, with rape being a likely significant contributor.  In populations where food is scarce, or where conditions are harsh, it then becomes advantageous to develop societal checks and balances.

My point in all this is to establish that morals are not necessarily connected to group dynamics.  If rape is wrong, it should be just as wrong for the population with plentiful resources as for the population with scarce resources.

In other words, then, there is no need for God unless you twist rationality to be 'evil'.

No; rationality is morally neutral.  It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.

EDIT; wait a minute, you're trying to use the bloody garden of Eden as an analogy, aren't you?

No, not that I know of.

Secondly, how effective do you think fighting back would have been?  Back before women were taught self-defense, they were pretty worthless in a fight.  I would imagine the fear response would kick in and they'd simply freeze.

Oh, really?  That's classic sexism.  Remember the majority of human characteristics are originating from evolution in a small initial population in Africa.  Women in these hunter-gatherer societies would be tremendously fit and strong.

If you took an average man and an average woman and had them fight, on their own without any tools or weapons, the man would win (BOCTAAE).  This has been empirically demonstrated so many times it is now taken for granted.  I don't think that's sexism.  Sexism is undeserved prejudice without regard to fact.

As for the ovulation argument, I don't have an answer to that (and according to Wikipedia it's disputed), but if a woman is fertile 1/3rd of the time, and a male mates with three likely candidates, he probably stands a good chance of impregnating one of them.

What i find interesting, Goob, is the last few pages.  Now, i do actually have a lot of respect for you, at least till justnow.  But the past few posts you've done nothing but try and twist my posts in ways that run contrary to what i've said, ignoring basic arguments - facts even - I've said several times.

You seem to be hell-bent on creating some ridiculous strawman, totally in the face of basic logic, that thinking rationally leads to rape and Stalin.  That, frankly, disgusts me, because it is downright wrong.  And to me it seems you now view the opposing viewpoint in the same manner as viewing a convicted criminal, presuming we are 'blind' (one could infer being 'prevented from seeing' as meaning by the Devil....).

I honestly expected better, because I don't think I've ever been so pissed off at wilfull misrepresentation as to post anything like the prior 2 paragraphs.

Well, I have a lot of respect for you too, and I'm definitely not (consciously) trying to twist any of the things you said.  As for "ignoring" arguments - I read everything you wrote, and if I don't respond to something it means either 1) I don't have a response to it but I don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make; or 2) I believed something I wrote in response to one point was an effective counter to other points as well.

EDIT;  I'm sorry if that seems rather an angry rant.  Perhaps you just didn't get the point I was making, which is a rather well established one.  However, in my eyes what you seem to be trying to do is to chalk up every positive aspect of human behaviour as down to God or religion, even when this aspect can be perfectly well explained without the supernatural, and ergo move on either branding aetheism as evil, or claiming that anyone who is in any way 'good' must be in some way religious.  And i'm sorry, but if that is what you are trying to do, then it deeply offends me because it's one of the most bigoted, biased and sectarian things you could say.  If that's what you were trying to say.

Well, part of my worldview is that humans, having been separated from God, would literally make hell on Earth if it weren't for God "plugging the holes in the dam", so to speak.  So that's going to show through in my posts.  I realize that this is tangential to my main point and quite likely counterproductive when talking to non-Christians, and so I try not to bring it up.

I'm just trying to establish a few key things here.  1) God is still actively intervening in the world, and my experiences with that are the basis for trusting him on the next few points; 2) God is the source of morality, and his morality trumps any emergent group dynamics which are morally neutral and depend on circumstance; 3) God values, and is interested in prolonging the life of, every human being, from conception to natural death.

Can you see where it leads if we start using religious authority in legislation? How do we know which religion is the right one? The one that has (all the directions combined) the most followers (remember hear the analogy about **** and flies)?

Nope, no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.

This is a good strategy when dealing with differing opinions, but my key point is that my belief is more than an opinion - it has been proven to be true through both logic and experience.  I try to be very accommodating when dealing with different opinions, but likewise I try to be very stubborn when defending the truth.

And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?

Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.

[Wild Fragaria]

Take cholera transmission.  In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent.  Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious.  On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.

Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment.  In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant.  Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can.  In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply.  If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread.  Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.

This is a very poor analogy.  It makes no sense.  You over simplifier the rate of a disease like Cholera would spread and picture the whole story the way you like to see.  On top of that, Cholera does not choose how slowly it kills it's host so it has time to 'plan' where else to attack.

Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.

I have no idea that hospitals actually let people take the embroys home so they can perform a funeral or burial ceremony for the dead.

Do you even have proofs on the reduction for abortion claim?

[Herra Tohtori]

...no religion can be set upon any other, therefore all the religions should be disregarded completely when setting up laws. Instead, when legislating, one should rather use the common sense and currently valid ethic principles that are widely accepted.

This is a good strategy when dealing with differing opinions, but my key point is that my belief is more than an opinion - it has been proven to be true through both logic and experience.  I try to be very accommodating when dealing with different opinions, but likewise I try to be very stubborn when defending the truth.

Yeah, I bet you feel your own religion is something special. I also bet that so do everyone else that has such strong belief. Quite a bit of people can say that their beliefs are more than opinions and have been proven to be true, by either logic or experience or both. The trouble is that logic can be flawed and experiences about these things tend to be quite difficult to verify. Also, it is suspicious to me how many religions tend to have their own proving pieces of evidence and logics stating that the have the right God and right way to serve him.

The point is that as long as you can't somehow make everyone else (everyone!) convinced that your belief is the one right turbo-belief of über-god, there are going to be contradictory beliefs that also "are not just opinions", and their reasonings for their beliefs to be right are just as valid as yours, so here's how it is. We have to use either all of the beliefs as basis when doing legislation, or none of them. As using all of them is clearly impossible for reasons I stated earlier, we must use none. Regardless of how true you or any other might see his or her personal belief to be.

Until, for some reason, one of these belief systems becomes a commonly approved belief that is considered to be true*, which effectively and by definition means that one of the belief systems ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact. After that it's of course not a religion...

And I haven't yet heard, how do the (hypothetic) souls of embryos suffer from the research work more than just being tossed into garbage...?

Part of it comes from respecting the dead (proper burial or disposition rather than mutilation) but part of it is meant to reduce demand for abortion in the first place.

I'd actually consider doing research on embryos much more respecting than throwing them plainly onto garbage as a by-product of fertility clinics. Also this line would lead to the old debate about whether an embryo should be regarded as a person or not; you think yes, I think no, points given and disregarded on both sides.  

Reducing abortions is a good thing in general - what with abortion being a traumatizing event to mother and all - but I really don't see that being anyhow related to embryonic stem cell research. AFAIK the embryos are not actually aborted; instead they are by-product of fertility clinics. They are inseminated outside a body, grown into blastocyst-size, then I believe one is arbitrarily chosen to continue its development, other test pieces hold no value to the project at hands. They would get into junk. Instead, some of them are used on research. What in this research is so horrid when compared to being tossed away?

And if dying embryos are so horrible thing, why do you not oppose to fertility clinics? Or do you?

*definition of truth, should it be of interest to anyone  

[Turambar]

if my chem teacher says that when i run current through water, i can get hydrogen and oxygen, i could just take his word for it.  or, i could perform the experiment myself.

if some priest tells me that god exists and that jesus died for our sins, what can i do?  all i have is his word and a book.

thats my problem with religion

[Bobboau]

ok, goob, this rape stupidity...
if rape was an evolutionary advantage, then why aren't there far more rapests? you see this is the great thing about a theory, it makes predictions, and the big one in evolution is if "trate A" is evolutionarily benifical, then the prevelence of "trait A" will most likely increase. humans have as one of there most important survival mechanisms a socal structure, this along with our intelligence is the reason why there are 6 billion of us, any trait wich damages either of these two facets of our behavior will quickly be bred out, you can be the nicest retard or the smartest rapest, you'll likely end up with the same number of childeren, namely 0, well actualy if the retard is able to till soil or something he'll probly get a few kids actualy, but the rapest, he's dead no more sex for you after that, he's dead, why, well Goob, if someone raped your wife or your mother or your sister or a female frend, what would you do to them? conversely, if your son or father or brother or male frend was found to have commited a rape, what would you do?
I can tell you that in both cases he had better hope the cops find him before me and my linch mob do, because he has no one helping him no more frends no more help in gathering food, and the husband, father, children, and all the frends of every girl he rapes wanting to rip his balls off and choke him with them, and rape is, interestingly, one of the biggest exeptions people are willing to make for abortions. so as you can see, there is a rather dramatic selection preasure against rape, hence there being a rather dramatic lack of rapests, due to the fact that rape is a bad reproductive habit.

if you still doubt, I want you to consiter the following scenario:
you have two villages. the two have two seperate cultures and for the moment , lets just assume they have no contact with each other, but they have roughly the exact same environment. the culture of one village has no penalty for rape in fact it has protections ensureing rapests will have no ill consequience, in the other village you die. now rapests do exsist in the anti-rape village, however they are only able to copulate at most two times before they are found out. women are only fertile for about 1/4th of the time so he just killed himself for a (at best) 50% chance that he will get ONE offspring, meanwhile all the other men get 8 or so, the evolutionary preasure in this vilage is roughly 1600% against rape, it has been established that .1% selection preasure doomed the neanderthals, it is clear that a rape in this village is doomed.
lets go to the other one for a while in this village, your scenario for reproduction does, to a degree, apply. rapests would indeed have a larger number of childeren than non rapests so there would be a selection preasure for people, who do not wish to get involved in interpersonal relationships, there would be no fathers raiseing childeren, no fathers at all actualy, no one would bother, nor wish to engage in parenting, because after many years of this only people with selfish narcasistic tendancies would still be preasent. childeren would therfore be totaly dependant upon only one parrent who must both raise, protect and feed them while at the same time do the things that make such things posable, and while tilling the feilds and hunting for game, the mother must have three or more childeren crying and in constant need of attention following along with her or being straped to her (because she will be constantly pregnant untill she dies or reaches menapause).
...hell do I realy need to keep going, don't you see yet how rape would just totaly destroy the human race quite quickly? it is not simply a beleife that rape is bad, it is a verifiablely bad trait. and it is not just a beleife that it is wrong, it is something that you would not wish upon your worst enemy, it's simply a very not nice thing to do to someone, if you rape someone they won't like it, and if someone does something bad to someone you like you seek vengance as if it happened to you.

I think you have now been thuroughly proven wrong, this argument is quite close to an adhomonen, you make a statement like science suports rape, it's such a blatant attempt to just atack science that it's disgusting. it's like if I called you a child molester to discredit you, and tried to prove it by some guilt by assosiation with catholic preists. seriously, you are just plain ****ing wrong, incorect, logicaly contradictory, end this.

[aldo_14]

EDIT: GAH!  Bloody q's not working!

I haven't ignored it.  I'm saying that that doesn't apply in every scenario.  Let me back up and try to lay out my argument in its entirety:

Take cholera transmission.  In populations where the only supply of water is a large contaminated reservoir, cholera is extremely virulent.  Epidemics are common, and infection symptoms are extremely serious.  On the other hand, in populations where there are many sources of water, not all of which are contaminated, cholera spreads much more slowly and produces fewer symptoms.

Essentially, the fecundity of cholera depends on its environment.  In situations where it's easy for cholera to spread, it runs rampant.  Hosts have no choice but to be infected, so the cholera is free to do as much damage as it can.  In contrast, in situations where cholera has only a small beachhead from which to infect the population, it's forced to minimize the damage so it can spread from person to person as well as from the contaminated water supply.  If it attacks its host too quickly, it kills it off and can't spread.  Only after all the water supplies have been contaminated is it free to wreak havoc.

So I'm assuming, based on this example, that there's a similar equilibrium of fecundity in humans.  Admittedly it's an extrapolation, but I think it holds.  In populations with easy and plentiful access to food, humans are likely to reproduce rapidly, with rape being a likely significant contributor.  In populations where food is scarce, or where conditions are harsh, it then becomes advantageous to develop societal checks and balances.

My point in all this is to establish that morals are not necessarily connected to group dynamics.  If rape is wrong, it should be just as wrong for the population with plentiful resources as for the population with scarce resources.

You're interpreting group dynamics as competitive or resource-based.  That's not correct.  Why did you think I kept mentioning sexual selection?  That does not rule out what we'd call abberant behaviour - nor should it - but it does explain majority 'moral' behaviour and strictures within an evolutionary context.

Again, rape is an extremely ineffective reproductive mechanism.  I've said, repeatedly, that it is very hard to judge ovulation, let alone the risk and energy expenditure factors.  Also, in evolutionary terms it would lead to females being substantially smaller than they are, due to rapists targeting of easy, weak individuals.  It would also remove the need for many visible fitness indicators and our reactions to them (for example, breasts have been suggested as good fitness indicators as they indicate age), as mate choice is no longer a factor.

EDIt; I'd note, that reproductive rates seem to be distinctly higher in 3rd world countries than 1st world; most countries in, say, the EU are struggling to maintain their populations let alone grow, in spite of very high standards of living.

No; rationality is morally neutral.  It only becomes "good" or "evil" in the hands of those using it.

Then why are you trying to justify such a ludicrous premise with it?

If you took an average man and an average woman and had them fight, on their own without any tools or weapons, the man would win (BOCTAAE).  This has been empirically demonstrated so many times it is now taken for granted.  I don't think that's sexism.  Sexism is undeserved prejudice without regard to fact.

And how injured would the man be?  How much energy would they expend?  Where is your basis for the 'average' woman?  There's about a 10% difference in base size (NB: skeletal dimorphism isn't, though, a good indicator of actual dimorphism) between males and females.  But early evolutionary times, when our base instincts would be formed, would entail females being extremely physically active as the main food gatherers and having to be capable of fending off predators.

Aside;
http://www.serpentfd.org/section2hominidevolution.html

Briefly, we are proposing that for two million years, up to approximately 100,000 to 40,000 years ago, hominid evolution was driven by the criteria females used to select males for their procreation partners (Tanner, 1981) included males who were increasingly cooperative, social, and less aggressive (Young 1971). Males with these characteristics were more inclined to succeed in a promiscuous social environment (Morgan, 1877;Margulis & Sagan, 1991) and more likely to be responsive to the needs of women with infants and children helpless for long periods. These characteristics were evidenced by males with less testosterone (T) than the more aggressive males. And if, as we surmise, there is an inverse relationship between sperm production and testosterone production, then females selecting males low in T will be choosing males with larger testicles which produce more sperm making them a likely success in a promiscuous social structure.

By choosing males with low T, females are prolonging the developmental and maturation rates of their male progeny. In humans the relative levels of testosterone (and probably estrogen) in males and females is the primary hormonal intermediary between the eight environmental cues and relative rates of maturation. By prolonging growth, whether explained by heterochronic concepts of neoteny (Montagu, 1955, 1989; Gould, 1977) (prolonging child features into adulthood) or by hypermorphosis (Shea, 1989; McKinney and McNamara, 1990) (prolonging all developmental stages), one of the net results is increased brain and cranium size (Riska & Archley, 1985). Prolonging growth rates is achieved in humans by lowering T. Accelerating growth, in effect condensing developmental stages, is achieved by raising T.

(for example)

Moreso, it strikes me that if rape was so beneficial in that context (reproduction or some imagined genetic advantage), it would be a societally-dominant crime that we all had urges to do.  Clearly, it seems, if rape was a genetic characteristic evolution has reduced its prevelance, not increased it.

As for the ovulation argument, I don't have an answer to that (and according to Wikipedia it's disputed), but if a woman is fertile 1/3rd of the time, and a male mates with three likely candidates, he probably stands a good chance of impregnating one of them.

According to Geoffery Miller, who I'd consider just a mite more reliable than Wikipedia, human females hide their ovulation more than other primates do.  And your chance calculations are wrong here; you're seemingly assuming that if you pick any 3 women and rape them at the same time (day), then it means one is likely be ovulating.  Not to mention that not all reproductive sex (i.e. at ovulation time) leads to pregnancy.

http://www.stnews.org/Research-1145.htm

Some scientific theorists speculate that the evolutionary explanation for human monogamy lies in the secrecy of human female ovulation. Unlike females of many other species, human females show little or no sign of their fertility. Female Barbary macaques, for instance, display their puffy red backsides when ovulating. Other nonhuman females emit strong odors that indicate that they want to copulate.

Moreso, the disputed part refers to whether females know they are ovulating, not whether males can directly spot it.  The display nature of human behaviour with respect to sex is likely to further complicate any attempt to determine fertility signals via subconscious cues such as dress; this is coming very close to 'blaming the victim' here.

EDIT; moreso, female knowledge of ovulation would actually increase the comparative efficiency of consensual reproduction, which can be timed to coincide with ovulationary periods, against random rape.

Well, I have a lot of respect for you too, and I'm definitely not (consciously) trying to twist any of the things you said.  As for "ignoring" arguments - I read everything you wrote, and if I don't respond to something it means either 1) I don't have a response to it but I don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make; or 2) I believed something I wrote in response to one point was an effective counter to other points as well.

Well, i think you need to find and read a book, then.

That covers exactly the points I've been trying to make.

Well, part of my worldview is that humans, having been separated from God, would literally make hell on Earth if it weren't for God "plugging the holes in the dam", so to speak.  So that's going to show through in my posts.  I realize that this is tangential to my main point and quite likely counterproductive when talking to non-Christians, and so I try not to bring it up.

I'm just trying to establish a few key things here.  1) God is still actively intervening in the world, and my experiences with that are the basis for trusting him on the next few points; 2) God is the source of morality, and his morality trumps any emergent group dynamics which are morally neutral and depend on circumstance; 3) God values, and is interested in prolonging the life of, every human being, from conception to natural death.

From my perspective, God is invisible for 1), and unecessary for 2), and highly debatable (what defines 'natural death'?) for 3), and it's the middle one which annoys me because it essentially says aetheism is immoral and humans are incapable of good through free will.  My entire belief structure, as it has evolved, has always been centred around the concept that we determine how good we are, not anything else.  Following Christianity, Islam, etc does not equal good or evil, peoples' actions do - whether it be Mother Theresa or the Inquisition.

EDIT; it strikes me, actually, that we're almost regarding rape here as some inherent part of human nature that somehow had to be overcome; i.e. behaviour that was stripped.  However, there's no reason why it couldn't have simply never occured as a large-scale behaviour, especially considering the benefits of consensual reproduction using sexual selection in a group / species scales.  It's inherently dangerous, I think, to just assume rape is some default behaviour rather than a rare aberration.

[Grug]

You're welcome to come visit and see for yourself.  I doubt many people would long continue doubting Christianity if they experienced it firsthand.

Really?
What if I said I have seen a few things in my time myself that I found questionable?
Mostly though, through friends I'd consider fairly intelligent and trustworthy, have heard some seemingly unbelievable tales as well.
My point is, you  can't just assume that 1) your the only one in the world that sees and experiences things, and 2) that your way / friends way of viewing things are the most logical and most correct outcomes.

I've seen, but mostly heard many things  that seem to reach beyond a scientific explaination. Very few of which I might add, have anything to do with Christianity. My point is, yours is not the only supposed supernatural experiences that are claimed to be directly related to religeon X.

where you say:

I would say that they are either blind (prevented from seeing by spiritual forces) or have some overriding concern or protest that prevents them from accepting it.

I would say the same back at you. (minus the part prevented seeing by spiritual forces, - was that incinuating the devil was stopping me from seeing it -assume he exists even? o.O ) That you have a very one sighted view, and that you are the blind one without exposure to other religeons, ideals, and lives. You've simply accepted the one you've grown up with, assumedly told all your life that your belief was the right one, and that any other interpretation of the world is most likely wrong, and possibly influenced by the devil.

I personally believe that no single religeon is wholly correct or accurate.

God gave us science, yes.  But God also gave us instructions on how to live our lives, and that results in boundaries that science cannot cross.

Who's God though?
Yours, mine, Joe's, Bob's?
Then if so, prove it. You can't. Nor can I, Joe or Bob. That's the point.

Common sense to me says that research on stem cells that could possibly be a cure to many ailments on humanity, minor and serious, is enough to accept this research happening in my mind. The same way in that I can accept lab rats being tested on for various other reasons also. Stem cells are no more important, in the sense that they are "alive", than lab rats, less so even as they don't even have a brain to comprehend themselves and their environment.