Science is The New Religion

All behaviour is natural is it ?

Would you include peodaphilia amongst that behaviour ? If it is so natural why isn't everyone at it ?

I'm using the word natural here in a very common way. Ie. it's natural to cover your eyes in bright sunlight. That would be a natural behaviour. It wouldn't be natural to glare wide eyed into the sun.

It would be unnatural behaviour.

 

Please tell me you didn't just type that?

 

He just went full fool. You never go full fool.

 

Even though you are trying to be shocking yes it is natural. For something to be unnatural that means it doesn't exist in nature.

Why do so many people have this Disney view of what is natural. Sunshine, puppies, cold beer and so on. War, death, famine, rape, murder even cannibalism are all parts of nature as well and thus natural. It is simply the way things are.

 

Yes, he said all behaviour was natural. I just wondered if he really meant it.

Is it a taboo to mention it. You know a lot of people out there do it. Are we not supposed to mention things that might make people uncomfortable.

Do you agree then that we can go around and say all behaviour is natural no matter what that behaviour is ?

A yes or no is all I need.

 

You are right, I was going more for the unknowable which would make it more it can't be known rather than I don't know but I don't know is valid.

My logic was faulty.

 

Cloudz, give me an example of a behavior that doesn't occur in nature.

 

Doesn't make things like cannabilism natural behaviour for human beings. Is it your natural behaviour?

Yes or no will do.

I'm not saying these things don't happen. This isn't that I or anyone else isn't aware of bad things happening.

To the former; It is not in the majority of people nature to do that I believe it is a perversion. That is the descriptive word I would tend to use. And I'm pretty sure you would use the same descriptive term in normal circumstances.

 

Here's some food for thought. I could argue that agnosticism itself isn't entirely as neutral as it might at first seem, either. It's often seen as being in the middle between theism or atheism (applying the one-dimensional model here, obviously). However, in practical terms, what church or related building would an agnostic go to? What day of the week would they consider holy? Who would they pray to? Do they have any scriptures or traditions they appeal to for wisdom and knowledge? Possibly most importantly of all, which set of moral teachings do they draw their personal ethics from?

I'd assume the most common answers from agnostics to those questions are, "none", "none", "no one", "none" and the last answer probably varies quite considerably but the answers will likely be similar to the answers you'd get from an atheist. Any agnostics - feel free to correct me here, I'm genuinely curious to know if I'm wrong on any of those.

Whether we do it consciously or unconsciously, we all have to make some sort of assumption as to whether there is a theistic god watching us or not as we go about our lives. For the theist or atheist, that assumption has already been made. For the agnostic, no matter how neutral they try to be, they still can't walk around with an "I don't know" attitude. If they make the assumption that there is a theistic god, they are then stuck with the problem of deciding which one it is. I doubt very many agnostics go down that path. If they make the assumption that there isn't a theistic god then, for all practical intents and purposes, aren't they living an atheistic lifestyle?

 

Calling me what now ?

Answer it yourself. Is fiddling with kids natural for you to do then ?
If we start describing everything as natural behaviour then it loses it's meaning.

The word natural here is being used in the normative sense as it's often used in everyday language. Natural behaviour is synonymous with normal behaviour, get it?

So, is it natural for people to go around fiddling with kids ?
Yes or no will do.

I think you'll find the vast majority of people will find it a very very unnatural thing to do. Many people would say the same for homosexual acts.

I've had to resort to this to get a simple point across. If some of you weren't so damn stubborn headed about it, this would have been much much easier.

 

Just because it "occurs in nature" doesn't follow that it is "natural behaviour".
That is a fallacy of equivocation right there buddy.

Of course if you define all behaviour as natural, that's where you end up. You have to describe every and all behaviour as one way. Which would be a tragedy in communication.

 

You cannot compare homosexuality and paedophiles and expect to be taken seriously

 

Natural behaviour doesn't mean prevalent.

And yes, in point of fact, paedophilia is a natural behaviour. This is why I disagree so strongly with the term natural or unnatural being applied to behaviours. Whether something is natural or unnatural has no implication for the harm it may or may not cause, and therefore trying to label a behaviour that someone personally believes as immoral as unnatural, or one they perceive to be moral as natural, is a complete and utter nonsense.

Natural and unnatural are not moral terms. They are purely situational, and any use of them to imply morals is a transparent attempt to stir up dislike.

By definition any behaviour in which a person engages is natural.

Yes, we can go around and say all behaviour is natural. Natural and unnatural are not words with any moral implication.

Yes. Natural or unnatural should not be a value judgment.

 

Personally I'd call it natural in the sense that it happens and it's not caused by anything supernatural.
It's a misfiring of the sexual drive at the inncorrect target (much like any sort of fetish) IMHO.
It's a particularly nasty type of fetish but I'd classify it as that.

Perhaps the right word to use isn't natural but something like normative or normal?
Therefore being gay wold be natural but not normative?

 

Cloudz, I was doing to you with a very narrow definition of natural as you were doing to a lot of us with a very narrow definition of atheist.

It is hard to communicate with someone who locks into a view and insists that others can only argue using his terms.

 

I'm not comparing them. I'm describing them both as unnatural in a certain context.

See it would help if you first understood what I was saying before you intend to not take me seriously.

You should take me seriously 'cos I'm a serious Mo' fo'

 

it might be natural but it doesn't make it ethical. Natural and ethical are two entirely different subjects and you can never use one to justify the other.

okay first this fails in a cultural sense.
Second this fails in a temporally relative sense. Take the example of pedophilia. In many cultures over many time periods it was considered normal.
Third what is considered "normal" for humans is inherently unnatural. For example as I said it is statistically normal for our species to engage in symbolic interaction and thought (language) but statstically between species we are the aberration. Again

again natural as you've defined it is a flawed definintion and natural in its true definition has no relatiion to ethics. Whether pedophilia is natural or not has no bearing on the ethical issues surrounding it.

except by your own definition it is normal being that it is statistically frequent..

Stubborn has nothing to do with anything. You're contradicting yourself, trying to use normatives between species and within the species to define ethical behavior (which doesn't work) while ignoring behaviours which occur in nature to suit your own bias.

 

Hey man listen.

Am I that wrong in my view of saying that describing certain behaviour as unnatural is simply descriptive language.

I notice you failed to answer my direct questions with a yes or no. So maybe my point has some legs.

To me it's just more political correctness.

Go on ask me anything about atheist definition and I'll give you a straight ye or no - go on, try me.

 

Actually it's now been accepted in the psychological community that homosexuality is too frequent to be considered abnormal which is why we no longer try to condition people to be heterosexual unless they wish to be.

 

only a sith deals in absolutes.