The Existence of "Happiness"

[marthanoob]

If you want good for others, its not self-implied, expellng the selfish act. Don't you think it sounds kind of weird if you say call me selfish when i want a friend to survive a fire?

The definition I was using is in line with the one you used except without "in disregard for others."
You want your friend to survive because that would make you happy and would be good according to your ethical beliefs.

 

[Pr0phetic]

The definition I was using is in line with the one you used except without "in disregard for others."
You want your friend to survive because that would make you happy and would be good according to your ethical beliefs.

I actually have not seen your post, and you can see exactly whre i gotten it from, Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) Sorry if it sonded like i copied you.

I don't know about you guys but some of you make stuff so logical you forget that people have feelings, yes my friend being alive will make me happy but im not only looking forward to my happiness, its his/her safety. If your going into specific "ethnical" beliefs then yes, it is good, i can't find selfsihness in that.

 

[mc4]

No. It depends on the species. Its the survival of a gene.

I.e. There is a new gene that is created in one tadpole. He survives to have kids randomly. The gene allows him when he dies to warn other tadpoles with chemicals. Now, he has children. One dies but all the other survive because of the mutation, so he has more children in the next generation. This gene propagates throughout the population. However, for solitary creatures, a social altruistic gene is not useful. Selfish genes are useful then.

And evolution has everything to do with our social lives and we have evolved. That is a fact. However, we cannot prove that we will evolve in the future but every indicator says yes. But we cannot 100% prove it. And take a look at our intelligence. Its the result of sexual selection, women chose more intelligent men as an indicator of fitness and so our intelligence grew greatly. And take a look at how we help others. In a society, you need others to help you sometime or another, so if you help them, they are more likely to help you when you need it. That is why you are less likely to help someone if they hurt you.

To me the first statement does prove natural selection which which i'm not against (survival of the fittest etc) It just doesn't prove evolution to me.

In the second statement it seems like attraction is compared with evolution? We as humans have reason logic so we can choose who we want to be with. There are people who aren't deemed "shallow" that will be with people that they may not physically be attracted to and may have qualities that aren't always desirable. And we may be just as likely to help someone who has hurt us vs someone who hasn't because we can choose to be forgiving and forget about the offense.

 

[arrowhead]

im not only looking forward to my happiness, its his/her safety

your own happiness is dependent on his or her safety

as RDK said, for everything you do, you are looking for something in return

 

[illinialex24]

To me the first statement does prove natural selection which which i'm not against (survival of the fittest etc) It just doesn't prove evolution to me.

In the second statement it seems like attraction is compared with evolution? We as humans have reason logic so we can choose who we want to be with. There are people who aren't deemed "shallow" that will be with people that they may not physically be attracted to and may have qualities that aren't always desirable. And we may be just as likely to help someone who has hurt us vs someone who hasn't because we can choose to be forgiving and forget about the offense.

You can't believe in natural selection and not evolution without truly lacking a lot of brainpower.

your own happiness is dependent on his or her safety

as RDK said, for everything you do, you are looking for something in return

Exactly. Even if it is not for you but for those who are genetically similar to you, therefore still passing on your genome.

 

[RDK]

Tangible or not? Lets define selfish:



If you want good for others, its not self-implied, expellng the selfish act. Don't you think it sounds kind of weird if you say call me selfish when i want a friend to survive a fire?

I actually have not seen your post, and you can see exactly whre i gotten it from, Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) Sorry if it sonded like i copied you.

I don't know about you guys but some of you make stuff so logical you forget that people have feelings, yes my friend being alive will make me happy but im not only looking forward to my happiness, its his/her safety. If your going into specific "ethnical" beliefs then yes, it is good, i can't find selfsihness in that.

To me the first statement does prove natural selection which which i'm not against (survival of the fittest etc) It just doesn't prove evolution to me.

In the second statement it seems like attraction is compared with evolution? We as humans have reason logic so we can choose who we want to be with. There are people who aren't deemed "shallow" that will be with people that they may not physically be attracted to and may have qualities that aren't always desirable. And we may be just as likely to help someone who has hurt us vs someone who hasn't because we can choose to be forgiving and forget about the offense.

Yes, that's still partly selfish. If saving your friend from dying in a fire brought you no amount of pleasure whatsoever, then you probably wouldn't do it.

You save him because he means something to you; in essence, he's of value, whether it be as a friend or something else. Something about him brings you pleasure, so to you it would be right to save him.

That's just common sense. If it was someone you despised, would you save them?

 

[mc4]

your own happiness is dependent on his or her safety

as RDK said, for everything you do, you are looking for something in return

And for the people in miserable relationships that aren't happy but remain in the relationships? What do we have to get out. Yes we tend to be selfish but I don't believe we are selfish creatures. But this is because I believe that there is more to life obviously since I believe in the Bible. If you believe that we are here with no real purpose ( we got here by chance and all we care to do is further our species) then I can see why that wouldn't be an issue, to believe that we are just selfish creatures like everything else.

You can't believe in natural selection and not evolution without truly lacking a lot of brainpower.



Exactly. Even if it is not for you but for those who are genetically similar to you, therefore still passing on your genome.

Um yeah you can it's quite easy. You believe that creatures will change to suit there environments, but only within their species which supports micro evolution. Small changes. However you don't believe that these small changes will completely change the creature into another. You would simply believe that species are bound to their own species and don't change into another. There are thousands of variations in every species to support that species adapt to environments. And that's what I believe, so no i don't think it shows a lack in brain power. Unless your standard of a lack in brain power is not believing in evolution (macro and things coming about on their own). But those standards obviously would really mean anything to me.

Yes, that's still partly selfish. If saving your friend from dying in a fire brought you no amount of pleasure whatsoever, then you probably wouldn't do it.

You save him because he means something to you; in essence, he's of value, whether it be as a friend or something else. Something about him brings you pleasure, so to you it would be right to save him.

That's just common sense. If it was someone you despised, would you save them?

Honestly I would try to save someone I despised, just because I may not like someone doesn't mean I would just let him or her burn for it.

 

[RDK]

Um yeah you can it's quite easy. You believe that creatures will change to suit there environments, but only within their species which supports micro evolution. Small changes. However you don't believe that these small changes will completely change the creature into another. You would simply believe that species are bound to their own species and don't change into another. There are thousands of variations in every species to support that species adapt to environments. And that's what I believe, so no i don't think it shows a lack in brain power. Unless your standard of a lack in brain power is not believing in evolution (macro and things coming about on their own). But those standards obviously would really mean anything to me.

Yes it does show a lack of brainpower. You're failing to connect the dots.

You can't have microevolution without macroevolution. It's just common sense that millions of tiny changes over many generations would develop into big changes.

 

[illinialex24]

Yes it does show a lack of brainpower. You're failing to connect the dots.

You can't have microevolution without macroevolution. It's just common sense that millions of tiny changes over many generations would develop into big changes.

Exactly. If small changes happen which cause the species to change, then those changes will cause the species to change. A species doesn't magically become another, it takes a while and you have either the species changing as a whole or a group of them changes.

 

[mc4]

Yes it does show a lack of brainpower. You're failing to connect the dots.

You can't have microevolution without macroevolution. It's just common sense that millions of tiny changes over many generations would develop into big changes.

Yeah you can. And yet all you have are "fossils" open to interpretation to prove it. "Wow this extremely old fossil from a fish looks like it has legs..." After who knows how many experiments to accelerate the process and all the years of recored human history no one has ever observed it happen. Lack in brain power no. Connecting the dots yes. Its never been proven beyond a doubt. But micro evolution has, that's why it doesn't show a lack in "brain power".

Macro evolution isn't basic math. Just because you have 1+1 and continue to add 1s over time say 1000 times it equals 1000 small changes. That doesn't mean it culminates to an entire change of species. We have body parts that will assume the role of others. There are people who can survive with only 1 kidney. Yet we are still born with 2. Why wouldn't these small changes over time just give us 1 kidney when we can survive with one instead of 2? It was my understanding that with macro evolution we develop things needed to survive. Or what is the point in the small changes over time if it is going to give the creature something it doesn't need?

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah you can. And yet all you have are "fossils" open to interpretation to prove it. "Wow this extremely old fossil from a fish looks like it has legs..." After who knows how many experiments to accelerate the process and all the years of recored human history no one has ever observed it happen. Lack in brain power no. Connecting the dots yes. Its never been proven beyond a doubt. But micro evolution has, that's why it doesn't show a lack in "brain power".

Macro evolution isn't basic math. Just because you have 1+1 and continue to add 1s over time say 1000 times it equals 1000 small changes. That doesn't mean it culminates to an entire change of species. We have body parts that will assume the role of others. There are people who can survive with only 1 kidney. Yet we are still born with 2. Why wouldn't these small changes over time just give us 1 kidney when we can survive with one instead of 2? It was my understanding that with macro evolution we develop things needed to survive. Or what is the point in the small changes over time if it is going to give the creature something it doesn't need?

Honestly, I didn't ask for further proof your an idiot but I got it. You're points make absolutely no sense. And answer this: which do you believe came first: the sun or flowering plants. Because if you say the sun, then you are contradicting the Bible and proving at least the creation part of Genesis is wrong which is a large part of the Bible.

 

[Tomkraven]

Hey guys, i think we are a LITTLE out of topic right?. We are supposed to discuss about "The existence of "Happiness"". In my opinion, the term "happiness" has to be bound with the term "soul" because to achieve real happiness it has to be from the inside, in other words, to achieve inner peace. I know that theres no real scientifical explanation about souls but for me they are what makes me, myself, and other beings, themselves. It is what makes us similar and different at the same time, It's what make us UNIQUE. Therefore, if you want to achieve real happiness, you need to make that part of yourself, the one that makes you unique, be in a supreme state of calmness and peace.

The real problem is that to get that "inner peace" you need to dissociate your self of any material desire, therefore it is impossible for a human to that, ergo, for a human being it's impossible to achieve happiness.

 

[mc4]

Honestly, I didn't ask for further proof your an idiot but I got it. You're points make absolutely no sense. And answer this: which do you believe came first: the sun or flowering plants. Because if you say the sun, then you are contradicting the Bible and proving at least the creation part of Genesis is wrong which is a large part of the Bible.

I think you may have a misunderstanding about the creative days. I believe the sun came first because in the first three verses is the statement "let there be light". So obviously the sun came first. Diffused Light evidently penetrated the cloud layers thogh the sources of that light weren't yet discerned from the earths surface. I think you have confusion with the 4th day. The heavenly luminaries simply became more visible because up to that point the atmosphere was different. Also to note in those verses the original term in hebrew wasn't the word for "create" as if to have just created the luminaries, the luminaries are obviously part of "the heavens" which were created long before that point. When it says in the fourth day " let the luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens" I don't think it means that God has just created them. It means they were clearly visible from that point with whatever changing of the atmosphere that may have been necessary. Obviously the Sun is much older than the earth and would have just come into existence from that point. If you take everything at face value then yes alot of the bible would seem contradictory, that is why we can reason and also use other bible passages to explain for us what is meant by another.

 

[illinialex24]

I think you may have a misunderstanding about the creative days. I believe the sun came first because in the first three verses is the statement "let there be light". So obviously the sun came first. Diffused Light evidently penetrated the cloud layers thogh the sources of that light weren't yet discerned from the earths surface. I think you have confusion with the 4th day. The heavenly luminaries simply became more visible because up to that point the atmosphere was different. Also to note in those verses the original term in hebrew wasn't the word for "create" as if to have just created the luminaries, the luminaries are obviously part of "the heavens" which were created long before that point. When it says in the fourth day " let the luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens" I don't think it means that God has just created them. It means they were clearly visible from that point with whatever changing of the atmosphere that may have been necessary. Obviously the Sun is much older than the earth and would have just come into existence from that point. If you take everything at face value then yes alot of the bible would seem contradictory, that is why we can reason and also use other bible passages to explain for us what is meant by another.

Nah, just because he said let there be light doesn't mean he created the sun. This is on the third day:

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17

So essentially, he created the Sun and Moon and all permanent lights (i.e., stars) after flower plants, which were on the second day:

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13

 

[Zero Beat]

Happiness? Before answering these questions and making horrible ASSumptions about the "soul,"(no such thing, btw) one has to understand how the brain works. How pleasure and lack there of is distributed throughout. Can you be happy without sadness? It is because the event "sadness' exists that we are able to give an event of "happiness" a name. And vice versa. Therefore, within existence, within the spectrum of these two man-made ideas based on reality, the term "happiness" cannot be without the term "sadness." Has nothing to do with the soul, as there is no such thing nor proof of that man made idea, but rather, the views our brains try to formulate within existence.

Remember, our brains are always trying to make patterns corresponding to previous knowledge. It's why we think there's a face on Mars, which then makes us think of a past civilization trying to "warn" us or trying to leave their mark. It is all mumbo-jumbo. Understand intermmediate steps before jumping from "We are here,-->an imaginary (MAN MADE idea) spooky figure made us."

Aside from that, I just have one question, MC4, since you seem to be speaking on God's behalf(like every fundamentalist does) and excusing all of his contradictions.

When the word heaven is used in the Bible, what is it supposed to mean? Give me an image here. Again, straight from the Bible, not "a combination of the bible and modern astronomy." When the bible says "heaven," or "heavenly," what is it trying to depict?

When Astronomers say "heavenly bodies" or "celestial objects," they're referring to planets, stars, nebulas, galaxies, neutron stars, ect ect. Explain to me what heaven means straight from the bible, and try not to be vague either.

Edit

So essentially, he created the Sun and Moon and all permanent lights (i.e., stars) after flower plants, which were on the second day

Stars come before planets, and a whole mess of **** comes before flowers. Don't hurt him, he's already confused.

 

[marthanoob]

I actually have not seen your post, and you can see exactly whre i gotten it from, Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) Sorry if it sonded like i copied you.

Sorry if I confused you, I was not referencing an earlier post of mine; I was explaining my perspective on the definition through the one you had given.

Honestly I would try to save someone I despised, just because I may not like someone doesn't mean I would just let him or her burn for it.

Then you are saving that person because you believe that is the right thing to do according to your ethical beliefs, which is partly selfish. If you did not save that person, you would probably regret it and would be unhappy.

As I see it, the only completely unselfish action one can possible take is one without conscious thought. (According to the definition of selfishness I stated earlier)

 

[riboflavinbob]

Why is religion being dragged into this?

 

[Darxmarth23]

Happiness is just what it is. You can't really define it from that point. I say that happiness is individual, peaceful to the human, and the main goal of life(unless your beliefs say other wise).

Its in one of our fundamental rights.

"The Pursuit of Happiness"

 

[manhunter098]

Happiness is just what it is. You can't really define it from that point. I say that happiness is individual, peaceful to the human, and the main goal of life(unless your beliefs say other wise).

Its in one of our fundamental rights.

"The Pursuit of Happiness"

Im pretty sure that in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness was a way to get around slavery and the ideal that every man had the right to own stuff (as slaves couldnt own stuff).

 

[Darxmarth23]

Im pretty sure that in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness was a way to get around slavery and the ideal that every man had the right to own stuff (as slaves couldnt own stuff).

well what im trying to say is that happiness is...happiness. i dont think it can be defined any more than that.

 

[mc4]

Nah, just because he said let there be light doesn't mean he created the sun. This is on the third day:



So essentially, he created the Sun and Moon and all permanent lights (i.e., stars) after flower plants, which were on the second day:

Well i'm glad you used the bible to try to prove a point but um what you said makes no sense. If the sun wasn't already created then where did the light come from? When it says "God made the two lights" or whatever translation your using says, the original hebrew as i already said didn't use the hebrew word for "create". The word used had more of a meaning like establish. The atmosphere was different up to this point and now both luminaries would be visible to the (future) human eye from earth. No the sun didn't come after the flowers and plants. I thought i explained it pretty simply in my comment about your misinterpretation of the creative days.

 

[Zero Beat]

MC4 lol, you want to know how the Earth was a couple million years ago? Just look at Venus now.

 

[marthanoob]

MC4 lol, you want to know how the Earth was a couple million years ago? Just look at Venus now.

I think you mean billion? And even then, I don't think that there was that thick an atmosphere around the earth.

 

[Zero Beat]

Right, around 4 billion years.(Or million millions).

What I meant by Venus is what's beyond the Co2 and sulfuric acid atmosphere. A volcanic planet. An abundance in volcanoes that decorates the surface, similar to that of one of Earth's early stages. And what do volcanoes cause? Sulfuric acid, which is a rich contributor to Venus' dense atmosphere.

Here's a pretty good picture of the surface and you can see the volcanoes clearly.

NASA image from Pioneer-Venus orbiter.