Jump to content

Religious and Spiritual Beliefs


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Yes, the universe exists, but the reality behind the universe existing is what you have to have faith in. I dont think there's a third option from waht I listed. Either the universe always has been and always will be, or God always has been and always will be. Yes, I admit that, logically, it's slightly less probable that there is a God since it's one more step. Regardless, the fact that the LOGICAL/RATIONAL likelihood of each is so small, there's no reason why you would immediately dismiss the existance of the universe as a clue (not proof) for God, since the idea that everything has to be caused by something would lead one to believe that SOMETHING caused the Big Bang/The Universe.

Ok, first of all, just because you canÔÇÖt think of a third reason doesnÔÇÖt mean there isnÔÇÖt one. Furthermore, if the only two possibilities are the existence of god or that the universe has always existed then they cannot both be unlikely simply because only one can be true. Add in a few more options, on the off chance that there are possibilities that you may not have considererd (something besides god as you think of him is an example), and you still will have to have some possibilities that are not all that improbable. However, this is erelivent because whether or not the universe has always existed is, from the point of modern science, indeterminable with any great amount of accuracy. However, we do know that the universe exists and thus there is no probability involved, it is a given. This is no evidence that god exists, and even the so called clues that have been given are really only proof of the unknown and do not point specificly to the Christian god, and often not to any god or anything in particular. Religious reasoning is based on god existing, and then connecting various events to his work. Scientific reasoning is based on proven theories and questioned hypotheses that may or may not be true, and evidence is put together without a pre assumed cause.

quote:

What?! What advantages of not believing in a God? You get to do whatever you want without any punishment beyond those that humans set up?!? That just pushes the idea that might makes right and morality (right/wrong) is defined by those in power.

IÔÇÖm unhindered by the classic ideas of morality, and I consider myself better off because of this. You may think this makes me amoral and bad (or perhaps evil, depending on whether you want to sound like Bush), but I donÔÇÖt see it as wrong in the least, I have my own ideas of morality. I consider my lack of classic morality to be a form of freedom; I was able to choose my own ideas of right and wrong based on my own judgment. Just because your ideas are different doesnÔÇÖt mean that I am amoral, simply that I am different.

What does this have to do with what you are saying? Simple, the advantages of not having a predetermined code of morality is the freedom to determine your own ideas of right and wrong.

quote:

Also, if a mosquito lands on your hand, there's an extremely high chance that it's going to suck your blood, and it's empirically proven. In order to avoid harm, you kill the mosquito. That doesn't really relate to the idea of God and faith and risk. My analogy still applies the best since it applies directly to the concept. No one should/is ever going to carry out an action that could possibly cause them intense pain and suffering for the rest of their lives unless the alternative choices are worse. Shooting into a dark room where people could be is an example of that. The belief in the existance of God is just an amplified version of that, since the result of refusing God would be external pain and suffering for the rest of time due to a separation from God.

Bah, I donÔÇÖt see how accidentally shooting someone in a dark room on accident compares to not believing in god. You make it sound like its obvious, and that there is no reason to shoot in that room and every reason not to. Furthermore, you make it sound like itÔÇÖs reasonably probable that you could hit someone. Lets try a slight variation on your analogy, where instead of shooting in a dark room your shooting a rifle at a target a good distance away, and you have to consider the possibility of someone standing behind the target and that you could hit them if you shot. There is a reason to shoot, thatÔÇÖs what your there for after all, it is a form of personal entertainment or some such and you enjoy it. There is a reason (however small) that you shouldnÔÇÖt shoot, after all you could kill someone (if they happen to be standing behind the target, and were assuming the target is made of something the bullet will pass through).

quote:

Yes, but time is infinite, and the Christian belief system that I believe in is that when you die you are either separated from God forever (the rest of time, which is infinite), or you aren't, and that separation or companionship with God is either infinitely bad (the worst thing possible to the greatest degree possible), or infinitely good.

Bah, infinity is infinitely incomprehensible to the human mind so in effect youÔÇÖre talking about things that you simply canÔÇÖt understand. None of us can, itÔÇÖs impossible.

quote:

I've gone through many different stages of religious belief for awhile, and I can't think of any version of hell that isn't "all that bad", unless you buy into the extremely illogical version of all the sinners partying all night long and the "good" people floating in clouds.

Now thatÔÇÖs my idea of hell

Seriously though, how bad is being separate from god? I personally find the possibility of there being a god terrifying (not dreadfully so, because I donÔÇÖt consider it to be anywhere near likely, but itÔÇÖs like thinking about living in government such s the one in 1984, a plain unpleasant thought even though you know it is extremely unlikely). You can take comfort that you will be happy for all eternity after you die, but IÔÇÖll skip out on that one.

quote:

Hmm, i'm not entirely sure about how long you suffer in hell, but i'm pretty sure the passage says that the sinners will be sent to His left and the others to His right and the ones on His left will be separated from the Father forever. Regardless, even if it isn't the infinity of time, the infinity of the pain and suffering would probably be enough too to make up for the time (since if you believe in God, there's no reason He can't do it)

No, IÔÇÖm fairly sure there is a judgment day, and while IÔÇÖm not sure what happens to people in hell, my understanding is that they cease to exist or some such.

Of course, most modern Christians like to forget about parts of there religions they donÔÇÖt like, such as hell and Armageddon and women being inferior and bringers of corruption and need I go on?

quote:

So your assuming indifference is safer than taking a stance? If you believe in the theory that the opposite of love is apathy/indifference, and the opposite of hate is apathy/indifference, then your probably a lot more likely to piss off the big guy upstairs by doing nothing. I don't see anything wrong with not worrying about which Religion/God is right, but I do strongly believe that everyone should follow, for the most part, the Christian concept of morality and good/evil.

Then IÔÇÖm evil, woot, time to celebrate!

I donÔÇÖt take the path of apathy or indifference because I wish to avoid love or hate. I canÔÇÖt say IÔÇÖm a loving person, for the most part IÔÇÖm not, and Love clouds your judgment just as much as hate does. Of course, IÔÇÖm not a hating person either, so perhaps on the scale of love and hate IÔÇÖm indifferent. But only a Christian would consider love and hate to be so important. On the scale of nice or mean IÔÇÖm on the mean side, on the scale of social or antisocial IÔÇÖm leaning towards antisocial, I could go on, but thatÔÇÖs beside the point. Love and hate are not the ultimate measures of anything.

quote:

Faith is based on the truth one feels and believes.

ItÔÇÖs like the emperor and his new clothes darling, and IÔÇÖm not the one running around in the nude.

quote:

I have faith, I just also reconcile any doubts that I should do "whatever I want and forget God and morality" with the idea that if I do that, there's the chance i'm going to REALLY, REALLY, REALLY regret it later.

You need to have fun darling, get laid, beat up your younger sibling, whatever, but if you consider giving up personal enjoyment in the present on the faint possibility that you could be punished for all eternity (if being deprived of god is really so bad) after you die, your wasting your life. There is nothing but your pleasure to worry about, IÔÇÖm not saying live only in the present with no thought for the future, but if you value anything higher then your own enjoyment of life then you have your priorities backwards.

And I apologies if IÔÇÖm coming off all *****y and tactless tonight, but I didnÔÇÖt get near enough sleep last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Ok, first of all, just because you canÔÇÖt think of a third reason doesnÔÇÖt mean there isnÔÇÖt one. Furthermore, if the only two possibilities are the existence of god or that the universe has always existed then they cannot both be unlikely simply because only one can be true. Add in a few more options, on the off chance that there are possibilities that you may not have considererd (something besides god as you think of him is an example), and you still will have to have some possibilities that are not all that improbable. However, this is erelivent because whether or not the universe has always existed is, from the point of modern science, indeterminable with any great amount of accuracy.

Well, it all had to start somewhere, and my two options are still the only concievable ones, except they would be amorhpous based on scientific discoveries. (ex. We find out some Alien being created the universe. Now, did the alien always exist, or did God create him/her/it? Still down to two options: What to have faith in, that the entity we can prove has always existed, or that the entity that we can prove was created by God? There aren't any other choices, and you can't assume that they are based on logic/reason without conceding my logic that since you CANT disprove God, He must exist)

quote:

However, we do know that the universe exists and thus there is no probability involved, it is a given. This is no evidence that god exists, and even the so called clues that have been given are really only proof of the unknown and do not point specificly to the Christian god, and often not to any god or anything in particular.

I'm not contesting the existance of the universe, i'm contesting the SOURCE of the universe, and that can't be proven, and the universe currently existing doesn't even prove the source AT ALL, unless it's proving (under current logic) that something HAD to have created it (God, or another being, which would have had to have been created by something...)

quote:

Religious reasoning is based on god existing, and then connecting various events to his work. Scientific reasoning is based on proven theories and questioned hypotheses that may or may not be true, and evidence is put together without a pre assumed cause.

Hmm, I might have to agree with you, at least partially. I think i'd have to agree that most religious reasoning is based on God existing, since if it was based solely on science, everyone would believe in God. I think you oversimplify it though. It is more about being *open-minded* to the idea of God existing, then attributing astounding qualities of the world, life, and fundamental concepts that almost all humans agree to Him.

Scientific theories are formed out of hypothesis which ARE pre-assumed causes, that are proven (temporarily) or disproven. Besides, scientific and religious reasoning is not mutually exclusive. Religious and scientific reasoning never contradicts, so it's not a choice between the two. They both work together.

"Religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind."-Albert Einstine

quote:

quote:

What?! What advantages of not believing in a God? You get to do whatever you want without any punishment beyond those that humans set up?!? That just pushes the idea that might makes right and morality (right/wrong) is defined by those in power.

IÔÇÖm unhindered by the classic ideas of morality, and I consider myself better off because of this.


"Unhindered"? Hmm, i'll respond to this farther down when you talk about it in more detail.

quote:

You may think this makes me amoral and bad (or perhaps evil, depending on whether you want to sound like Bush), but I donÔÇÖt see it as wrong in the least, I have my own ideas of morality. I consider my lack of classic morality to be a form of freedom; I was able to choose my own ideas of right and wrong based on my own judgment. Just because your ideas are different doesnÔÇÖt mean that I am amoral, simply that I am different.

I think you seem amoral (or maybe not depending on your personal code), but I don't think that makes you "bad" or "evil". I do however believe that your mindset, in principle and application, allows for atrocities which most of society, and I hope you, would find morally repugnant and against all human decency.

quote:

What does this have to do with what you are saying? Simple, the advantages of not having a predetermined code of morality is the freedom to determine your own ideas of right and wrong.

Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to exterminate the Jews. The KKK thinks it's right to eliminate blacks, catholics, and other minorities. Greenpeace thinks it's right for humans to die if it saves the environment. Serial killers often think it's right to kill innocent people. Child molestors and rapists think it's allright to violate other people. By not having a common or predetermined form of morality, it justifies the changing of laws to suit the whims of the majority of a population, and it justifies atrocities as the ones listed above. Sure, on a small scale, me not having a code of morality and stealing $5 for someone isn't going to ruin society, but when every person in the world does it, or one of the examples I listed happens, it's different.

The problem with that view is that WE determine what is moral/immoral and right/wrong. Sure, I bet it's nice to not feel restricted by a set of morals, but I bet you wouldn't like it if someone walked up to you and cut off your arm because he/she liked eating flesh, or some man raped you. The mindset may advocate pure freedom, but it must be followed to it's conclusion which is virtual lawlessness.

quote:

Bah, I donÔÇÖt see how accidentally shooting someone in a dark room on accident compares to not believing in god. You make it sound like its obvious, and that there is no reason to shoot in that room and every reason not to. Furthermore, you make it sound like itÔÇÖs reasonably probable that you could hit someone.

The analogy wasn't based on the idea that God probably exists or has to exist, your just grouping me under the stereotype of "since he believes in God, all of his premises are based there". My analogy is based on the concept that you wouldn't shoot a gun into a totally dark room since you shouldn't automatically ASSUME no one is in the room because of the impacts of being wrong. Just because you don't KNOW if someone is in the room doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. That analogy applies to God because you shouldn't automatically ASSUME God doesn't exist when the downside to that is so immense. Just because you don't KNOW if there is a god doesn't mean you should assume there isn't.

quote:

Lets try a slight variation on your analogy, where instead of shooting in a dark room your shooting a rifle at a target a good distance away, and you have to consider the possibility of someone standing behind the target and that you could hit them if you shot. There is a reason to shoot, thatÔÇÖs what your there for after all, it is a form of personal entertainment or some such and you enjoy it. There is a reason (however small) that you shouldnÔÇÖt shoot, after all you could kill someone (if they happen to be standing behind the target, and were assuming the target is made of something the bullet will pass through).

Your analogy is based on the premise that you KNOW if there is someone in the room (the existance of God), that you KNOW (almost certain) there is no God, and that our purpose on this earth is not detemined by God, but that we are "there for" (here for) doing whatever we want, and there's a very small chance that there is a god. Mine is based on the idea that when you don't know something that is important and could have bad consequences, you don't ASSUME the opposite answer to the bad consequences (in the case of God, that He doesn't exist). My analogy points out why people shouldn't just dismiss the idea of God (which is the position I am trying to prove), while yours operates under the assumption that your point (that we are here to do whatever we want) is ALREADY true without trying to lead to the idea that it is.

quote:

Bah, infinity is infinitely incomprehensible to the human mind so in effect youÔÇÖre talking about things that you simply canÔÇÖt understand. None of us can, itÔÇÖs impossible.

Nah, infinity can be comprehended, mathematicians talk about it all the time, and it seems simple to me. Infinity is a series of numbers (which can be used for measurement) that starts and continues to the highest (or lowest) possible value (which humans can not determine). Thus, having an infinitely bad thing happen to you is something that no one in their right mind would EVER want to have happen to them.

quote:

Seriously though, how bad is being separate from god?

It's theorized to be really bad. Also theorized that being with Him is very, very, very good. I guess it falls into the moral code too, if you follow/believe in the moral code/teachings of God, and you end up with Him, you'd probably enjoy it, but if you don't, you probably wouldn't.

quote:

quote:

Hmm, i'm not entirely sure about how long you suffer in hell, but i'm pretty sure the passage says that the sinners will be sent to His left and the others to His right and the ones on His left will be separated from the Father forever. Regardless, even if it isn't the infinity of time, the infinity of the pain and suffering would probably be enough too to make up for the time (since if you believe in God, there's no reason He can't do it)

No, IÔÇÖm fairly sure there is a judgment day, and while IÔÇÖm not sure what happens to people in hell, my understanding is that they cease to exist or some such.


I think what I referred to about them being seperated to His right and His left is talking about judgement day, and the impact of being the "sinners" is to be forever separated from the father. Not sure if that's one of the Catholic church teachings or one of the lines in the Bible (i think it's in the Bible), but the meaning of being "forever separated" (if that's what it says), can be left open to interpretation (removed from existance, sent to hell, eternal pain, etc?) by us and we can just hope that we get it that way God intended.

quote:

Of course, most modern Christians like to forget about parts of there religions they donÔÇÖt like, such as hell and Armageddon and women being inferior and bringers of corruption and need I go on?

I think all people disagree with parts of their religions (which is why I haven't chosen a specific religious sect/branch, although I do believe in God and Christ), but I think a lot of what you mention is because people blindly follow what their "religious leaders" say, without thinking about it. The things you mentioned are key things. Hell is often overlooked, people think that because they go to Church or Confession it's an automatic "ticket to heaven". Armageddon isn't really something that I believe needs to be worried about. We can't stop it, it'll affect all of us, and all it really does is spread fear and panic. Women being inferior isn't a tenant of most religions, and I think all the Bible really does/did is define gender roles (which could have, of course, been biased by beliefs at the time when it was written). The Catholic practice of not allowing women priests is inherently stupid, is widely disagreed with, and seems to contradict the tenants of most religions and with the new testament of the Bible.

Anyway, back to the point, disagreements don't prove religions wrong, it just proves human infallibility. The central concept of Christianity has been alive for about 1980 years, only the periphrials change.

quote:

But only a Christian would consider love and hate to be so important.

Any non-christians want to back me up on the position that love and hate are really important to a lot more people?

quote:

quote:

Faith is based on the truth one feels and believes.

ItÔÇÖs like the emperor and his new clothes darling, and IÔÇÖm not the one running around in the nude.


...I don't get it, sorry...

quote:

You need to have fun darling, get laid, beat up your younger sibling, whatever, but if you consider giving up personal enjoyment in the present on the faint possibility that you could be punished for all eternity (if being deprived of god is really so bad) after you die, your wasting your life. There is nothing but your pleasure to worry about, IÔÇÖm not saying live only in the present with no thought for the future, but if you value anything higher then your own enjoyment of life then you have your priorities backwards.

First, to address the possibility of endless punishment/suffering/pain/separation from God, if you believe in the Christian or (probably Jewish or Islamic God), that separation would be the worst possible thing that could possibly EVER happen. So, it really would be "that bad", at least from my perspective (which, of course, could always be wrong).

As for personal pleasure, I have nothing wrong with it, but I fail to see the problems with gaining it within the Christian concept of morality. (I would state my issues with everyone "valuing their enjoyment of life" as the most important thing, but I already stated the atrocities that can justify if everyone did whatever it was they wanted to enjoy their life...)

The Christian concept of morality, doesn't preclude getting pleasure, and most of the points of that morality, if not all, seem to have logical fact basis for them. I fail to see how Christian morality precludes any activities that are not harmful to either:

1. Society's health

2. An individual's health

Could you show me some examples of pleasure that Christian morality (not specific church doctrine), precludes? (the only reason I say not specific church doctrine is because some idiotic organizations...like the Catholic Church...are against the distribution of BIRTH CONTROL to third world countries with high AIDS rates. just because one christian church has a stupid position doesn't mean that Christian morality, as a whole, is flawed)

quote:

And I apologies if IÔÇÖm coming off all *****y and tactless tonight, but I didnÔÇÖt get near enough sleep last night.

You aren't coming off negatively or tactlessly, at least to me. Besides, I don't know how I come off, probably cold, argumentative, and somewhat hostile, but I never worry about the tone or tact of my writing (although I often regret it when misunderstood). Only things that bug me in discussions/arguments are "ad hominems" and when people make strong statements without any explanation (neither of which have occured in this discussion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Well, it all had to start somewhere, and my two options are still the only concievable ones, except they would be amorhpous based on scientific discoveries.

IÔÇÖm not going to argue this point, its not that important, but what I was trying to say is that you should be open to the unknown. Perhaps the universe hasnÔÇÖt always existed but wasnÔÇÖt specifically created, perhaps it is but a part of a larger whole and its origins are based there in, I donÔÇÖt really know. However, I could see dichotomizing it into either a purely scientific answer (that is, no divine influence at all), or a divine answer (though not necessarily exclusively divine, lots of people think that god works through physics and such not).

quote:

There aren't any other choices, and you can't assume that they are based on logic/reason without conceding my logic that since you CANT disprove God, He must exist

I hope IÔÇÖm misinterpreting this or taking it out of context, but if youÔÇÖre saying what it looks like your saying then your reasoning couldnÔÇÖt be more flawed. Just because god canÔÇÖt be disproven doesnÔÇÖt necessitate his existence any more then the invisible and immaterial pink rabbit on my bed exists because I canÔÇÖt prove he doesnÔÇÖt.

quote:

I'm not contesting the existance of the universe, i'm contesting the SOURCE of the universe, and that can't be proven, and the universe currently existing doesn't even prove the source AT ALL, unless it's proving (under current logic) that something HAD to have created it (God, or another being, which would have had to have been created by something...)

I donÔÇÖt know where the universe came from, itÔÇÖs a nice topic for speculation but not something I seriously worry about. IÔÇÖm not going to get into any more of a debate about where the universe came from simply because I donÔÇÖt know, but assuming it was god seams ridiculous because there is no evidence that it was god. I prefer to accept that I donÔÇÖt know then pretend that I do.

quote:

Hmm, I might have to agree with you, at least partially. I think i'd have to agree that most religious reasoning is based on God existing, since if it was based solely on science, everyone would believe in God. I think you oversimplify it though. It is more about being *open-minded* to the idea of God existing, then attributing astounding qualities of the world, life, and fundamental concepts that almost all humans agree to Him.

Open mindedness is great, but an open mind is like an unfiltered email account, your going to get a lot of trash for ever little bit of value. Open mindedness doesnÔÇÖt necessitate considering everything as a serious possibility, simply not discounting it without reason. I do not discount religion without reason as I believe I have amply demonstrated.

quote:

Scientific theories are formed out of hypothesis which ARE pre-assumed causes, that are proven (temporarily) or disproven.

Yes, but the evidence is used to construct the hypothesis which then only stands if it can be sufficiently demonstrated to be true, and only until a better hypothesis comes around. Religious thinking produces an idea (the existence of god, say) and then starts attributing things to him without any evidenc that this is the case, and never once attempts to disprove god (except in the case of another religion, which is really only trying to demonstrate that they are right) and never really subjects the theory of god to any serious challenges.

quote:

Besides, scientific and religious reasoning is not mutually exclusive. Religious and scientific reasoning never contradicts, so it's not a choice between the two. They both work together.

What about the age of the earth? If you take genesis literally then the earth isnÔÇÖt near as old as science has shown that it is. Science isnÔÇÖt mutually exclusive with religion, it simply doesnÔÇÖt support it. Nothing logically supports religion.

quote:

"Religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind."-Albert Einstine

Bah! Quoting Einstein (which you misspelled by the way) isnÔÇÖt a very good argument. For all that Einstein was a brilliant scientist; he wasnÔÇÖt so hot in a lot of other areas.

quote:

I think you seem amoral (or maybe not depending on your personal code), but I don't think that makes you "bad" or "evil". I do however believe that your mindset, in principle and application, allows for atrocities which most of society, and I hope you, would find morally repugnant and against all human decency.

I think I explained my sense of morality and right and wrong earlier in this thread somewhere, I donÔÇÖt know, but IÔÇÖm not going to get into it unless asked. As far as atrocities go, there only atrocious if you think of them that way.

quote:

Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to exterminate the Jews. The KKK thinks it's right to eliminate blacks, catholics, and other minorities. Greenpeace thinks it's right for humans to die if it saves the environment. Serial killers often think it's right to kill innocent people. Child molestors and rapists think it's allright to violate other people.

And you bring up these things because the nearly universal consensus is that they are atrocities. You doubt the morality that can exist without god, yet you assume that IÔÇÖm going to see these things as wrong even though I have stated repeatedly that my own moral code is wildly different from most peoples. This only reinforces my point that you donÔÇÖt need god to have morality, people manage just fine on there own.

And for the record, I consider the so call holocaust to have been in truly bad taste (I donÔÇÖt approve of irrational hate, such as racism or the likes, itÔÇÖs as stupid as it is pointless). For similar reasons I think the KKK are complete yahoos. Greenpeace is both correct and incorrect, the environment is important and individual people are of little value, but there way of going about things isnÔÇÖt going to help. Serial killers are generally accepted as being nuts, and I donÔÇÖt have much respect for the violently insane, and again itÔÇÖs in very bad taste. Child molesters generally are missing something upstairs as well, and again, usually act irrationally and with bad taste. So, as you see, I donÔÇÖt really support any of the things you have mentioned, even though my sense of morality is completely non-standard.

quote:

By not having a common or predetermined form of morality, it justifies the changing of laws to suit the whims of the majority of a population, and it justifies atrocities as the ones listed above. Sure, on a small scale, me not having a code of morality and stealing $5 for someone isn't going to ruin society, but when every person in the world does it, or one of the examples I listed happens, it's different.

First of all, the lack of divine morality justifies nothing, it simply allows everyone to choose whether something is justified on there own, and most people will choose to follow the same basic code no matter what, and some people will chose there own ideas of right and wrong no matter what.

quote:

The analogy wasn't based on the idea that God probably exists or has to exist, your just grouping me under the stereotype of "since he believes in God, all of his premises are based there". My analogy is based on the concept that you wouldn't shoot a gun into a totally dark room since you shouldn't automatically ASSUME no one is in the room because of the impacts of being wrong. Just because you don't KNOW if someone is in the room doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. That analogy applies to God because you shouldn't automatically ASSUME God doesn't exist when the downside to that is so immense. Just because you don't KNOW if there is a god doesn't mean you should assume there isn't.

I donÔÇÖt automatically assume god doesnÔÇÖt exist, and I object with your analogy only because it makes it appear as though there is probably someone in the room and because it provides no good reason to shoot the gun. If there was a valid reason to shoot, then your analogy would carry some weight, but you make it sound as though there is absolutely no reason to fire the gun.

quote:

Your analogy is based on the premise that you KNOW if there is someone in the room (the existance of God), that you KNOW (almost certain) there is no God, and that our purpose on this earth is not detemined by God, but that we are "there for" (here for) doing whatever we want, and there's a very small chance that there is a god. Mine is based on the idea that when you don't know something that is important and could have bad consequences, you don't ASSUME the opposite answer to the bad consequences (in the case of God, that He doesn't exist).

To your first point last, you neither assume the bad consequences nor the good ones, you instead make an educated guess and act according to the probability of either being the case. In this case, the possibility of god existing is so low that I donÔÇÖt really worry about it.

To your first point, it is almost certain (from a purely scientific perspective) that there is no god. ItÔÇÖs like the man behind the target, there is no reason to suspect there is a person there, but it isnÔÇÖt completely impossible either.

By the way, I completely ignored you point about having fun not being what where here for because it had no relevance to my post.

quote:

Anyway, back to the point, disagreements don't prove religions wrong, it just proves human infallibility. The central concept of Christianity has been alive for about 1980 years, only the periphrials change.

I concede the point, though I was never trying to prove anything to begin with.

quote:

Nah, infinity can be comprehended, mathematicians talk about it all the time, and it seems simple to me. Infinity is a series of numbers (which can be used for measurement) that starts and continues to the highest (or lowest) possible value (which humans can not determine).

Wrong again, darling, there is no highest and no lowest and by suggesting that there is you show that you do not understand infinity. And yes, mathematicians can work with infinity, but there isnÔÇÖt much you can do with it. You cannot perform any of the basic computations on it (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division), and most math is based on those function (as well as a few more, such as square roots and such, which are equally impossible to perform on infinity).

quote:

It's theorized to be really bad. Also theorized that being with Him is very, very, very good. I guess it falls into the moral code too, if you follow/believe in the moral code/teachings of God, and you end up with Him, you'd probably enjoy it, but if you don't, you probably wouldn't.

So youÔÇÖre saying that if I believe god and his teachings are ever so much fecal matter then I would enjoy hell more anyway. IÔÇÖm certainly not going to disagree.

quote:

...I don't get it, sorry...

Sorry, I thought you would know the old fable about the emperorÔÇÖs new clothes. IÔÇÖm not going to go in depth, but the story goes that there was an emperor, and some chaps sold him ÔÇ£invisible clothesÔÇØ, which were sure to become the height of fashion. So, the next day the emperor wore his ÔÇ£invisible clothesÔÇØ, secure in the knowledge that he was in fact wearing something. He wasnÔÇÖt, and he went to court in the nude. There is more to the story, but I donÔÇÖt remember it all.

The comparison IÔÇÖm trying to draw is that belief without logic can easily result in your being dreadfully wrong (like the emperor). In your case it is belief in god, and politeness prevents me from going any farther into it then that.

quote:

First, to address the possibility of endless punishment/suffering/pain/separation from God, if you believe in the Christian or (probably Jewish or Islamic God), that separation would be the worst possible thing that could possibly EVER happen.

That sounds like a zealots reasoning (and let me make it clear that IÔÇÖm not calling you a zealot, simply that a zealot probably came up with it to begin with). Are there any actual references in the bible to what hell is like above and beyond being separated from god?

quote:

As for personal pleasure, I have nothing wrong with it, but I fail to see the problems with gaining it within the Christian concept of morality. (I would state my issues with everyone "valuing their enjoyment of life" as the most important thing, but I already stated the atrocities that can justify if everyone did whatever it was they wanted to enjoy their life...)

Well, personal pleasure is the ultimate point to my existence, you can think differently for yourself. I would say that I hope you find happiness from your philosophy, but I think that would be beside the point. As far as atrocities go, there only atrocious if you think of them that way.

quote:

The Christian concept of morality, doesn't preclude getting pleasure, and most of the points of that morality, if not all, seem to have logical fact basis for them. I fail to see how Christian morality precludes any activities that are not harmful to either:

1. Society's health

2. An individual's health

Could you show me some examples of pleasure that Christian morality (not specific church doctrine), precludes? (the only reason I say not specific church doctrine is because some idiotic organizations...like the Catholic Church...are against the distribution of BIRTH CONTROL to third world countries with high AIDS rates. just because one christian church has a stupid position doesn't mean that Christian morality, as a whole, is flawed)

IÔÇÖll list a few things that come to mind, I donÔÇÖt know how many of them are prohibited by Christian morality rather then church doctrine so feel free to point out any that Christian morality allows.

Premarital sex

Sodomy (and I donÔÇÖt just mean for homosexuals)

Theft (money may not buy happiness, but it helps)

Murder (personal gain counts for pleasure)

Torture (Elizabeth Bathory had plenty of fun with that, though IÔÇÖm not sure if torture is prohibited by Christian morality)

Incest

Arguing against religion (hey, I find it quite enjoyable)

Bestiality (I imagine that itÔÇÖs covered by sodomy, but IÔÇÖll put it in anyway).

Drunkenness (Again, I donÔÇÖt know if itÔÇÖs prohibited, but am adding it anyway)

Extramarital sex (IÔÇÖm fairly sure this one is prohibited, something about not coveting thy neighbors ass )

Need I really go on? (And by the way, just because I listed something here doesnÔÇÖt mean I do it or would consider doing it. Drunkenness, for example, is not something I find appealing.)

quote:

You aren't coming off negatively or tactlessly, at least to me.

Thank you.

quote:

Besides, I don't know how I come off, probably cold, argumentative, and somewhat hostile, but I never worry about the tone or tact of my writing (although I often regret it when misunderstood).

Truthfully, you come off as stubborn and opinionated, as well as a little illogical, but thatÔÇÖs just my view, I imagine people who agree with you think differently.

By the way, congratulations on getting 600 posts.

[ 09-18-2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

P.S. These posts are getting ridiculously long, I typed this out in word before I posted it and it was well into the eighth page.

Hehe, perhaps if ya'll quit quoting quotes.

You really should read the Bible Dragon Lady. It's got sex, murder, war, and a bunch of other really nasty stuff.

quote:

Well, a lot of people do take Genesis literally, and science has proven that the oldest life on the planet was around 4 or 5 billion years ago (through carbon dating I believe).

If the Seven Day Creationists are right God's got one heckuva sense of humor throwing all those old bones around.

Don't know if you are aware but Sodomy comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrha (spelling?). Not to insult if you already knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

You really should read the Bible Dragon Lady. It's got sex, murder, war, and a bunch of other really nasty stuff.

YouÔÇÖre probably right you know, itÔÇÖs been something IÔÇÖve been considering off and on for a while.

quote:

Don't know if you are aware but Sodomy comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrha (spelling?). Not to insult if you already knew.

The correct spelling is Gomorrah and yes I was aware, though only vaguely so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

But God isn't a scientific theory, and never claims to be. The concept of God claims to deal with the soul and spirituality, which science has never even claimed to be able to deal with, but top scientific minds have agreed upon the existance of. Have you ever considered that maybe science intrinsically CANT prove God, since God and Christianity never CLAIM that He can be proven to exist in the physical/scientific world. You start from the assumption that science is first and can prove everything else, but if you start by accepting religion, and then science, you'll realize that science never disproves religion and they can both exist as they are two entirely different spheres.

I believe science because it works, thatÔÇÖs demonstrable. Why should I believe in religion? You say that if you start out believing then science never disproves god, very true, but my question is why should I believe to begin with? And no, donÔÇÖt even start about the chances of going to hell and such not; you have yet to convince me that hell is so dreadful or to offer any evidence that would suggest god does exist.

As for top scientific minds believing in god, one doesnÔÇÖt have to be a scientific materialist to be a good scientist.

quote:

Also, if we follow science, lets look at cause and effect all the way back to the beginning of the universe. If you believe in the greatness of science, then you'd agree that every effect has a cause (I know i've gone over this, but bear with me). In order for science to be true in all cases (as you, and most would claim), something OUTSIDE of the physical/scientific world, that can not be explained by science (AKA, GOD or other supreme being) had to have created it.

Again, THIS DOESNÔÇÖT REQUIRE GOD! As I have said already, this proves only that the beginning of the universe is unknown. Yes, something had to cause it, but it wouldnÔÇÖt have to be outside of science and it wouldnÔÇÖt have to be god. This proves only that we donÔÇÖt know what happened, so quite trying to claim it suggests god exists. It doesnÔÇÖt! I refuse to attribute something to god just because I donÔÇÖt know what causes it. You talk about remaining open minded, well how about remaining open minded for an explanation besides god. I prefer to say I donÔÇÖt know then to accept a dubious ÔÇ£truth.ÔÇØ

quote:

Well, then they are the people who gives Christianity a bad name, since if there is a God, who is perfect, He wouldn't have had science and religion contradict, which they really don't.

Simple enough, god (as any other mythological figure) is the product of the human mind, and therefore as flawed as those who thought him up.

quote:

But there's no reason why science should have to be able to prove the existance of God when God, under current understandings, would be impossible to prove by science to begin with. At the same time you claim that there needs to be evidence proving God exists, you also claim that miracles need to have evidence supporting that God caused them, or you attribute the cause to "something science hasn't been able to prove yet".

Well, if science doesnÔÇÖt prove the existence of god then something else has to, I donÔÇÖt care what, but I need solid proof to believe in something as extraordinary as god.

As for miracles, again, there is no proof that they canÔÇÖt eventually be proven by science (see, I can you the ÔÇ£you canÔÇÖt disprove itÔÇØ argument as well) and there is every reason to believe that they will be. Science has a long track record of proving ÔÇ£miraclesÔÇØ as nothing more then natural phenomena. As for requiring direct proof that they are acts of god, this should be obvious. If there is no solid empirical evidence to make a connection between god and the phenomena, then there is no reason to said connection. It works for everything else, but somehow you think god should get special treatment. If someone commits murder you have to have proof that they did it to convict them. If a factory is polluting the environment you have to be able to show how the pollution is getting from the factory to the environment (a dumping drain or unfiltered emissions or whatever). If someone wants to get money out of the bank they have to prove that they indeed put money into the bank to begin with. It works just fine for everything else, why shouldnÔÇÖt it work for god? The answer is simple, it doesnÔÇÖt work for god because nothing ever has solid empirical evidence that ties it to god, and so if we held religion to the same requirements as everything else no one would believe.

quote:

Think about the bleeding statues, visions, etc, things that are impossible to be proven by science. You say that they COULDNT have been created by God, but why not? They aren't explainable by science, so you assume (even though there are obvious religious connections), that science should be able to explain them?

Visions can be hallucinations, thatÔÇÖs no problem. Bleeding statues are a little harder to address, though I would want to know if anyone took blood samples. It could be a hoax (think of all the hoaxes for UFO landings and aliens and such not), or it could be a real phenomena. I donÔÇÖt discount so called supernatural phenomena (ghosts and the like), though I will not believe in them without more evidence then there is now. Perhaps there are ÔÇ£supernaturalÔÇØ entities that cause these events, or perhaps there are aliens amusing themselves with us primitives. These are just as real possibilities as god, more probable actually because they make fewer assumptions, but you never even mention them as an alternate possibility to your ever so precious god.

quote:

Gotta respect people who know themselves and don't mind admitting unpopular views. (this was meant as a compliment, not as sarcasm)

Thank you.

quote:

Nazi Germany sure didn't find it to be an atrocity. Constant propoganda and immersion can put universal morality aside and cause atrocities and possibly isolation (leaving someone with no influence) could.

First of all, a lot of people in Germany considered the holocaust to be dreadful, including a lot of Nazis, but they simply couldnÔÇÖt do anything about it and even speaking out could get them or there loved ones killed.

Another thing to point out is that the ease with which morality can be overcome suggests that it is not divine in nature but instead a product of evolution.

quote:

So in essence you exist/leech off the morality of others (since if yours was true for all, you know it'd be total chaos, and you know that "moral" people are generally tolerant). I can't insult your intelligence.

Ok, so you will respect me if I admit my unpopular views and say ÔÇ£yea, pretty muchÔÇØ. Good, because youÔÇÖre right, in a way I could be called a leach or parasite, though truthfully I donÔÇÖt drain THAT much off of society.

quote:

How do you explain your own divergent moral views? (just curious)

If you are asking how I came to them, I would say itÔÇÖs a combination if cynicism and self interest as well as a lack of discipline by my mother when I was young (I was the single child of an only parent and good at manipulating her).

quote:

But following Christian morality throws out very few of those "fun activities", keeps a society safer (for the most part), and solves the problem of me possibly being right.

Actualy, Christian morality tosses out just about all of them (with the exception of drunkenness and arguing against religion).

quote:

Unless that being is not a product of science, which is what christianity maintains...

Again, science covers everything. If it can interact with the physical world it has to have elements that are either energy or matter, and all energy and matter are covered by science. I accept the possibility of something existing besides energy or matter, but if it can interact with either then it simply must fall in the realm of science.

quote:

Also, my comment about there being an ultimate value that humans don't get yet was just a play off of your idea that science will one day explain everything that we attribute to God now. One day, science will discover the ultimate value in the universe and disprove the existance of infinity

Hogwash. Science may be able to disprove anything being infinite, but infinity itself is a concept and not subject to proof. It is no more possible to disprove science then it is to disprove purple spots. Purple spots donÔÇÖt have to exist anywhere for them to exist as concepts, and neither does infinity. And because infinity is defined solely by its definition it has no begging or end, and never will.

quote:

There's always a point, such as being truly happy, but if your set against the idea that there is a more powerful being than yourself and that you should be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it makes you feel good, I doubt you'd be able to follow Christianity, even though (in my opinion) it'd be a good idea.

IÔÇÖm not object to the idea of a supreme being (though again, I wonÔÇÖt believe in one without reason), my problem with god in this sense is that I donÔÇÖt like his politics. I disagree with him (if he even exists, which like I said I doubt) in a very fundamental way. We simply wouldnÔÇÖt get along.

Sorry darling, but if I did believe in god I would be a Satanist.

quote:

What am I supposed to be doing that is going to make me enjoy myself more while i'm alive? Most of the activities you mentioned are self-degrading, with or without the existance of God.

Bah, none of them are degrading unless you think of them that way.

quote:

The material world can never be totally explained by science. Humans are simply animals that can only act via senses, they can act via reason and thought. Since science can't explain everything, there must be some other realm, which many (including myself) believe is a spiritual realm which does/could include God.

I believe in the unknown, which may or may not include a spiritual realm, but itÔÇÖs unknown and so (get this) I donÔÇÖt know. Lacking any real solid empirical evidence in a spiritual realm I choose not to believe in one.

quote:

I think that's oversimplyfying the concept. The idea is that there is God that created everything, including us and especially us. Our goal in life is to follow God's teachings and become closer to Him since He is all powerful and eternal.

Bah, you could argue that my mom created me but that doesnÔÇÖt mean I have to try to be like her (nothing against me mom, but that is simply not how I want to live me life). As for all powerful and eternal, bully for him, I donÔÇÖt see why that should matter in the least.

quote:

When we die, it is scientifically proven that our bodies cease working and we essentially no longer exist in this world. If there is some sort of spiritual realm, as implied by Christianity, God is the only thing that matters there. If you aren't with God, which is the key to happiness, then you spend the rest of eternity unhappy and suffering. Of course, all of that is only if i'm right, but I think endless suffering would be worse than physical pain any day...

How do you figure that god is the key to happiness, truthfully I donÔÇÖt see any reason to believe so. Furthermore, you say that the misery of going to hell is being away from god, but I think I have already established that god is not someone I would want to be around anyway.

quote:

1. Not everyone uses contraception, and it sometimes doesn't work

2. Just an additional point. Pre-marital sex is degrading to women. There is a sort of taboo on women having pre-marital sex, less now than 100 years ago, but it still exists. Pre-marital sex is simply men subjugating women in the patriarchal society into sex objects. This occurs regardless of whether or not the woman is "enlightened" or getting pleasure from it or not, since society immediately shuns women (at least young women) who engage in pre-marital sex with many men as "whores", "sluts", "skanks", "tramps", etc.

1. Well, there are always abortions. And properly used contraception is phenomenally effective; it only fails when itÔÇÖs not used correctly.

2. Right, well, boo hiss at society. First of all, premarital sex doesnÔÇÖt necessarily mean promiscuity, it is perfectly possible to have a long term relationship without getting married, or having sex before the marriage date. But if a woman wants to sleep around, she should be able to make the choice for herself, rather then being dictated to by an obsolete mythology.

quote:

I'll just stick with the argument that there's nothing wrong with it except for homosexuals, and there's something wrong with that because it's against science. (there's no reason based in evolution or logic for homosexuality)

Wrong, try again. Homosexuals (and transsexuals for that matter) occur in a number of animal species, including rats. And there is an evolutionary reason for homosexuals, among gorillas (for example) it reduces a population increases that is putting pressure on the group (I donÔÇÖt know the correct term, but neither pack nor heard seam appropriate) and to increase bonding among male gorillas. Thus it is a natural phenomena (and it is hardwired in the brain for that matter) and thus (assuming a religious point of view) must be because god wanted it to be so.

quote:

Still harmful to individuals (obviously) and soceity (chaos). Even if murders get caught, it's harmful to individuals when it happens, even if it brought the criminal "pleasure".

So what, it would help with population control if nothing else.

quote:

If the government had that much power, society would go to hell since people could be tortured and killed out of the government's "pleasure" (desire for power), causing oppression of your "do whatever is pleasurable" mentality.

Yea, but I never said I thought everyone should be able to do whatever they want, just me. Anyway, it would let the people in charge do pretty much whatever they want, and IÔÇÖm good at being on the right side of that type of equation

quote:

Was focusing on society and individual's health, but harm to the animal is a big one too. Also, I think AIDS came from monkey's in Africa or South America...I wonder how that did the cross-species jump.

Yea, I remember hearing it was from sheep, but that doesnÔÇÖt make it true. I donÔÇÖt remember where aids came from (itÔÇÖs been a while since I took human sexuality) but I do know for a fact that it didnÔÇÖt come from animals. Any other objections to bestiality?

quote:

Extramarital sex? When you take a vow to stay with one person, and have sex with one person, and ONLY one person, breaking that vow undermines the trust in a society, and any children that may be raised by that "family" will be harmed deeply. Also harms society and individuals from jealous spouces killing the other poor sap.

Bah! People are to trusting anyway, it would be good for them. As for jealous spouses, well, thatÔÇÖs like saying having money is wrong because someone might kill you for it, completely barmy idea.

quote:

I'm not going to literally hurl, or even had the desire to, was just exaggerating. But beastiality and incest *IS* disgusting, and torture is just repugnant. If you take a poll, I bet at least 95/100 people would find one or both of them disgusting.

I realize you were speaking metaphorically, but my point was there is nothing disgusting about any of it. Oh, sure, society as a whole might object, well boo hiss too society.

quote:

Morally offensive? C'mon, there is no objective morality, remember? Pleasure is good/moral, and if you liked it, shouldn't be a problem telling us...

Yea, but it still is tasteless to go on about how one does something that is morally objectionable to most everyone who will hear them.

P.S. Why donÔÇÖt you explain your interpretation of Christian morality, after all I explained my idea of morality, itÔÇÖs only fair that you explain yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, Im getting vertigo just scrolling along your post, but here goes

quote:

If people who are top scientists concede the fact that if there is a God, that He won't be able to be proven by science, then how can you hold your standard of believing to "If science can prove it". You CANT look to science and top scientists say that.

I think we have sufficiently established that science cannot disprove religion. Therefore it stands to reason that if an individual was religious before they became a scientist there becoming a scientist would never disprove religion. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon for an individual who believes in god to attribute the unknown to god, and as a scientist (particularly in the hard sciences) is aware of so much more that is unknown then the average person it stands to reason that they would be at greater risk of attributing the unknown to god. Thus, it is not ones knowledge of science that determines whether they believe in god, but instead ones general philosophy on religion.

Now, to cover your various arguments where you claim that science canÔÇÖt prove religion and shouldnÔÇÖt have to, IÔÇÖm not going to copy out quotes simply because you repeat a lot of the same stuff.

You say that it is impossible to prove god with science. I ask ÔÇ£then why should I believe?ÔÇØ If I have no evidence of something I will not believe in it. It doesnÔÇÖt have to be scientific evidence, but it does have to be real, and it has to be in sufficient quantity (or quality) based on the nature of what I am expected to believe (believing the cat is in the house is easy, believing a shark is in the house is not), and more or better evidence must be available if the thing to be believed is important or otherwise relevant to me (that is, if someone down the street has a shark in there house, IÔÇÖm probably not going to say ok and take it at that, but if there is a shark in my house I will want some good evidence (a person I trust seeing it would probably be sufficient, depends on how hysterical they are though). Because I have no where near enough evidence to believe something as relevant and extraordinary as god, I choose not to. This doesnÔÇÖt mean that god doesnÔÇÖt exist, simply that I donÔÇÖt have a good reason to believe in him so I donÔÇÖt.

You claim that miracles are impossible to prove by science, but this is not the case. First of all, how many miracles (statues bleeding and such not) are subject to intense scientific scrutiny. If a statue started bleeding when it was moved would you immediately ship it off to a university for the professors to pick over, test, and perhaps dismantle? Most people wouldnÔÇÖt, and thus no real evidence is collected. I remember hearing about an event where statues were drinking milk, some fourteen hundred people witnessed it, but was anyone there mixing radioactive isotopes in the milk so they could see where it goes? Nope. Most miracles are the kind that people are loath to study carefully or simply donÔÇÖt consider in need of studying.

Furthermore, if we assume that these events are caused by supernatural entities, then we have a perfect explanation. We do not need a full fledged god, only lesser beings that are extremely hard to detect and possessed of supernatural abilities (that is to say, abilities not yet explained by science). Explains miracles perfectly, without ever even touching on the creation of the universe, or the one god, or any such nonsense.

That brings me to your other argument that we donÔÇÖt know how the universe could have come into being so god must have done it. Sorry darling, but no such luck. As I have said before, that proves only the unknown. I do not know how the universe came into being and cannot explain it, but I will give you a little something to think on. If god has always existed before he created the earth (that is to say, he existed for an infinite amount of time) and infinity has neither beginning nor end (this is the definition, and one which you agree with in your last post) then god would never get around to creating the earth, having waiting an infinite amount of time to do so. ItÔÇÖs the same problem with the big bang, and saying ÔÇ£but heÔÇÖs god, he can do whatever he likesÔÇØ makes no sense. The ONLY sidestep for this would be for him to have come into being at some point, and thus there would be a finite amount of time between is coming into existence and the creation of the earth. This, however, would require that god came into existence, and like all things that would require a cause (gods donÔÇÖt just appear out of nowhere for no reason). If god truly was eternal he never would have gotten around to creating earth, and thus earth wouldnÔÇÖt exist now, and we wouldnÔÇÖt be having this debate.

Oh, and darling, before you try to apply the same reasoning to a scientific origin of the universe, may I point out that that is exactly what you have been doing since you first started this line of reasoning, and I have repeatedly said that I donÔÇÖt know. And if you will recall, I clearly stated in the beginning of my first post that I can say I donÔÇÖt know without discrediting science or my argument. So where does that leave us? At a stale mate, arguing about the beginning of the universe and such will never suggest either divine or scientific creation. Please do not continue this line of discussion unless you have something new to add.

quote:

But if there IS a God, you'll never be able to prove them by science since they would be from a divine source, but you fail to accept the possibility that they are from divine sources. You maintain that until science explains them, they aren't divine. And if science does explain them, they aren't divine (obviously). Where are you leaving the LEAST possibility for there to being God, since under your logic, it's impossible to prove Him, no matter WHAT.

Again, stalemate. There must be evidence to link an alleged miracle to god, and there will never be such evidence, and any scientific explanation of a miracle could simply be explained as god working through science, miracles will never give any real evidence for or against the existence of god.

quote:

EX: If you were standing somewhere and you suddenly had a vision of the Bible, and then the vision ended and you saw a statue of Mary floating in the air and blood (more blood than the statue could ever contain) was pouring out of its eyes, you would claim that it has to be able to be proven by science. If Jesus comes down riding of a firey chariot (or whatever Revelation said, it was close to it), and every believer in the world started worshipping him, you would probably maintain He is an alien. If he started healing people that touch him, and walking on water, making statues cry, quoting scripture, and doing things that no scientist could EVER explain, you'd claim that He has to be explained by science.

I can play what if too. What if god came down and told you that there is no god? What if you woke up one day and your feet were on backwards and your hands were upside down? What if every time you wanted to say red you instead said blue and every time you wanted to say cat you instead said miniature giant space hamster? Oh, wait, hereÔÇÖs a good one. What if you were taken into an underground prison and conditioned to not believe in god until you truly didnÔÇÖt believe in him?

If I had a series of visions and ÔÇ£miraclesÔÇØ happen in my presence, I just might believe, but then the conditioning would get you, and I think we both know that neither event would prove the other right, but it would convince them. And again, if I did believe in god I would probably end up either a Satan worshiper (or if that was a waste of time) then simply not caring one way or the other. The what if game is pointless though, it proves nothing.

quote:

Actually, you just need clues/evidence that gets rid of reasonable doubt. You can never be SURE who killed someone (maybe an alien shot them from space and was playing games with us), but you have a lot of clues that points to a conclusion (just like God).

Yea, but all of the clues of godÔÇÖs existence are circumstantial evidence, and you canÔÇÖt get convicted of murder of circumstantial evidence. The clues to convict a murderer also have to add up to a single whole, and in the end it is still possible to be wrong, and the system acknowledges this thus there is an appeal process.

quote:

Hitler sure didn't consider it a problem, and according to your morality, if he could have gotten away with it without getting killed or caught, it was fine.

It was fine by Hitler, and it was fine by me, but it was a problem for you and most everyone else. This is called having an opinion that differs with the public norm. What is wrong and what is right is a matter of opinion, and thus a personal decision for everyone.

quote:

That's easily attributed to free will. The ability to reject God or not. There's also no reason to suspect that morality is a product of evolution since so many people have different moral beliefs.

Ok, then god doesnÔÇÖt cause people to have morality, he simply judges them after they die. Until you die there is no way to prove one way or the other whether not morality is the product of god or evolution, and until you die it makes no difference. It still can be overcome, and it still exists relatively the same for most people. I donÔÇÖt see any point in continuing this like of argumentation, it is getting us nowhere. If you have any new points to add to this, feel free to do so, but do not rehash your old arguments, they didnÔÇÖt convince me then and they donÔÇÖt convince me now.

quote:

It doesn't toss out sex (there's no unique reason why doing it with more people is going to somehow increase the pleasure of it), and murder and torture can hardly be considered FUN, and regardless, common law tosses them out (you can't do em just about anywhere regardless of if you follow Christian morality)

First of all, it does make sex a lot harder if (like me) your not married or if your partner isnÔÇÖt as interested in sex as your are, or simply doesnÔÇÖt do it for you, or any number of other reasons.

As for murder and torture not being fun, some people would disagree, but my argument for them is simply that that it can be beneficial to murder or torture someone. As for the law, that has to be taken into consideration when decideing whether or not to commit an illegal act as a potential downside, but one shouldnÔÇÖt discount illegal activities as being beneficial simply because they may cause you legal problems.

quote:

You seem to leave no room for being wrong. You claim that science can explain everything, and if it can't right now, it doesn't prove that science can't explain everything (which is the logical conclusion), but that it will be able to later.

First of all, thatÔÇÖs not the logical conclusion (would it have been logical for someone in the renaissance to assume science would never provide a way for humans to fly?). Furthermore, I leave a way to be wrong in the possibility that there is a god and he simply isnÔÇÖt proven, but this is a small chance to be wrong as the chance of god existing is very small.

Besides, where have you left a chance to be wrong? Would you please open a chink in your argument so that I may prove you wrong?

quote:

You disagree with the politic of being kind and loving to your neighbors, them acting the same way toward you, and "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Almost all people I know (religious or not), seem to have a desire to belong, but I get the impression that you want to be alone...?

I donÔÇÖt like most people, in fact I think theyÔÇÖre scum (useful scum, but scum none the less). This is because IÔÇÖm a bit of a sociopath (a trait that I consider positive, by the way). Now, this doesnÔÇÖt mean I dislike everyone, IÔÇÖm perfectly capable of caring for people, its simply that there are very few people that I care for. IÔÇÖm also on the asocial side of things, so yes, I like to be alone, but not exclusively so. I have friends, and I spend time with them on occasions, I simply donÔÇÖt have very many and they arenÔÇÖt very close.

quote:

Wow. Strong statement. Just curious/nosy, but it seems (I could be totally wrong) that your really hostile toward the world or hurt from it, or some negative attitude. If i'm right, mind sharing why? If i'm wrong, just ignore it.

I donÔÇÖt mind sharing (you asked for it), though I truthfully donÔÇÖt think that IÔÇÖm hurt by the world, I simply despise most people. DonÔÇÖt take this as bad though, I wouldnÔÇÖt have it any other way, I like it that most people are small minded, easily manipulated, and otherwise pathetic, it makes things much easier.

I suppose that I could explain this as a bad childhood, and perhaps it would be true. This isnÔÇÖt to say that I grew up in an abusive household, or that we were lacking for essentials, thatÔÇÖs simply not the case, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean I was a happy child. I have always been distant from people, being much smarter then average and being incapable of really connecting with most people my age. Furthermore, I grew up in the country, and thus there were few people my age who lived near me, and while I was an active child I spent a lot of time by myself, entertaining myself. Thus I grew distant from my peers (who, in an intellectual sense, were not my peers at all). I donÔÇÖt know when I started despising people, but I have for as long as I can remember. Considering people less intelligent (not to mention less willing to be deceitful or cruel) then myself as blatantly inferior, it is no surprise that I came to manipulate them (though this wasnÔÇÖt until later, when I was really young I was to socially inept to manipulate most anyone).

At some point in my life, I donÔÇÖt know when, I started considering myself ugly as well. No one ever said otherwise, and I was very critical of my own appearance, and, eventually, sometime after I gave up on caring how I looked, dressing only in black (everything black, from my hat to my socks and shoes, always al black) and in a series of virtually identical outfits so that I never had to bother with what to wear. I guess I didnÔÇÖt look very good, thinking back on the way I dressed and groomed myself it was no surprise I never figured out I was wrong until I was in college. ThatÔÇÖs a long time to consider myself fat and ugly, even when I was truly neither (though I did look different, and that never helped me get along either).

I also spent most of my youth despising emotions, considering myself above such things, and while this was not the case I was good enough at repressing them that I didnÔÇÖt even know I had emotions of any depth. In part this was a defense against teasing, something I got the brunt of in grade school and even more so in junior high (I never got teased in high school, donÔÇÖt as me why, but people didnÔÇÖt bother me much then), though I didnÔÇÖt truly become very unemotional until I was out of junior high, and perhaps that is why people didnÔÇÖt bother me in high school more then a little by a few people that had little or no effect (a few times I had a project sabotaged or such, but not often and not severely). I was described as having an attitude that said ÔÇ£stand back, donÔÇÖt bother meÔÇØ up until I was in college (which was the beginning of a major turning point for me).

I should also point out that I never really got in any trouble when I was young, and my mother never really had that much control of my life by my 15th year or so. Also, by the time I went to college I was good at manipulating others, including people I didnÔÇÖt know very well, and my mother had had pretty much around my little finger as it were. What does this mean? Basically that I learned morality neither through punishment nor through example by people whom I respected (after all, I respected no on but myself). What little contact I did have with my father (who lived rather plainly) was limited, but he never disproved of petty theft or any similar activity that I engaged in so long as I didnÔÇÖt get caught (which I never did), and knowing this I never had a problem telling him. I think we can safely say that I never got much morality from him.

As I mentioned earlier, I never had any roll models early life, but later (sometime while I was in high school I think) I read about Elizabeth Bathory (there are probably a half dozen different spellings), the historical blood countess who killed over 600 virgins and bathed in there blood (or drank there blood) in the belief that it would improve her complexion. I canÔÇÖt say she was a role model, but I did kind of respect her at the time (and still do to a degree). I mentioned this because anything that ever even vaguely took the place of a roll model for me was a swath of historical and fictional characters, most of them rather nasty.

Anyway, I donÔÇÖt know if this is truly the reason I am who I am today, but it contributed. To finish the story, at some point in college I figured a few things out (actually, it happened between quarters) and I changed a lot. IÔÇÖm no longer unemotional, I no long dress only in black (A lot of black, itÔÇÖs still one of my favorite colors, but I wear a much greater variety), and I discovered that I truly do look good and began obsessing over my appearance. Not much else changed though, IÔÇÖm still smug and superior, considering most people scum (both because most arenÔÇÖt as smart as me, and because they are hindered by morality), and IÔÇÖm more manipulative then ever. IÔÇÖm also a lot happier, and peruse personal pleasure as the ultimate goal in my existence.

quote:

Hmm, try reading the Bible. I doubt it'd change your beliefs, but it'd probably be a lot easier than me trying to explain the concept of God and His power and Christian spirituality. To try to put it in a small nutshell in response to your last post, it's like if there is a being that has supreme and total power (call it an Alien if you want), and that if you get him/her/it's bad side, your going to be in pain and suffering forever, and if your on his/her/it's good side, your going to be happy and in pleasure forever.

So your logic runs that it would be easier for me to read the bible then it would be for you to explain the concept of god and his power and such not and so forth. Now thatÔÇÖs my kind of logic (I would be proud if it wasnÔÇÖt me you were using it on). Also, you might want to consider that the bible may be biased. I mean, would you expect a book by Nazis to have an objective view on Hitler and the so called holocaust? Of course not, so why would a book by Christians have an objective view of god?

quote:

If your central focus is pleasure, i'd expect you to want to be near God for this rest of eternity (thus having pleasure) in exchange for giving up a few aspects of pleasure in this life.

Yes, but what IÔÇÖm saying is that I doubt I would enjoy being with god, seeing that he and I simply do not agree on any of the fundamentals (including his existence). Anyway, what I consider enjoyable usually involves someone else considering it unpleasant (physical pleasure being a notable exception). Some how I donÔÇÖt think heaven is a place I would enjoy.

quote:

Yes, contraception works. Abortions are another moral issue, but since you don't have a problem with murder, and abortions can't be considered "pleasurable" (more like utilitarian), I don't see a point to arguing it.

Well, true, but avoiding going through labor and having an unwanted child is rather unpleasant, and thatÔÇÖs what abortions avoid. Thus they are not so much pleasant themselves as they avoid other unpleasantries.

quote:

Yes, it is possible to have a long term relationship without promiscuity, but the concept of it allows/leads to sleeping with many people men. If a woman wants to sleep around, it just enforced the gender hierarchy and thus hurts society and the woman.

So what your saying is that it isnÔÇÖt premarital sex that is wrong, but promiscuity? That differs significantly from standard Christian morality.

quote:

Actually, I heard animals (not humans) do it for dominance. Male animals committing sodomy on other male animals do it in order to establish the power hierarchy since an animal being sodomized is physically and emotionally weak and defenseless ("screwed" if you use the slang term) No point to humans doing it.

Ok, I donÔÇÖt know about animals doing it for dominance, but I do know that some animals are homosexual (and I know this for a fact, not simply having heard it somewhere). As for there being no point for humans, this is blatantly untrue (after all, why would people do something pointless?). If two men love each other and wish to have sex, then sodomy is rather the only way.

By the way, I know that Christian morality prohibits homosexual men, but what about women?

quote:

Tell that to someone if they shoot you through the head with a shotgun. Obviously, murder causes a lot more harm to the world than any pleasure or help it brings. Besides, if you want population control, just nuke China.

That would be rather hard, my jaw would be thoroughly broken and my brains spattered across the floor. As for nuking China, great idea except for the unfortunate effect of nuclear war and the environmental hazards of fallout. Now, a nice bit of biological warfare, that could just do the trick, perhaps something that rendered the victim sterile.

quote:

But it's still bad for society and people, and you could always somehow end up on the wrong side.

Life is full of risks, nothing much I can do about that.

quote:

It's harmful to animals. And it's unnatural. And it could spread diseases (scientists don't research that because it's repugnant). Besides, christian morality is irrelevent to beastiality, murder, and torture, since in most of the world it's illegal anyway. Without Christianity, it still wouldn't be done.

Well, without Christian morality there is nothing to prevent someone from deciding (as I have) that those are all perfectly acceptable activities. Sure, its bad for society, but I donÔÇÖt worry about society, I donÔÇÖt care about society, and anyone who does is missing something about life.

As for bestiality being harmful to animals, if this should indeed be true it is of little relevance. IÔÇÖm not any more an animal rights activist then I am a human rights activist, sorry. As for disease, I doubt this would be any more risky then with a human (less actually, animals donÔÇÖt tend to spread STDs as well as people do and many diseases the affect animals wouldnÔÇÖt affect humans). As for unnatural, sure, but who cares, driving a car is unnatural.

quote:

I agree people are too trusting, but extramarital sex is proving that a little bit too far. Also, people can give the money if threatened with death without being killed over it. Being betrayed that much by extramarital sex can't be taken back, and is more likely to result in death via passion/emotion.

And any individual who gets in such a situation is taking a risk, true, but then anyone who decides to leave there house is taking a risk. I donÔÇÖt advocate careless risk, but a little risk never hurt anyone (ok, so it did, but not that many people).

quote:

Also, the whole concept of extramarital sex also reinforced gender hierarchies just like with pre-marital. (men who sleep around are just using the other women as sex objects/tools, women who sleep around get the society label of slut, whore, etc)

Well, again, this only happens if they sleep around (it is perfectly possible for someone to have a single extramarital partner, more common really as most women anyway are not inclined to sleep around). Anyway, IÔÇÖm not a feminist and I donÔÇÖt really worry much about gender hierarchies, IÔÇÖm perfectly okay with the way things are, after all it has always been possible for strong women to succeed in life despite the gender hierarchy. Makes life more of a challenge

quote:

Ok, just wondering, do you have sex with animals? It just is disgusting to think about because it is so perverted and unnatural.

Well. um its like this

No, IÔÇÖm not a zoophile and thus bestiality holds no real appeal for me.

quote:

C'mon, tell us, we're all accepting people around here, and besides, it's not really tasteless in the confines of this discussion.

No. I will not discuss any illegal or amoral activities I may engage in on a public forum. It is both tasteless and a bad way to make friends. If would really like me to tell you send me a private message with your email address and I will email you, but it will be confidential.

I read your lovely statement about your morality, I donÔÇÖt really have anything to argue against it that I havenÔÇÖt already said, but I am curious about what you mean by natural law. Also, I will make an argument for abortion.

quote:

I am against abortion because I think that the possibility of it being a human life (and thus it being murder if you kill it) outweighs some woman's rights to keep the autonomy of her own body when it was her own choice to begin with to have sex (try this on for size, the best type of abortion is NOT HAVING SEX or USING BIRTH CONTROL (while knowing the chance something might go wrong)), in terms of rape, I think that abortion should still be illegal unless having the child would be harmful to the mother's help (she can always put it up for adoption, and if she puts so much value on an unborn life that she thinks it'd be too painful for her, then it's probably a human life anyway (since you aren't going to have a pre-determined care about a simple mass of cells)).

First of all, I will say that this is not a topic that concerns me personally. IÔÇÖm completely sterile and will never have children, and while this isnÔÇÖt something I chose I wouldnÔÇÖt have it any other way. I simply donÔÇÖt have much a maternal instinct and wouldnÔÇÖt know what to do with a child if I had one (except that wonderful saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater).

Now, that said, I definitely am for allowing women the choice. Despite birth control being dreadfully effective, people do mess up and mistakes do happen, and thus so do unwanted pregnancies. Adoption is an option, but this requires giving birth. A lot of men seam forget this. For a woman to have a child she must first endure nine months of pregnancy, getting more an more bulky through the entire process until she is virtually helpless. Then they have to go through labor, a process I donÔÇÖt think has ever been called pleasant and is most certainly bad for a womanÔÇÖs figure. And the result is another unwanted child, and subsequently an unwanted increase in population. Abortions are good for society, both in that they prevent unwanted children (and before you start chanting adoption, there are plenty of children up for adoption as it is, we do not need more) and reduce population growth.

As for morality, I donÔÇÖt see anything amoral (even by normal morality) about killing a bunch of cells, or a fetus. There is no way you could consider that a person, and even the pope says that a baby doesnÔÇÖt have a soul until 40 days before it is born. As for the argument that it will become a human being, the same argument could be used against birth control (after all, the effect is the same, the prevention of potential human being from having the opportunity for life).

P.S. If you ever want to talk more directly, I would be delighted to chat with you on ICQ or some such.

P.P.S. No long post is truly complete without a postscript or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Ok, I donÔÇÖt know about animals doing it for dominance,

They do. Ask a vet. I used to take my dog with me when I visited my friends. They owned his mother and sister. He liked to play with a deflated soccer ball. Soft enough to bite but firm enough to kick and roll. Whoever got the ball got humped by one of the others. Just humped though. Obviously females have nothing to penetrate with. I don't think George did any humping. Then again he was low on the totem pole with two females around.

The study I saw on gay animals was on seagulls I think. So there are true gay animals as well as it being used for a dominating tactic.

And if you do decide to read the bible I would recommend a more modern translation. The King James version is beautiful when read as scripture in service but rather dry when trying to read it as a book I think. A more modern one shouldn't be too much worse than that nasty mythology book that woman wrote. The one we all read in high school (maybe they have changed by now.) Maybe the library has them. New I think they are rather expensive nowadays. Maybe more than idle curiosity could justify. Dunno. Your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh... nothing like a good debate on religion. Actually, I've been following it, but haven't quite been willing to jump in, yet.

My thought on religion is that it serves an important purpose in the lives of many people by being a catch all to explain everything the can't comprehend or are unwilling to face. It's also served many people well as a tool to manipulate and control others.

Religion is typically used as a means to explain what happens when you die, an attempt to make it sound happy. And in some religions, where there's a concept of a place of punishment (such as hell), it's further used to help control the followers of that religion. "Do what I say or you'll go to hell," type of deal.

I find many older people turn to religion for this reason. I think it's kind of the knowledge that they're going to die soon, and they want to believe their whole life wasn't meaningless. The human race is naturally self-centered, and has a hard time coping with the belief that we don't serve a purpose any grander than that of bacteria.

I subscribe to the belief that when we die, we die. That's it. Game over. No eternal bliss or eternal damnation. What's left of you simply becomes food for worms. It might not be as pleasent as heaven or reincarnation or what have you, but it's what I believe.

I don't believe there's any grand purpose behind why we are here. We exist to reproduce and occupy our place in the food chain until evolution does away with the human race and replaces us with something else. Life isn't some big and elaborate test to see if we're morally worthy for some higher fate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that religious beliefs are pointless. On the contrary they make life easier to deal with for millions of people, they help make people like John Edwards rich, and they help everyone from Bin Laden to the Pope maintain armies of loyal sheep.

Call me an athiest if you want, but really I think of myself as a realist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Well, if we agree that science isn't going to prove/disprove it, what evidence would convince you? What would there need to be? It seems that there is nothing that would convince you (even theoretically).

ThatÔÇÖs a very good question, and I donÔÇÖt really know if there is any evidence that would convince me. Perhaps if Jesus came down in a fiery chariot or whatever as you mentioned before I might be convinced, but other then that probable no.

To put a little different take on it, what kind of evidence would you need to believe in invisible and immaterial bunnies?

quote:

But again, your making the assumption that "if they study it more closely, science will explain it". Maybe science isn't infallible and it can't explain everything. Sure, I agree that some "miracles" may be able to be explained by science, but I highly doubt that with the consistency of them and them being focused around religious icons that they are all just "flukes".

What IÔÇÖm saying is that there is that there is no reason to believe science couldnÔÇÖt explain them, even now, if they were properly studied. Perhaps it is some type of spirit or something, or perhaps it truly is god. IÔÇÖm not saying that it is a fluke that it occurs around religious items, its perfectly possible that such items are religious because such phenomena happen around them, whether the cause is supernatural or scientific. All IÔÇÖm saying is that we donÔÇÖt really know what goes on in that type of miracle, and we will never know if we donÔÇÖt investigate thoroughly. Maybe we still will never know, but I doubt this.

quote:

Those entities would have to be outside of the scientific realm (and not be able to be explained by science as we know it), and not subject to the idea of cause and effect, which is what most of our science is based on.

I see. Can you explain how they can photograph ghosts and auras? These are clearly supernatural phenomena that are, to some degree, measurable by science (though they donÔÇÖt, in truth, lead themselves to be measured easily). Just because something canÔÇÖt be explained by current science doesnÔÇÖt nececitate it being outside of science. Perhaps your right, perhaps supernatural phenomena are outside of science, but then perhaps not. After all, is not supernatural the term given to things currently unexplained by science? And havenÔÇÖt a number of phenomena been explained and then made no longer supernatural? IÔÇÖm not saying that all such phenomena can be explained, but the only real evidence available for this type of prediction says that yes, such phenomena are explainable.

quote:

Actually, I accept that it could just be some beings that are in another dimension/plane of existance that is impossible to explain by science and outside of the scientific realm(think Dungeons and Dragons: Baldurs Gate II or Planetscape: Torment, with the different planes), but I have faith in it being God as opposed to that.

Your faith is good for you, but it will convince me of nothing.

Interesting that you point out AD&D, are you familiar with the pencil and paper versions or only the computer games?

quote:

Ahhhhhh. Ok, think about graphing infinity to negative infinity on a number line. All points are covered. If that number line represents time (our comprehension of it), and if God is everpresent/always existed, He existed at every point on that number line, and He could affect the events at any point on that number line however He wants, such as creating the universe, etc. He never would have to become subject to cause and effect since He would be the ultimate cause that created everything and would never have to "come into existance" since He was always there. I can't even be sure my explanation is right, but I do know that there's probably no way I, or any other human, can truly comphrehend God/existance, just like infinity.

Your explanation is invalid. Infinity has neither beginning nor end, and if we were to say that there is an infinite amount of time passing before earth came into existence, then it would never have came into existence. What you are suggesting is dividing infinity into two (the half before earth came into existence, and the half afterwards). This is blatantly impossible as infinity cannot be divided by two, or split in half, or any such. To use your number line example, rather then placing earths creation at 0, instead place it at positive infinity, and because positive infinity has no value there is no point on the number line at which earth is created. My math stands.

quote:

It's just that if you accept that there had to have been some entity that started the universe which is outside of science, then your admitting that science can't explain EVERYTHING, which means that the probability of there being a God has to be greater than you originally contended since your original contention came across to me as science can explain just about everything.

I donÔÇÖt know enough about the beginning of the universe to know whether what you suggest is a possibility. When I say that I DONÔÇÖT KNOW, trust me to mean that I do not in fact know. What you say may be true, but then it may be false as well, and as there is no way to determine which is the case then you will convince me of nothing. I do not accept the necessity of some entity outside of science, because I donÔÇÖt know if that is truly necessary, and neither, I think, do you.

quote:

So what will? I'd think it's safe to assume that if miracles focus around religious icons/locations/etc, and they can't be explained by science (right now or ever, we don't know), it would be a strong clue that there is a God.

I have addressed this point repeatedly, and will not do so again until a new argument is made. I tire of repeating myself and reading you do the same.

quote:

My point of that "what if" was only to point out that it'd be impossible to prove to you that there is a God. If some entity came down from space, teleported me into a spaceship, teleported me back at time to the beginning of the universe, created the Earth, took me down close to see the dinosaurs forming, and then teleported me back to present day and said to me "There is no God to worship...", I would probably stop believing since there would be another clear explanation of an all-powerful being that claimed to not be God. If somehow there were clues or proof of another plane of existance that explains everything about religion, i'd probably stop believing. There are plenty of ways to prove me wrong and get me to stop believing, but my "what if" scenario is just to point out that there's virtually no way to convince you that God DOES exist.

Please read my post, I did in fact say either of us could argue for scenarios that would invariably convince the other. To repeat myself, if Jesus did come down in a fiery chariot I would probably believe, and similarly if I was repeatedly bombarded by phenomena regarded as miracles.

quote:

Well, you can get convicted of strong circumstancial evidence. (there are witnesses around every exit from a building, there's only one person inside, another walks in with a gun, the original person dies from a gunshot wound and there are powder burns on person 2's hands. no one saw the murder, and it could have been aliens screwing around with the two people, but person 2 would be convicted). I don't think it's impossible for me to be wrong, but clues do point to a higher being, whether it be God or some other plane of existance that we could never understand.

Bah, none of the evidence for god is that clear, you purposefully misunderstand me. I would make an analogy but there is no point.

quote:

And that attitude would destroy society and happiness for everyone.

As you have no doubt noticed most people will give the same answer to what is right and wrong, though there are obvious exceptions (birth control, abortion, euthanasia, et cetera). Thus we can see people share some core concepts of morality, while differing in others based on how they were raised and there experiences and such not. Thus, that attitude does not destroy society, period, kindly desist saying so.

quote:

So marry someone who "does it for you". Doesn't preclude having pleasure/fun from sex.

And I didnÔÇÖt say it did, you really need to pay more attention. I simply said that it makes in more difficult, reducing the availability of partners and the times during which any partner is available.

quote:

Losing freedom and being locked up usually is not very pleasurable, as far as I know.

Are you purposefully misunderstanding me? IÔÇÖm saying that it is a risk which must be judged based on the potential for greater gain. Sure, there is the possibility of jail and such not, but thatÔÇÖs why your careful and weigh the risks before acting.

quote:

But humans weren't flying at the time, and then science was saying it couldn't be explained. There ARE miracles now, and when science says they can't explain em, you assume that science will ALWAYS be able to explain EVERYTHING. If science CANT explain em, don't automatically assume that it eventually will. That's like immediately assuming if someone says "I can't fix the car", that they will eventually be able to do it. It's like using science as a shield against the existance of God, even though if you realize the flaws in science (creation of the universe, miracles, humanity in general, religion, etc), the possibility of there being a God or a higher power becomes greater and greater.

Darling, it makes more sense to assume that science will be able to explain most everything given enough time then it does to assume all these various things are unexplainable by science (supernatural entities are unexplainable, god is unexplainable, creating is unexplainable, miracles are unexplainable, et cetera et cetera et cetera). Sure, there are things that may never be explained, but then they may be explained. I simply see no reason to doubt science, and it is most certainly not flawed, just incomplete (and by the way, how is humanity in general a flaw in science?). Now, for your analogy about the car, if the person who said he was going to fix it had a record thousands of years long for fixing things, both cars and other things before cars, and hundreds of years in which to get it done, then yes, I would believe he could fix it. Would you think otherwise?

quote:

But it's not THAT small. (refer to all other arguments) I'm not saying that it can be proven with 100% certainty that there is a God, i'm just trying to point out that the chances of there being a God are much higher than you make them out to be.

What IÔÇÖm saying isnÔÇÖt the probability of god existing or not. There is no probability of his existence, either he does or he doesnÔÇÖt, but what I am talking about is the probability of his existence based on my data. You could calculate the probability of the universe existing in a certain patter, but the truth is that it exists in the pattern it does, no chance involved. Now, back to god, itÔÇÖs the same this, I can say that the probability of something like god existing is very low, this doesnÔÇÖt mean he doesnÔÇÖt exist, simply that he is so extraordinary that, based on current knowledge, his existence is nearly impossible.

quote:

Another insight into me, i'm almost exactly parallel to you on the above, except that i'm usually not deceitful and/or cruel. I sometimes am, but only when it is for justice in response to a violation of my view of right/wrong. That's also one area I diverge from mainstream Christianity on. I don't believe everyone as "equal", as Christianity maintains for the most part (although I also don't advocate Eugenics or killing "inferior" people, which the "everyone is equal stance" was probably based on to begin with)

If I may quiz you a little, where your parents Christian? Did you have any strong roll models in your youth? Did you generally get away with doing things that are considered by society as a whole to be wrong?

As for killing people who are inferior, I wouldnÔÇÖt go for that either. Sterilizing them and shipping them off to some menial factory, however, would be just a dandy idea

quote:

Very interesting. We have/had similar experiences but totally different views on the world. It does explain it though. Being superior (or believing in being superior), has made me have the view that people are pitiful, but I think I just feel sorry for them (and thus adhere to a morality), as opposed to purposeful gaining pleasure from them (although I often do, but it's not usually intentional or hurtful when I do). Morality is a hinderence, but I just never want to take anything too far.

Well, pity is an emotion I have never understood and always found repugnant, both when I witnessed someone having pity on someone else (one of the first times I really noticed it, I couldnÔÇÖt understand why my friend would tolerate this other person who was a dumb (and I mean this literally), fat, pot head who smelled bad to boot, it was a little sickening to witness). As for morality being a hindrance, IÔÇÖm glad we agree, now the next step is decide that you have no need to be hindered

quote:

Anyway, interesting/cool story.

Thank you, it would be interesting to hear why you think you got to where you are today?

quote:

You never know, maybe if you find out about Him you might have more in common than you think. (I don't know, the line just sounded good and sort of applied)

Your right darling, you donÔÇÖt know.

quote:

There are plenty of ways to be moral while still making others unpleasant. The concept of "the truth hurts" often works well (especially in long drawn out plans of revenge/justice).

Vengeance is fun, but you can only have vengeance on someone when they wronged you first. I much prefer to avoid that to begin with.

quote:

Nah, i'm saying premarital sex is wrong because the concept allows for promiscuity, just like racial discrimination allows for racism and hate crimes.

Yes darling, you say premarital sex is wrong yet your basis for that is solely that it allows promiscuity. Do you have any argument against non-promiscuous premarital sex?

As for your analogy, it isnÔÇÖt even close.

quote:

I maintain it's unnatural for humans since it serves no biological function. (ok, so the argument's weak, but it still applies)

You have yet to address my argument cars are even more unnatural (not to mention worse for society as a whole, producing pollution and such not). As for there being no biological reason, that is true, but then there is no biological reason to play BCM (or any other game or any type), and yet people do. If you want to argue that sodomy should be forbidden because there is no biological reason, try to thing about the number of actions you perform each day without a biological reason (and how many of these are ÔÇ£unnaturalÔÇØ).

quote:

I don't think you can commit gay activities (the Church isn't against gays, just their activities...at least that's the Catholic view)

YouÔÇÖre not catholic, so whatÔÇÖs your view?

quote:

They don't have THAT many nukes, at least not like Russia did. Besides, China would be glowing green before they would have time to fire all their nukes back at us. They'd never even see it coming.

Getting hit with even one nuke is too many, and there is still nuclear fallout (not to mention political fallout) to deal with. A bit of biological warfare though, no real way to trace if back to the US if itÔÇÖs done carefully.

quote:

Well, unless you think you can take the pitifulness and weakness of society and improve it for the future so people you care about and future generations has to put up with how bad society is today.

Darling, like I said, I donÔÇÖt really care that much for people or society. My idea of helping the human race would be something like that bio weapon I was talking about earlier, sterilize a third or so of the population and watch the population drop.

quote:

I prefer the long-term pleasure emotional/spiritual/mental pleasure that comes from doing something that will last forever and have a significant impact than the short-term personal pleasure that is tangible but fleeting.

Yea, but since I have no desire to do anything that lives beyond me, I go for the short term and very tangible pleasures that I can take, many of them being emotional/mental pleasures.

quote:

Go animal rights! Go Humane Society! Long live the animals!!! (ok, I admit it, there's just some intrinsic belief in me, probably not even connected to God, that makes me think that beastiality is wrong)

I canÔÇÖt say I truly understand why someone would think of that as repugnant, but then I wouldnÔÇÖt think of mass murder as repugnant either (pity however, thatÔÇÖs nasty, but I donÔÇÖt mind mass murder).

quote:

But if a STD jumps species, we could have a huge problem, especailly if the new form could go airborne. Besides, there isn't enough research to prove it either way (not many scientists are going to hump animals).

First of all, if that was going to happen it would have a very long time ago (people have been doing it with every type of animal you would think it was even remotely possible with, and a number you wouldnÔÇÖt, for a great many years). Furthermore, a study on animal STDs would no more involve humping them then studying human STDs would involve having sex. IÔÇÖm not going to go into how it would be don, I donÔÇÖt know for sure (though I have some ideas) and it isnÔÇÖt relevant anyway.

quote:

To be truthful, I don't know the ENTIRE concept of Natural Law as proposed by (I think it was John Locke), but i'm pretty sure it talks about humans as having intrinsic inalienable rights that tend to fall along the same ones that the constitution guarntees, freedom, life, liberty, etc, and I believe that those should be protected.

Yea, I remember that now. I would tell you that I find the idea as preposterous as morality, but then you probably already guessed that.

Besides, there is no such thing as an inalienable right; all you have to do is kill someone to take it away. I donÔÇÖt think people talk about inalienable corpse rights

quote:

I have a very strong contempt for people attempting to harm, hurt, or decieve me in any way, and I always am sure that they pay for it. Now, I don't know if that's "wrong" or not, but it's the way I am.

Nothing wrong with a little vengeance darling, except insofar as it isnÔÇÖt as much fun as a lot of vengeance (nor as effective)

quote:

When it cries, duct tape it's mouth shut?

Really? IÔÇÖll take your word for it, though my first instinct would be to go for my soldering iron.

quote:

So the woman shouldn't have been stupid enough to have sex in the first place. If there's the possibility that it's a life, the possibility of allowing murder shouldn't be allowed just because of someone's incompetence.

And how do you figure that it is stupid to have sex when the worst possible solution is pregnancy (barring STDs, but thatÔÇÖs a different topic entirely), which can easily be aborted? I see nothing stupid about this at all.

Anyway, I donÔÇÖt think that it could be called murder any more then squishing a bug could be called murder.

quote:

Too bad she was a moron (sorry if anyone on here has had an abortion, but i'm not going to change my view that your an idiot for having sex if you weren't prepared for the possible consequences of your actions), and I think that if people are advocating overpopulation, that's fine, since the kids put up for adoption will be the first to die off anyone. At least they should be given a chance.

First of all, I would say that any woman willing to get an abortion is prepared for the consequences, there is simply nothing moronic about that at all. And overpopulation causes all sorts of misery (itÔÇÖs fine in other countries where a work surplus would result in cheap labor, but there is no such thing as truly cheap labor in America anyway, and this is where I live to boot), including all the depravities caused by people with no job (because there simply arenÔÇÖt jobs available) and no way of living besides murder and theft and such not. No thank you, we donÔÇÖt want that here.

quote:

I think that falls into the whole God argument again but if that IS a human with a soul that can live on it's own, it's equal to murder to kill that child/fetus.

Wahoo! ItÔÇÖs murder! Who cares?

quote:

Hmm, are you sure that's what the pope said? Even if he did, I think the possibility of it having a soul before then discounts abortion as a feasible idea (use birth control and be prepared to deal with the consequences if it doesn't work), and if there are abortions (which I am totally against), it should be determined by the point of time that the child can be removed from the mother's body and put on life support and still live and develop.

IÔÇÖm sure that some pope said it, not necessarily the current one. As for removing the child and putting it on life support, who is going to pay for this? Not me, not the tax payers (a complete waist of money), and many people who have abortions would have no where near the funds for that kind of procedure.

quote:

That's why the Catholic church is against it, but it's not going to become a human being until after the sperm and egg are joined. If they never join, it was never growing into a human.

And if the child is aborted, it never grows into a human being either (and please, you cannot call a fetus a human being), so there is no real difference.

quote:

Will PM you.

Thank you, I look forward to receiving your message.

And I read LitvyakÔÇÖs post (and how are you suppose to pronounce Litvyak anyway?) and I concur on every point. Very articulately stated, and very to the point.

P.S. Dredd, if you donÔÇÖt have a new argument to present for a given point, please say so and if I similarly lack new arguments then we can drop the point altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

And I read LitvyakÔÇÖs post (and how are you suppose to pronounce Litvyak anyway?) and I concur on every point. Very articulately stated, and very to the point.


Haha... thanks

Not sure on the actual Russian pronounciation of Litvyak, but I generally pronounce it Lit-vee-ack. It actually came from my flight sim days, and is taken from Lilya Vladimirovna Litvyak, a Russian fighter pilot who's story can be found here and here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to get back to this thread, but I seem to have forgotten--shucks. The post I want to respond to is way back on the second page, so here's the relevant part:

quote:

Logical flaw here, you say that entities with the same properties are identical, but this is inclusive, it in no manner prevents entities with different or divergent properties from being identical as well.

Furthermore, this does nothing to prove the immateriality of the mind, only to ÔÇ£proveÔÇØ that the mind and brain are not absolutely identical. I will postulate that the brain is the mechanism though which your consciousness works, and your mind is the bioelectrical reaction that is going on at the time. This nicely distinguishes between the two sufficient for them to be considered separate entities as your ÔÇ£proofÔÇØ requires.


First, I said that only entities that have the same properties are identical, thus entities with different divergent and/or otherwise different properties are not identical. Secondly, this "proof," as it was called, also distinguishes between the electrical activity and the mind, as electrical activity, too, can be doubted. Anything that is not logically deduced from self-evident propositions can be doubted, and that includes every anatomical and physiological aspect of our bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, stating that entities with the same properties are identical, when interpreted inclusively, is not the same as say entities with different properties cannot be identical. Thus, again, you logic is flawed. You have not refuted my argument, only restated yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Again, stating that entities with the same properties are identical, when interpreted inclusively, is not the same as say entities with different properties cannot be identical. Thus, again, you logic is flawed. You have not refuted my argument, only restated yours.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "interpreted inclusively." The definition of "inclusive" in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary that seems to fit the bill here states that it is "comprehending stated limits or extremes." As I qualified my statement "only entities with the same properties are identical" with the word "only," it seems to me that the parameters I've established do not allow for you to claim that two things with different characteristics are identical. I'd appreciate some clarification here. For good measure, however, I'll throw in the following principle that seems to support my position more explicitly--according to the dissimilarity of the diverse (my knowledge of philosophy and logic is rather limited, so don't anyone construe this spouting of principles to mean that I know what I'm talking about, but back to the dissimilarity of the diverse...); if two entities are distinct then one has at least a single property that the other does not. As the mind lacks a property that every physical part or process has--doubtability, it is therefore distinct from them.

[ 09-26-2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...