Do you believe in God?

[Tappajakoala]

So no answers then, what a surprise.

I had option to watch paint to dry or discuss with you. I did chose more interesting option.

By the way, have you noticed that people who are nowadays vocally fighting against global intolerance are actually one of most intolerant themselves?

 

[Scaff]

I had option to watch paint to dry or discuss with you. I did chose more interesting option.

Can't keep away from the personal dogs can you.

By the way, have you noticed that people who are nowadays vocally fighting against global intolerance are actually one of most intolerant themselves?

Nope, not at all

I have noticed this exact claim be used as a defence when people can't support a position however

 

[Terronium-12]

I had option to watch paint to dry or discuss with you. I did chose more interesting option.

By the way, have you noticed that people who are nowadays vocally fighting against global intolerance are actually one of most intolerant themselves?

Discuss the topic at hand, not the person. That includes thinly-veiled insults.

You were told this once before. If you're unable to discuss the topic without resorting to cheap quips you'll be removed from the conversation entirely.

 

[Dogwolf77]

It’s quite disappointing to see only 31% have a belief in God. I believe in God. I do not like the direction “organized” religion has taken. But if it works for some, so be it. Not for me.

It does, however, not surprise me. I suspect as time goes by, technology advances, life gets easier, more tolerable, comfortable, enriched, and so forth that there will be more decline. Particularly when parents fail to impress religious values upon their children. Schools and communities seem to want to undermine religion or ban it completely, and any symbolic reference to it.

I don’t believe as a society we’re getting any smarter/more intelligent/wiser. I see that going south also. All the trademarks of “the good life” right. Religion is a pain, it gets in the way of a good party. To many rules, too easy to feel guilty breaking so it simply cannot coexist with today’s wild sexual conquests. Him and her, her and her, him and whatever it said it was today...sounds like the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again.

How did we get to a place where the church a mile away from me runs a credit background check before they allow a person to join. Once in, they set up automatic payments from your debit account.
In the name of God! Who’s God is this, and is he a Banker! Is there a patron Saint of Accounting?

Is the message completely lost on the vast majority? Is it so hard to treat others the way you would like to be treated, or better? Belief in God is free will, your choice. Nothing to be sorry about if you do. No matter what some guy who feels he has all the answers pontificates. That guy will change direction when staring death in the face, they typically do. Where will that leave you?

Last note: In physics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It simply manifests itself in another form. God is energy, God is the Sun, God is the Universe. Only God can create or destroy energy. We are full of energy. Life is alive by energy. Science and God are the same.

Organized religions need to get back to the basics. Hey, if it keeps you good hearted, one way or the other, good for you.

 

[Shinu]

If that's the only meaning you see in life then that's kind of limiting, don't you think? So anyone who doesn't personally have children is wasting their lives? That seems like an awful lot of people, a lot of whom aren't homosexual or any other label on your list of unnatural nasties.

Was reading the discussion (I can't get in other posters head). I don't see anything wrong in either of your views.
From my point of view.
Yes - (biologicaly speaking) the meaning of life is to procreate and survive / dominate. (so if you deviated from that - you are "defected" in those terms)

Us humans became so advanced (when we started passing down knowledge between each other) that we got bored and started questioning everything. With that making our own meanings.

Evolution tries everything and with great minds, human species (as one of the side effects) are likely will become extinct.
In more advanced countries - population is declining.
In less advanced ones - they are slowly killing themselves with polution etc.


I was born unable to walk (and yes I do think of myself as defected). If I was born just couple of years earlier - there is a high chance that I would have been gotten rid of. I manage to survive, improve my condition and live.

I'm not a transgender or homosexual, so I can't speak fully knowing their frame of mind.

From a biological point of view (basic reproduction etc) it is not like they can't reproduce. (there are cases when homosexuals have famiies etc before realising who they are). Unless they alter them selves. So in that case I'm more of a defect.

The whole love thing etc (which created our whole social constucts and other complicated things) is a defect from our evolution.


We are all flawed with different strengths
There are different races and sexes with different strengths (yes I think it is nonsence that we are all equal)




What is my point? Human kind is flawed and defected but it is part of evolution.
Religion is also a side effect of our need for anwsers - that long time ago helped us.


Maybe it is me, but I don't see anything inherently wrong in being "defected" if you manage to overcome it/live with it (while not effecting others - negatively)

 

[Imari]

Homosexuality is a genetic "defect" (or variation if you want to be more kind), but it isn't harmful for the society so we allow it. Pedophilia on the other hand is, so they should be treated of it even though they also don't had the chance. That is how I see the things.

As much as I hate to be that guy, pedophiles are not automatically child rapists. If someone is born attracted to children, that's sort of unfortunate, but as long as they don't act on it I don't see why they should have their freedom infringed.

We don't assume that all men are rapists and should be treated as such even if they haven't committed a crime, even though heterosexual men are all attracted to women. And as much as I agree that child rape is one of the worst crimes possible, I don't like the idea that an innocent person who happened to be born with their brain wired a certain way should be treated the same as a monstrous child rapist. That seems awfully like pre-judgement to me.

Pedophilia is to my mind distasteful but no different to any other sexual attraction; as long as it's consensual (and sex and sexual interactions with children is taken to be by default non-consensual) then there's no problem. Demonstrate to me how someones attractions within the confines of their own head is harmful to society. Demonstrate how a pedophile who never acts on their attraction is in any way harmful.

Be very wary when you seek to curtail other people's freedoms for what is entirely thoughtcrime.

Atheists are mostly logical when comes to religions (although you can be an atheist for illogical reasons).

There are examples in this thread that prove otherwise. Humans are humans, and just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't ensure that they're rational in all areas.

 

[UKMikey]

Is the message completely lost on the vast majority? Is it so hard to treat others the way you would like to be treated, or better? Belief in God is free will, your choice. Nothing to be sorry about if you do. No matter what some guy who feels he has all the answers pontificates. That guy will change direction when staring death in the face, they typically do. Where will that leave you?

Are you claiming that "there are no atheists in foxholes" and that everyone converts to believing in God on their deathbed because we're just a bunch of big ol' hypocrites? If so do you have any figures to back this up?

 

[G.T.Ace]

That guy will change direction when staring death in the face, they typically do.

I didn't, neither while trying to commit suicide, nor while being prepared for a life threatening surgery.

 

[Northstar]

Where will that leave you?

Still dead, I'd imagine.

 

[Famine]

Particularly when parents fail to impress religious values upon their children.

Could you give some examples of those religious values?

That guy will change direction when staring death in the face, they typically do.

Makes one wonder how fair it is that if you spend a whole life believing in a deity, you'd get the same afterlife as someone who didn't and then asked for the deity's help to escape at the moment of their death (so, obviously, the requested assistance was not rendered - evidence that the deity either doesn't exist or doesn't care).

Last note: In physics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It simply manifests itself in another form. God is energy, God is the Sun, God is the Universe. Only God can create or destroy energy.

This sounds like you're trying to convince... someone that your chosen deity and the fundamental laws of the universe are not exclusive. However, you say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (which is true), then say that your chosen deity can do it. Those two ideas do not complement each other, they conflict.

Science and God are the same.

"Science" simply means "knowledge". Belief in a deity is belief. Knowledge (information derived from testing and data) and belief (views held in the absence of data) are not the same, and are in fact opposites.

Organized religions need to get back to the basics. Hey, if it keeps you good hearted, one way or the other, good for you.

Why do you need religions or deities to keep you good-hearted?

 

[Dobermann92]

As much as I hate to be that guy, pedophiles are not automatically child rapists. If someone is born attracted to children, that's sort of unfortunate, but as long as they don't act on it I don't see why they should have their freedom infringed.

We don't assume that all men are rapists and should be treated as such even if they haven't committed a crime, even though heterosexual men are all attracted to women. And as much as I agree that child rape is one of the worst crimes possible, I don't like the idea that an innocent person who happened to be born with their brain wired a certain way should be treated the same as a monstrous child rapist. That seems awfully like pre-judgement to me.

Pedophilia is to my mind distasteful but no different to any other sexual attraction; as long as it's consensual (and sex and sexual interactions with children is taken to be by default non-consensual) then there's no problem. Demonstrate to me how someones attractions within the confines of their own head is harmful to society. Demonstrate how a pedophile who never acts on their attraction is in any way harmful.

Be very wary when you seek to curtail other people's freedoms for what is entirely thoughtcrime.

There are examples in this thread that prove otherwise. Humans are humans, and just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't ensure that they're rational in all areas.

You misunderstood something. I've never said that pedophiles should be locked up automatically. But some kind of medical treatment should be implemented which lessens their sexual desires. (although chemical castration is too radical in my opinion) If we don't help them I doubt most of them could keep themselves from comitting a crime.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are great examples against the christian God because either he designed the human gene to allow these and condemned these acts in the Bible (which is evil because they have no choice) or he cannot control our genes (which means he isn't all-powerful). Of course there are people who think that homosexuality and pedophilia is a choice (I know several of them, even atheists) to dismiss the argument etirely.

 

[Famine]

I've never said that pedophiles should be locked up automatically. But some kind of medical treatment should be implemented which lessens their sexual desires. (although chemical castration is too radical in my opinion) If we don't help them I doubt most of them could keep themselves from comitting a crime.

This is what the more... lunatic feminists say about men.

 

[Dogwolf77]

Could you give some examples of those religious values?

It’s evident in that 69% have no belief in God so therefore have no reason to study or reference any religious values with their kids. Why would they? I’m not a priest or missionary, just a person offering perspective on what is a binary question. A dangerous one at that.

Makes one wonder how fair it is that if you spend a whole life believing in a deity, you'd get the same afterlife as someone who didn't and then asked for the deity's help to escape at the moment of their death (so, obviously, the requested assistance was not rendered - evidence that the deity either doesn't exist or doesn't care).

This sounds like you're trying to convince... someone that your chosen deity and the fundamental laws of the universe are not exclusive. However, you say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (which is true), then say that your chosen deity can do it. Those two ideas do not complement each other, they conflict.

"Science" simply means "knowledge". Belief in a deity is belief. Knowledge (information derived from testing and data) and belief (views held in the absence of data) are not the same, and are in fact opposites.

I see the two tied together. I use science as all of what we know; from quantum physics to anthropology to nature and on and on. There is no hard data to support a god or deity, only for me, the idea is that there is a very powerful and controlling force that established order to an otherwise chaotic existence on every level. I believe there is that unseen and currently unknown force. Are there “facts” supporting all other “theories “ , like the Big Bang. Let’s face it, that’s a total 100% guess. A big guess. It sounds plausible to most, but we have no idea, we trust the sources, but why? I could punch holes in that crock all day but it’s still a guess.

Why do you need religions or deities to keep you good-hearted?

Good point, you really don’t. One shouldn’t anyway. I should have phrased it differently. I hope you don’t take me for being a smart a@#, I’m not trying to be at all.

 

[Rallywagon]

It’s evident in that 69% have no belief in God so therefore have no reason to study or reference any religious values with their kids. Why would they? I’m not a priest or missionary, just a person offering perspective on what is a binary question. A dangerous one at that.

But what are religious values? Surely you don’t need to be a priest to know what they are, or how else could a religious person live by them?

I see the two tied together. I use science as all of what we know; from quantum physics to anthropology to nature and on and on. There is no hard data to support a god or deity, only for me, the idea is that there is a very powerful and controlling force that established order to an otherwise chaotic existence on every level. I believe there is that unseen and currently unknown force. Are there “facts” supporting all other “theories “ , like the Big Bang. Let’s face it, that’s a total 100% guess. A big guess. It sounds plausible to most, but we have no idea, we trust the sources, but why? I could punch holes in that crock all day but it’s still a guess.

The Big Bang is not a 100% guess. It is a hypothesis supported by quantifiable evidence. We may not have all the data as there are likely things we have yet to discover, but that doesn’t make it a complete guess. Further, I suggest researching what a scientific theory is, that way you don’t feel the need to put it in quotes since you will understand it’s meaning and use it appropriately.
Now, if you wanna take a crack at poking holes in the theory, I suggest heading to the “Space in General” thread at get at er.

 

[Famine]

It’s evident in that 69% have no belief in God so therefore have no reason to study or reference any religious values with their kids. Why would they? I’m not a priest or missionary, just a person offering perspective on what is a binary question. A dangerous one at that.

Okay. But what I said was "Could you give some examples of those religious values?".

I'd like to know what values qualify as "religious" and how.

I see the two tied together. I use science as all of what we know; from quantum physics to anthropology to nature and on and on. There is no hard data to support a god or deity, only for me, the idea is that there is a very powerful and controlling force that established order to an otherwise chaotic existence on every level.

Science is knowledge. It's the literally meaning of the word, from the Latin "scire", the verb meaning "to know".

More specifically, it's knowledge arrived at through a process known, fairly self-referentially, as "the scientific method". This has been mentioned throughout this thread, but ultimately the scientific method is a sequence of steps designed to ensure that ideas are tested thoroughly against all known possible variables and scenarios so that the result is statistically unlikely to be false (and that's important - the scientific method doesn't test to see how true something is, but how false it is).

The scientific method cannot be used on a deity, and indeed it entirely ignores intangible beings of infinite power with ineffable will, because that cannot be tested for falsehood. This is a property known as non-falsifiability. If it didn't ignore them, you could solve any results by saying "God did it", and we'd still be bashing rocks together.


Belief and science are opposites.

Are there “facts” supporting all other “theories “ , like the Big Bang.

Yes and no. That's not really how either of those "words" "work".

A fact is simply something that has survived all the testing we can, at current technology, throw at it and hasn't yet been proven false. A theory is more complicated, but at its core it is an explanation that covers all the known, relevant facts and laws. Theories are almost the highest point of knowledge, because they explain everything.

Facts don't support theories. Theories explain facts. The "Big Bang" theory is an explanation of all the relevant facts and laws regarding the properties and evolution of the observable universe.

Let’s face it, that’s a total 100% guess. A big guess. It sounds plausible to most, but we have no idea, we trust the sources, but why? I could punch holes in that crock all day but it’s still a guess

It's not a guess, it's a theory. That means it is an explanation of all the things we know about the evolution of the universe to the current point in time. A guess would be more like a hypothesis, which is the start of the scientific method, whereas a theory is just about the end of it. I say "just about", because we discover new "facts" all the time, and any theory whose purview this fact would fall under has to also explain the new fact. When it does already, that reinforces the theory (theories do tend to predict new facts). When it doesn't, the theory needs to be refined.

At present, the Big Bang model is the only one that has emerged from an original, testable hypothesis. Other models also exist, but they are considerably weaker. Amusingly, there was a lot of resistance to the Big Bang theory early on because many scientists felt it implied a moment of creation and thus a religious connotation, so they preferred the Steady State model (which Hubble's measurements proved false).

Punch holes in it all you want - there's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you actually can...

Good point, you really don’t. One shouldn’t anyway. I should have phrased it differently. I hope you don’t take me for being a smart a@#, I’m not trying to be at all.

To quote Penn Jillette:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

"The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine."

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Pedophilia and homosexuality are great examples against the christian God because either he designed the human gene to allow these and condemned these acts in the Bible (which is evil because they have no choice) or he cannot control our genes (which means he isn't all-powerful). Of course there are people who think that homosexuality and pedophilia is a choice (I know several of them, even atheists) to dismiss the argument etirely.

Please don't compare pedophilia and homosexuality. Seriously, it's gross and archaic to even discuss both as if they are on the same level. We have volumes of evidence validating that homosexuality can be genetically driven where as pedophilia is typically driven by trauma and/or overt exposure to sexuality at a young developmental age.

Pedophilia must be treated and homosexuality needs to be left alone. Period.

 

[Joey D]

Schools and communities seem to want to undermine religion or ban it completely, and any symbolic reference to it.

I mean, the Constitution is pretty clear about the separation of church and state. A private organization can do whatever they like, but anything related to the government should not have anything to do with religion.

I don’t believe as a society we’re getting any smarter/more intelligent/wiser. I see that going south also. All the trademarks of “the good life” right. Religion is a pain, it gets in the way of a good party. To many rules, too easy to feel guilty breaking so it simply cannot coexist with today’s wild sexual conquests. Him and her, her and her, him and whatever it said it was today...sounds like the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again.

Religion is a pain and it puts out "rules" for really no good reason. About half the folks I work with are Mormon and because of their religion, they can't even go out to eat at a place that serves alcohol, let alone drink it. What kind of life is that? Not wanting to drink is one thing, but not being able to visit an establishment that serves what Utah considers alcohol (one step above water)? That's ridiculous and really puts a damper on enjoying life, especially if your co-workers invite you somewhere after work to socialize and you can't because you might see beer.

As for sexual conquests? You're aware of history yes? Sexual conquest is nothing new, technology just makes it a bit easier to find willing partners now with things like Tinder. But people have been trying to bed each other since probably the dawn of humans.

It’s evident in that 69% have no belief in God so therefore have no reason to study or reference any religious values with their kids.

It's not 69%, it's 50%. The other 50%, according to the poll, are in the "No" or "I don't know" camp. Not knowing isn't the same as saying no.

I find myself in the I don't know bucket. While I do tend to think there is a higher power, I still have no idea and can't concretely say "yes, I believe in a god" or "no, I have no belief".

As for teaching religious values to your kids, why do you need to? Just teach them to be a decent human being and if they want to explore religion, give them that opportunity. Forcing beliefs on your kids isn't right.

 

[Danoff]

Well, what is meaning of life?
It is basically to born, to survive, to eat and to spread genes forward and just to die. Full circle.

Gay parents might be in some situations better parents than heterosexual ones but I don't think you can show me fair example how gay people has got offspring without help of subtitute other parent or help of artificial fertilization.

TexRex,

If switching meaning of life from human to for example ant. Does ant love, does ant practise lust?
A tiny little ant is a biologial robot. Common ant does born, survive, gets food to itself and community. Labor ant won't even have offsprings so its next meaning is to die. I kept my meaning of life for human simplified, not including eager to pay taxes or vote wrong presidents in elections or curse other people in morning traffic etc.

You were asking something to support notion homosexuality is not right. Well, there is nothing to 100% sure say on it.
Out of some biological miracles explained in previous posts same gender, same species doesn't get offsrping without help outside of their mate circle.
If homosexuality would be equal normal as heterosexuality, there would be roughly 50% of entire population which cannot get offspring natural way.
Prove me wrong.

I'm not morally here to judge anyone since I have no right to it. But if concentraded on biology, man cannot have offspring with his male partner, nor woman cannot have offspring with her female partner. Meaning of life will get stagnation at that point. By biology meaning.

What ever rocks peoples boat it's fine, but when some group - was it green party or transgender group begins to force me to accept their nonsense agenda - I am all against it.

Was reading the discussion (I can't get in other posters head). I don't see anything wrong in either of your views.
From my point of view.
Yes - (biologicaly speaking) the meaning of life is to procreate and survive / dominate. (so if you deviated from that - you are "defected" in those terms)

Us humans became so advanced (when we started passing down knowledge between each other) that we got bored and started questioning everything. With that making our own meanings.

Evolution tries everything and with great minds, human species (as one of the side effects) are likely will become extinct.
In more advanced countries - population is declining.
In less advanced ones - they are slowly killing themselves with polution etc.


I was born unable to walk (and yes I do think of myself as defected). If I was born just couple of years earlier - there is a high chance that I would have been gotten rid of. I manage to survive, improve my condition and live.

I'm not a transgender or homosexual, so I can't speak fully knowing their frame of mind.

From a biological point of view (basic reproduction etc) it is not like they can't reproduce. (there are cases when homosexuals have famiies etc before realising who they are). Unless they alter them selves. So in that case I'm more of a defect.

The whole love thing etc (which created our whole social constucts and other complicated things) is a defect from our evolution.


We are all flawed with different strengths
There are different races and sexes with different strengths (yes I think it is nonsence that we are all equal)




What is my point? Human kind is flawed and defected but it is part of evolution.
Religion is also a side effect of our need for anwsers - that long time ago helped us.


Maybe it is me, but I don't see anything inherently wrong in being "defected" if you manage to overcome it/live with it (while not effecting others - negatively)

You guys are viewing "meaning" all wrong. Biology is just a process of stability over time, just like inanimate objects find stable orientations over time. Chemical combinations that endure over time and replicate themselves are more stable than others, and that's fundamentally how we end up with the biological function of procreation. You're just replicating genes, for the sake of the genes. Your body, brain, emotions, desires and ambitions all formed because they were an advantageous tool for the purpose of propagating genes.

Human beings though, developed advanced brains to help them procreate, and eventually we realized the potential of that brain and it unlocked something truly remarkable in the history of our world. For the first time, an entity was capable of realizing a larger existence, they were capable of creating and fulfilling their own purpose. You don't have to be a slave to biology, you can pursue whatever course gives your life meaning to you. In some sense, desiring to devote yourself to biological processes is actually throwing away that which makes you special. I'm not judging though, if you want to accomplish nothing more with your life than your basic biological processes, and render yourself part of the chain of reorganizing matter looking for a stable orientation... be my guest. There is something, connected, about being part of the biological chain.

But humanity, specifically being a part of that special group apart from the rest of the natural universe, means acknowledging that you have the potential to live your life for the sake of your own mind instead of the sake of your genes. It is what makes humanity transcendent. Defining "normal" based on your own (somewhat misguided) notions of biological process, and desiring conformance with normal for the sake of meaning, misses everything about humanity.

Also, just FYI, the worker ant is working to propagate its own genes but not through sexual reproduction. It recognizes shared genes in others. In fact, the worker ant is using the queen more than the queen is using the worker, for the purpose of propagating its genes. The Queen carries the same genes the work has, and the worker, due to its own biological wiring, turns her into a procreation factory for the sake of propagating the worker's genes.

Please don't compare pedophilia and homosexuality. Seriously, it's gross and archaic to even discuss both as if they are on the same level. We have volumes of evidence validating that homosexuality can be genetically driven where as pedophilia is typically driven by trauma and/or overt exposure to sexuality at a young developmental age.

Pedophilia must be treated and homosexuality needs to be left alone. Period.

I'm taking this to another thread. If I can find one. But in short, you're wrong.

 

[Dobermann92]

This is what the more... lunatic feminists say about men.

It has nothing to do with feminism in my opinion. My worldview is only harm based, so sex between consentual adults are okay because it does not cause any harm, sex with a child isn't, because it can cause physical and mental problems.

Please don't compare pedophilia and homosexuality. Seriously, it's gross and archaic to even discuss both as if they are on the same level. We have volumes of evidence validating that homosexuality can be genetically driven where as pedophilia is typically driven by trauma and/or overt exposure to sexuality at a young developmental age.

Pedophilia must be treated and homosexuality needs to be left alone. Period.

Yeah, pedophilia is gross but some can say this about homosexuality and this is faulty reasoning. You have to think logically and logic dictates that pedophiles has something in their brain which makes them look on children as potential mates. I don't deny it that maybe a trauma can bring out these desires but most of us have dealt with trauma and we survived it without any long term problems, so I think pedophiles has their brain wired in a certain way to be susceptible to those kinds of desires.

Still I would like to stay on the god topic, my biggest problem is that you can criticise the jewish/christian God, but you cannot criticise Allah in the West, because that will make you a racist according to some lunatics. So this double standard is very dangerous, I think no religion should be protected against criticism. If you don't believe in any god then you must have the freedom to express it. If others are insecure about their religion that is their problem.

 

[Dogwolf77]

I mean, the Constitution is pretty clear about the separation of church and state. A private organization can do whatever they like, but anything related to the government should not have anything to do with religion.



Religion is a pain and it puts out "rules" for really no good reason. About half the folks I work with are Mormon and because of their religion, they can't even go out to eat at a place that serves alcohol, let alone drink it. What kind of life is that? Not wanting to drink is one thing, but not being able to visit an establishment that serves what Utah considers alcohol (one step above water)? That's ridiculous and really puts a damper on enjoying life, especially if your co-workers invite you somewhere after work to socialize and you can't because you might see beer.

As for sexual conquests? You're aware of history yes? Sexual conquest is nothing new, technology just makes it a bit easier to find willing partners now with things like Tinder. But people have been trying to bed each other since probably the dawn of humans.



It's not 69%, it's 50%. The other 50%, according to the poll, are in the "No" or "I don't know" camp. Not knowing isn't the same as saying no.

I find myself in the I don't know bucket. While I do tend to think there is a higher power, I still have no idea and can't concretely say "yes, I believe in a god" or "no, I have no belief".

As for teaching religious values to your kids, why do you need to? Just teach them to be a decent human being and if they want to explore religion, give them that opportunity. Forcing beliefs on your kids isn't right.

Totally agree with you on all points. I framed my thoughts in a different way but I don’t argue your perspective.. I share it. Except for the percentages. If you can’t decide, or haven’t an opinion, it’s like ya don’t care to have one. It’s easy enough to decide

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You guys are viewing "meaning" all wrong. Biology is just a process of stability over time, just like inanimate objects find stable orientations over time. Chemical combinations that endure over time and replicate themselves are more stable than others, and that's fundamentally how we end up with the biological function of procreation. You're just replicating genes, for the sake of the genes. Your body, brain, emotions, desires and ambitions all formed because they were an advantageous tool for the purpose of propagating genes.

Human beings though, developed advanced brains to help them procreate, and eventually we realized the potential of that brain and it unlocked something truly remarkable in the history of our world. For the first time, an entity was capable of realizing a larger existence, they were capable of creating and fulfilling their own purpose. You don't have to be a slave to biology, you can pursue whatever course gives your life meaning to you. In some sense, desiring to devote yourself to biological processes is actually throwing away that which makes you special. I'm not judging though, if you want to accomplish nothing more with your life than your basic biological processes, and render yourself part of the chain of reorganizing matter looking for a stable orientation... be my guest. There is something, connected, about being part of the biological chain.

But humanity, specifically being a part of that special group apart from the rest of the natural universe, means acknowledging that you have the potential to live your life for the sake of your own mind instead of the sake of your genes. It is what makes humanity transcendent. Defining "normal" based on your own (somewhat misguided) notions of biological process, and desiring conformance with normal for the sake of meaning, misses everything about humanity.

Also, just FYI, the worker ant is working to propagate its own genes but not through sexual reproduction. It recognizes shared genes in others. In fact, the worker ant is using the queen more than the queen is using the worker, for the purpose of propagating its genes. The Queen carries the same genes the work has, and the worker, due to its own biological wiring, turns her into a procreation factory for the sake of propagating the worker's genes.

At the current point in our lives, for various personal reasons, my girlfriend and I don't plan on ever having kids. We recognize other people will and do want to, and we're all too excited so many in our social circles are there. Watching my niece take her first steps this weekend was heartwarming, and I'm looking forward to being some small part of her development as a person.

But we don't want our own kids, and certain members of our family have taken that news with the same level of disgust usually associated with finding a turd on your plate. Others dismiss our decision as some flash in the pan akin to a bad haircut: "oh, you'll change your mind." When one member of the family told us having kids was the single most important thing she's ever done with her life, we didn't tell her she was wrong. I'm all for people finding their own meaning, and if that doesn't involve being directly involved in adding yet more people to this world, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

I'm taking this to another thread. If I can find one. But in short, you're wrong.

This line of discussion reminded me of a very interesting article I remembered reading from a post on here a few years ago. I probably just put myself on some watch lists to find it on Google (hope Incognito saved me), but here's the original post:

They were born with an unfortunate attraction but it's doesn't mean they're inherently bad. This article talks about support group for pedophiles who don't wish to act upon their urges.

 

[Joey D]

Totally agree with you on all points. I framed my thoughts in a different way but I don’t argue your perspective.. I share it. Except for the percentages. If you can’t decide, or haven’t an opinion, it’s like ya don’t care to have one. It’s easy enough to decide

It's not really easy to decide though. For about half my life I've struggled with the question as to whether or not there's a higher power. I used to believe, without question, there was a god. Then I shifted into the "non-belief" category, finally arriving at the "I don't know, but I'm more inclined to believe there is a higher power". At this point, I suspect I'll never reach the point of having a definitive answer, which I think is OK.

 

[Dogwolf77]

Okay. But what I said was "Could you give some examples of those religious values?".

I'd like to know what values qualify as "religious" and how.

Science is knowledge. It's the literally meaning of the word, from the Latin "scire", the verb meaning "to know".

More specifically, it's knowledge arrived at through a process known, fairly self-referentially, as "the scientific method". This has been mentioned throughout this thread, but ultimately the scientific method is a sequence of steps designed to ensure that ideas are tested thoroughly against all known possible variables and scenarios so that the result is statistically unlikely to be false (and that's important - the scientific method doesn't test to see how true something is, but how false it is).

The scientific method cannot be used on a deity, and indeed it entirely ignores intangible beings of infinite power with ineffable will, because that cannot be tested for falsehood. This is a property known as non-falsifiability. If it didn't ignore them, you could solve any results by saying "God did it", and we'd still be bashing rocks together.


Belief and science are opposites.

Yes and no. That's not really how either of those "words" "work".

A fact is simply something that has survived all the testing we can, at current technology, throw at it and hasn't yet been proven false. A theory is more complicated, but at its core it is an explanation that covers all the known, relevant facts and laws. Theories are almost the highest point of knowledge, because they explain everything.

Facts don't support theories. Theories explain facts. The "Big Bang" theory is an explanation of all the relevant facts and laws regarding the properties and evolution of the observable universe.

It's not a guess, it's a theory. That means it is an explanation of all the things we know about the evolution of the universe to the current point in time. A guess would be more like a hypothesis, which is the start of the scientific method, whereas a theory is just about the end of it. I say "just about", because we discover new "facts" all the time, and any theory whose purview this fact would fall under has to also explain the new fact. When it does already, that reinforces the theory (theories do tend to predict new facts). When it doesn't, the theory needs to be refined.

At present, the Big Bang model is the only one that has emerged from an original, testable hypothesis. Other models also exist, but they are considerably weaker. Amusingly, there was a lot of resistance to the Big Bang theory early on because many scientists felt it implied a moment of creation and thus a religious connotation, so they preferred the Steady State model (which Hubble's measurements proved false).

Punch holes in it all you want - there's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you actually can...

To quote Penn Jillette:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

"The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine."

I’m with you on everything, seriously, I agree. Strong points and counter points for sure.
Except for Big Bang. I just cannot subscribe to the theory. I mean that on a academic level. I think they need to keep working on this. It’s a start I guess...

 

[Danoff]

At the current point in our lives, for various personal reasons, my girlfriend and I don't plan on ever having kids. We recognize other people will and do want to, and we're all too excited so many in our social circles are there. Watching my niece take her first steps this weekend was heartwarming, and I'm looking forward to being some small part of her development as a person.

But we don't want our own kids, and certain members of our family have taken that news with the same level of disgust usually associated with finding a turd on your plate. Others dismiss our decision as some flash in the pan akin to a bad haircut: "oh, you'll change your mind." When one member of the family told us having kids was the single most important thing she's ever done with her life, we didn't tell her she was wrong. I'm all for people finding their own meaning, and if that doesn't involve being directly involved in adding yet more people to this world, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

It's odd that people get so attached to the notion of procreation. When we decided to adopt our third kid (which is parenting without bringing more people into the world), we were met with some disgust about not propagating superior genetics. It's so odd to me that people get so completely attached to their genetics, as if it defines them, and then dismiss those genetics in others. For example, your genes spell out your eye color, and your skin color. But do you become fast friends with people who share your eye color? Your skin color? Should you? My personal genetics give me a predisposition for certain kinds of auto immune diseases... if we each investigate our own genetic histories, we'll find those kinds of skeletons in the closet. Is that something to be so protective of? For the sake of personal meaning?

Nobody should decide to have children out of sense of obligation to biology, to humanity, or to their genetic lineage. They should have children because it's genuinely something they want to do with their lives. And it is a wonderful endeavor to those who want to engage in it... it is also a lot of work. Few things that are worth doing are easy, but I'd never suggest to anyone who doesn't want to have children that they should. It's something you have to be totally on board with to have a hope of doing a decent job.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Still I would like to stay on the god topic, my biggest problem is that you can criticise the jew/christian God, but you cannot criticise Allah in the West, because that will make you a racist according to some lunatics. So this double standard is very dangerous, I think no religion should be protected against criticism. If you don't believe in any god then you must have the freedom to express it. If others are insecure about their religion that is their problem.

I keep seeing this straw man pop up but all it demonstrates is how fundamentalists can't fathom or grasp the nuance of protecting a religious group while at the same time criticizing aspects of their ideology. I support the same protection of religions for all religious people equally despite thinking that they are all insane.

There is no double standard, just people who dislike nuance.

 

[Famine]

Except for Big Bang. I just cannot subscribe to the theory. I mean that on a academic level. I think they need to keep working on this.

They are. They always are. That's how science works. Nothing is ever final, until everything is.


That aside, I'd still like to know what "religious values" are.

 

[Dobermann92]

I keep seeing this straw man pop up but all it demonstrates is how fundamentalists can't fathom or grasp the nuance of protecting a religious group while at the same time criticizing aspects of their ideology. I support the same protection of religions for all religious people equally despite thinking that they are all insane.

There is no double standard, just people who dislike nuance.

It isn't a straw man because I already said that "according to some lunatics". It isn't the majority of people, just a vocal minority who think that. Some of them aren't even religious, just indoctrinated in the belief of social justice. Most of the people are in the middle point, which should be the case if we want to avoid worldwide wars and riots. These people see the world as black and white, so explaining nuance to them is pretty hard.
I also have to disagree on your statement that all religious people are insane. Most of them are only delusional or misled by religious leaders. Of course there are insane religious people for example the Heaven's Gate or Jonestown leaders, who are usually the head of their delusional organisations.

 

[Shinu]

You guys are viewing "meaning" all wrong. Biology is just a process of stability over time, just like inanimate objects find stable orientations over time. Chemical combinations that endure over time and replicate themselves are more stable than others, and that's fundamentally how we end up with the biological function of procreation. You're just replicating genes, for the sake of the genes. Your body, brain, emotions, desires and ambitions all formed because they were an advantageous tool for the purpose of propagating genes.

Human beings though, developed advanced brains to help them procreate, and eventually we realized the potential of that brain and it unlocked something truly remarkable in the history of our world. For the first time, an entity was capable of realizing a larger existence, they were capable of creating and fulfilling their own purpose. You don't have to be a slave to biology, you can pursue whatever course gives your life meaning to you. In some sense, desiring to devote yourself to biological processes is actually throwing away that which makes you special. I'm not judging though, if you want to accomplish nothing more with your life than your basic biological processes, and render yourself part of the chain of reorganizing matter looking for a stable orientation... be my guest. There is something, connected, about being part of the biological chain.

But humanity, specifically being a part of that special group apart from the rest of the natural universe, means acknowledging that you have the potential to live your life for the sake of your own mind instead of the sake of your genes. It is what makes humanity transcendent. Defining "normal" based on your own (somewhat misguided) notions of biological process, and desiring conformance with normal for the sake of meaning, misses everything about humanity.

Also, just FYI, the worker ant is working to propagate its own genes but not through sexual reproduction. It recognizes shared genes in others. In fact, the worker ant is using the queen more than the queen is using the worker, for the purpose of propagating its genes. The Queen carries the same genes the work has, and the worker, due to its own biological wiring, turns her into a procreation factory for the sake of propagating the worker's genes.




I'm taking this to another thread. If I can find one. But in short, you're wrong.

Well that is why I said that we evolved above it and started searching for our own meaning (even if for some there is none).
Humans are constantly fighting with their primal self because honestly we are above it (It slips trough the cracks sometimes still) but underlining base is still there.

Maybe I was not clear - I don't know. But guys above where arguing/discussing compleatly different points and there is truth in both.


Humans are at the stage where they can't get rid of either part - one drives another forward.

I also think that is why a perfect AI can't exist because objectively thinking there is no point in anything (when looking long term) . But that is another topic.

 

[Famine]

It has nothing to do with feminism in my opinion.

I didn't say that it did. I simply pointed out that everything you said about paedophiles is also said by the more radical fringe of feminists about men. They literally think that "all men are rapists" (Google that phrase, if you want to be shocked) and men are simply waiting for the opportunity to rape a woman to present itself.

It is, of course, not true. Nor is it true that all paedophiles are simply waiting for the opportunity to have sex with a child. Like straight men, it's perfectly possible for someone sexually attracted to children (and let's separate out paedo, hebe and ephebophilias at this point) to not fulfill or attempt to fulfill the attraction.


Not that I'm sure what it has to do with belief in deities. Except for the prolific sexual abuse of children in religious institutions, of course.

 

[Tappajakoala]

This is what the more... lunatic feminists say about men.

Carefull what you say, dear Famine. You might get forum's angry feminists to report you to moderators.