NationStates Jolt Archive

well ive read a lot of talk about god on this site and ive been wondering where the majority is based.

nope.

you should've made a poll. i believe in a great spirit, yes... but i doubt i believe in the same god as say... literalists...

EDIT: coulda sworn there wasn't a poll... maybe they dont show when you're not logged in.

and if u dont know ehgat these mean , heres some explanation.

Monotheism: believe in one god e.g. God, Jesus, Buda
Polytheism: multiple gods e.g. mythology
Atheism: a belief that everything has a reasonable explination not based in religion

i just made the poll so ur not going crazy

The poll for this thread doesn't have sufficient options.

I believe in God, have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ - and am homosexual. Get all that? ;)

i am an atheist

Damn I messed up my stinkin "vote" ...... when i was reading through the thread i noticed the explanations post and assumed that the options were also in that order therefore instead of hitting Polytheism i hit Monotheism .. just thought you should know that those 2 columns are 1 off

I believe in God and accepts Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I am straight! ;)

i don't believe in religion or god.

& no, i am not an athiest (i consider atheism a religion)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, so based off monotheism.
Well one could say that both Jesus and Heavenly Father are god-like but we only worship Heavenly Father not Jesus.
I disagree with your explainations: You should change it.
Monotheism: worship of one god e.g. God, Jesus, Buda
Polytheism: worship of multiple gods e.g. mythology
Atheism: a belief involving denial of existance of gods(male or female)

I believe in God, have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ - and am homosexual. Get all that? ;)


Dont take this the wrong way, but how can you have a "Personal Relationship" wich someone who :

1. May or may not exist, or no longer exists...

2. Youve never met.

Dont take this the wrong way, but how can you have a "Personal Relationship" wich someone who :

1. May or may not exist, or no longer exists...

2. Youve never met.
Prayer. It saddens me that you didn't know that you could have a personal relationship with Jesus or Heavenly Father.

Even if you don't think he exist, according to Heavenly Father his son does exist. I have a personal relationship with Heavenly Father. I have forgotten to speak some nights when I'm really rired but we have spoken. Its nice to talk with him.

And if he has a personal relationship he has met him. Maybe he hasn't met him where you can see it but it doesn't mean he didn't see him.

However, I do think Jesus would be displeased if the guy was sexually active in a homosexual way. Since sexually active homosexuals are talked against in bible. Not the people but the actions are judged.

But again, its your choice backwoods. Believe or disbelief.

and if u dont know ehgat these mean , heres some explanation.

Monotheism: believe in one god e.g. God, Jesus, Buda
Polytheism: multiple gods e.g. mythology
Atheism: a belief that everything has a reasonable explination not based in religion
umm. Jesus is the son of God and Buda is not a god but the leader of the a budist faith (although he is reborn when he dies), Mythology is the study of myths, not a religion.

for Polytheism: the early Roman, Greek,or Egyptian faiths are good explames.


but none-the-less i'm agnostic.(so saids my sister who is in a "worlds religion" class) but what do I know.

here's what my sis knows:
Theist: A person who pointed up, a person who believes that God exists and is superior to humans
Monothesim: One God, really superior
Polytheism: Many gods, not as superior (greek)
Pointing In: some bit of the Divine is a part of us. We have our own souls, are made in God's image. ie: Hinduism: your true self discovered, yourself is divine.
Pointing to the earth and other creatures (down and out): Indeginous, all living creatures have spirits. "Aminism" the belief that all living things are alive because they are spirits - they have personal spirits.
Animitism: Ppl's belief that an impersonal spiritual force permeates the universe, and is concentrated in some people, places and things, symbols. -mana- Force is strong in kings and queens, taboos, rules that prevented mana ppl from being harmed. ie: king/queen carried around, couldn't step in their foot path or else you'd be harmed.
Pointing to each other (amoung): the church is a sacred body. God has come amoung as some of us: God: incarnate: incarnation: chillie can come????, us the form. Judism/Islam- no, this doesn't happen. Hinduism: avators, is happens all the time.
Pointing everywhere: Pantheist-Pantheism, God is everywhere, most stricking in Hinuism.

i don't believe in a god, but i'm not an atheist.

i was hoping this thread would have the poll: "do you believe in god" "yes/no/don't know" as that would make more sense.

also, atheism isn't a religion.

Prayer. It saddens me that you didn't know that you could have a personal relationship with Jesus or Heavenly Father.

Even if you don't think he exist, according to Heavenly Father his son does exist. I have a personal relationship with Heavenly Father. I have forgotten to speak some nights when I'm really rired but we have spoken. Its nice to talk with him.

And if he has a personal relationship he has met him. Maybe he hasn't met him where you can see it but it doesn't mean he didn't see him.

However, I do think Jesus would be displeased if the guy was sexually active in a homosexual way. Since sexually active homosexuals are talked against in bible. Not the people but the actions are judged.

But again, its your choice backwoods. Believe or disbelief.

Woah woah....

You saying youve talked directly to god?

and where did the homosexual thing come from?

Dont take this the wrong way, but how can you have a "Personal Relationship" wich someone who :

1. May or may not exist, or no longer exists...

2. Youve never met.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suppose that the post you're referring to was probably a joke. Gay man(? I'm guessing) having a "Personal Relationship" with Jesus? Followed by a winking smily? A bit of innuendo, anyone? (and "the homosexual thing" fits in because Tuesday identified himself/herself as a homosexual.)
Anyway, the thing about this poll is that it asks for a religion. Now, as I generally use the term, religion refers to an institution. Supposing I don't follow a particular institution, but still believe in God, I wouldn't really fit into one of these categories. And where does the agnostic fit in?

Sure don't

I'm a strong Roman Catholic.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suppose that the post you're referring to was probably a joke. Gay man(? I'm guessing) having a "Personal Relationship" with Jesus? Followed by a winking smily? A bit of innuendo, anyone?
Anyway, the thing about this poll is that it asks for a religion. Now, as I generally use the term, religion refers to an institution. Supposing I don't follow a particular institution, but still believe in God, I wouldn't really fit into one of these categories. And where does the agnostic fit in?


No, I was deadly serious.
Im not talking about being sexual with Jesus...

Im asking how you can have a personal rel;ationship with something that may not exist, or if it does...that youve never met...

No, I was deadly serious.
Im not talking about being sexual with Jesus...

Im asking how you can have a personal rel;ationship with something that may not exist, or if it does...that youve never met...
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the statement you were questioning to begin with. I'm suggesting it was not meant to be taken seriously because of the innuendo in it, and that you made a mistake when you took it seriously. I know you were serious.

I am a hopeful deist - but dont believe in God as defined in the bible. In part coz I feel of all those attrocities in the bible and in the real world committed in the name of god make the bible a heretical work.

I believe in a God which can be observed in the wordless world of nature - sort of a Tao or the unified field theory of physics - not a person but a pattern or presence, "holy ghost" if you will laid down in the DNA of all living things from stellar matter. A sense not a Santa Claus.

I dont believe that God is some bloke with a beard who hates: heavy metal, DnD, equality for women, gays, anyone who believes in another religion; and is somehow also all loving, all powerful and all knowing. Or that people actually go to heaven or hell. There has never been any evidence of any of this stuff.

I mean if God knows all and loves all and is all powerful - there'd be no need to test a person's faith and acts of God like tornadoes wouldn't happen. Also the devil wouldnt exist. God in that sense is more of an ancient god of the city of ancient Israel - much like Athena was the god of the ancient city of Athens.

Belief in God has changed as the Church has changed. Even the devil was adapted from another ancient religion. The faith is not written in stone - the bible has been rewritten many times by men wishing to control the human world. Look at all the attrocities today in the Holy Land and its obvious if there is a God, the religions have no idea and are actually an insult to the very ideal of God.

All those priests who abused children. Religion was a way to prove they were above reproach while they did the worst imaginable. Religion is like an ancient drug - is it different from a Cult?

yes i do believe in a greater universal consciousness that is us. we as beings exist on all levels, our "highest selfs" being as much a part of "god" as our bodies
are. but i don't limit the greater part of it to be manifest as a man/woman/human or diety :D

atheism aint a religion.

If it was, than you should have put a fourth option "No religion".

But that would be redundant.

Just pointing out a minor gripe of atheists, being labeled as religious themselves.

I'm an animist/naturist ... no GOD ... no great spirit in the sky who offers solace or forgiveness ...

No giant white bearded fool ...

I believe that we are all divine ... every tree, every human, every rat, every rock ... and none are above the other, only that we face different realities.

I think I should put this in my damn sig!

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the statement you were questioning to begin with. I'm suggesting it was not meant to be taken seriously because of the innuendo in it, and that you made a mistake when you took it seriously. I know you were serious.


Gotcha.

Im confused, still..but less so than I was.

I think.

I am a hopeful deist - but dont believe in God as defined in the bible. In part coz I feel of all those attrocities in the bible and in the real world committed in the name of god make the bible a heretical work.

I believe in a God which can be observed in the wordless world of nature - sort of a Tao or the unified field theory of physics - not a person but a pattern or presence, "holy ghost" if you will laid down in the DNA of all living things from stellar matter. A sense not a Santa Claus.

I dont believe that God is some bloke with a beard who hates: heavy metal, DnD, equality for women, gays, anyone who believes in another religion; and is somehow also all loving, all powerful and all knowing. Or that people actually go to heaven or hell. There has never been any evidence of any of this stuff.

I mean if God knows all and loves all and is all powerful - there'd be no need to test a person's faith and acts of God like tornadoes wouldn't happen. Also the devil wouldnt exist. God in that sense is more of an ancient god of the city of ancient Israel - much like Athena was the god of the ancient city of Athens.

Belief in God has changed as the Church has changed. Even the devil was adapted from another ancient religion. The faith is not written in stone - the bible has been rewritten many times by men wishing to control the human world. Look at all the attrocities today in the Holy Land and its obvious if there is a God, the religions have no idea and are actually an insult to the very ideal of God.

All those priests who abused children. Religion was a way to prove they were above reproach while they did the worst imaginable. Religion is like an ancient drug - is it different from a Cult?

Actually there is a comic that have this joke where you could get Jesus to come play D&D with you. I thought it was in good taste and very funny.

http://onatable.keenspace.com/gallery/tract.html

Read that comic and follow to next one. Its good.

No room for agnostics...

atheism aint a religion.

If it was, than you should have put a fourth option "No religion".

But that would be redundant.

Just pointing out a minor gripe of atheists, being labeled as religious themselves.
Or you could say that the options are categorized by beliefs, not religions. After all, atheists believe there is no God...

i guess this would make me a pantheist then

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the statement you were questioning to begin with. I'm suggesting it was not meant to be taken seriously because of the innuendo in it, and that you made a mistake when you took it seriously. I know you were serious.

you mean you dont believe that a person can be gay and a serious christian?

dont you think that jesus died for gay people too?

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the statement you were questioning to begin with. I'm suggesting it was not meant to be taken seriously because of the innuendo in it, and that you made a mistake when you took it seriously. I know you were serious.

A close personal relationship with Jesus is really what Christianity is all about. It's not about being part of an institution where everyone has to believe the same thing, it's about how the sacrifice of one divine being was made for you personally. A personal relationship is another way of saying that "I'm not a product of an institution, but rather my beliefs are the foundation of my own personal experiences and my vision of God is something that only I can truly understand."

He's not talking with God the way that you or I would talk to each other. It's really about learning what prayer is...what the different kinds of prayer are...and how to know if your prayer has been answered (also how to know if it was truly answered by God). This last part is the part that ties in with the "personal relationship" thing. That's the part that is unique for each person, and the only way I can really explain it is that you just know. You really know when your prayer has been answered. You don't have to go looking for an answer, it will come to you and when it does you will certainly know.

I think it's rather ignorant to assume that his post was a joke. It just goes to show that some people have a lot to learn about what others believe.

you mean you dont believe that a person can be gay and a serious christian?

dont you think that jesus died for gay people too?
Who's to say that Jesus wasn't gay? He didn't get a wife...

No room for agnostics...

It would seem not...pity.

Who's to say that Jesus wasn't gay? He didn't get a wife...
He did have Mary Magdalene :p

I think it's rather ignorant to assume that his post was a joke. It just goes to show that some people have a lot to learn about what others believe.
Other people's beliefs? I was raised a Catholic. I'm not assuming anything, but I'm simply guessing because the post was ended with one of these: ;)
As far as I can tell, that indicates sarcasm. At least it tends to. I understand what is meant by a personal relationship with Jesus, but come on. Do you usually wink when you've just made a serious, profound statement about your faith?

He did have Mary Magdalene :p
No, they were just freinds. Apologize, Mary Mag isn't into him.
Now Mary and Martha sisters to Lazurus were very "close" to Jesus. He rose their brother back because they were so close.
It is believed that they were most likely to be his wife. Either both or one of them. I think it was Martha but I'm not sure never asked.

Who's to say that Jesus wasn't gay? He didn't get a wife...
hmmmmm
maybe THATS why he never condemned homosexuality!

He did have Mary Magdalene :p

But according to the Gospels, they never went "all the way". I think.

Or you could say that the options are categorized by beliefs, not religions. After all, atheists believe there is no God...

True. I wonder what someone who was not raised or exposed to any of the major world religions, but otherwise educated, parented, and socialized in a normal way would think. I doubt that person would come up with the idea of a god or gods on their own...would they be an atheist by default? Or an agnostic?

Just wondering how we would apply our terminoligies to that person.

I am a dyslexic Athiest. I don't beleive in dog.

you mean you dont believe that a person can be gay and a serious christian?

dont you think that jesus died for gay people too?

Homosexuality is a sin; just like swearing, stealing, murder etc. Everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ still sins, so being a homosexual is just like stealing in Gods eyes.

So hence if you are a Christian you should be remorsefull of all your sins and deliberatly being a queer is not the best thing to do.

No, they were just freinds. Apologize, Mary Mag isn't into him.
Now Mary and Martha sisters to Lazurus were very "close" to Jesus. He rose their brother back because they were so close.
It is believed that they were most likely to be his wife. Either both or one of them. I think it was Martha but I'm not sure never asked.

Actually, there is speculation that Jesus faked his death and ran off with MM. It goes like this: Jesus was dying on the cross, then he's given a strong sedative in some sour wine on a sponge. He goes unconscious, then they take him down sooner than usual, without the usual death-test of knee breaking, and take his body away. Jesus is then revived, treated for his wounds, and goes into seclusion with MM for the rest of his life.

That's one theory.

Homosexuality is a sin; just like swearing, stealing, murder etc. Everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ still sins, so being a homosexual is just like stealing in Gods eyes.

So hence if you are a Christian you should be remorsefull of all your sins and deliberatly being a queer is not the best thing to do.

well damn, all those DELIBERATE QUEERS should just knock it off and start humping women again.

But what about the gays who didn't choose to be gay?

Actually, there is speculation that Jesus faked his death

Just like Elvis! :D

I voted for polytheism. I believe there are mystical forces which control every aspect of our lives. I thank the god of electricity for making this statement possible. And the god of gravity, which keeps us on this planet.

This thread is so full of inaccuracies and misstatements that I'm not even going to bother.

I'm an atheist and Secular Humanist.

well damn, all those DELIBERATE QUEERS should just knock it off and start humping women again.

But what about the gays who didn't choose to be gay?
I suppose they should feel guilty about it and abstain from the act, just like priests and unmarried folk should.

I suppose they should feel guilty about it and abstain from the act, just like priests and unmarried folk should.

Right. So God doesn't want them to be happy and to live their lives to the fullest. Sounds reasonable to me.

Who's to say that Jesus wasn't gay? He didn't get a wife...
so if you dont have a wife you're most likely gay?

hmmmmm
maybe THATS why he never condemned homosexuality!
actually yes he did

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

you mean you dont believe that a person can be gay and a serious christian?

dont you think that jesus died for gay people too?

Jesus did die for everyone, and being a Christian I believe people can be born homosexually, I mean there are people that are born in this world that when at birth their gender cannot be recognized because of gene disorders and other things as a result of multiple sexual encounters and transmitted diseases. If people can be born like that I kind of think that people can be born gay, but controlling that and understanding that its wrong is whats important, I mean we were all born sinners so we shouldn't just go off and sin right? Therefore gay people should not go out and do what they do. They just need help to gain control, I dont doubt that they're attracted to people of the same sex, because this is just one screwed up world. However being gay and a serious christian is contradictory, but if all sin is the same what about EVERYONE IN the CHRISTIAN faith... everyone sins therefore they are no better than the gays, but being gay and not thinking that its wrong is where this is messed up, because it is wrong and you need to recognize that and if you are a serious christian you will, or you'll burn its as simple as that. You have your own choices and everything you do, you do it becuase you want to, no one does something that they didn't choose to do.

Homosexuality is a sin; just like swearing, stealing, murder etc.

Gee, I must have missed that commandment. And that part where Jesus condemns it...golly, where were those again?

Now, if you'd said, "Homosexuality is a sin, just like wearing mixed fabrics or working on the Sabbath (yes, there's actually a commandment on this one)," I might give you some credit.

Actually, I don't recall swearing being taboo either, unless you happen to mention God's name...hmm...guess you'd better check your source again, huh?

so if you dont have a wife you're most likely gay?


actually yes he did

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I do believe those are the words of Peter.

Homosexuality is a sin; just like swearing, stealing, murder etc. Everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ still sins, so being a homosexual is just like stealing in Gods eyes.

So hence if you are a Christian you should be remorsefull of all your sins and deliberatly being a queer is not the best thing to do.

and yet EVERYONE sins. so why cant a gay person have a personal relationship with jesus if an intolerant bastard can?

I do believe those are the words of Peter.
yes/no -- God is speaking thru Peter

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Useless, biased quotes. Stop believing whatever the Catholics tell you!

im not catholic

so if you dont have a wife you're most likely gay?


actually yes he did

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
wasnt 1st corinthians a letter written by PAUL?

actually yes he did

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Actually, no he didn't. You do know that Jesus didn't write a single book of the New Testament, don't you? This, for example, is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, not that of Jesus. This passage isn't even a quote from Jesus. Try again.

I do believe those are the words of Peter.
Corinthians consists of the letters of Paul, actually, to the Corinthians. Paul wasn't even converted to Christianity until after the death and the resurrection, so his works did not necessarily reflect what Jesus would have said.
Edit: Okay, so I posted this around the same time as quite a few people. I guess it's unnecessary by now.

yes/no -- God is speaking thru Peter
DAMN I shoulda read down, bad guess on paul

JESUS never spoke a word (that was recorded) about homosexuality

but he spoke tons about how you should treat other people.

Heres why I don't buy the whole "gay gene" crap. We all have basically the same gene. Its just that some genes are more dominate than others. We all have the Genes for all of the color of our hairs. Its just that the color that you see is the dominate one. Now given that, the "gay gene" would have to be in everyone, and so far I have not heard one word about a "straight gene". Apparently the homosexuals feel like they should just leave that out for some reason, I dunno. In conclusion, the "gay gene" is false premises and should be disregarded as science fiction.

Also why can't we have straight parades? The gay get a "gay parade" where they basically have sex in public, why can't I have my straight pride parad where I can have sex with my Filipina???

For me, Homosexuality is a choice.

no you're right...it is paul

DAMN i shoulda waited

hahahahaha

y'all are supposed to know the bible better than an atheist. dammit if i can't believe YOU who can i believe??

Actually, no he didn't. You do know that Jesus didn't write a single book of the New Testament, don't you? This, for example, is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, not that of Jesus. This passage isn't even a quote from Jesus. Try again.
so am i supposed to ignore all the other teachings in the bible just because it doesnt say that Jesus said them?

I haven't seen any proof either way. I just know that whatever we make of this life is our own. Nothing is going to help us except ourselves.

Heres why I don't buy the whole "gay gene" crap. We all have basically the same gene. Its just that some genes are more dominate than others. We all have the Genes for all of the color of our hairs. Its just that the color that you see is the dominate one. Now given that, the "gay gene" would have to be in everyone, and so far I have not heard one word about a "straight gene". Apparently the homosexuals feel like they should just leave that out for some reason, I dunno. In conclusion, the "gay gene" is false premises and should be disregarded as science fiction.

Also why can't we have straight parades? The gay get a "gay parade" where they basically have sex in public, why can't I have my straight pride parad where I can have sex with my Filipina???

For me, Homosexuality is a choice.

Well, you can choose that if you like, I support your decision.

Meanwhile, you're using lay terms to comprehend a very broad subject. There aren't any scientists out there seeking a single, effeminate little gene out there that makes people gay. What they are looking for is a certain mutation on a certain chromosome which predisposes people to a particular sexual orientation.

yes/no -- God is speaking thru Peter (Paul)

God is speaking through Paul because Paul says God is speaking through him.

Beg that question till the cows come home. See how far it gets you.

Heiliger: When did you decide to become heterosexual?

Gee, I must have missed that commandment. And that part where Jesus condemns it...golly, where were those again?

Now, if you'd said, "Homosexuality is a sin, just like wearing mixed fabrics or working on the Sabbath (yes, there's actually a commandment on this one)," I might give you some credit.

Actually, I don't recall swearing being taboo either, unless you happen to mention God's name...hmm...guess you'd better check your source again, huh?
Shalt not commit adultery. That refers to intercourse outside of marriage in general, not just cheating on your wife. Naturally, if you're gay, you're not having sex with your wife, but another man.. so it's sex outside of marriage by definition. That's the reasoning behind it at least.

Jesus did die for everyone, and being a Christian I believe people can be born homosexually, I mean there are people that are born in this world that when at birth their gender cannot be recognized because of gene disorders and other things as a result of multiple sexual encounters and transmitted diseases.

multiple sexual encounters?? :confused:

If people can be born like that I kind of think that people can be born gay, but controlling that and understanding that its wrong is whats important, I mean we were all born sinners so we shouldn't just go off and sin right? Therefore gay people should not go out and do what they do.

No one is born a murderer, or a thief. We were not born sinners, we were born as babies, about as innocent as you can get. We become sinners through personal choice. Anything not a choice cannot be a sin.

They just need help to gain control, I dont doubt that they're attracted to people of the same sex, because this is just one screwed up world. However being gay and a serious christian is contradictory, but if all sin is the same what about EVERYONE IN the CHRISTIAN faith... everyone sins therefore they are no better than the gays, but being gay and not thinking that its wrong is where this is messed up, because it is wrong and you need to recognize that and if you are a serious christian you will, or you'll burn its as simple as that. You have your own choices and everything you do, you do it becuase you want to, no one does something that they didn't choose to do.

Are gay Buddhists, whose religion preaches tolerance and acceptance of gays, going to "burn" as you put it?

Well its time to map some Chromosome then. Five bucks says you take the Chromosomes from a gay guy and one from a straight guy, there will be virtually no diffrence.

Shalt not commit adultery. That refers to intercourse outside of mariage in general, not just cheating on your wife. Naturally, if you're gay, you're not having sex with your wife, but another man.. so it's by definition sex outside of marriage. That's the reasoning behind it at least.
You know, for a being whose consciousness encompasses all that is, was and shall be, God sure is a nitpicker.

Heiliger: Particular sectors of the brain are different sizes in homosexual men than in heterosexual.

I'm going to reply to the poll instead of continue the discussion.
I'm a Jewish atheist: I don't believe that there is a God or an intelligent designer of any sort, as it seems impractical and improbable to me, but I still practice (very reformedly) Judaism because of the tradition it holds (and I have) and the "good feeling" it gives me inside, however you may interpret that. I am proud to be Jewish and Israeli and don't think my lack of belief in a higher spirit hinders that. God is what you make of him, they say. Some think of him as the almighty, some think of him as the natural human spirit that it's in all of us... I prefer to just not use the word.

By the way, I just joined NationStates. Hi :) .

Yeah, why don't we all just shut up now and get back to the topic at hand. As I recall, it was something about our religions/beliefs/theories about the Universe/etc.

I'm monotheistic, but I recognize most religions as being on the right track. Admittedly, I'm partial to monotheistic (non-cult) religions, but Buddhism also appeals to me. If it emphasizes order, peace, and certain basic moral principles, you aren't likely to hear me complain.

You know, for a being whose consciousness encompasses all that is, was and shall be, God sure is a nitpicker.

Heiliger: Particular sectors of the brain are different sizes in homosexual men than in heterosexual.

UNBAISED source please.

Well its time to map some Chromosome then. Five bucks says you take the Chromosomes from a gay guy and one from a straight guy, there will be virtually no diffrence.
right...because its a choice...not genetics

so am i supposed to ignore all the other teachings in the bible just because it doesnt say that Jesus said them?

I really don't care how you interpret your book, but I think that your "all-or-nothing" approach is foolish. Try reading a few of the actual source documents for a bit more insight into what Jesus actually said. I pasted the Q source below, for example. Don't let it shake your faith, but a literal reading of the Bible makes very little sense. It's been translated by countless men over thousands of years, so to think it perfect is ridiculous.

As for the argument, you claimed that Jesus condemned it - he did not, you are wrong. Quite simply, Paul is known to have been the conservative of the group, and he's the only one to condemn homosexuality since the OT. Go figure.

UNBAISED source please.
Okay.

Particular sectors of the brain are different sizes in homosexual men than in heterosexual.

right...because its a choice...not genetics

You get a cookie!

oops, I see Boaz beat me to the punch. Thank you.

Okay.

Particular sectors of the brain are different sizes in homosexual men than in heterosexual.

Ok unless you provide an UNBAISED source, I will disregard that comment as hersay.

Heiliger: When did you decide to become heterosexual?

The day, when i was 12, that the cable company accidently gave us the playboy channel. Oh yeah.

Ok unless you provide an UNBAISED source, I will disregard that comment as hersay.
How are facts biased?

I'm going to reply to the poll instead of continue the discussion.
I'm a Jewish atheist: I don't believe that there is a God or an intelligent designer of any sort, as it seems impractical and improbable to me, but I still practice (very reformedly) Judaism because of the tradition it holds (and I have) and the "good feeling" it gives me inside, however you may interpret that. I am proud to be Jewish and Israeli and don't think my lack of belief in a higher spirit hinders that. God is what you make of him, they say. Some think of him as the almighty, some think of him as the natural human spirit that it's in all of us... I prefer to just not use the word.

By the way, I just joined NationStates. Hi :) .

welcome to nationstates.

if you enjoyed participating in THIS poll/discussion, wait a couple days and you can participate in another one just like it.

enjoy!

Heres why I don't buy the whole "gay gene" crap. We all have basically the same gene. Its just that some genes are more dominate than others. We all have the Genes for all of the color of our hairs. Its just that the color that you see is the dominate one. Now given that, the "gay gene" would have to be in everyone, and so far I have not heard one word about a "straight gene". Apparently the homosexuals feel like they should just leave that out for some reason, I dunno. In conclusion, the "gay gene" is false premises and should be disregarded as science fiction.

There is no such thing as a gay "gene". Nor is there an "intelligent" or "stupid" gene, or a "attracted to Asians" gene or a "scared of heights" gene. These are vastly complicated things not passed down (most homosexuals have straight parents), but rather a series of interactions between different chromosomes, mutations, and the like.

Also why can't we have straight parades? The gay get a "gay parade" where they basically have sex in public, why can't I have my straight pride parad where I can have sex with my Filipina???

Why do we need straight parades? Most people are straight, we have all the rights, we can marry whom we choose, there's nothing to protest for. Since you draw attention to it, I'm guessing you are in an interracial relationship. 50 years ago, you probably would have been in one of those civil rights parades, fighting for your right to marry/date whom you choose. Nowadays, no one bats an eye at interracial relationships.

For me, Homosexuality is a choice.

For me, it is not. I could never choose to be homosexual. It would be disgusting to me, no matter how much I tried to persuade myself, I could NEVER be homosexual. I am heterosexual not out of choice, but because I was born straight. Likewise, I do not think anyone else can choose to be gay unless they were born that way, or bisexual at least.

How are facts biased?

A link, *sigh* a Link you.. You couldn't possibly come up with that statement yourself. You either give me a link to an UNBAISED source proving that statement or I disregard it.

Heres why I don't buy the whole "gay gene" crap. We all have basically the same gene. Its just that some genes are more dominate than others. We all have the Genes for all of the color of our hairs. Its just that the color that you see is the dominate one. Now given that, the "gay gene" would have to be in everyone, and so far I have not heard one word about a "straight gene". Apparently the homosexuals feel like they should just leave that out for some reason, I dunno. In conclusion, the "gay gene" is false premises and should be disregarded as science fiction.

Also why can't we have straight parades? The gay get a "gay parade" where they basically have sex in public, why can't I have my straight pride parad where I can have sex with my Filipina???

For me, Homosexuality is a choice.
Answer me this. Why would anyone in their right mind ever choose to be gay? If it's a choice, it's a choice of a life of either closeted repression or dealing with intolerant people, who will tell you at every turn that what you're doing is "unnatural" (bull, according to research about a quarter of known animal species have gay members; can animals without capacity for reason choose?), or that they're going to hell. And that's in a moderately tolerant nation such as the US. If a man lived in a nation where being homosexual is condemned and punished by death, why on earth would they choose to do so, particularly if there is no difference between you and them? The "choice" argument makes no sense; there would be nothing to gain (ask yourself if YOU would gain anything), and everything to lose.

Do you know any openly gay people? Have you ever asked them when they "choose" to be gay? Speaking of which, as another poster asked, when did you "choose" to be straight? I certainly never "chose" to be bisexual, and it confused the hell out of me for a while, but here I am.

Current scientific research is pointing toward a combination of genetic and environmental factors (in the womb). You were right about one thing, though. If you compare the chromosomes of a gay man and a straight man, there will be virtually no difference. Know why? Because if you compare the chromosomes of either man with those of a chimp, they will be 99.9% identical. That's genetics for you--a difference of 0.1% between human and chimp.

Edit: For the record, I am a pantheist, with an ecclectic pagan bent.

welcome to nationstates.

if you enjoyed participating in THIS poll/discussion, wait a couple days and you can participate in another one just like it.

enjoy!
If you want even more, visit another forum on the internet. You can read fallacious drivel non-stop if you wanted to!*

*Not recommended.

A link, *sigh* a Link you.. You couldn't possibly come up with that statement yourself. You either give me a link to an UNBAISED source proving that statement or I disregard it.
I didn't find it on the internet. Disregard it if you like.

Regardless of whether it's genetic or chemical or physical, homosexuality is not a choice, and many homosexuals are miffed at poseurs who delve into it because it's trendy.

You didn't answer my original question. When did you decide to become heterosexual?

"What difference does it make what anyone believes?"

Marlene Dietrich in Touch of Evil

UNBAISED source please.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/levay.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7581447

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/levay.27n.html

Want more? I have a whole folder on this issue...

And, just recently:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/13/homosexuality.study.reut/index.html

The day, when i was 12, that the cable company accidently gave us the playboy channel. Oh yeah.

The day for me was when I was 10 and I discovered boobs for the first time.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Messiah. However, the relationship is tenuous, at best. This is because despite my attempts to be a good Christian, I cannot help but love and honor the gods of my ancestors. Christians attempted to convert my people through force and torture for centuries. It was for love and for political stability that our last heathen monarch converted to the religion of Jesus Christ, after the style of the Roman Church. My ancestors at the time were mostly peasants, and it was not until the nineteenth century that the Catholic Church finally brought them into full communion. Like many indigenous peoples, my ancestors maintained a memory of their old gods through seasonal celebrations, dressed up with Christian accoutrements, and tales of heroes and villains of old. I personally entered into communion with the Body of Christ some years ago in the interest of being a good father and husband. I believe strongly in the teachings of Jesus, and in his divine Sonship. However, I do not hold to the faith of those who take the collected works of the Council of Nicaea (the so-called Bible) literally. I do not object to anyone else doing so, with the exception that if they use it as justification to try to harm myself or those whom I love, I will put a swift end to their crusade.

"What difference does it make what anyone believes?"

Marlene Dietrich in Touch of Evil
It makes quite a bit of difference when they start trying to make decisions for other people.

Thank you, Anbar.

Amusing, Heiliger... but were you honestly of indeterminate sexual orientation before discovering boobs? If you'd seen a penis first, would you have become gay?

Shalt not commit adultery. That refers to intercourse outside of marriage in general, not just cheating on your wife. Naturally, if you're gay, you're not having sex with your wife, but another man.. so it's sex outside of marriage by definition. That's the reasoning behind it at least.

That's a technicality. You can, of course, say it and be correct, but it's a stretch.

Couldn't answer your poll truthfully. I'm an atheist. Atheism is not a religion.

It makes quite a bit of difference when they start trying to make decisions for other people.

Thank you, Anbar.

Ah, but then it is not their beliefs that make a difference - it is their actions.

The day for me was when I was 10 and I discovered boobs for the first time.

Interesting. Now, go have sex with a guy. It's a choice, so all you gotta do is decide to do it, right?

So, these guys must have just changed their minds when they walked into the study, I guess...

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

That's a technicality. You can, of course, say it and be correct, but it's a stretch.
How's it a stretch? It's a sin, according to the ten commandments, to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage is between a man an a woman, as far as the church is concerned. Of course, that brings up the question of why the religion doesn't recognize the marriage, eh?

Marxlan: Anbar was kind enough to cite it for me.

Shlarg: Knows his stuff.

Ogiek: The beliefs matter in that they're forced through their actions. Different forced beliefs have different effects. Some are more oppressive than others.

Well, there ya have it, genetic factors to homosexuality.

Links and all.

So...is it still a choice? :p

How's it a stretch? It's a sin, according to the ten commandments, to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage is between a man an a woman, as far as the church is concerned. Of course, that brings up the question of why the religion doesn't recognize the marriage, eh?

Indeed, that's exactly the question it raises, and why I call it a stretch. Some churches do marry gays, and as such, they do not commit adultery.

Well, there ya have it, genetic factors to homosexuality.

Links and all.

So...is it still a choice? :p

Yep, simply because I refuse to buy into the Homosexual propaganda, but whatever. As for the chick who wants me to have sex with a guy. Sorry, I would rather have sex with this.

Rocelin (My wonderful girlfriend) (http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/5a86b01c/bc/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/rose.jpg?pfti1bBBCsjp9wqx)

Marxlan: Anbar was kind enough to cite it for me.
Consider the post deleted.

I don't know much about modern Christianity, but I have been able to determine it is a religion in which people believe that what individuals do with their genitalia is the most important thing in the Universe. Apparently God created humans to see if they would use their penises and vaginas in an incorrect way, which of course results in eternal punishment in a lake of fire.

Perfectly logical.

Yep, simply because I refuse to buy into the Homosexual propaganda, but whatever. As for the chick who wants me to have sex with a guy. Sorry, I would rather have sex with this.

Rocelin (My wonderful girlfriend) (http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/5a86b01c/bc/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/rose.jpg?pfti1bBBCsjp9wqx)

Because science and reason are so propagandic.

You have yet to answer my question. If all people are basically the same, and nobody is born with the desire to have sex with a member of their own gender, then what incentive is there for people to make such a choice in the face of potentially serious repercussions, ranging from discrimination to death? If you refuse to answer, I shall have to assume it is because you can't, and really have no logical basis for your opinion.

Indeed, that's exactly the question it raises, and why I call it a stretch. Some churches do marry gays, and as such, they do not commit adultery.
Well, I agree with you, and I'm no expert on those reasons. However, I doubt those churches that marry gays consider homosexual acts a sin (within the bonds of holy matrimony, that is).

Because science and reason are so propagandic.

You have yet to answer my question. If all people are basically the same, and nobody is born with the desire to have sex with a member of their own gender, then what incentive is there for people to make such a choice in the face of potentially serious repercussions, ranging from discrimination to death? If you refuse to answer, I shall have to assume it is because you can't, and really have no logical basis for your opinion.

Why do they make the choice? The same reason why straight men like big boobs and clean shaven umm areas. Its lust. Thats how this whole thing works on both sides. Straight and gay. Lust is a chemical reaction, not genetics. Some men get their jollys with other guys, I get mine from Asian chicks.

Why do they make the choice? The same reason why straight men like big boobs and clean shaven umm areas. Its lust. Thats how this whole thing works on both sides. Straight and gay. Lust is a chemical reaction, not genetics. Some men get their jollys with other guys, I get mine from Asian chicks.

Did you choose to be attracted to Asian chicks? Does anyone choose to be attracted to big boobs and shaved "areas"?

Did you choose to be attracted to Asian chicks? Does anyone choose to be attracted to big boobs and shaved "areas"?

I chose to be attracted to Asian chicks, mainly because of the treatment I got from American chicks, but thats a whole diffrent stories. I would have to say yes. I know guys that like big boobs, guys that like small boobs, and some guys that like both. Some guys like shaved areas, some like them hairy. And when I talk to them about it, their answeareds always came back to choice. They choose to be attracted to big boobies ladies. I choose to be attracted to Rocelin.

"There is probably no sensitive heterosexual alive who is not preoccupied with his latent homosexuality."

Norman Mailer

I chose to be attracted to Asian chicks, mainly because of the treatment I got from American chicks, but thats a whole diffrent stories. I would have to say yes. I know guys that like big boobs, guys that like small boobs, and some guys that like both. Some guys like shaved areas, some like them hairy. And when I talk to them about it, their answeareds always came back to choice. They choose to be attracted to big boobies ladies. I choose to be attracted to Rocelin.

Wow. I sure as hell didn't say to myself "I decide I will like big boobs, shaved pussies, shaved legs, and skinny waists."

I'm pretty sure I just turned out that way.

And I'm pretty sure any guy I ask (well, besides you) will say that they "just like that" for whatever little detail, such as the ones I've listed, rather than "I chose to like that!"

Yep, simply because I refuse to buy into the Homosexual propaganda, but whatever. As for the chick who wants me to have sex with a guy. Sorry, I would rather have sex with this.

Rocelin (My wonderful girlfriend) (http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/5a86b01c/bc/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/rose.jpg?pfti1bBBCsjp9wqx)

So when you said "show me sources," what you REALLY meant was "Fuck you, I'm not gonna listen to a think you say"


And, once again, that link doesn't work. Stop trying to whore her out over the internet.

Deist here.

Wow. I sure as hell didn't say to myself "I decide I will like big boobs, shaved pussies, shaved legs, and skinny waists."

I'm pretty sure I just turned out that way.

And I'm pretty sure any guy I ask (well, besides you) will say that they "just like that" for whatever little detail, such as the ones I've listed, rather than "I chose to like that!"

i think it has alot to do with the surroundings you grew up in. In some countries, men like women with small feet. I bet if you grew up in those countries you would also like women with small feet. Get it?

and i would like to add that i think ,at least for me, that man are in general attrated to skinny ladys because it show good health.

I chose to be attracted to Asian chicks, mainly because of the treatment I got from American chicks, but thats a whole diffrent stories. I would have to say yes. I know guys that like big boobs, guys that like small boobs, and some guys that like both. Some guys like shaved areas, some like them hairy. And when I talk to them about it, their answeareds always came back to choice. They choose to be attracted to big boobies ladies. I choose to be attracted to Rocelin.
Exactly as Chodolo stated. Nobody chooses that; one is attracted to certain people because one finds certain people/features to be attractive. Could you choose to find the ugliest person you'd ever met attractive? You could certainly choose to act like it, but it wouldn't be true to yourself.

I must conclude that either you are fibbing, or you talk to some very abnormal people, psychologically speaking...

Yep, simply because I refuse to buy into the Homosexual propaganda, but whatever. As for the chick who wants me to have sex with a guy. Sorry, I would rather have sex with this.

Rocelin (My wonderful girlfriend) (http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/5a86b01c/bc/Yahoo!+Photo+Album/rose.jpg?pfti1bBBCsjp9wqx)

The chick? Heh, that must be me...it makes sense when someone makes that mistake with, say, Incertonia, but I don't see too much feminine in the name Anbar.

When confronted with overwhelming proof, invoke a conspiracy. Yes, all of science has been taken over by homosexuals, just like the steel industry. Hah, what an amusing way to skirt the point: That though you claim it is a choice to be homosexual, you know damn well you couldn't physically do it. Hence, not a choice.

Why do they make the choice? The same reason why straight men like big boobs and clean shaven umm areas. Its lust. Thats how this whole thing works on both sides. Straight and gay. Lust is a chemical reaction, not genetics. Some men get their jollys with other guys, I get mine from Asian chicks.

You are aware that those chemicals are produced by the body, which is constructed from the plan established by ones' genetics, right? These are not just isolated phenomena within a meatsack. Essentially, you've admitted that, yes, some people are predisposed to homosexuality by their biological makeup. Again, not a choice.

We Americans have to be the most childish people on the planet when it comes to sex. The motto of American advertising could be, "look at my boobs and buy something." Yet, we feign shock at Janet Jackson's breast and obsess about what other people are doing in their bedrooms.

If Christians had any idea what freaks their fellow Christians really were in the bedroom (or closet) we would never hear another sermon on sexual deviancy. Nobody really wants to know what goes on behind their neighbor's doors and we damn sure don't want the neighbors knowing what funky stuff we are up to when the lights go out.

Yet, despite that we cannot seem to put sex in its natural place in our lives. We are a nation with the sexual maturity of a 14 year old boy.

i think it has alot to do with the surroundings you grew up in. In some countries, men like women with small feet. I bet if you grew up in those countries you would also like women with small feet. Get it?

and i would like to add that i think ,at least for me, that man are in general attrated to skinny ladys because it show good health.

As far as I've observed, J is completely correct. While these attractions are most likely not choice (unless you're WAY too self-aware), they are most definitely not genetic. As humans we are products of our enviornment. Like J said, skinny translates to attractive because we're immediately attracted to the healthiest of the species. Or in the older days of poorer countries, large women were more attractive because it triggered wealth in the minds of the beholder, because only wealthy people had the money to eat a lot. It goes much deeper than that, too. If you're a girl that sexually abused or abandoned as a child, you'll most likely be attracted to guys that will abuse or abandon you as an adult, and you have no control over this chemistry. As a kid your brain is constantly being wired, and once you're exposed to something, for instance hot Asian girl pornography, or hot Asian girls in general, at a younger age, these things stay with as you get older and are hard wired in. Many things, like big boobs, are just instict: Just like a girl is immediately attracted to a guy with big muscles because as primitive humans, strength = food, guys attracted to women with big breasts because big breasts = more milk for our children to perpetuate our seed. Organisms are optimized to reproduce, so that's just what happens.

Wow, I wrote quite a bit.

As far as I've observed, J is completely correct. While these attractions are most likely not choice (unless you're WAY too self-aware), they are most definitely not genetic. As humans we are products of our enviornment. Like J said, skinny translates to attractive because we're immediately attracted to the healthiest of the species. Or in the older days of poorer countries, large women were more attractive because it triggered wealth in the minds of the beholder, because only wealthy people had the money to eat a lot. It goes much deeper than that, too. If you're a girl that sexually abused or abandoned as a child, you'll most likely be attracted to guys that will abuse or abandon you as an adult, and you have no control over this chemistry. As a kid your brain is constantly being wired, and once you're exposed to something, for instance hot Asian girl pornography, or hot Asian girls in general, at a younger age, these things stay with as you get older and are hard wired in. Many things, like big boobs, are just instict: Just like a girl is immediately attracted to a guy with big muscles because as primitive humans, strength = food, guys attracted to women with big breasts because big breasts = more milk for our children to perpetuate our seed. Organisms are optimized to reproduce, so that's just what happens.

Wow, I wrote quite a bit.

You're right. Genetics does not accomodate for EVERYTHING sexually. Upbringing is also a huge part. I grew up around white people, now I am attracted to Asians. My friend grew up around Asians, now he is attracted to white people. We've talked about this a lot, we just find the "exotic" more attractive.

In NO way does choice play a role. It's a combination of genetics and environment.

what about agnostic?

Originally Posted by Heiliger
Yep, simply because I refuse to buy into the Homosexual propaganda, but whatever. As for the chick who wants me to have sex with a guy. Sorry, I would rather have sex with this.

Rocelin (My wonderful girlfriend)


Methinks the lad doth protest too much.

Got a little bit of self-hatred going on?

Waaaay deep in the closet arent you?

I play poker with him every Friday. He has one hell of a poker face too. I can't get a reading off of it.

No God, no religion. Not sure if everything can be explained by scientific rational means of our human minds, but certainly worth the try.

Believing in God is a waste of sleep on Sunday mornings.

I don't believe in a god, why?

Humans have a tendency to build unprovable constructions of thought every time they encouter something they dont understand.
The Greeks didnt understand what lightning is, so they imagined a god who throws lightning at the world; The Aztecs didnt understand why day and night shift every day, so they said the gods made night go away if humans where sacrified; Many people today don't understand what consciousness is, so they image that we have a 'spirit' besides our body.

One by one these constructions of thought are proven wrong. Nowadays every child knows that lightning is a discharge of elecricity, not a god's fury. In the same way Darwin proved the idea of creation wrong, though some people fail to understand the logic of evolution.

I think science is able to prove all these unprovable constructions wrong, so that some day people dont need religion to understand the world they live in.

Sometimes it's difficult to let go of a belief, such as the idea of an afterlife. I dont like the fact that after death i stop existing entirely, but that's life. In some way i think atheists are better able to understand the worth of a human life, because they realise that we have only one chance on earth. The fact that religion makes people give up opportunities in life, or even give up life completely (like suicide bombers) in pursuit of some non-existent paradise makes me very sad.

Who's to say that Jesus wasn't gay? He didn't get a wife...

According to the book The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. He did have a wife. Its a good book. You should read it.

I am a God so yes :p

Actually as the High Priest of Joannaism, I have a personal relationship with my Godess. :D

i think it has alot to do with the surroundings you grew up in. In some countries, men like women with small feet. I bet if you grew up in those countries you would also like women with small feet. Get it?

and i would like to add that i think ,at least for me, that man are in general attrated to skinny ladys because it show good health.

Just thought i should say somethig here. In old paintings do you know why people were shown to be plump? Its because they also thought that was a sign for health and wealth. For what its worth.

According to the book The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown. He did have a wife. Its a good book. You should read it.
That book is fiction. Although good fiction and certainly a good read, but still fiction.

Anyway, he almost certainly had a wife. Why? Because everybody had to have a wife (and children) in those days to be considered an upstanding member of the community. Not to do so would have been wicked and immoral by their standards.

Why is there no mention in the Bible? Precisely because it was the common, natural and obvious thing. It would have been like mentioning he had two feet or that he spoke through his mouth. Also women were treated as lesser than animals. If you asked somebody from those times "Well, did he have a wife" you would get a baffled look and maybe a "Duh!".

It is much more probable that there would be a mention if he HADN'T have one.

As far as I've observed, J is completely correct. While these attractions are most likely not choice (unless you're WAY too self-aware), they are most definitely not genetic. As humans we are products of our enviornment. Like J said, skinny translates to attractive because we're immediately attracted to the healthiest of the species. Or in the older days of poorer countries, large women were more attractive because it triggered wealth in the minds of the beholder, because only wealthy people had the money to eat a lot. It goes much deeper than that, too. If you're a girl that sexually abused or abandoned as a child, you'll most likely be attracted to guys that will abuse or abandon you as an adult, and you have no control over this chemistry. As a kid your brain is constantly being wired, and once you're exposed to something, for instance hot Asian girl pornography, or hot Asian girls in general, at a younger age, these things stay with as you get older and are hard wired in. Many things, like big boobs, are just instict: Just like a girl is immediately attracted to a guy with big muscles because as primitive humans, strength = food, guys attracted to women with big breasts because big breasts = more milk for our children to perpetuate our seed. Organisms are optimized to reproduce, so that's just what happens.

Wow, I wrote quite a bit.

Also another bit of useless knowledge. Some psychologists think that the reason men like breasts has to do with our mothers. That we were breast fed to much. Something like that.

Also another bit of useless knowledge. Some psychologists think that the reason men like breasts has to do with our mothers. That we were breast fed to much. Something like that.

No, it's because they look like bottoms.

I'm not kidding.

Deep down, we men all like bottoms.

So long as they're wiped clean first.

I do not believe in god.

No, it's because they look like bottoms.

I'm not kidding.

Deep down, we men all like bottoms.

So long as they're wiped clean first.

As long as we are on the bottom/boob subject.

JOKE: Wife is all upset because she wants bigger breasts. She is really getting upset and doesn't know what to do. Finally she goes to her husband and says "Honey do you know a way to get bigger breasts?" Husband thinks a min. and says "Ya I do." Takes the wife into the bathroom and hands her some toilet paper. Wife says "What am i supposed to do with this?" Husband says "Rub it between your breasts and they will get bigger." Wife is skeptical and says "It does not" Husband calmly replys, "Well it worked for your butt." :)

I haven't seen anything sufficient to make me believe in anything. Conversely, limited human intelligence can't rule out the existence of such a being. Either way, I don't care much at all. It's not worth my time.

Gods, Godesses, meh.

Wouldn't you like to be a wizard/sorcerer? would you not like to command gods and godly power?

*LMFAO at all who claim "God"*

Ugh . . . the creator of this poll left out agnosticism

You forgot an "Other/None of the above" choice, which would be mine since I don't belong to any religion, but believe in (a) superior being/s. I just don't care in which way it/he/she/they exist.

Besides there are Naturalists, and other pagan religions that have no gods, but aren't atheists at all. ;)

I think the religious urge is probably some kind of viral infection. A very virulent infection, at that. There is obviously something wrong with those people. But it doesn't seem to be the result of a tumor or other obvious physical manifestation.

The only question is whether there is a possible cure. Anti-virals are notoriously hard to develop. But, in support of the cause of world peace, I think all governments should begin to fund such work immediately!

I believe that life is a story...with lots of irony.

LOTS OF IRONY

I just love how 'atheism' is listed as a 'religion' :p

I think the religious urge is probably some kind of viral infection. A very virulent infection, at that. There is obviously something wrong with those people. But it doesn't seem to be the result of a tumor or other obvious physical manifestation.

The only question is whether there is a possible cure. Anti-virals are notoriously hard to develop. But, in support of the cause of world peace, I think all governments should begin to fund such work immediately!

If you look at the internal structures of the brain, many levels of the mid-cortexs are resposible for religious belief. The reason this is so integrated into the human mind is that, in bad times, something to fall back on (in this case, the belief of god(s)) prevents hopelessness and depression. Numerous studies show those who don't have a strong belief in something, or strong religious feelings, are more likely to become depressed. Religons usually spawned in societies where things weren't very good, like Christianity started under the Roman rule, where Jews werent't exactly loved. This gave them something to believe in and fight for. Religon, whether you think its true or not, is part of a Human-made safety net to prevent the mind from going insane or becoming to depressed to do anything.
I personally do not believe in god, however. I find my nets in the regions of Science (as you can probally tell).

so if you dont have a wife you're most likely gay?


actually yes he did

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ahh. Excellent, somone who has quoted from the original Aramaic and Greek scrolls. :D

As another erudite individual had previously stated, I shall restate (or paraphrase).

The Bible is a document, that has been written, and re-written. It is a document compiled from many diverse documents. Even the individual books within the bible were not written by a single author. Many have a myriad of authors. For example Mark, is widely regarded as the earliest document, believed to have been compiled some 70 years after the death of the big JC.
The others were all compiled some years later, most around CE 90-130, iirc.

Most of the gospels have "Mark" to some extent as a source, but involve a variety of other sources. Many of the oldest known physical transcriptions are widely understood to have been re-translated many times, and have had phrases added that do not fit with the form, style of writing or even the language structure of other sections. What this means is that the gospels, so greatly revered as being the word of the Jesus, are in actuality, ideas that have been added as necessary to further the accessibility of the burgeoning Jesus-movement.

At the time that Christianity was developing, there were dozens of magician-cults flourishing within the Greco-Roman world. There were numerous mystery cults.

Now, I have a fundamental question for all those who adamantly adhere to any BELIEF system. Personally, I adhere to none.

***How did you come to believe as you do? What compells you to BELIEVE rather than explore ideas? Who first introduced you to those ideas? How were you introduced to the ideas that you choose to believe. What connection did you make between the ideas that you were introduced to that convinced you beyond any shadow of a doubt that your convictions were correct and others' were incorrect?

What do I believe? I'm not sure. This would, in practice, classify me as an agnostic. I'm not sure beliefs are a good thing. Beliefs imply a very strong conviction that cannot be swayed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This can create for dangerously volatile situations. As a result, a populace w/ an open mind will generally lead to a safer and less volatile society.

If you look at the internal structures of the brain, many levels of the mid-cortexs are resposible for religious belief. The reason this is so integrated into the human mind is that, in bad times, something to fall back on (in this case, the belief of god(s)) prevents hopelessness and depression. Numerous studies show those who don't have a strong belief in something, or strong religious feelings, are more likely to become depressed. Religons usually spawned in societies where things weren't very good, like Christianity started under the Roman rule, where Jews werent't exactly loved. This gave them something to believe in and fight for. Religon, whether you think its true or not, is part of a Human-made safety net to prevent the mind from going insane or becoming to depressed to do anything.
I personally do not believe in god, however. I find my nets in the regions of Science (as you can probally tell).

That's interesting. Except for the "religions are usually spawned in societies where things weren't very good" part. If that were the case, we'd have an infinity of religions, since "not very good" is a status virtually all societies endure most the time.

I wonder if an epidemiological case could be built for the infectuous disease model? It seems they should be able to examine and plot the vectors and pathways through which the various religions spread. I'm convinced that it is possible to determine whether religiosity is or is not an infectuous disease. And, if so, that a cure can be found.

I wish I were a billionaire ...

Hmmm...investment into memetic technology? Time to start setting up some focus-group sessions.... ;)

g.e.
Spokesdude for TFPotJW
and
Delegate Emeritus of the DU

I think the religious urge is probably some kind of viral infection. A very virulent infection, at that. There is obviously something wrong with those people. But it doesn't seem to be the result of a tumor or other obvious physical manifestation.

The only question is whether there is a possible cure. Anti-virals are notoriously hard to develop. But, in support of the cause of world peace, I think all governments should begin to fund such work immediately!

My parents are religious. I am not.

My friend is religious. His parents are not.

Most of the gospels have "Mark" to some extent as a source, but involve a variety of other sources. Many of the oldest known physical transcriptions are widely understood to have been re-translated many times, and have had phrases added that do not fit with the form, style of writing or even the language structure of other sections. What this means is that the gospels, so greatly revered as being the word of the Jesus, are in actuality, ideas that have been added as necessary to further the accessibility of the burgeoning Jesus-movement.
Exactly. The best way this has been described to me:

So, you start with a text that simply says, "Hurting people is wrong."
Someone gets ahold of it, wants to clarify the statment. So, he adds a bit. Now it says, "Hurting people is wrong, it will get you sent to hell."
Another person gets ahold of it, and wants to translate it for his friends to read. Unfortunately, there is a vast difference between the two languages. To make things clearer, the translation includes an example: "Hurting people, in ways like throwing rocks at them, is wrong, it will get you sent to hell."
A fourth person gets ahold of it. He finds it a bit too wordy, and decides to condense it for clarity (and to hold people's interest). Misunderstanding the intent of the example, he changes the text to read, "Throwing rocks at people will get you sent to hell."

These are all things that are known to have happened to the Bible. Many times. This is why I disagree with dogmatic adherance to sacred texts, particularly without a thourough understanding of exactly what has happened to them through the ages.

***How did you come to believe as you do? What compells you to BELIEVE rather than explore ideas? Who first introduced you to those ideas? How were you introduced to the ideas that you choose to believe. What connection did you make between the ideas that you were introduced to that convinced you beyond any shadow of a doubt that your convictions were correct and others' were incorrect?
As for myself, it was no outside influence that directed me toward my beliefs; I worked them out on my own through a process of soul-searching, and deciding what really made sense to me. It was fairly incredible for me to later discover that there were other people out there who believed more or less the exact same things I did, which is what really solidified them for me. However, I also include pantheism among my beliefs, so the idea that my convictions are more correct than others' is not an issue.

As for myself, it was no outside influence that directed me toward my beliefs; I worked them out on my own through a process of soul-searching, and deciding what really made sense to me. It was fairly incredible for me to later discover that there were other people out there who believed more or less the exact same things I did, which is what really solidified them for me. However, I also include pantheism among my beliefs, so the idea that my convictions are more correct than others' is not an issue.

Well, I suppose what I was really asking, is how specifically in your own internal reasoning, did you come to believe as you do? What were the logical connections? In some form, the connection must have some logical connection within your own mind. Some sort of reasoning that lead you to comprehend the world around you as you do.

Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, external influence IS always essentially necessary for forming an opinion. How do you perceive the things around you: What do you hear, see, feel, smell? How do you incorporate this data into cogent ideas forming the basis of your internal philosophy? Everything around you is necessarily going to influence how you come to believe as you do. It's a basic facet of being a living information absorbing and processing entity.

im just writing this so it will go back to the top of the general page.

Believer.

My parents are religious. I am not.

My friend is religious. His parents are not.
there are always exceptions, people who break with their upbringing and beat the odds. however, studies of Americans show that something like 95% of people believe in exactly the same religious denomination as they were raised with...most religious people go with habit over self-examination, i'm afraid, and merely perpetuate the superstitious illness that was passed on to them.

there are always exceptions, people who break with their upbringing and beat the odds. however, studies of Americans show that something like 95% of people believe in exactly the same religious denomination as they were raised with...most religious people go with habit over self-examination, i'm afraid, and merely perpetuate the superstitious illness that was passed on to them.
Why do Atheists always speak of Believers in Derogatory terms, is it a self esteem thing?
Dont like being the outsider?
The minority position feels bad, so you create the illusion of being superior?
Its ok, we are all allowed our opinions, that is just what it is, an opinion.
You smart cookie you.

Why do Atheists always speak of Believers in Derogatory terms, is it a self esteem thing?
Dont like being the outsider?
The minority position feels bad, so you create the illusion of being superior?
Its ok, we are all allowed our opinions, that is just what it is, an opinion.
You smart cookie you.
i'm not an atheist.

i'm not an atheist.
Then what pray tell are you?

Then what pray tell are you?
why do you care? you were having so much fun jumping to conclusions and getting hot and bothered about what you assume my beliefs are...i wouldn't want to spoil all that by injecting my boring old reality. :)

why do you care? you were having so much fun jumping to conclusions and getting hot and bothered about what you assume my beliefs are...i wouldn't want to spoil all that by injecting my boring old reality. :)
Yeah, so you are an Atheist who at least had enough sense to be embarrassed when I called youn your rude behavior and you decided to play this little game because you want to say I am wrong about something.
Wow your right this is fun.

there are always exceptions, people who break with their upbringing and beat the odds. however, studies of Americans show that something like 95% of people believe in exactly the same religious denomination as they were raised with...most religious people go with habit over self-examination, i'm afraid, and merely perpetuate the superstitious illness that was passed on to them.
Studies have determined that 99.9% of statistical analyses are untrustworthy.

Yeah, so you are an Atheist who at least had enough sense to be embarrassed when I called youn your rude behavior and you decided to play this little game because you want to say I am wrong about something.
Wow your right this is fun.
see, i told you that you would have more fun if i didn't try to rain on your parade with the actual reality of my beliefs! isn't it more fun for you to get on your high horse, tell me what i think, and use a little amateur psychology to conclude that you are clearly superior to me? why would i want to bum you out by setting you straight?

Studies have determined that 99.9% of statistical analyses are untrustworthy.
fortunately, the studies on heritability of relgiosity are not statistical analyses. :)

Why do Atheists always speak of Believers in Derogatory terms, is it a self esteem thing?
I consider the religious impulse to be an oddly socially accepted form of psychosis. To have delusional psychotic people making decisions that affect the lives of people is profoundly scary. History attests to the results. Further, to have delusional psychotic people urging others to take on their psychosis is bizarre. Finally, to have this happen in the US, which was created specifically to keep the religious and the civil separate, is tragic.

Yeah, so you are an Atheist who at least had enough sense to be embarrassed when I called youn your rude behavior and you decided to play this little game because you want to say I am wrong about something.
Wow your right this is fun.

if you've read other threads of such a nature in which bottle has participated, you would know that she isn't an atheist. (i think bottle is a she, i always forget)
in fact, you'd know that she considers atheists silly... unless i'm mixed up with someone else on this point.

so umm... way to make an ass of yourself.

if you've read other threads of such a nature in which bottle has participated, you would know that she isn't an atheist. (i think bottle is a she, i always forget)
in fact, you'd know that she considers atheists silly... unless i'm mixed up with someone else on this point.

so umm... way to make an ass of yourself.
you're right on all counts...i'm a female, and i believe atheism is only slightly less irrational than theism.

you're right on all counts...i'm a female, and i believe atheism is only slightly less irrational than theism.
yay!

fortunately, the studies on heritability of relgiosity are not statistical analyses. :)
ah, then it's reassuring to know that the 95% statistic from the study wasn't statistical!

I don't really have much faith in either religion or science. I believe in philosophy and the view that the only thing truly inherent to humanity is free will. I don't believe in materialism (as a view of the world, not as in greed) because the idea that everything, including the mind, is material means that free will, and thus morality, doesn't exist.

Instead, I believe that reality is a dream experienced by everyone that comes from a collective unconscious in the same way a dream comes from your individual unconscious. I believe that reason is ultimately useless since there isn't a rational reason to do anything. Instead, everything only has meaning or order because we give it meaning order.

ah, then it's reassuring to know that the 95% statistic from the study wasn't statistical!
statistical analysis is a tool used to examine data that has been collected. the statistic i presented was an item of data; statistically analyzing the raw data could yield other information, but a raw over-all percentage can be produced without any statistical analysis.

further, stats can't lie. people can fail to interpret them correctly, and stats can be presented in a misleading manner, but it's all numbers. as long as you understand how statistics works, you never have to worry about incorrect numbers messing you up.

I don't really have much faith in either religion or science. I believe in philosophy and the view that the only thing truly inherent to humanity is free will. I don't believe in materialism (as a view of the world, not as in greed) because the idea that everything, including the mind, is material means that free will, and thus morality, doesn't exist.

Instead, I believe that reality is a dream experienced by everyone that comes from a collective unconscious in the same way a dream comes from your individual unconscious. I believe that reason is ultimately useless since there isn't a rational reason to do anything. Instead, everything only has meaning or order because we give it meaning order.

From a scientific stand point, free will doesn't exist. We simply follow the impluses suggested by the chemicals and electric discharges orchestrated by the hypothalmus and differant levels of the brain then rationalize the decision. But Thats not really the discussion point.

Numerous theories that have evolved from quantom Physics suggest exactly the same thing you said in your second paragraph.

statistical analysis is a tool used to examine data that has been collected. the statistic i presented was an item of data; statistically analyzing the raw data could yield other information, but a raw over-all percentage can be produced without any statistical analysis.
They didn't ask me!

further, stats can't lie. people can fail to interpret them correctly, and stats can be presented in a misleading manner, but it's all numbers. as long as you understand how statistics works, you never have to worry about incorrect numbers messing you up.
Statistics can "lie" if they are produced on an inadequate sampling, as many are. Further, there is nothing about statistics that represents any reality for an individual, so I have a hard time taking any of them seriously.

From a scientific stand point, free will doesn't exist. We simply follow the impluses suggested by the chemicals and electric discharges orchestrated by the hypothalmus and differant levels of the brain then rationalize the decision. But Thats not really the discussion point.

Which is exactly why I have little faith in science.

Which is exactly why I have little faith in science.
wait, you have little faith in science because empirical evidence suggests that "free will" may not be strictly real? are you saying that you choose not to put much stock in science because the facts say things you don't like? or am i misunderstanding you?

I believe in God. i dont go to church. i believe that a person can worship god in their home just as well as they can in a church. i do not judge people that dont believe in God, or people that believe in other gods. i do not do things as God would want me to. but i try my best. and, if everyone else can say it, so can i, i am straight. :)

wait, you have little faith in science because empirical evidence suggests that "free will" may not be strictly real? are you saying that you choose not to put much stock in science because the facts say things you don't like? or am i misunderstanding you?

Free will is necessary for morality to exist. If I am not in control of my actions, then I can do anything I "want" and no one can tell me that I'm immoral for it since I'm not free to choose to do otherwise. Science treats humanity as a series of chemical reactions no more important than a car battery or a baking cake.

Such a worldview is very anti-human and allows us to justify all kinds of terrible things. Why condemn nuclear weapons if the people who ordered their use had no choice and the victims were simply sets of chemical reactions responding to other chemical reactions? In short, materialism is incompatable with morality.

Since I can't know for sure that there is a material world (since all I perceive is sense data) and the existance of one is incompatable with morality, I choose to err on the side of freedom and assume that I am indeed morally responsible for my actions.

I believe in God,but because I don't spend my life at church or rant about him,many people think I am an Atheist. People can be dumb these days.

Free will is necessary for morality to exist. If I am not in control of my actions, then I can do anything I "want" and no one can tell me that I'm immoral for it since I'm not free to choose to do otherwise. Science treats humanity as a series of chemical reactions no more important than a car battery or a baking cake.

Such a worldview is very anti-human and allows us to justify all kinds of terrible things. Why condemn nuclear weapons if the people who ordered their use had no choice and the victims were simply sets of chemical reactions responding to other chemical reactions? In short, materialism is incompatable with morality.

Since I can't know for sure that there is a material world (since all I perceive is sense data) and the existance of one is incompatable with morality, I choose to err on the side of freedom and assume that I am indeed morally responsible for my actions.

again, what you seem to be saying is that you don't like what it would mean if we didn't have free will, so you discard science that suggests that may be the reality of the situation. are you saying that it is necessary for us to perpetuate the BELIEF in free will, even if evidence refutes it? are you saying that we should only pay attention to data that give us the options and outcomes we like?

i'm not debating whether or not free will is important, that's a side issue (and a big one), nor am i going to try to debate what science actually has to say about free will (which is another huge tangent, because the answer is incredibly complex). i am trying to understand how you reach the conclusion that it is appropriate to ignore science when you don't like what it has to say.

again, what you seem to be saying is that you don't like what it would mean if we didn't have free will, so you discard science that suggests that may be the reality of the situation. are you saying that it is necessary for us to perpetuate the BELIEF in free will, even if evidence refutes it? are you saying that we should only pay attention to data that give us the options and outcomes we like?

I'm saying that since free will is necessary for morality, it should be believed in if it can't be shown for sure not to exist.

I'm saying that since free will is necessary for morality, it should be believed in if it can't be shown for sure not to exist.
that is not an answer to my question.

that is not an answer to my question.

I am saying that the evidence that refutes it may not be valid and because of that, should not be believed since the moral implications are bad.

hey i got something pretty interesting i looked up in the bible, a few weeks after 9-11 i went to the bible adn what is aw amazed me.

on almost ever book on 9:11 there is a message that can relate with the 9-11 attacks.


example: Genesis 9:11

And I will establish my covenent with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Example 2: Jeramiah 9:11

And i will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and i will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabatent ( im not sure who is saying this, but is not god nor jesus)

Example 3: Daniel 9:11

Yea, all Isreal have trangressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that s written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

Example 4 (last example): Luke 9:11

And the people , when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.

there are more example, lots, but im too lazy too write em.
even if ur atheiist and u dont belive in god, this is still pretty amazin.

hey i got something pretty interesting i looked up in the bible, a few weeks after 9-11 i went to the bible adn what is aw amazed me.

on almost ever book on 9:11 there is a message that can relate with the 9-11 attacks.


example: Genesis 9:11

And I will establish my covenent with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Example 2: Jeramiah 9:11

And i will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and i will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabatent ( im not sure who is saying this, but is not god nor jesus)

Example 3: Daniel 9:11

Yea, all Isreal have trangressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that s written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

Example 4 (last example): Luke 9:11

And the people , when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.

there are more example, lots, but im too lazy too write em.
even if ur atheiist and u dont belive in god, this is still pretty amazin.

i don't see what any of those had to do with the events of september 11th.

Free will is necessary for morality to exist. If I am not in control of my actions, then I can do anything I "want" and no one can tell me that I'm immoral for it since I'm not free to choose to do otherwise. Science treats humanity as a series of chemical reactions no more important than a car battery or a baking cake.

Such a worldview is very anti-human and allows us to justify all kinds of terrible things. Why condemn nuclear weapons if the people who ordered their use had no choice and the victims were simply sets of chemical reactions responding to other chemical reactions? In short, materialism is incompatable with morality.

Since I can't know for sure that there is a material world (since all I perceive is sense data) and the existance of one is incompatable with morality, I choose to err on the side of freedom and assume that I am indeed morally responsible for my actions.

Please note, what you "want" is devised by the chemicals. Furthermore, one of the most important thing that keeps Humans alive is that we hesitate before we kill millions. This is something that makes MAD (mutually assured destruction) in place. Morality was something devised via evolution or god (take your pick) so that we wouldn't go killing and torturing our race to extinction.
You are responsible for your actions. And unless something changes in the neuro-net with which you think, you will make the action again. I am not saying your not responsible for your actions, I'm saying your actions are those devised by a complex number of chemical checks and balances. They are still YOUR actions.

Well, yes and no.

I don't really believe in a "God" that is a physical, humanoid entity, but I acknowledge that there is probably a greater force of some sort (think "The Force" a la Star Wars) in play.

I also believe in reincarnation after death... just as a sidenote of sorts.

again, what you seem to be saying is that you don't like what it would mean if we didn't have free will, so you discard science that suggests that may be the reality of the situation. are you saying that it is necessary for us to perpetuate the BELIEF in free will, even if evidence refutes it? are you saying that we should only pay attention to data that give us the options and outcomes we like?
What science suggests that we don't have free will?

the messages dont specifically say " dont fly on a plane on september ellevent." and do not warn you at all for that matter, but thats not what im trying to say. these scriptures just relate to 9-11 and give warmth to believers.

...i am trying to understand how you reach the conclusion that it is appropriate to ignore science when you don't like what it has to say.
Maybe because "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb!"

There's been no evidence presented to believe that science has refuted "free will", so why should a sensble person believe it?

From a scientific stand point, free will doesn't exist. We simply follow the impluses suggested by the chemicals and electric discharges orchestrated by the hypothalmus and differant levels of the brain then rationalize the decision.

I hate to quote myself, but it must be done. Read the quote, and learn.

the messages dont specifically say " dont fly on a plane on september ellevent." and do not warn you at all for that matter, but thats not what im trying to say. these scriptures just relate to 9-11 and give warmth to believers.
?

how are those reassuring at all?

Please note, what you "want" is devised by the chemicals.
Where is the evidence of this? Or is it taken on faith? I want to see the evidence that says the 'want' succeeds the 'chemical reaction' in timing.

it lets u know tha god is there and will let u lean on him when u need support. just because u dont understand it doesnt mean others dont.

Where is the evidence of this? Or is it taken on faith? I want to see the evidence that says the 'want' succeeds the 'chemical reaction' in timing.

Uh... The chemical reaction IS the want... For example, you see a new pair of shoes or something that look really cool, the reason you would want them is because of a series of electric discharges in the lower parts of the brain followed by the creation of chemicals within the Hypothalmus with is then let into the brain and parts of the body.

it lets u know tha god is there and will let u lean on him when u need support. just because u dont understand it doesnt mean others dont.

i don't see how any of those let anyone know that god is there. do you think you could elaborate?

Uh... The chemical reaction IS the want... For example, you see a new pair of shoes or something that look really cool, the reason you would want them is because of a series of electric discharges in the lower parts of the brain followed by the creation of chemicals within the Hypothalmus with is then let into the brain and parts of the body.
But you very clearly stated that free will succeeds the chemical reaction, and that 'want' does too:
Please note, what you "want" is devised by the chemicals.
If 'want' and free will are "devised" by chemicals in the brain then they succeed those things in timing. Cause and effect. Perhaps you 'want' to exert some chemical effects and revise your wording.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that that "want" is a subjective experience, whilst "chemical reaction" is an objective measurable effect.

But you very clearly stated that free will succeeds the chemical reaction, and that 'want' does too:
Please note, what you "want" is devised by the chemicals.
If 'want' and free will are "devised" by chemicals in the brain then they succeed those things in timing. Cause and effect. Perhaps you 'want' to exert some chemical effects and revise your wording.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that that "want" is a subjective exerience, whilst "chemical reaction" is an objective measurable effect.

Devised as in: The people devised a plan to fix the problem.
I was using 'cool' in a relative sense, and the electrical discharges I was referring to are the discharges between neurons. The neuro-web is the relative part as well.

And finally, please, cut back on the viciousness, I'm not here to have my throat torn out

Devised as in: The people devised a plan to fix the problem.
I was using 'cool' in a relative sense, and the electrical discharges I was referring to are the discharges between neurons. The neuro-web is the relative part as well.

And finally, please, cut back on the viciousness, I'm not here to have my throat torn out
I didn't mean to be viscious; it's just that what you propose is rather preposterous, and you can't even support it with the language you use. The "device" in your example is plotting or discussion, and the result is a plan made. Cause and effect. The plan succeeds the device. If the chemical reactions "devise" emotions then the emotions must succeed the chemical reactions in timing, and I haven't been presented with any evidence of such except your word.

A human being experiences the world both objectively and subjectively. There is a chemical reaction (objective) and a "want" (subjective). If your assertation is that they are simultaneous and one and and the same, then you should revise your wording accordingly.

Still, this line of reasoning does nothing to discredit or disprove the existence of free will.

I didn't mean to be viscious; it's just that what you propose is rather preposterous, and you can't even support it with the language you use. The "device" in your example is plotting or discussion, and the result is a plan made. Cause and effect. The plan succeeds the device. If the chemical reactions "devise" emotions then the emotions must succeed the chemical reactions in timing, and I haven't been presented with any evidence of such except your word.

A human being experiences the world both objectively and subjectively. There is a chemical reaction (objective) and a "want" (subjective). If your assertation is that they are simultaneous and one and and the same, then you should revise your wording accordingly.

Still, this line of reasoning does nothing to discredit or disprove the existence of free will.

The reaction of the chemicals with the cells of the brain create emotion. Thus the chemicals have to exist before emotion can exist. Depending on the result of the complex amount of electrical discharges made between the neurons in the neuro-web, a differant chemical is made. The chemical causes emotion, emotion effects the way we think and which hormones are present in the body.
If something angers you, you have already come to the conclusion that it angers you before the chemical is made (before you get angry), a couple of nano-seconds later, the hypothalmus begins alerting differant organs around the body to create nor-adrenaline, which causes you to want to fight and get angry.

Furthermore, the state of the neuro-web (and thus its outcome) are affected first by a structure originally built in accordance to the DNA, then experiences affect this further. So it is actually the DNA that has the most to do with what we do and what we think, but this is revised by experience.
Example: Ted thinks touching the stove would be a good idea because his learning process so far (and that of his DNA) has suggested flat solid things usually don't hurt you. After burning himself, Ted's neuro-web then adjusts itself to compensate for the newly learned knowledge: Stoves are hot when on, don't touch them. In the future, Ted will not touch a stove when its on.

10 reasons to believe in God. Enjoy:

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/

The reaction of the chemicals with the cells of the brain create emotion. Thus the chemicals have to exist before emotion can exist. Depending on the result of the complex amount of electrical discharges made between the neurons in the neuro-web, a differant chemical is made. The chemical causes emotion, emotion effects the way we think and which hormones are present in the body.
If something angers you, you have already come to the conclusion that it angers you before the chemical is made (before you get angry), a couple of nano-seconds later, the hypothalmus begins alerting differant organs around the body to create nor-adrenaline, which causes you to want to fight and get angry.
Thank you for the explanation Why do you contradict yourself by claiming that the anger emotion precedes chemical reaction, but earlier state that chemical reaction precedes emotion? do you mean that for emotions stirred by thought, is it thought->chemical reaction->emotion? or is the chemical reaction presumed to preceed thoughts too? Also, is there any data timing the objective chemical reaction with the subjective experience of emotion? and if so, how is the subjective experience of emotion measured?

The nature of nature itself proves the existence of God.

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0101/point1.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0101/page4.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.2.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.4.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0101/page2.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.6.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.7.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0205/point3.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.8.html (why would they martyer themselves for something they knew was false?)

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.9.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/1.10.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/1rsn/yna.1.html

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/4rsn/

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/3rsn/

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/5rsn/

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/9rsn/

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/8rsn/

Enjoy :)

Thank you for the explanation Why do you contradict yourself by claiming that the anger emotion precedes chemical reaction, but earlier state that chemical reaction precedes emotion? do you mean that for emotions stirred by thought, is it thought->chemical reaction->emotion? or is the chemical reaction presumed to preceed thoughts too? Also, is there any data timing the objective chemical reaction with the subjective experience of emotion? and if so, how is the subjective experience of emotion measured?

Yes, its Though->Chemical reaction->emotion. As far as the subjective experience goes, I have no idea. Your wading past the boundry of knowledge that I have... As far as i know, they are still ferverishly studing it. Go into Physcology if you want to know more... As far as the when the chemical is created to when you feel the emotion, its around hundredths of a second. This all happens basically instantly.

Wes King,
I believe:

I believe
In six days and a rest
God is good
I do confess
I believe
In Adam and Eve
In a tree and a garden
In a snake and a thief

CHORUS:
I believe, I believe
I believe in the Word of God
I believe, I believe
'Cause He made me believe

I believe Noah
Built an ark of wood
120 years
No one understood
I believe Elijah never died
Called fire from heaven
On a mountainside

CHORUS

It's been passed down through ages of time
Written by hands of men
Inspired by the Lord
His Word will remain to the end
I believe Isaiah
Was a prophet of old
The Lamb was slain
Just as he foretold
I believe Jesus
Was the Word made man
And He died for my sins
And He rose again

CHORUS

Also see Common Creed: (its sums up what the christian faith is all about)

It's a call to love
Love and mercy
It's a call to give
And ask for nothing in return
It's a call to give your love away
It's a call to hope
For the hope of glory
It's a call to live
To grow in grace and try and learn
What it means to give your life away
A house divided will never stand
Let's join together
We're stronger hand in hand

CHORUS:
Common struggle
Common to the everyday man
Common table
The body and the blood
Commmon Savior
For God so loved the world
What we need
Is a common creed

It's a call to arms
It's a fight of faith
Sound the alarm
No time to lose, no time to waste
In this war for the soul of man
A house decided will never stand
Let's join to gether
We're stronger hand in hand

CHORUS

I believe in God the Father
In Jesus Christ His only Son
I believe there's only one way to the Father
By grace through faith alone

CHORUS

Petra has some good lyrics on the subject to but they're a rock band.
Creed: I believe in God the Father - maker of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ His only Son
I believe in the virgin birth
I believe in the Man of Sorrows bruised for iniquities
I believe in the Lamb who was crucified and hung between two thieves

I believe in the resurrection on the third and glorious day
And I believe in the empty tomb and the stone that the angel rolled away
He descended and set the captives free
And now He sits at God's right hand and prepares a place for me

Chorus:
This is my creed - the witness I have heard
The faith that has endured
This truth is assured
Through the darkest ages past
Though persecuted, it will last
And I will hold steadfast to this creed

I believe He sent His Spirit to comfort and to reveal
To lead us into the truth and light, to baptize and to seal
I believe that He will come back the way He went away
And receive us all unto Himself, but no man knows the day

Chorus

I believe He is the Judge of all men, small and great
The resurrected souls of men receive from Him their fate
Some to death and some to life, some to their reward
Some to sing eternal praise forever to our Lord

Chorus

Last Daze: (describes the state of christianity in the latter days, and many cases our own time)
Somewhere in the darkest night a stranger has lost the way
Cold wind and a distant light has carried his heart away
Some say he was one of us, a prodigal gone astray
But inside he's as cold as ice to the truth that he won't obey
He won't discern - the point of no return

Chorus:
In the last daze - the final haze
There was strong delusion to believe a lie
In the last daze before the blaze
They couldn't see beyond their misty trance
To grab the truth and have a fighting chance
In the last daze

Cold chills when the Spirit speaks that some shall depart from the faith
All ends in calamity just when they thought it was safe
They followed the lies - the fables men devised

Chorus

Some say it's a certainty, a sign of the times I am told
But I weep for the souls of those who will never return to the fold

Chorus

From a scientific stand point, free will doesn't exist. We simply follow the impluses suggested by the chemicals and electric discharges orchestrated by the hypothalmus and differant levels of the brain then rationalize the decision.
Yes, its Though->Chemical reaction->emotion. As far as the subjective experience goes, I have no idea. Your wading past the boundry of knowledge that I have... As far as i know, they are still ferverishly studing it. Go into Physcology if you want to know more... As far as the when the chemical is created to when you feel the emotion, its around hundredths of a second. This all happens basically instantly.
Then you contradict yourself again. Free will is the power of choice, which is dependant on thought, which precedes the chemical reaction, so it very well can exist.

Then you contradict yourself again. Free will is the power of choice, which is dependant on thought, which precedes the chemical reaction, so it very well can exist.

"thought" is the result of electrical discharge between neurons. Depending on where the neuron is, it has a differant effect on "thought". Where it is depends on where the DNA of the body said it should be, with exceptions made for experiences. In a sense, we think like our DNA wants us too, we find things interesting like our DNA says too, and so on. We are Vessels for our DNA. Your not going to like that one, I sense it. Not many do.

What science suggests that we don't have free will?
i specifically stated that i wasn't going to argue that side issue, i was simply assuming Letila's claim because i wanted to ask him about his reasoning.

i will give the very short answer on this topic, but i don't want to discuss it here...you can start a new thread if you like, just don't hijack this one with a topic of that magnitude.

science can completely and totally refute free will in an instant, depending on how you define it, and can do so in many different fields...depending on how you define it. for example, since all emotions, thoughts, and actions arrise from physical properties and reactions in the human brain, a human can be said to be limited by biology, only able to act in the way that their brain chemistry dictates. chaos theory has profound statements about the possibility for "deviation," and could be said to refute free will if free will is defined in a particular way.

however, i personally believe such definitions and the resulting proofs to be gross oversimplifications, and i don't believe that science disproves what i would consider free will.

What science suggests that we don't have free will?

Chaos theory.

I am saying that the evidence that refutes it may not be valid and because of that, should not be believed since the moral implications are bad.
okay, so you really are saying what i thought you were saying. we should discount all scientific data that doesn't agree with our preconceptions of morality, because it MIGHT be wrong. very interesting.

personally, i think that is just about the most cowardly stance a person could take. i believe we should explore all possible scientific avenues, and give significant thought to all the possibilities that research raises. if science generates some results that seem to contradict the possibility of free will, then we need to examine those results and look at what they would mean to our way of life. we don't need to instantly assume that the story is finished, because that would be utterly unscientific, but we also cannot ignore or manipulate the data to make ourselves more comfortable. i have to admit that sentiments like yours are some of the most abhorent ideas to me...people who choose to only hear what they like, and who are unable or unwilling to face the fact that reality doesn't always conform to our desires.

and if u dont know ehgat these mean , heres some explanation.

Monotheism: believe in one god e.g. God, Jesus, Buda
Polytheism: multiple gods e.g. mythology
Atheism: a belief that everything has a reasonable explination not based in religion


Um...Buddha isn't a god.

I'm a dedicated atheist, although I disapprove of the word, as the 'a', like in 'acephalous', implies we are without or outside something important, whereas if we 'atheists' call ourselves 'rationalists' it implies, really quite rightly, that religious people are irrational.
Anyway, I apologise if someone has said the following before (I'm not looking through 14 pages to find out), or if it seems out of place in the current conversation here.
Something I have learned is really quite a good little retort to theists is as follows:
Of all the dozens, if not hundreds, of religions ever conceived by superstitious men, you reject only one less than I do.
When you understand the reason you reject all of those, you will understand why I take the one, small, further step and reject yours as well.

μετατρέπω σε χριστιανόs ή εσύ θα πηγαίνω στο κόλαση.

μετατρέπω σε χριστιανόs ή εσύ θα πηγαίνω στο κόλαση.

smug bastard

I convert you, Christian, or you will go to hell?
Sorry, I'm a bit rusty.

Um...Buddha isn't a god.
This is the mysterious oft-quoted god "Buda" whose tribe has not yet been determined but whose name pops up often on NS boards. ;-)

Please note, what you "want" is devised by the chemicals. Furthermore, one of the most important thing that keeps Humans alive is that we hesitate before we kill millions. This is something that makes MAD (mutually assured destruction) in place. Morality was something devised via evolution or god (take your pick) so that we wouldn't go killing and torturing our race to extinction.
You are responsible for your actions. And unless something changes in the neuro-net with which you think, you will make the action again. I am not saying your not responsible for your actions, I'm saying your actions are those devised by a complex number of chemical checks and balances. They are still YOUR actions.

If your actions are the result of chemical reactions that are outside your control, then you aren't responsible for your actions, since they aren't chosen by you.

okay, so you really are saying what i thought you were saying. we should discount all scientific data that doesn't agree with our preconceptions of morality, because it MIGHT be wrong. very interesting.

personally, i think that is just about the most cowardly stance a person could take. i believe we should explore all possible scientific avenues, and give significant thought to all the possibilities that research raises. if science generates some results that seem to contradict the possibility of free will, then we need to examine those results and look at what they would mean to our way of life. we don't need to instantly assume that the story is finished, because that would be utterly unscientific, but we also cannot ignore or manipulate the data to make ourselves more comfortable. i have to admit that sentiments like yours are some of the most abhorent ideas to me...people who choose to only hear what they like, and who are unable or unwilling to face the fact that reality doesn't always conform to our desires.

But if you don't believe in free will, you can justify so much evil. It may be unscientific to believe in free will, but it is unethical to condone evil and as far as I'm concerned, reason takes a back seat to morality.

If your actions are the result of chemical reactions that are outside your control, then you aren't responsible for your actions, since they aren't chosen by you.

But your still carrying the DNA. If you get down to it, condemning people for actions they make is like eugenics. As I said, you are a vessel for your DNA. THe body is built based on what the DNA says causes you to do something, and you are responsible because you are (in essence) the embodiment of your DNA.

But your still carrying the DNA. If you get down to it, condemning people for actions they make is like eugenics. As I said, you are a vessel for your DNA. THe body is built based on what the DNA says causes you to do something, and you are responsible because you are (in essence) the embodiment of your DNA.

You can't choose otherwise, though, so you aren't actually choosing. Moral responsibility requires you to be able to make choices. If you are simply doing what your DNA tells your body to do, you don't actually choose between moral and immoral actions. How someone can be held responsible for actions they didn't choose to do is beyond me.

You can't choose otherwise, though, so you aren't actually choosing. Moral responsibility requires you to be able to make choices. If you are simply doing what your DNA tells your body to do, you don't actually choose between moral and immoral actions. How someone can be held responsible for actions they didn't choose to do is beyond me.

I didn't want to make this analogy, but you are like a puppet for your DNA. You do basically what your DNA has set you up to do, and certain traits given to us via evolution or god (your choice) define morality (so we don't kill people). In the end however, no matter what act we make, we are still commited the act, and since our DNA set us up to do that action at that time based on what we know, then it is reasonably to suspect that you would do the same thing under the same circumstances. Thus, but holding them responsible, you seek to change the set up in the neurons to make it less likely or more likely to do the action again (depending on the action).

Edit: Sorry, this is one of my other nations... I forgot to log in to the other one before I posted.

If your actions are the result of chemical reactions that are outside your control, then you aren't responsible for your actions, since they aren't chosen by you.

true. however, most reactions in your brain don't give rise to all-or-none situations; there isn't a single option that you are inescapably compelled to pursue, but rather a variety of options with varying levels of perceived benefit, and often even conflicting drives. it's like how you CAN hold your hand on a really hot stove, even though every natural reaction in your brain screams at you to stop it...you can have two drives that are totally in opposition to each other, both arrising from those chemical reactions.

also, there is a very interesting field called bio-feedback, in which it has been established that human beings can exert conscious effort and alter their own brain chemistry...i think the implications are really, really cool :).


But if you don't believe in free will, you can justify so much evil. It may be unscientific to believe in free will, but it is unethical to condone evil and as far as I'm concerned, reason takes a back seat to morality.
i don't believe that evil is an objective quality, so none of that actually applies to my system of morality. if it were established that there is no free will then i would simply shift to the appropriate frame of reference; since the definition of evil is entirely subjective to me, abandoning free will would not make it necessary for me to condone evil.

I didn't want to make this analogy, but you are like a puppet for your DNA. You do basically what your DNA has set you up to do, and certain traits given to us via evolution or god (your choice) define morality (so we don't kill people). In the end however, no matter what act we make, we are still commited the act, and since our DNA set us up to do that action at that time based on what we know, then it is reasonably to suspect that you would do the same thing under the same circumstances. Thus, but holding them responsible, you seek to change the set up in the neurons to make it less likely or more likely to do the action again (depending on the action).

That makes no sense what so ever. How can you be responsible for something you didn't choose to do? If you would have done the same thing, anyway, how can you be considered immoral for doing something?

To use another analogy, if someone uses a puppet to kill a lot of people, the puppet cannot be held morally responsible for the actions of the puppet master (which you hold to be DNA). The puppet (which you regard humans to be) didn't have any choice in whether or not the murders happened.

That makes no sense what so ever. How can you be responsible for something you didn't choose to do? If you would have done the same thing, anyway, how can you be considered immoral for doing something?

To use another analogy, if someone uses a puppet to kill a lot of people, the puppet cannot be held morally responsible for the actions of the puppet master (which you hold to be DNA). The puppet (which you regard humans to be) didn't have any choice in whether or not the murders happened.

If someone genetically make a virus that kills millions, would you stop the virus and punish the creator, or just stop the virus? As far as puppeteering goes, the DNA can only exist because you can, in a sense you are your DNA in a differant form. You can hold it responsible, and morally responsible, because the "puppet" does have morals programed into it, it just didnt follow them.

I believe there was once a God, but it died a long time ago. Kind of Ironic, since my country is a theocarcy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If someone genetically make a virus that kills millions, would you stop the virus and punish the creator, or just stop the virus? As far as puppeteering goes, the DNA can only exist because you can, in a sense you are your DNA in a differant form. You can hold it responsible, and morally responsible, because the "puppet" does have morals programed into it, it just didnt follow them.

According to you, you only do what your DNA tells you to do. If your morality is part of your DNA and thus programming, you can't deviate from it.

According to you, you only do what your DNA tells you to do. If your morality is part of your DNA and thus programming, you can't deviate from it.

Yep. But, experience alters the neuro-web, and thus slightly changes your programming. So holding someone responsible changes their programming a bit. We will always return to what the DNA originally sets out in times when we don't know though.

Atheism is a belief, not a religion.

Yep. But, experience alters the neuro-web, and thus slightly changes your programming. So holding someone responsible changes their programming a bit. We will always return to what the DNA originally sets out in times when we don't know though.

But if you don't choose, then you have no control over your experiences and thus you may change, but not in ways you control. You are still not responsible for what you do.

But if you don't choose, then you have no control over your experiences and thus you may change, but not in ways you control. You are still not responsible for what you do.

Depends on who you define as "you". If you define "you" as your mind and body, then yes, you are responsible. You did it. You might have done it via the influence of something that you are built from, but everyone else is too. If your definition of "you" is other then that, I can't say.

Depends on who you define as "you". If you define "you" as your mind and body, then yes, you are responsible. You did it. You might have done it via the influence of something that you are built from, but everyone else is too. If your definition of "you" is other then that, I can't say.

I would define "me" as my consciousness, but materialism basically holds that what I call "me" is just a set of chemical reactions and there isn't such a thing as a discrete consciousness, which is another moral problem with materialism, that it doesn't provide any reason to value humanity.

I would define "me" as my consciousness, but materialism basically holds that what I call "me" is just a set of chemical reactions and there isn't such a thing as a discrete consciousness, which is another moral problem with materialism, that it doesn't provide any reason to value humanity.

Yep. If you look at the affects we've had upon the planets enviroment, all of them are bad. Deforestation, pollution, destruction of habitats, the nuclear bomb, hole in the ozone layer, and so on. The truth hurts, I know, but we are just sacks of chemicals with complex enough brains to give the illusion of thought, conciousness, and morality.
This is why religion is so popular. Science just doesn't give the answer many people want to hear.

Yep. If you look at the affects we've had upon the planets enviroment, all of them are bad. Deforestation, pollution, destruction of habitats, the nuclear bomb, hole in the ozone layer, and so on. The truth hurts, I know, but we are just sacks of chemicals with complex enough brains to give the illusion of thought, conciousness, and morality.
This is why religion is so popular. Science just doesn't give the answer many people want to hear.

I think that's a depressing way to live. I have yet to see anything to make me believe science is any more valid than philosophy or religion and until I do, I will continue to believe in the potential and free will of humanity, not in a depressing series of physics and chemistry.

If morality is an illusion, your condemnation of humanity's effects on the planet is contradictory. If both us and the earth are just a series of chemical reactions, then environmental destruction is really nothing more than one set of chemicals interacting with another.

I think that's a depressing way to live. I have yet to see anything to make me believe science is any more valid than philosophy or religion and until I do, I will continue to believe in the potential and free will of humanity, not in a depressing series of physics and chemistry.

If morality is an illusion, your condemnation of humanity's effects on the planet is contradictory. If both us and the earth are just a series of chemical reactions, then environmental destruction is really nothing more than one set of chemicals interacting with another.

Now we have boiled it down to opinion. You've heard mine, and, thank god, I am not a Jehovia's Witness (or however you spell it). I understand that my moral beliefs don't add up completely with the scientific basis I have accepted but thats beside the point.
Thank you for the time you have spent debating and reading the scientific views on humanity.

im not going to even try to explain that to you, its obvious ur not christian and ur not going to change, so im not going to preach to you.

I don't believe in God.

Maybe I will though later on just in case :p!

Science and Religion (or Philosophy, whichever you prefer) are not as incompatible as most people think. Certainly, there are many fundamentalist views in all religions that have been directly or indirectly contradicted by science, but for the most part, a person can hold their religious views and still respect and utilize science.

Problems arise when a person chooses to follow just one or the other. If you go with science, morality becomes a matter of perspective, thus opening a proverbial can of worms. You make incredible scientific and technological progress, but society suffers terribly. If you choose a fundamentalist religious or philosophical path, a stable (possibly even peaceful) society arises, but it is a stagnant one.

Some religious leaders have referred to Science as another pathway to truth, but not necessarily an alternate one. The human race needs both aspects to advance and survive.

Science and Religion (or Philosophy, whichever you prefer) are not as incompatible as most people think. Certainly, there are many fundamentalist views in all religions that have been directly or indirectly contradicted by science, but for the most part, a person can hold their religious views and still respect and utilize science.
Problems arise when a person chooses to follow just one or the other. If you go with science, morality becomes a matter of perspective, thus opening a proverbial can of worms. You make incredible scientific and technological progress, but society suffers terribly. If you choose a fundamentalist religious or philosophical path, a stable (possibly even peaceful) society arises, but it is a stagnant one.
Some religious leaders have referred to Science as another pathway to truth, but not necessarily an alternate one. The human race needs both aspects to advance and survive.Religion, at least that based on the worship of Yahweh, is incompatible with reality.

i dont know if im allowed to do this but who cares, im writing this message because i want it to be on the first page again.

Problems arise when a person chooses to follow just one or the other. If you go with science, morality becomes a matter of perspective, thus opening a proverbial can of worms. You make incredible scientific and technological progress, but society suffers terribly.

i would love for you to back any of that up. i don't see how any of your conclusions necessarily follow from your premises, and i find it insulting that you imply one cannot be moral without God.

I understand that my moral beliefs don't add up completely with the scientific basis I have accepted but thats beside the point.

Which is quite odd from someone advocating reason.

This philosophy of materialism I've heard described on these boards takes an entirely objective view of mankind, and completely ignores reality as it is subjectively perceived. Mankind perceives things both objectively and subjectively at the same time --this is the truth of the whole perceptiveness of a human being. To ignore the subjective perspective is to ignore the self --an attempt to cut out what makes us human from the description of reality.

If you cut out the human, you no longer have a complete picture of reality.

This philosophy of materialism I've heard described on these boards takes an entirely objective view of mankind, and completely ignores reality as it is subjectively perceived. Mankind perceives things both objectively and subjectively at the same time --this is the truth of the whole perceptiveness of a human being. To ignore the subjective perspective is to ignore the self --an attempt to cut out what makes us human from the description of reality.

If you cut out the human, you no longer have a complete picture of reality.
Subjective perspectives are irrelevant to the comprehension of reality. Reality does not depend on perspectives. To view something subjectively means to add one's own thoughts to what is actually real.
And making statements about religion and god is making statements about reality, so they must be as reasonable and independent of personal feelings just as other descriptions of reality, e.g. in physics or chemistry.

Subjective perspectives are irrelevant to the comprehension of reality. Reality does not depend on perspectives. To view something subjectively means to add one's own thoughts to what is actually real.
And making statements about religion and god is making statements about reality, so they must be as reasonable and independent of personal feelings just as other descriptions of reality, e.g. in physics or chemistry.

Have you ever read Descartes? How can you say that physics or chemistry are "real" in the way you want to make it look like? We discovered the "laws" of physics, chemistry or mathematics by our senses, if we discover something by a subjective mean you cannot possibly be sure that it is "real".

That's the point Willamena wanted to make.

Have you ever read Descartes? How can you say that physics or chemistry are "real" in the way you want to make it look like? We discovered the "laws" of physics, chemistry or mathematics by our senses, if we discover something by a subjective mean you cannot possibly be sure that it is "real".

That's the point Willamena wanted to make.
No. We discover laws by our intellect as we create models of reality in our minds that we refine constantly. Religion has no such procedure (any more).

No. We discover laws by our intellect as we create models of reality in our minds that we refine constantly. Religion has no such procedure (any more).

This is exactly why I asked if you ever read Descartes, it seems you haven't. First: Were does you intellect get the input to discover anything from? It cannot rationalize anything without the input from the senses. Second: I wouldn't say "refine" but redefine, we change our mind all the time (call it flip-flop if you want :p) And third: I was not defending a position for religious belief.

All hail Ra.

Subjective perspectives are irrelevant to the comprehension of reality.
I disagree. For instance, if someone sitting next to me has a broken heart but does not let on, the reality of him having a broken heart cannot be objectively perceived. If he then comes up with a brilliant idea but does not voice it, the reality of what that idea is cannot be objectively perceived.

Reality does not depend on perspectives.
Reality is only about perception, because if there is no one to perceive it then the whole issue of whether something is real is moot. In other words, there is no one around to care.

To view something subjectively means to add one's own thoughts to what is actually real.
Yes, that's one way of looking at it; it means to include the human. And to include the human in any discussion about humanity issues is utterly necessary.

And making statements about religion and god is making statements about reality, so they must be as reasonable and independent of personal feelings just as other descriptions of reality, e.g. in physics or chemistry.
Making statements about religion and god is making statements about philosophy and our conceputal understanding of the world, so they must reasonably include the human perspective. A view "independent of feeling" can be strived for, but why? The subjective perspective is so much more than feeling and opinion --it is understanding the individual human as the centre of his perspective about an issue.

Well, I'm sorta leaning toward shintoism in which everything (and I do mean everything.) has a god. But in general, i'm a bit neutral.

On discovering laws via subjective senses.

Is it subjective, if anyone can follow steps to replicate results via understood natural laws and theories and reach the same result?

You are naturally limited by your senses. Your senses indicate that what you perceive as other people around you have the same abilities and senses that you have. If their senses and abilities and their ability to communicate reality around you, indicate that what they perceive is exactly the same as you do, you have a basis for evaluating the world around you. By nature, some aspects of an implicitly subjective reality, are therefore objective. Unless you are a solipsist (sp?) and refuse to acknowledge the world beyond yourself and the existence of objective truth, then you must find a way to reconcile that certain laws and theories are reproducable, testable 100% of the time, therefore indicating, as much as we are able to discern, an objective reality beyond our senses. To claim that this is otherwise, is tantamount to insanity (as observed from a 3rd party), in refusing to acknowledge that a world independent of onself exists. The latter tends to lead to ethical decisions that are dangerously divorced from reality.

Is it subjective, if anyone can follow steps to replicate results via understood natural laws and theories and reach the same result?

Yes it is. Only because another being with your same sensitorial capacities was able to do and sense the same as you did, it means nothing.

Of course there is a reality (I like to call it the truth, if you like), but sensing it is the only way we have to know it and being all we have, it's quite shitty :D.

The point is that everything we know, everything we can discover, it's based on personal experience, even those things passed to you by hundreds of generations (being that science, religion, culture or anything else you want to talk about).

My beliefs aren't based in any of those... I believe that "god(s)" is/are a representation of certain moralities rather than actual deities. This does not make me an athiest, a polytheist, or a monotheist as I don't subscribe to the belief of any form of gods but admit that there is one or many driving forces in the universe that are worthy of reverence.

I do believe those are the words of Peter.

It's Paul, but same diff, and as for the translation, you must be reading from the god hates fags bible, from the acual text it reads that that word sodomites translates literally to masturbators, and male prostitution was common then, men for women

On discovering laws via subjective senses.

Is it subjective, if anyone can follow steps to replicate results via understood natural laws and theories and reach the same result?

You are naturally limited by your senses. Your senses indicate that what you perceive as other people around you have the same abilities and senses that you have. If their senses and abilities and their ability to communicate reality around you, indicate that what they perceive is exactly the same as you do, you have a basis for evaluating the world around you. By nature, some aspects of an implicitly subjective reality, are therefore objective. Unless you are a solipsist (sp?) and refuse to acknowledge the world beyond yourself and the existence of objective truth, then you must find a way to reconcile that certain laws and theories are reproducable, testable 100% of the time, therefore indicating, as much as we are able to discern, an objective reality beyond our senses. To claim that this is otherwise, is tantamount to insanity (as observed from a 3rd party), in refusing to acknowledge that a world independent of onself exists. The latter tends to lead to ethical decisions that are dangerously divorced from reality.
Subjectivity is, by definition, confined to the unique case. No two people will perceive something in exactly the same way. No two people will use exactly the same processes (of thought, or though and feeling, or thought, feeling and soul if you believe in the latter) to arrive at the same results in the same way. Dispite all this, they can, and often do, come to the same conclusions as their fellow humans.

Which is the case for objectivity. ;-)

My beliefs aren't based in any of those... I believe that "god(s)" is/are a representation of certain moralities rather than actual deities. This does not make me an athiest, a polytheist, or a monotheist as I don't subscribe to the belief of any form of gods but admit that there is one or many driving forces in the universe that are worthy of reverence.
Now that's symbolic thinking.

I disagree. For instance, if someone sitting next to me has a broken heart but does not let on, the reality of him having a broken heart cannot be objectively perceived. If he then comes up with a brilliant idea but does not voice it, the reality of what that idea is cannot be objectively perceived.What? If someone sitting next to you has a broken heart but does not let on, you cannot say anything meaningful about this reality, neither through objective nor subjective judgement. And the circumstance of broken-heartedness in the one sitting next to you does not depend on your comprehension of it.
Reality is only about perception, because if there is no one to perceive it then the whole issue of whether something is real is moot. In other words, there is no one around to care.If a tree stands in the forest it remains a tree standing in the forest, no matter if someone sees it or not. Reality can be described as it is perceived by humans but it does not depend on perception.
Yes, that's one way of looking at it; it means to include the human. And to include the human in any discussion about humanity issues is utterly necessary.The existence of god is not an issue of "humanity". If god exists that would be reality and if god does not exist that would also be reality, but humans just do not have ANY information on that, so this description of reality cannot be made, although churches and their worshippers try hard to.
Making statements about religion and god is making statements about philosophy and our conceputal understanding of the world, so they must reasonably include the human perspective. A view "independent of feeling" can be strived for, but why? The subjective perspective is so much more than feeling and opinion --it is understanding the individual human as the centre of his perspective about an issue.Religion is not a matter of feelings. Feelings exist only in people's brains and they contain no information, neither about god nor about anything else: they are not substantial. But the answer of the question for the existence of gods and their characteristics requires substantial information.