Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Let me turn that around: just because I don't think abortion should be illegal doesn't mean I think life is cheap. I am an atheist, I have a decent "life appreciation". Hell, I'm against the death penalty...

I certainly don't think you think life is cheap, and I'm glad. However, given your worldview (atheism), WHY, in your opinion, is life important? (please understand, I realize that you DO think life is important; I'm just asking you for your reasoning that supports that belief.)

To answer Rian's question, depends on what you mean by OK. Legally, possibly. Morally, no. In (UK) law, IIRC, to get an abortion you have to persuade a medic that you need one. That would be a hard conversation to have if the basis were gender. In fact, it may specifically be outlawed as I think some amendments were made via the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act which affected this. Not sure though.

I imagine it's fairly easy in the UK to get an abortion, like it is in the US. What "reasons" are accepted over there? From the little I've heard, it's pretty much abortion on demand - what are the usual reasons given?

I don't think you even have to give a reason in the US.

[Rían]

I'm sorry, EB, I don't remember your beliefs - do you think god/gods or some higher being exists, or not? and why?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think what Ive been saying has in fact shown that the terms “right� and “wrong� are in fact meaningless to the discussion at hand. That’s been my point all along. Its ok to use the terms because they convey a general meaning but what you are doing is attempting to plant them in my mouth (fingers?) so that you can push me directly into some preloaded moral argument you have. So of course Im not gonna do that which is why I continually say right and wrong in this context is meaningless. Justice on the other hand…

I'm done trying to get a personal opinion out of you now You'll quote dictionaries and say something is wrong according to the constitution, but to you, as you said, ' “right� and “wrong� are in fact meaningless to the discussion at hand.' (why bother to quote dictionaries and the constitution, then?) If you really want to have it that way, then as I said, don't tell me anything is right or wrong anymore I'll just remind you that in your opinion, right and wrong are meaningless in discussions like these.

If you want to claim that justice is the ultimate standard, then I'll just ask you if you think it's right to be just. At that point, I imagine you'll say right is meaningless IYO, so I will just not listen to your argument anymore at that point. I know justice is justice, and I also know cruelty is cruelty. So which one is right, according to you? I know which one is right, but apparently you think right is without meaning. Fine - that's your choice - but again, don't tell me what is right and wrong (or just/unjust) then, because according to you, it's without meaning. And I won't waste my time on meaningless things.

Right and wrong DO have meaning to me. I try to do what I think is right, and try NOT to do what I think is wrong. In a moral matter, I will listen to someone and consider what they say if they think something is right or wrong, but if they say right or wrong is irrelevant, then I won't bother to listen to them. It says nothing to say "just is just" or "kind is kind". That type of statement is just a rather - I don't know, I suppose an unsporting way, IMO, to avoid using the terms right/wrong, since it's obvious that it IS an appeal to a common standard of right and wrong that we all hold. I can say "mean is mean" and "kind is kind" - they're the same style of statement - so which should I try to do and which should I try NOT to do, according to a person that says right and wrong are meaningless?

reality? Youre a creationist rian and you tell me I have no concept of reality?

LOL!!!! When YOU can show me total, absolutely positive, completely unrefutable proof that God is NOT behind the universe, then that insult will have meaning. As it is, it's rather funny!!

You are in deep left field on so many issues because you base all your opinions on your religion ...

um, no I don't, but you don't listen to me

... and IM out of touch with reality?

Can you can prove to me that you know without any doubt the things that happened at least thousands, and perhaps millions of years ago, and that no human has ever seen? Obviously not.
But that wasn't what I was referring to, anyway.

You discriminate against people because the bible says to and IM out of touch with reality?!

If I discriminate, then YOU do in the EXACT SAME WAY!! You, too, have your OPINIONS on what is right and wrong - or no, you don't, because it's not relevant here to you from what I can tell. You have your OPINIONS on what is harmful and what is not, and so do I, and each of us base our OPINIONS on the definition of marriage on what we believe to be harmful.

BUT - is it wrong to cause harm, in your opinion? If you say that's irrelevant, then I won't listen to you anymore whenever you tell me I should not do something because it's harmful, because I'll know that it's meaningless to you, so I won't waste my time on it. I'll just continue to go on my own opinions of right and wrong.

I have already said being “wrong� IS being unjust.

SO therefore it's wrong to be unjust, correct?

The terminology pestering should end there and we should move on to the heart of the matter. The definition of wrong IS being unjust. See above. So when I say something is unjust you need to accept that and not ask me if its wrong too because that’s just being redundant and unjust is what matters in this context.

Do you accept that definition? (that "wrong IS being unjust"?) Do you think that definition is correct? If so, then it's obviously wrong to be unjust.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your contention that they are injected in by god and are not in fact integral to our make up is based on zero data (as usual). Whereas there is plenty to show how having morals is a useful thing in terms of survival.

You misunderstand me - I think they are all 3 - they're put in by God, and they are integral to our makeup, and they are also useful in terms of survival. But the fact that they're useful in terms of survival does NOT prove that there is no God, of course. Nor does it prove that that's ALL that they are.

And I find it a little disingenuous for you to introduce a term like “soul� to justify that I somehow don’t understand morals. Talk about a meaningless term… You application of soul (and heart in this context) implies a strictly Christian ideology.

No, it doesn't. It's not only a Christian idea.

small view? Ha ha!! It’s a simple fact that many actions in nature can be traced to genes. do you deny this? Want me to give you several million examples?

I certainly think genetics influence behavior, but they are not what decide our behavior. The data is overwhelmingly against that, IMO.

oh my very dramatic. But… (whats the word you love so much again?) WRONG. How can you go from the notion that genetics plays a role in behavior and then immediately say that the things you listed above would have to be meaningless. Of course they have meaning. You don’t think beauty has a pretty significant hard wired rational behind it? Again I can give you countless examples of that. One big one is that it helps us BREED. Cant get much more important then that I don’t think.

If you think you "can't get much more important" than "breeding", then your view of the world is indeed small.

I'd really like to stop and highlight this - people, if you have a worldview similar to IRex's, then one result is that you might come to think that breeding is the supremely important thing. Does that really mesh with what your heart tells you is important? When you love a person, is breeding really uppermost in your mind? (I'm not talking about sex , I'm talking about breeding!) Is the only meaning behind beauty that it somehow helps us to breed? Do you guys REALLY buy into that? I certainly don't.

It’s a big factor in mate selection so of course we will be hard wired to recognize aspects of beauty.

LOL! ... or perhaps COL (cry out loud) - that's tragic, IMO, as well as totally off-base, if that's the only meaning you think beauty has. I see more than you do, I guess. That's what I mean when I say I think your view of the world is small. I'm talking literally small - you apparently only perceive a small subset of what I do. And if that's the case, then it makes sense for you to have a worldview like you do. But it doesn't make sense for me, so I have to consider other worldviews.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... Humor? Easily explained if you know anything about social interaction and organisms that live in complex communities where getting along is highly useful. Even lower order animals display humor in their behavior. So cant be some god injected alien thing like yer implying.

There's no logic behind your conclusion. Why can't it "be some god injected alien thing"? Sure, getting along is useful. So how does that fact make it impossible for it to be god-implanted? It doesn't.

And love is incredibly useful biologically. Do I even have to explain how good that one is for the genes rian? So nope none of these things are meaningless according to me. They fit in quite well with everything ive been saying.

Hear that, people? Love is useful.

Right ... if that's all you can see.

you say "none of these things are meaningless according to me", yet your definition of meaning is meaningless - or perhaps more accurately, of no value - to me. What good is love if all it does it make you breed? If that's true, then love is worthless, IMO. If the only thing good about courage is that it helps you breed, then courage is meaningless to me. If the only thing good about humor is that it might get you a roll in the hay and maybe you'll pass on your genes, then I say why bother to pass on your genes in a world where humor is only about breeding? Personally, I'd rather not be in a world where breeding is the main thing - pretty boring, among other things. I don't think it fits the reality of what I feel and observe every day. But I guess you do.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm done trying to get a personal opinion out of you now You'll quote dictionaries and say something is wrong according to the constitution, but to you, as you said, ' “right� and “wrong� are in fact meaningless to the discussion at hand.' (why bother to quote dictionaries and the constitution, then?) If you really want to have it that way, then as I said, don't tell me anything is right or wrong anymore I'll just remind you that in your opinion, right and wrong are meaningless in discussions like these.

If you want to claim that justice is the ultimate standard, then I'll just ask you if you think it's right to be just. At that point, I imagine you'll say right is meaningless IYO, so I will just not listen to your argument anymore at that point. I know justice is justice, and I also know cruelty is cruelty. So which one is right, according to you? I know which one is right, but apparently you think right is without meaning. Fine - that's your choice - but again, don't tell me what is right and wrong (or just/unjust) then, because according to you, it's without meaning. And I won't waste my time on meaningless things.

You misunderstand me. My intention is not to convert you (a flawed practice by its very nature…). My intention is simply to respond publicly to your misconceptions (that’s very important) and to warn you that if you attempt to discriminate against others without justification then sooner or later (as society is still willing to discriminate along side you at this point for the most part) this will no longer be allowed. The same was true for segregation in the 50’s and 60’s, for womens rights at the turn of the 20th century, for the abolition of slavery before that and the same will be true for discriminating against gays. You can hold fast to your delusions. I would never deem to moralize to you like SOME people do… I just say only what needs to be said when your religious dogma steps on the feet of others who aren’t involved with you. Its crystal clear. And it’s the way society is moving albeit slowly. You may choose to die by the side of the road if you wish.

but if they say right or wrong is irrelevant, then I won't bother to listen to them.

yes I know because that takes you outside the limits of your perspective as dictated by your religion. Your loss. Theres plenty to learn beyond the concepts of right and wrong…

LOL!!!! When YOU can show me total, absolutely positive, completely unrefutable proof that God is NOT behind the universe, then that insult will have meaning. As it is, it's rather funny!!

actually… as ive stated many times before… evolution does NOT exclude the existence of divinity. Creationism (with a capital C) is what im talking about. And that has clearly been shown to be a joke many times over while evolution has evidence for it in quantities enough to overflow the largest libraries and information facilities. And THAT is why the fact that a creationist (not a CHRISTIAN…) calling me out of touch with reality is greatly humorous. But hey perhaps you just don’t get the joke

um, no I don't, but you don't listen to me

actually I have listened to you when you say oh its just a coincidence that every belief I have happens to correspond with what Christianity tells me because ive thoroughly researched each and every one and come up with the conclusions all by myself. Its just I don’t believe that. Because too many of the facts show otherwise. Yet you still firmly cling to many of these incorrect notions. So its either denial or purposeful deception or inability to understand basic science. And I know you don’t like being accused of the second one so Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that its one of the other two.

Can you can prove to me that you know without any doubt the things that happened at least thousands, and perhaps millions of years ago, and that no human has ever seen? Obviously not.

the possible inability to “prove without a doubt� something that happened millions of years ago certainly does NOT automatically disqualify an enormous branch of science completely and totally (including the nearly countless examples of this particular concept working at all levels and in so many forms). And to then actually replace it with a religious notion that has no basis in fact and no known evidence for it. THIS is what I mean again when I site the irony of YOU calling ME out of touch.

If I discriminate, then YOU do in the EXACT SAME WAY!! You, too, have your OPINIONS on what is right and wrong - or no, you don't, because it's not relevant here to you from what I can tell. You have your OPINIONS on what is harmful and what is not, and so do I, and each of us base our OPINIONS on the definition of marriage on what we believe to be harmful.

but the difference is that I do not impose my religious based notions of morality directly on others who have nothing to do with me, harm no one and who don’t effect me one bit. You want to make laws against criminals who cause harm to others? That’s an entirely different thing. There is no difference however in you pushing your religious beliefs regarding homosexuality onto other people then there is in a muslim using the Koran to justify not allowing women to vote or drive cars. In BOTH cases there is an attempt to restrict an innocent party simply because someone else believes that’s what god said is “right�. Talk about slippery slopes…

You say your only reason for discriminating is because you are so worried about the homosexuals damaging themselves by marrying but you give us no evidence that gay marriage causes such horrific damage. Only indirect and implied supposition from religious dogma (god made boys and girls with different parts for a reason and doing stuff the parts weren’t designed to do might cause some damage blah blah…). And you are certainly free to use this particular reasoning to speak against gay marriage but actually overtly and purposefully attempting to BAN gays from marrying is going WAY over the line because you are impeding another individuals liberty and freedoms only because of your religious values. Why not just say well I think its wrong for gays to marry and be done with it? And those sick sinners who ignore you well that’s their own problem right? Why don’t you ban every single behavior that will also cause people damage and/or send them straight to hell? Consistency is important if you want to have any credibility…

I'll just continue to go on my own opinions of right and wrong.

and as I said above you are free to continue to live that way im not trying to convert you. See above.

SO therefore it's wrong to be unjust, correct?

no. the fact that the definition of “wrong� includes being unjust does NOT say anything about the moralistic aspect of being unjust. You would be making an assumption there based on how you define the term “wrong�. All Im saying is that it happens to be one definition for the word. Which gets me past your right/wrong trap.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You misunderstand me - I think they are all 3 - they're put in by God, and they are integral to our makeup, and they are also useful in terms of survival. But the fact that they're useful in terms of survival does NOT prove that there is no God, of course. Nor does it prove that that's ALL that they are.

again why are you putting me in the position of someone declaring there is no god? When did I say that exactly? I have no problem with a god existing AND naturalistic morals existing. It works fine to me.

And im not misunderstanding you. You said that because I don’t mention a soul (which you refer to as data (!!)) when I talk about morals that Im therefore wrong. Well once you start referencing the soul as “data� you’ve completely undermined your own argument. I stick with the facts of what we know. Not introduce an untestable undefinable concept as my data…

No, it doesn't. It's not only a Christian idea.

well from your perspective it is. and its certainly a religious idea. Not a biological one (yet). Once we find the soul in the numbers then we can start using it as data…

I certainly think genetics influence behavior, but they are not what decide our behavior. The data is overwhelmingly against that, IMO.

and what “data� would this be now? And if genetics at least influences behavior by your own admission then why is it absolutely wrong to say that what we refer to as morals is in some way tied directly to genes?

If you think you "can't get much more important" than "breeding", then your view of the world is indeed small.

hm… I don’t think your god would appreciate that kind of talk since one of his biggest notions was to “go forth and multiply�.

take a look around you. What do you see. Life begetting life. In uncountable numbers. Each and every day. The very programming for properly breeding is inside every cell of our bodies. Recombination defines us all. that right there should tell you about the importance of breeding if its blue prints are part and parcel of our actual physical essence. If we didn’t breed life would die off. So for you to say that breeding is low on the totum pole… well not really sure how you can possibly defend that notion.

Does that really mesh with what your heart tells you is important?

are you preaching to the choir here? Because again using heart in this kind of context automatically excludes anyone that doesn’t follow that type of spiritual notion. And by the way it ignores the obvious fact that breeding like other vitally important INSTINCTS operates at its base on a preconscious level. That’s why you don’t need a brain to do it.

Is the only meaning behind beauty that it somehow helps us to breed?

No I can think of other reasons for the recognition of beauty in nature. Want me to list some?

I see more than you do, I guess. That's what I mean when I say I think your view of the world is small. I'm talking literally small - you apparently only perceive a small subset of what I do.

No more correctly you see what you want to see. I choose only to see what is directly in front of me. Nothing more. My view of the world is life sized. If that’s too small for you then sorry but that’s reality. Your view of the world is tunneled by your religious notions and core beliefs. So Ill take the view without the restrictions and the blinders thanks. And you are certainly free to speak about nature from the perspective of your soul if you wish.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There's no logic behind your conclusion. Why can't it "be some god injected alien thing"? Sure, getting along is useful. So how does that fact make it impossible for it to be god-implanted? It doesn't.

you implied that humor is somehow completely unrelated to genetics and that is a notion unique to humans because god gave us the ability to appreciate such “high minded� concepts. I stated that in fact many animals display aspects of humor. So unless god injected it in animals too then my conclusion would be correct. And it would at least imply that humor does not make humans unique.

Hear that, people? Love is useful.

its not?

What good is love if all it does it make you breed? If that's true, then love is worthless, IMO.

why would the promotion of reproduction make something useless exactly? Your problem is that your stuck inside the warm fuzzy aweness of the very thing you are talking about. Youll need to step outside of it to examine it correctly. Love exists. Love follows measurable patterns. We can study it. Its not blasphemy to do so. Nor should it get your shorts all up in a bunch just to talk that way. Love is of vital importance to our species. Also to other species. How come you don’t get upset when I talk about love in penguins or dogs or whales or elephants? Why is that love any different? One is a god given love and the other is a strictly natural love that just happens to work the same way?

Personally, I'd rather not be in a world where breeding is the main thing - pretty boring, among other things. I don't think it fits the reality of what I feel and observe every day.

well then I guess you havent noticed what the large majority of your 6 billion neighbors are doing on a constant basis. I mean other then being born and dieing.

[EarthBound]

Two hydrogen atoms walk into a bar. One says, "I've lost my electron." The other says, "Are you sure?" The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive..."



While studying for my degrees at OSU, it became apparent that professors were quick to dictate theories as facts and unquestionable. Not much if anything was ever left to review or ponderance. Not nearly as much as the 'system' is touted for, I was a good student, and enjoy thinking outside the box, but I'm attending my third university (Masters in Engineering) and linear-thinking rather than conceptual-thinking is the norm. An occasional professor proves the rule of course....but in general, people feel ballasted with science as much as religion is used in such a manner to buy into theories without having to place much thought into it...all for a false sense of 'comfortableness/security' in ones beliefs....

In no way am I discussing Mooters here, rather sharing my college/science experience and thoughts there of. I just want to encourage “true thought� on these subjects instead of battle lines of distinction…usually not to learn otherwise.

Now now, why don’t we all join for a Balrog-fired pizza at the café….my treat.


BTW

Two important ways to approach any discussion thread as ignitable as this one.....

1. Everyone opines on the subject, displaying what they believe, have experienced, & suspect without challenges.

2. Debate-style, tends to be cyclic with no true converts across lines of thought. Benefit = tend to get interesting thought-processes that prove more insightful to the person writing...but worth it.

[Rían]

I'll just hit a few points, because I'm getting ready for the 4th of July block party and going to Ecuador ...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You can hold fast to your delusions.

And you to yours ...

I would never deem to moralize to you like SOME people do…

You would never deign to moralize to me? Why, you forgetful fellow, you do it all the time!!

but the difference is that I do not impose my religious based notions of morality directly on others who have nothing to do with me, harm no one and who don’t effect me one bit.

Neither do I. Again, the issue here is our differing OPINIONS of "harm", among other things.

There is no difference however in you pushing your religious beliefs regarding homosexuality onto other people then there is in a muslim using the Koran to justify not allowing women to vote or drive cars.

Personally, I would have no problem with a Muslim doing that. That's what our society is all about - freedom for the individual citizen to dialogue on his/her POV, try to get others to support it, and vote for/against whatever comes up on the ballot. I would certainly campaign against it, though, but I wouldn't try to clamp down on the Muslim's right to free speech and democratic process.

You say your only reason for discriminating is because you are so worried about the homosexuals damaging themselves by marrying but you give us no evidence that gay marriage causes such horrific damage.

First of all, I'm not discriminating any more than YOU are when it comes to defining marriage.

Only indirect and implied supposition from religious dogma (god made boys and girls with different parts for a reason and doing stuff the parts weren’t designed to do might cause some damage blah blah…).

Nice strawman, and you left out some other important things, but no time now ... I"ll have to take it up when I get back.

And you are certainly free to use this particular reasoning to speak against gay marriage but actually overtly and purposefully attempting to BAN gays from marrying is going WAY over the line because you are impeding another individuals liberty and freedoms only because of your religious values.

The same thing YOU do, thankyouverymuch. Please don't have a double standard. It's wrong - oh, wait, you don't think that word is relevant It's UNJUST

[Rían]

And a few from the other post ...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And im not misunderstanding you. You said that because I don’t mention a soul (which you refer to as data (!!)) when I talk about morals that Im therefore wrong. Well once you start referencing the soul as “data� you’ve completely undermined your own argument. I stick with the facts of what we know. Not introduce an untestable undefinable concept as my data…

well from your perspective it is. and its certainly a religious idea. Not a biological one (yet). Once we find the soul in the numbers then we can start using it as data…

If I recognize the existence of a soul in myself (and recognize its characteristics second-hand in others, from their speech and behavior), then I need to use it as input data for my calculations.

If you don't recognize it, then you certainly shouldn't use it as input data.

If you don't see a soul in yourself or others, then your way of talking makes a fair amount of sense, at least sometimes.

I observe something in myself every day that I refer to as a soul, and I must take it into account, or my analysis would be seriously defective. Among other things, it evaluates my instincts and genetic urges and decides when they are appropriate to act on or not; therefore, necessarily, it is NOT ITSELF an instinct or a genetic behavior. It is outside of my instincts and genetic urges, and judges them.

So for you to say that breeding is low on the totum pole… well not really sure how you can possibly defend that notion.

I mean low on the totum pole in terms of what is truly, IMO, important. Breathing is important in the same sense as breeding. But people don't write songs about breathing very often (or about breeding).

To me, breeding is pretty much "I got an urge to copulate". IMO, that's not important. Love, OTOH, IS important, and also song-worthy! If you define love in terms of breeding, IMO you have a sorely deficient definition.

are you preaching to the choir here? Because again using heart in this kind of context automatically excludes anyone that doesn’t follow that type of spiritual notion.

IMO, everyone has a soul, but some people don't like to acknowledge it, because it conflicts with their comfortable biases. However, even if I'm the only one with a soul, I still need to acknowledge it myself and take it into my calculations (as Bilbo Baggins said about the dragon!)

And by the way it ignores the obvious fact that breeding like other vitally important INSTINCTS operates at its base on a preconscious level. That’s why you don’t need a brain to do it.

Certainly physically it can be that way. However, to use a term that C.S. Lewis used, I'm an "amphibian" - I'm not only physical (in the sense you're using). Your description doesn't explain why, even if I "feel like copulating" , that I will not make that my only, or even my main, consideration when I'm deciding how I"m going to act.

No I can think of other reasons for the recognition of beauty in nature. Want me to list some?

Please do! I'd be VERY interested to hear!!

No more correctly you see what you want to see. I choose only to see what is directly in front of me. Nothing more. My view of the world is life sized. If that’s too small for you then sorry but that’s reality.

That's YOUR reality, not mine! (thank God!) And I need to operate on what I, personally, see and experience, as do you.

Your view of the world is tunneled by your religious notions and core beliefs. So Ill take the view without the restrictions and the blinders thanks.

"Tunneled", "restrictions" and "blinders"? Well, I'd sure say that about you. It seems like you don't see a lot of things that I see. YOU are the one with the extremely restrictive and binding worldview, IMHO

And you are certainly free to speak about nature from the perspective of your soul if you wish.

Thank you; I most certainly will, because I see it exists Yay! Souls rock! (even yours! )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You would never deign to moralize to me? Why, you forgetful fellow, you do it all the time!!

no I just inform you when you are incorrect and why. You are the queen of moralization by discrimination here.

Neither do I. Again, the issue here is our differing OPINIONS of "harm", among other things.

oh but you do because you cant simply state that sufficient harm occurs just because your religious notion insists it should be that way. Without proper corroborating data of the direct dangers of gay marriage BY DEFINITION you are doing just as I said (imposing your religious based notions of morality directly on others whether they like it or not).

Personally, I would have no problem with a Muslim doing that.

Well personally I would have a problem with ANYONE doing that…

And its interesting to note that you admit to agreeing with muslim extremist ideology in this way in their efforts to make a Taliban like religious state that oppresses people based on the writings of a holy book… I guess its consistent though and to hold to your beliefs that discriminating against gays is ok you have to take this distasteful position.

That's what our society is all about - freedom for the individual citizen to dialogue on his/her POV, try to get others to support it, and vote for/against whatever comes up on the ballot. I would certainly campaign against it, though, but I wouldn't try to clamp down on the Muslim's right to free speech and democratic process.

don’t try to switch this to a free speech argument. Its not at all. Its YOU attempting to take away a freedom that certain other people have simply because of your religious beliefs. As I have said many times already you are perfectly FREE to voice your disgust with homosexuality and gay marriage all you want. To say hey I think gay marriage is really bad news. THAT’S the free speech aspect. But free speech does NOT give me the right to discriminate against Asians or jews or short people. Nor does it give you the right to discriminate against homosexuals. So lets lose the free speech argument. Its purposefully misleading.

First of all, I'm not discriminating any more than YOU are when it comes to defining marriage.

yer saying two adult consenting males (or females) of sound mind and body cant consummate their marriage because you don’t like it. How is that not discriminating exactly? And before you say well theres no difference between discriminating against age and discriminating against sexual persuasion like you always do in this situation allow me to pre-empt that by pointing out once again that there are in fact clear and definite differences between the two that I have already gone over several times. There are things that can be said definitively about 2 year olds marrying that CANT be said about gay marriage.

The same thing YOU do, thankyouverymuch. Please don't have a double standard.

sorry I leave my religious texts where they belong when it comes to imposing my “morals� on others. Personal freedoms, personal justice and personal liberty override the dogma of a single religion in this country at least (to date at least…). Remember, in the end when you step on others unfairly others can do the same to you later. Now why unnecessarily set up that dangerous precedent exactly? Seems like a bad idea to me.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If I recognize the existence of a soul in myself (and recognize its characteristics second-hand in others, from their speech and behavior), then I need to use it as input data for my calculations.

If you don't recognize it, then you certainly shouldn't use it as input data.

So yer justification for using the soul as data is because you just feel its right? What kind of science is that exactly? And how can we possibly ever agree on anything using this kind of logic? To me a soul isn’t necessarily nonexistent. Its just irrelevant and because its improvable currently it shouldn’t be brought in as a factor in the equation. Or else you are essentially admitting you are operating with faulty data. We should speak of the things we know and can prove and can be demonstrated through the scientific process. That’s how science works after all. not founded on the improvable. I seek an explanation for what we refer to as the “soul� so we can explain why its there and how it effects us as biological beings. You simply assume that its certain proof of a divine force without any supporting evidence.

I observe something in myself every day that I refer to as a soul, and I must take it into account, or my analysis would be seriously defective.

on the contrary. You are making vast suppositions here. That’s not good science. No different then saying you HAVE to include god in all aspects of science simply because you are a Christian. Well no you don’t. Unless you can show WHAT you are talking about exactly and HOW god or a soul directly effects the goings ons of nature, then you really shouldn’t introduce a useless most likely misleading element into the pool of things we do know. Its unnecessary and just adding clutter to the equation. Some people find reasons every day for simply being absolutely assured that they are clairvoyant or psychokinetic. And they may even make a lot of money doing that. does that mean we need to automatically take these phenomenon as a given when talking about gravity or evolution or gay marriage? No. cant do that. you have to verify first. And find out what you CAN know. Not assume something you cant. You have to figure out what this soul IS. It may just be indigestion. Or it may be the complex interactions of a zillion nerve endings and hormone interactions, brain firings and the churning and whirring of countless molecule receptors and cellular level mechanisms and components culminating in a feeling that can only be described as “soul� (and no I don’t mean what Aretha Franklin does when she sings. Although that probably has a similar explanation…). Lets find out first shall we before we simply assume from zero.

Among other things, it evaluates my instincts and genetic urges and decides when they are appropriate to act on or not; therefore, necessarily, it is NOT ITSELF an instinct or a genetic behavior. It is outside of my instincts and genetic urges, and judges them.

and how do you know all this? What process did you use to conclude this quite enormous supposition exactly? You are essentially saying a soul is a given and heres what it does. Id need to know why and how. And what mechanisms does it use to effect human behavior exactly? You are making vast suppositions here without any supporting data whatsoever.

I mean low on the totum pole in terms of what is truly, IMO, important. Breathing is important in the same sense as breeding. But people don't write songs about breathing very often (or about breeding).

so your measure of what is “important� is if people write songs about it? Breeding (and breathing) is paramount. Period. End of sentence. Or else we don’t exist. Why the debate exactly?

To me, breeding is pretty much "I got an urge to copulate". IMO, that's not important. Love, OTOH, IS important, and also song-worthy! If you define love in terms of breeding, IMO you have a sorely deficient definition.

no breeding is breeding and love is love. Love can certainly be a (very important) component of breeding. Its how our species often maintains the relationship necessary to maximize the survival chances of our progeny after all. but just because love exists and you think its so wowie-zowie-shooting-stars wonderful doesn’t discount the ultimate importance of breeding. Love is meant to be hard core. And grip us at our very foundation. That sure sounds like a good way to encourage breeding to me. I don’t see a reason to automatically assume it’s a god given gift for us to ooh and aah at. I do however see reasons why it would certainly be a powerful evolutionary development in many living organisms.

However, even if I'm the only one with a soul, I still need to acknowledge it myself and take it into my calculations

but you have to SHOW it in your calculations first! Or else you are simply inserting faulty data. The rational behind data cannot be “because I feel its true�. That’s not good enough.

Certainly physically it can be that way. However, to use a term that C.S. Lewis used, I'm an "amphibian" - I'm not only physical (in the sense you're using).

how do you know?

Your description doesn't explain why, even if I "feel like copulating" , that I will not make that my only, or even my main, consideration when I'm deciding how I"m going to act.

How you are going to act? In terms of what? It seems like copulating (more accurately passing on your genes) plays a huge role in many of the things you do. Did you choose a mate? Did you produce offspring with them? Do you take care of your offspring? earn money to shelter and feed and protect them and ensure that their lives are as good as possible so they can in turn be upstanding healthy happy individuals with YOUR genes in them? Yes I think those would all be affirmative. Coincidence? Yer actually quite an easy example. Some people require more explanation. Although weve been there too.

[Spock]

Come one come all

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But Spock, we know - (1) God created us and our personalities and our thoughts and (2) God knows everything. Surely he could predict the "incident" with the snake and the fruit and Adam and Eve would occur. IMO he can see everything that will happen as he knows everything basically. Or do you suggest he doesn't know everything?

So I think it may seem we have free will.. but we don't.

[That's all if God exists, of course]

Actually we differ on point (1) and while point (2) is agreed, I don't believe He is into the 'predicting' part of it, again it was a choice and He gave us that. Knowing all possibilities, He trust us to make the choices that will lead us to Him. If we chose otherwise, so be it, we have been told what the consequences of such a choice are.

I know God exists, He called me at 1430hrs. and told me so.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I don't know if all of this has been said as I haven't read the other thread, except a few posts.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But Spock, we know - (1) God created us and our personalities and our thoughts and (2) God knows everything. Surely he could predict the "incident" with the snake and the fruit and Adam and Eve would occur. IMO he can see everything that will happen as he knows everything basically. Or do you suggest he doesn't know everything?

So I think it may seem we have free will.. but we don't.

[That's all if God exists, of course]

That would mean that God had given up on the people that weren't going to come to heaven which I do not believe is true. It would mean that God had predetermined who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, whereas I believe it is his wish for all to follow him and end up in heaven.

[Serenoli]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's tough to know what's right and what's wrong, and people's morality changes over time as their society does. Right and wrong don't change with people's swaying morality.

I know. And I agree. When I said, "I mean to do good, and follow my conscience", I did mean to do good, according to that same standard. Only in my case, its the Quran. But, I'm not behaving any different than I did before I decided not to believe any one religion. There are a hundred instances where I've disagreed with something religion prescribed, and these instances were all about the mode of life, never about a case of morality. And, when I've disagreed, I've always felt guilty about it, and yet, felt that it was unreasonable to feel guilty. So, all I'm doing now is being honest about how I'm actually living my life... I don't think everyone should feel the way I did, and I understand perfectly the need for religion, only when you think deeply about it, and you really commit yourself, then a conscience is a good enough guide.

And please, don't bung Nazis or terrorists into it. They are too extreme, and I'm pretty sure I'll never be like that...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I know. And I agree. When I said, "I mean to do good, and follow my conscience", I did mean to do good, according to that same standard. Only in my case, its the Quran. But, I'm not behaving any different than I did before I decided not to believe any one religion. There are a hundred instances where I've disagreed with something religion prescribed, and these instances were all about the mode of life, never about a case of morality. And, when I've disagreed, I've always felt guilty about it, and yet, felt that it was unreasonable to feel guilty. So, all I'm doing now is being honest about how I'm actually living my life... I don't think everyone should feel the way I did, and I understand perfectly the need for religion, only when you think deeply about it, and you really commit yourself, then a conscience is a good enough guide.

And please, don't bung Nazis or terrorists into it. They are too extreme, and I'm pretty sure I'll never be like that...

They're just an example to make a point. The fact that they're extreme according to our standards doesn't mean our standards are acceptable in God's sight. All the Nazis had consciences, just as we do. I know you won't ever be a Nazi. I'm just pointing out that the conscience isn't a good enough guide.

I also don't approve of picking and choosing what we agree with from the standard God gives us. If his scripture is written in such a way that it is clearly down on women and up on slavery, we have two choices. Either accept this perspective as God's righteous will regarding women and slavery, or reject those scriptures as not God's word. If we can pick and choose what we want to agree with from God's word, then we're just living according to our consciences rather than upon revealed truth.

However, I also think that things written in the scripture should make moral sense to us. So if I don't understand something in the Bible and it seems morally repugnant to me, I feel very strongly that that is the time to talk with the Holy Spirit about it, as he is supposed to be our Counselor. I suppose if something doesn't make moral sense to you about the Qur'an, you could talk to another Muslim.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

So, all I'm doing now is being honest about how I'm actually living my life

I think that's definitely a good thing.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually we differ on point (1) and while point (2) is agreed, I don't believe He is into the 'predicting' part of it, again it was a choice and He gave us that. Knowing all possibilities, He trust us to make the choices that will lead us to Him. If we chose otherwise, so be it, we have been told what the consequences of such a choice are.

I know God exists, He called me at 1430hrs. and told me so.

Why don't you agree God created our personalities? Who did then?

Since I'm sure God has created our personalities, thoughts etc., there should be nothing unexpected from his point of view, and everything could be predicted. One would make his choices based on the personality God gave him.

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

That would mean that God had given up on the people that weren't going to come to heaven which I do not believe is true. It would mean that God had predetermined who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, whereas I believe it is his wish for all to follow him and end up in heaven.

If he really wished that, he could easily do it. He on the other hand wishes perfectness, which only He can grant, but he grants it according to one's belief. Hence he predetermines who will go to hell and heaven before one is even born.

[inked]

Here's a quiz for Christians on their understanding of Jesus in relation to the received orthodox tradition:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

You can take it on a secular level too, but the ranking is per the received tradition.