A personal question

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If (for example) Delshad believes that God prodded evolution at arbitrary steps, at some point this begs the quesiton - maybe God just created everything. It is a slippery slope to that creationism thing!

---

Actually, rather than being a "slippery slope", it is a very large leap to go from "evolution occurrs", to "Godidit".One is evidence-based, observable by anyone regardless of religious belief, and the rest is faith-based and not dependent upon any evidence at all.BELIEF that the evidence points to God does not count as evidence.

quote:

---

But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence.
Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning.
Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure.
Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test.

---

Interestingly, Delshad, these views of yours are not so different from mine, although I have no belief in God, being an Agnostic.I do not know if God exists or not, and in fact, I do not think that it is possible for anyone to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Delshad

​

You are wondering whether pschologically and spiritually we have begun to think of ourselves as related to animals in parallel, or because of, Darwinism.

​

The answer would probably be yes and no.

​

Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind.

​

I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population.

​

What interests you about your question?

---

Um, how is it that we are not animals when we play with our children?Ans since when does the number of people who do or do not believe in something have any bearing, whatsoever, on it's truth?And how paranoid and insulting for you to say that the only reason people accept the scientific evidence supporting Evolution is because they are "brainwashed"?"Brainwashing" doesn't fight genetic disease or develop more productive and nutritious cultivars of grain to feed the hungry. "Brainwashing" does not make the HIV research on Chimpanzees valid for humans, nor does it somehow make pig heart valves actually work in human hearts.All of these things work not because of empty, dogmatic claims that scientists have made up about humans being animals, very similar to other animals.Humans ARE animals. Why else would a pig heart valve work in a human heart?Brainwashing does, however, lead people to truly believe that they will go directly to heaven if they fly a plane into a building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
[B]Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base

​

Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge.[/QUOTE]

​

Actually, it is my experience that the impression in the US is that less-educated people tend to be more narrow-minded and more fearful of difference and change.

​

quote:

---

Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness,

---

​

Sure it is. Have you never watched small children interact? A group of toddlers cannot generally be together in a room with one toy for more than a few minutes before one grabs the toy for themselves and jealously guards it from the others, caring not a whit about the cries of the others.

​

Humans are very selfish and have to be taught to share. This does, to a point, make sense evolutionarily.

​

quote:

---

nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.

---

​

Anger can be very useful from a survival standpoint. Adrenaline, in small, high doses, seems to stimulate the immune system. However, long-term high levels of stress hormones are detrimental, it's true.

​

quote:

---

Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.

---

​

Not true, as explained above.

​

quote:

---

Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact.

---

​

ALL feelings have an evolutionary basis, and all have a benefit under the right circumstances (AKA environmental conditions). They can also be detrimental under certain conditions.

​

quote:

---

Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.

---

​

Perhaps you meant to say detached, fact-based", not "cold and negative". The first phrase is not value-laden, and the second is heavily value-laden.

​

[QUOTE]If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction.

​

Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.
Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans.
And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.

​

[/B]

---

Yes, but you seem to be faulting science for not being soft and fuzzy and reinforcing your spiritual needs and feelings.If so, why do you expect science to do this?

quote:

---

Large minority? That's an oxymoron.

---

No it isn't.A small minority would be, say, 2% of a group.A large minority would be, say, 49% of a group.

quote:

---

As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.

---

Lots of animals will eat their own offspring.Animals such as weasels, fishers, raccoons, dogs and cats all kill for pleasure.It's not terribly uncommon.

quote:

---

Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.

---

So, are you saying that when a religion actively teaches all of it's adherents that hatred of another group, or intolerance of all other faiths, is justified, that this religion is not at fault?When does religion accept fault for, let's say, justifying the slavery of dark-skinned people in the US, or the treatment of women as chattel, which still goes on today in some fundamentalist Muslim areas?Religion has been used to justify untold numbers of atrocities over the millenia, and after the fact, the same thing is always recited by the apologists: "Those people weren't REALLY following Christianity/Judaism/Islam. We interpret the holy books the right way now!"Actually, Hitler believed he was doing God's work.http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Mein Kampf

quote:

---

or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.

---

This was politics mis/using science. Do not blame science for how others misuse it.

quote:

---

Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?

---

I see that you are blaming science for the actions of power-hungry despotic people.This is inappropriate.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Well, that was exactly my point, just as inappropriate to blame religion for the horrible things peple do in the name of religion.

---

There is a difference, though.At the time horrible things are done in the name of religion or politics, it is the policy of the given religion or government that they are right and just in their actions because, at least in the case of religion, it is justified because the holy books say that it is what they are commanded to do.The thing is, since it is religion, each interpretation is equally valid, so who is to say, for example, that Biblical justifications for slavery are wrong, simply because we do not agree with them today? Who is to say that the bloodthirsty and warrior God of the Old Testament isn't the true God and wants his chosen people to slaughter their male enemies and rape their women? He commanded it before, why not again?You will notice that the misuse of science is generally perpetrated by non-scientists, while the atrocities of religion are carried out by religious people.Science is not an unchanging dogma that is adhered to; it is a method of inquiry and a body of knowledge. It is, in short, a tool.We don't put the hammer in jail if it cracks someone's skull.However, why are you wanting to excuse the makers of the hammer who instruct people in the users manual that it is God's good and holy work to kill certain kinds of people with the hammer?

quote:

---

I cannot speak for every religion because Im not aware of all of their scripts and so it would be wrong if I replied that statement, perhaps someone else would defend Judaism or Christianity.

​

But what I can say about Islam is that the Quran doesnt "teach" anything similar to hatred or intolerance to other faiths, it is PEOPLE who teaches those ridicilous belives and if you dont agree with that then please ask, I would be glad to correct your misconceptions about religion.

---

Well, who is to say what is a ridiculous interpretation of the Quran and what isn't?It isn't considered ridiculous to many people to deny voting rights to women in Kuwait today, and women there are supposed to have decent treatment compared to many Muslim countries.It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.One person's "ridiculous" is another person's truth, Delshad, when we are talking about religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.

---

​

Lots of animals will eat their own offspring.

​

Animals such as weasels, fishers, raccoons, dogs and cats all kill for pleasure.

​

It's not terribly uncommon.

​

---

​

They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

But that is not what you said.You said that they do not kill for pleasure, only if they are hungry or threatened.This is incorrect, as the animals I mentioned DO kill out of a "kill-lust" sometimes, seemingly because of the pleasure it gives.If it was only the instinct of the predator, then wouldn't most predators do this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

​

Your black vs. white perceptions are sometimes most amusing. Schaf is right. Many animals kill for the hell of it.

​

---

​

You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

---

Stop being an idiot.If you cannot argue in good faith and must resort to childish "bonk bonk" comments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand and only lower the level of the discussion, then please refrain from posting.Trying to discredit your opponent instead of arguing your case is a lame debate tactic.It is not humanizing animals to point out that weasels, fishers, dogs, cats, and raccoons, for example, sometimes kill when they are not hungry and not threatened.You know, as much as I think you might not believe it and certainly won't admit it, you are wrong.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]It isn't considered ridiculous to the LDS church to simply deny that homosexuality even exists, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Oh please.

​

---

"Oh, please", what?Am I wrong?The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being. It implied to me that they think that 100% of humans are 100% heterosexual.Considering that Bonobos, our closest relatives, (as well as many other mammalian species) exhibit abundant homosexual behavior I would think that this would be somewhat meaningful. Not to mention that it makes sense that since there is variation in every other trait in our species; why not sexual orientation?I have asked you repeatedly if you agree with this, and you have never answered substantively, if at all, just like this latest reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Dear Schrafinator

​

Firstly, I want to make it clear for you that the fundamental reason for religion is to make life easier for us and to make us happy.
It serves as a moral guidance and if you wish to discuss that issue, then you would have to wait until wedndesday,(sorry but Quetzal should be back then and we are planning to open a topic discussing just that.)

---

That is what you have been taught, but it hasn't always been that way.Have you read the Old Testament? A great deal of it is God promising to smite down the enemes of his chosen people. There isn't a lot about love and happiness in there.

quote:

---

But what I could tell you is that deep inside a person you misuses religion for his own goals there is usually some other factor behind his acts.

---

Sorry, this is an unsupportable assertion. You have no idea about what is in the minds of people who do violence in the name of God. It is what you choose to believe and, in my view, is an excuse. It is the stock justification by religious people for wrongs done in the name of religion.

quote:

---

For instance, if a population gets assaulted by another nation, SOME of the habitants would like to revenge the act by any means possible, and they wouldn`t hesitate to interpret the religious scripts in accordance to their desires.
But I stand clear in my position that whenever that happens, that individual is NO longer religious, because he has neglected the fundamental ground that all religion has been made for, love and solidarity.

---

Again; read the Old Testament and tell me how much more killing and enemy-felling there is than love.[Fixed bold. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

The link you provided me about the LDS stance on homosexuality repeatedly refers to "so-called" homosexuality. This strongly suggests to me that the LDS church doesn't think that homosexuality is a real or valid state of being.

---

​

​

What? This is the link I gave you.

​

http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html

​

Please read it in context.

​

[QUOTE][B]People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.

​

Then he points out that people DO have strong inclinations, including toward homosexuality:

​

[QUOTE][B]They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

He isn't denying homosexuality can be a powerful in-born temptation.

​

Where you got the idea that he is saying that homosexual tendencies do not exist is certainly beyond me because he actually says the opposite but I would appreciate it if you do not misrepresent my religious beliefs.

---

Here's the passage:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued the following statement about homosexuality:"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord."People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

quote:

---

Probably meaning people that live the gay or lesbian lifestyle. Not necessarily those who just have strong inclinations toward homosexuality.

---

This is an interesting spin on the passage, but not what the passage says. There's no talk of "lifestyle" in the passage. IN fact, there's no talk whatsoever of "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" without the disclaimer of "so-called".The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.Let me rewrite that statement as a debate point:
"It is some people's nature to have loving, romantic same-sex relationships".Hinckley's statement is brief argument against exactly this debate point.Honestly, if you just read the following somewhere:

quote:

---

They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.

---

What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.So, what reasons, other than religious, do you have for thinking that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality?Or, put another way, do you share the LDS stance that homosexuality is not a normal variation of human sexuality, despite the evidence from nature such as the behavior of our closest relatives, the Bonobos, and despite the logic that sexual preference would have variation among individuals just like any other trait?[Fixed bold. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]The point of the passage, it seems clear and obvious to me, is that while people may find the urge to do the immoral act of same-sex sexual activity, it is never someone's nature to BE a homosexual - someone for whom it is natural to have a loving, romantic, same-sex relationship.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual?[/QUOTE]

​

Sure, why not?

​

[QUOTE][B]What would be your guess as to what it is about? Drug addiction? Gambling problems? Temptation to cheat on your spouse?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.

​

That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable.

---

Gene, do you hold love as a value?Do you consider committed, supportive relationsips to be good?Can you tell me how people of who are in loving, committed relationships are a detriment to anyone in a comparable way to murderers or thieves just because they are the same gender? [QUOTE][B]The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.

---

I can't help but think of the time that women were considered dangerous and immoral creatures if they displayed any interst in sex.I have always considered something to be immoral if it is detrimental to innocents. How are gay people hurting anyone by loving each other? [QUOTE]Being gay is not the only temptation that comes "naturally" to some individuals.And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do? [/B][/QUOTE]Bonobos, to my knowledge, do not engage in canibalism, although other Chimps do.My whole point about the Bonobos is that homosexuality is not some wierd, cultural peculiarity to some humans, but a widespread primate behavior. In addition, it does not hurt anyone, and in reality serves to strengthen bonds in the Bonobo social network.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"