Lifestyle

TOPICS:

7/21/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 886

Next

God

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

 ... 20

Next

berzerker_barrag

berzerker_barrag

Clifton Heights, PA
October 2007

JUL 15, 2008 09:14 PM

modern medicine has made it so lives are extended and created that would not have survived outside a modern society. babies that would have died in the womb due to faulty genes, old people who would have fell to illness long ago, and people who have run into diseases that should have killed any animal keep on living.

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive. (maybe a revival in Nordic religion could push people to accept warfare to the point of keeping the population in check tongue)

i do love science and value science as a useful tool but not kept in check threw a naturalistic belief it WILL be the end of life on earth. the un-survival of anything we know as life.

as far as religions go, my biggest beef with any modern religion is Christianity for the whole "saving" busyness and the belief that everyone MUST be Christians. my favorite would be Buddhism for accepting the teachings of any religion that isn't based in hate, but i try and worship life itself as an amazing occurrence that renders all else insignificant.

MisterInactive

MisterInactive

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 15, 2008 09:28 PM

Accuser said:
Linguist- What?



My response to your hyperbolic quandry is that the little girl would cope with the torture and eventually switch sides to that of Loki and Hel, in order to survive.

Cassiel

Cassiel

Aurora, CO
September 2004

JUL 15, 2008 09:32 PM

frown

i don't like this thread anymore. i tried to say nice things. but...

MisterInactive

MisterInactive

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 15, 2008 09:39 PM

Cassiel said:
frown

i don't like this thread anymore. i tried to say nice things. but...



Hyperbole is met with hyperbole. I'm kinda disappointed that you don't see the comedy in that.

Accuser

Accuser

Scottsdale, AZ
October 2006

JUL 16, 2008 12:44 AM

MisterLinguist said:

Accuser said:
Linguist- What?



My response to your hyperbolic quandry is that the little girl would cope with the torture and eventually switch sides to that of Loki and Hel, in order to survive.



Well it's not my example, it's the commonly used rebuttal to utilitarianism.

And I don't see how your response answers the question or is relevant.

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive.



This can be fixed with more and better science. Worshiping things has nothing to do with it. Specifically, many of the world's "overpopulation" woes actually stem from a lack of clean water. People are working on solutions for that now, and a few are already out there.

Better application and recycling of resources is the answer to overpopulation, not superstition. I see no reason to think that science will be the end of life on Earth except where its tools are usurped by superstitious fervor. I don't expect I need to give examples of instances or scenarios here, we all have memories and imaginations.

Also, you used the word "naturalistic". I assumed you meant what I refer to as superstition (and, obviously, responded as such), but that's a confusing word choice because someone with a "naturalistic worldview" is someone who does not believe in anything supernatural. Can you clarify?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 16, 2008 12:56 AM

Accuser said:
I'm not sure I agree. Even if you reject the claim that truth is inherently good, it can be shown to be generally preferable to delusion in a purely Darwinian sense. By examining the world and universe for what they actually are, rather than trying to fit events into existing superstition, we create scientific and personal advancement thereby increasing the chances of our own survival and propagation of our genes.


well, yes, the judicious application of external truth can be helpful to one's self and the human race in general. but that hardly proves that such external honesty is helpful to one's self and the human race all the time, or even most of the time. likewise, then, one could logically conclude that introspection is only useful in certain applications.

and it certainly does require a leap of faith to determine that internal truth is generally beneficial, when the human mind is so very good at lying to itself. hell, you could probably make an argument that self-delusion is an advantageous evolutionary trait--that people who are able to take all that philosophy crap and toss it in the God bin, letting a dusty old book manage their morality, are more able to accomplish the antlike activities necessary for societies to thrive.

Accuser

Accuser

Scottsdale, AZ
October 2006

JUL 16, 2008 01:45 AM

I'd argue that they're more likely to allow societies to survive, but not progress.

You're right that external truth doesn't help all the time, which is why I was careful to say "generally". I think it does help most of the time (by a very large margin) but something like that is almost impossible to prove. Let's measure all the truths that have been helpful versus those which have not. shocked

I'll think on the second point for a while. I think I can come up with a better reason to consider introspection generally useful than what I gave, but I'm not certain. Still, I do believe that having a malleable and realistic worldview is more useful on a personal level than a static, superstitious one.

Narehusu

Narehusu

Cheshire, OR
July 2008

JUL 16, 2008 01:31 PM

berzerker_barrag said:

i do love science and value science as a useful tool but not kept in check threw a naturalistic belief it WILL be the end of life on earth. the un-survival of anything we know as life.



What kind of naturalistic belief system should people believe in that will keep science "in check"?

Should we let people die of otherwise treatable disease? Should we stop researching cures for deadly diseases? Should we stop donating money to help provide others with the means to support themselves?

Meanwhile you have the comfort of living with access to 911, grocery stores and internet porn sites. Very naturalistic.


MisterInactive

MisterInactive

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 16, 2008 01:32 PM

Narehusu said:

berzerker_barrag said:

i do love science and value science as a useful tool but not kept in check threw a naturalistic belief it WILL be the end of life on earth. the un-survival of anything we know as life.



What kind of naturalistic belief system should people believe in that will keep science "in check"?



Paganism.

Narehusu

Narehusu

Cheshire, OR
July 2008

JUL 16, 2008 01:43 PM

MisterLinguist said:

Narehusu said:

berzerker_barrag said:

i do love science and value science as a useful tool but not kept in check threw a naturalistic belief it WILL be the end of life on earth. the un-survival of anything we know as life.



What kind of naturalistic belief system should people believe in that will keep science "in check"?



Paganism.



What is with your need to post in response to everything without actually ever saying anything?

1st: I wasn't asking you.

2nd: That wouldn't really matter if you had bothered to explain your response.

How do you think it's appropriate/interesting to respond with a one word answer like that?

Actually you know what, I don't want to know

/ignore

MisterInactive

MisterInactive

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 16, 2008 02:09 PM

Narehusu said:

MisterLinguist said:

Narehusu said:

berzerker_barrag said:

i do love science and value science as a useful tool but not kept in check threw a naturalistic belief it WILL be the end of life on earth. the un-survival of anything we know as life.



What kind of naturalistic belief system should people believe in that will keep science "in check"?



Paganism.



What is with your need to post in response to everything without actually ever saying anything?

1st: I wasn't asking you.

2nd: That wouldn't really matter if you had bothered to explain your response.

How do you think it's appropriate/interesting to respond with a one word answer like that?

Actually you know what, I don't want to know

/ignore



Your blood pressure is just unnatural. wink

Minceir

Minceir

Australia
September 2004

JUL 16, 2008 06:04 PM

Christian was coined by the romans, but the truth is christianity is a shadow of the hebrew faith and what Christ and the first to third generation was all about.
they never forced their beliefs on anyone, they never slaughtered or made excuses in all parts they were jewish. which is what the faith is suppose to be. it is about believing in one God. No saints, no trinity, no angels. a lot of what was read in the bible came down from both word of both and ancient txt.
And by the way guys the Norse gods came from the greek pantheon, you really should read up on your mythss and history better and not read comics.

Minceir

Minceir

Australia
September 2004

JUL 16, 2008 06:09 PM

By the way wiccan means wise it is where we get witch, wizard(vizard) and they were the doctors and carers of the sick and beliefs.
Satan comes from the arabic word Shaitan which is not christian or hebrew related.
please research this if you like, as I do and continualy like to keep my mind open.

berzerker_barrag

berzerker_barrag

Clifton Heights, PA
October 2007

JUL 16, 2008 07:50 PM

Accuser said:

MisterLinguist said:

Accuser said:
Linguist- What?



My response to your hyperbolic quandry is that the little girl would cope with the torture and eventually switch sides to that of Loki and Hel, in order to survive.



Well it's not my example, it's the commonly used rebuttal to utilitarianism.

And I don't see how your response answers the question or is relevant.

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive.



This can be fixed with more and better science. Worshiping things has nothing to do with it. Specifically, many of the world's "overpopulation" woes actually stem from a lack of clean water. People are working on solutions for that now, and a few are already out there.

Better application and recycling of resources is the answer to overpopulation, not superstition. I see no reason to think that science will be the end of life on Earth except where its tools are usurped by superstitious fervor. I don't expect I need to give examples of instances or scenarios here, we all have memories and imaginations.

Also, you used the word "naturalistic". I assumed you meant what I refer to as superstition (and, obviously, responded as such), but that's a confusing word choice because someone with a "naturalistic worldview" is someone who does not believe in anything supernatural. Can you clarify?



not superstition at all unless you can call a belief in life itself superstitious. naturalism as i see it and believe it is the appreciation of life and life cycles. this ranges from appreciation of the amazing process that is a living being and its environment to the respect for the power it represents. i will agree that science CAN solve things like food shortage, water shortage, carbon footprint and other ecological fuck ups of the industrial revolution but our technology that has been obtained from science now as it stands will destroy life on earth, and if you go by some theory's such as the radiation still pumping out of Chernobyl will collapse the atmosphere, already has. the problem with science and technology is that its developed mainly for profit

also i do have an open mind to the possibility of things that are perceived as supernatural do possibly exist. weather caused by bad spirits or bacteria disease dose exist and its only a mater of linguistics to weather you call it a microbe or a demon and some of the "rituals" done on people such as the use of leaches or consumption of folk medicine have actually cured people of those "demons" and the ones that didn't work could be viewed as failed experiments. it may not be logical to believe in spirits and ghosts right now (i don't personally)but don't be surprised if research one day explanes these anomalies as well. if you don't believe in the possibility of being wrong you don't believe in the scientific method

Rusty_metal_ass

Rusty_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUL 16, 2008 08:14 PM

berzerker_barrag said:

Accuser said:

MisterLinguist said:

Accuser said:
Linguist- What?



My response to your hyperbolic quandry is that the little girl would cope with the torture and eventually switch sides to that of Loki and Hel, in order to survive.



Well it's not my example, it's the commonly used rebuttal to utilitarianism.

And I don't see how your response answers the question or is relevant.

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive.



This can be fixed with more and better science. Worshiping things has nothing to do with it. Specifically, many of the world's "overpopulation" woes actually stem from a lack of clean water. People are working on solutions for that now, and a few are already out there.

Better application and recycling of resources is the answer to overpopulation, not superstition. I see no reason to think that science will be the end of life on Earth except where its tools are usurped by superstitious fervor. I don't expect I need to give examples of instances or scenarios here, we all have memories and imaginations.

Also, you used the word "naturalistic". I assumed you meant what I refer to as superstition (and, obviously, responded as such), but that's a confusing word choice because someone with a "naturalistic worldview" is someone who does not believe in anything supernatural. Can you clarify?



not superstition at all unless you can call a belief in life itself superstitious. naturalism as i see it and believe it is the appreciation of life and life cycles. this ranges from appreciation of the amazing process that is a living being and its environment to the respect for the power it represents. i will agree that science CAN solve things like food shortage, water shortage, carbon footprint and other ecological fuck ups of the industrial revolution but our technology that has been obtained from science now as it stands will destroy life on earth, and if you go by some theory's such as the radiation still pumping out of Chernobyl will collapse the atmosphere, already has. the problem with science and technology is that its developed mainly for profit

also i do have an open mind to the possibility of things that are perceived as supernatural do possibly exist. weather caused by bad spirits or bacteria disease dose exist and its only a mater of linguistics to weather you call it a microbe or a demon and some of the "rituals" done on people such as the use of leaches or consumption of folk medicine have actually cured people of those "demons" and the ones that didn't work could be viewed as failed experiments. it may not be logical to believe in spirits and ghosts right now (i don't personally)but don't be surprised if research one day explanes these anomalies as well. if you don't believe in the possibility of being wrong you don't believe in the scientific method



Do you believe in grammar, sentence structure, punctuation or spelling? Not trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything, but holy shit that is one rambling incoherent abortion of a post there. Try these 2 easy steps to more coherent posting.


  • Put down bong.
  • Wait 3-4 hours for effects to wear off, grab box of Pop Tarts and glass of milk if necessary
  • Try typing again.



This snarky advice brought to you by the letters M and J and the number 13. wink

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JUL 16, 2008 08:28 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Do you believe in grammar, sentence structure, punctuation or spelling? Not trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything, but holy shit that is one rambling incoherent abortion of a post there. Try these 2 easy steps to more coherent posting.


  • Put down bong.
  • Wait 3-4 hours for effects to wear off, grab box of Pop Tarts and glass of milk if necessary
  • Try typing again.



This snarky advice brought to you by the letters M and J and the number 13. wink


Mmm...Pop Tarts.

-TM

berzerker_barrag

berzerker_barrag

Clifton Heights, PA
October 2007

JUL 16, 2008 09:57 PM

i have a spelling disability. its because i wasn't supposed to be born but some fuck with a scalpel performed a c section. but i apologize for it none the less and hope that despite my lack of grammatical convention you actually red what i wrote

cpkz

cpkz

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUL 17, 2008 01:28 PM

Accuser said:

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive.



This can be fixed with more and better science.



Lots of things COULD fix the overpopulation problem.

I don't believe science is one of them.
Science COULD help increase max sustainable population. For profit, it could. In doing so, science will provide more food, clean water and supplies, and maybe even medicine and drugs to the world.
Whats that going to do for us. Increase max sustainable population.
It's also going to cause fewer deaths. So our population is going to grow more.
And science will have to fix it again.

Science will not fix overpopulation. It'll just cause it more.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUL 17, 2008 01:49 PM

This thread proves that there is no God.

SnakePlissken

SnakePlissken

Corvallis, OR
December 2002

JUL 17, 2008 01:49 PM

Narehusu

Narehusu

Cheshire, OR
July 2008

JUL 17, 2008 02:50 PM

cpkz said:

Accuser said:

overpopulation of humans is at the root of mostly every problem that promises to cause the next mass extinction that the human race may or may not be able to survive.



This can be fixed with more and better science.



Lots of things COULD fix the overpopulation problem.

I don't believe science is one of them.
Science COULD help increase max sustainable population. For profit, it could. In doing so, science will provide more food, clean water and supplies, and maybe even medicine and drugs to the world.
Whats that going to do for us. Increase max sustainable population.
It's also going to cause fewer deaths. So our population is going to grow more.
And science will have to fix it again.

Science will not fix overpopulation. It'll just cause it more.



Science is merely a tool, to be used in a lot of different ways depending on the motives of human beings.

People using science to advance birth control, family planning and provide education and resources to groups that are growing beyond their resources, can help fix the overpopulation problem. If people have healthcare for their children that are living, and women are given the choice to have smaller families (free of religious, culturall pressure to be breeders) then they will have fewer children.

This is happening in all industrialized nations. The populations are actually shrinking (if you don't count emmigration) and there is great concern in the US and in countries like Japan, on who will care for the elderly, as the younger generation is far fewer in numbers and are busy with actual work.

cpkz

cpkz

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUL 17, 2008 03:43 PM

Narehusu said:
This is happening in all industrialized nations.



Science has nothing to do with that.

Its all Society and Nature's fault.

To stop over-breeding, we have to change the society. Religion is a much more direct way of changing society than science is.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 17, 2008 04:24 PM

cpkz said:
Religion is a much more direct way of changing society than science is.


malarky. religion held the western world in the dark ages for centuries; it was only after the dominant religion was seriously challenged that society began to advance again. meanwhile, technology like computer networking has had huge impacts on our society within just a single generation. religion can effect great change on societies in a relatively short timespan, but so can technology--and both are also capable of smothering societies (i would argue that fossil fuel dependence has had a major hand in keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, on a global scale).

Rusty_metal_ass

Rusty_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUL 17, 2008 04:38 PM

cpkz said:

Narehusu said:
This is happening in all industrialized nations.



Science has nothing to do with that.

Its all Society and Nature's fault.

To stop over-breeding, we have to change the society. Religion is a much more direct way of changing society than science is.



Yeah, just wave yer magik wand and *POOOF!* Everything's fixed!! NO effort necessary. Religun is teh awesome!

cpkz

cpkz

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUL 17, 2008 04:41 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

cpkz said:

Narehusu said:
This is happening in all industrialized nations.



Science has nothing to do with that.

Its all Society and Nature's fault.

To stop over-breeding, we have to change the society. Religion is a much more direct way of changing society than science is.



Yeah, just wave yer magik wand and *POOOF!* Everything's fixed!! NO effort necessary. Religun is teh awesome!



zoom image

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

 ... 20

Next