BBF religious matrix

[billw55]

Anyway. This thread is becoming less and less interesting. It seems that the thining believer has kept his or her belief private, and the contributing believers have managed to produce a whole load of drivel.

Actually I think Fluffy and Codo were doing quite well, far more rational and well spoken than much pro-religious discourse that is often offered, and which eventually arrived in this thread.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, but it does not follow that telling people to be abstinent is the best way to prevent them from getting AIDS. In reality, telling them to use condoms will be much more effective.

 

Correct, and if you're prepared to take a realistic stance rather than a purely dogmatic one, if you spend time in these communities, there are some people who you would know very well are likely to have sex, and you would distribute condoms to them. It is not helped by the fact that some of the African cultures have utterly unrealistic beliefs about what having sex with a virgin does for you, meaning that a lot of innocents are getting infected which a condom might prevent.

 

As to there being no correlation between AIDS and being catholic, I agree. "Catholic values" probably make you less likely to contract AIDS, BUT applying them to people without those values simply because you feel they should have them can be counter productive.

[Vampyr]

As to there being no correlation between AIDS and being catholic, I agree. "Catholic values" probably make you less likely to contract AIDS, BUT applying them to people without those values simply because you feel they should have them can be counter productive.

 

Naturally it may be true that Catholics have fewer sexual partners than people of other or no faith, I would not be as prepared as you seem to be to accept the statement without any corroboration.

 

In any case, not giving advice on other ways besides abstinence to lower the incidence of contracting AIDS is not murder; I would be comfortable with manslaughter or even some sort of death by negligence.

 

If I remember correctly, during the Reagan years no missionaries or health workers receiving government funding were permitted to mention or give out condoms in the service of preventing AIDS.

[PassedOut]

But 32's last post was illuminating. If his life is that grim, perhaps he needs some sort of "higher purpose" or at least an afterlife to keep from going mad.

My reaction also.

 

Constance and I are the makers of three sons. Each knows that I want him eventually to be able to look back with satisfaction on the way he has spent his own time, according to his own ideas and ambitions. Nothing more. Of course their ideas have been shaped some by the years they spent at home discussing matters with Constance and me and observing our actions, but each son has very different skills and interests.

 

It strikes me as utterly incongruous that the "god of the universe" would have the infantile need to be worshipped. I suppose that is tied in with the historical relationships between religions and monarchies.

[PassedOut]

Actually I think Fluffy and Codo were doing quite well, far more rational and well spoken than much pro-religious discourse that is often offered, and which eventually arrived in this thread.

Yes. I disagree with them about god, but neither means to harm me or others via religious aggression. There's no problem with folks believing what they will, so long as they don't wield those beliefs coercively. That goes for non-belief also.

[wyman]

I've tried to explain some of my beliefs, but I reckon that some of my points are weak.

 

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

 

Prisoners' dilemma. We're all better off cooperating, and at least in my corner of the world, people seem to do that.

 

Why I value my life? Vanity and ego, mostly. I only get one go, so I figure I might as well make the best of it.

 

I'm certainly more in tune now with the fact that I should be living in a way that maximizes my own enjoyment (and that of my loved ones, and without impinging on the happiness of others where possible) rather than in a way that conforms to some historical or cultural maxim.

[BunnyGo]

I've tried to explain some of my beliefs, but I reckon that some of my points are weak.

 

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

 

It was at about this stage of questioning the existence of a higher being that I caught up to the early 20th century philosophers and began reading Satre and other existentialists in earnest. When one comes to the decision that we are our own reason for being, and we only have one time through, it can be scary.

 

In the end, I settled with the "only got one time through, better make it a good one" philosophy. That, and I derive pleasure from my own good works--not because some supreme being will judge me well for them, but because good works are their own reward.

[Fluffy]

Yes, I've come to understand enjoying your own life, but the point about not getting rid of my enemies is the one that cost me more.

[Trinidad]

Yes, I've come to understand enjoying your own life, but the point about not getting rid of my enemies is the one that cost me more.

What enemies?

 

The point is that as long as you respect everyone's life and opinions (no matter how silly you think they are) it is hard to make enemies. After all, your enemies will already be fighting with those who don't respect their lives and opinions; they don't have time to be bothered by someone who doesn't bother them.

 

There are plenty of people I don't like, some that I actively dislike, some that have mistreated me (to get better themselves, not personal against me, but I happened to be in the way), but I can't come up with enemies that I would like to act against. Why should I? I just ignore the people that I don't like and enjoy the company of the ones I do like. Having enemies is an incredible waste of time and energy.

 

Rik

[32519]

Generically, the purpose of life is to procreate. [32519 asks: Is that it? Once we’ve done our bit, can we move on? Why then do we use condoms etc? Why do countries like China have a one child policy? What happens when the carrying capacity of the world is exceeded? Eventually it must happen. What happens to those living when it happens?]

So what will happen when the world starts suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect?

 

Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction film starring Charlton Heston which has a look at how things may turn out for those still living when the worlds carrying capacity has been reached. The year? 2022 which is not too far off now? Well worth a watch for all who have been following this thread.

[hrothgar]

So am I to understand from this that life has no purpose at all for non-believers? If this is so, then we human beings are to be pitied more than any other living thing.

 

 

How droll. I find your delusional certainty equally pathetic.

 

Since I already quoted Conan, it seem à propos bring Keats into the picture.

Keats instructed that his grave marker should read "Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water".

 

I bring this up to demonstrate that the ephemeral nature of existence

 

1. Is widely accepted (though far from universal)

2. Can be the creative force behind some great art

 

Personally, I find a lot of inspiration in the fact that mankind can rise above base fears and doesn't need a magical sky fairy to find happiness.

[dwar0123]

Generically, the purpose of life is to procreate.

[32519 asks: Is that it? Once we’ve done our bit, can we move on? Why then do we use condoms etc? Why do countries like China have a one child policy? What happens when the carrying capacity of the world is exceeded? Eventually it must happen. What happens to those living when it happens?]

 

Specifically and ideally the purpose of any individual life is what ever they want it to be.

[32519 asks: What if you are unable to reach what you want it to be? Does that mean your life has been a failure? Does death end it all?]

 

For you that is to glorify God

(32519 said: “And you” – see below).

A god who apparently created a 13.7 Billion year old Universe with 100 Billion galaxies sprinkled across the visible Universe that spans a mere 93 billion lightyears. Each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars. And which thanks to Kepler we now reasonable suspect that the planets out number the stars. Yet the God capable of this and so much more, needs you to glorify him

(32519 said: That is the very reason why you and I and everyone else exists; for the invisible God to become visible in us, the very reason for creation).

 

When I say the purpose of life is to procreate, I mean life in the most generic sense. The plants, the animals, the birds and the bees as it were. It might be better to say the purpose of life is to live but it is more salacious and less of a tautology to say procreate. It would be very foolish for mankind to allow itself to overpopulate the Earth, but it might also be inevitable. It remains to be seen if mankind is capable of curbing this basic purpose, but if any species can, it is man.

 

For me, one of the things that separate man from all other living things is that we are capable of giving purpose to our lives and yes if you fail to achieve your goals you failed to achieve your goals and death does end it all. Fortunately we are not bound by the goals of our youth and are free to change them as we age. No one achieves all their goals and no one here has failed to achieve any. For those that have lived a long life, their life will be filled with many successes. Many failures too, as to be expected, but lets celebrate the successes instead of dwelling on the failures.

[Fluffy]

What enemies?

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36665-crazy-neighbour-cuts-down-my-internet/

[Cyberyeti]

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36665-crazy-neighbour-cuts-down-my-internet/

You got lucky, water company went through my cable with a mechanical digger, required a partial road closure to fix, that took 6 weeks.

[Fluffy]

I trust the water company doesn't throw garbage to your garden every few days since.

[Cyberyeti]

I trust the water company doesn't throw garbage to your garden every few days since.

I always presumed that was the local drunks, but might have been the water company :)

[Trinidad]

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...

He already applied his chain saw to your hand!?!

 

I agree that would tick me off... but since he is crazy, it wouldn't make him my enemy. But it would make me look for another place to live.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

Yes, that's what I did, sadly my father couldn't do it yet.

 

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

 

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

[Vampyr]

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

 

Isn't the latter kind of a babyish reason?

 

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics.

 

And yet, they do, don't they. Kindness, compassion and personal integrity are more relevant to many people than a reward and punishment scheme.

 

 

I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

 

So do you have some evidence that non-believers do more "bad" things than believers? I suspect that the opposite is true. You keep trying to demonise non-believers because they don't have Daddy to keep them in check, rather than recognising that maybe they have outgrown this idea and have internalised the values that are important to them.

 

Even your god, I think, probably does not give much weight to good acts that are done (or bad acts that are avoided) largely to receive a reward/escape punishment.

[hrothgar]

Yes, that's what I did, sadly my father couldn't do it yet.

 

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

 

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics.

 

Because our parents raised us right?

 

Not believing in god is not the same as not having morals.

[squealydan]

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

 

You seriously can't see how someone might want to treat other with respect and fairness simply because it is the right thing to do?

 

Surely the reason you behave well towards other people isn't solely because you think you'll one day have to answer to your god for it? What about answering to your friends and family for your actions? What about the simple recognition that the world will be a much better place if everyone treats each other nicely?

[Trinidad]

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

I think this is a question for social anthropologists or similar types of people, but here is the answer from a beta-scientist:

 

The vast majority of people on this planet are good people. They mean well, and though they make a lot of mistakes, they try their best to be social and kind human beings.

 

The reason for that is that they have learned, from experience, that if you are not a social and kind human being, you will be thrown out of "society". This may come in many forms: It may mean that you go to jail, that you lose your friends, or that people aren't interested in your posts on BBF. Being thrown out of society is a very, I mean very strong unpleasant feeling. And if you go too far, it may endanger your life. It isn't easy to function in this society all by yourself.

 

Through evolution we have the instinct to survive. Being evil (as you call it) endangers your chance to survive. Therefore people try to behave.

 

So why is there still evil in the world?

 

In some individual cases, this survival balance doesn't work. This is obvious for sociopaths: They don't feel that they are endangering their survival probabilities. In other cases, "evil" pops up to increase short term survival chances (e.g. looting after a disaster. When faced with the choice to loot or let you and your family die, few people would chose to die.). And in some cases, the societal correction mechanisms fail, just because someone is so revered that he can't be touched.

Group behavior can be another mechanism: In the short term, it can be very advantageous to do evil to a member of a different group. Think of soccer hooligans. "Look at how he taught them a lesson!".

 

All in all, the short answer why people follow ethics is: because evolution tells them to.

 

And, BTW, this is a very powerful reason why people are religious (or non-religious): If everyone is, you 'ld better be that too, or you will be hurting your chances.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

oh for gods shake, I am not claiming anything, I am simply asking. And I clearly stated that god is an aditional supply for doing the right thing, not the only one, and in my case not the main one.

 

I sometimes think some guys feel attacked and inmediatelly missinterpret text to defend.

[Fluffy]

Because our parents raised us right?

So you think people who (for example)... steal money from public funds weren't raised right?

 

People don't need to be in mortal peril to do something "wrong", I know that believing in god helps me (personally) not to even evaluate "bad things" in advantages/disadvantages way, so if I don't even think seriously on them I won't commit them. But obviously some believers do horrible things (and probably lie to themselves finding a way to justify it in god's eyes), so nothing can be said for believers or not believers.

[Vampyr]

oh for gods shake, I am not claiming anything, I am simply asking.

I know that believing in god helps me (personally) not to even evaluate "bad things" in advantages/disadvantages way, so if I don't even think seriously on them I won't commit them.

 

Do you not see that asking in itself can be offensive? And do you really think that non-believers evaluate "bad things" in terms of potential advantage, and then (sometimes at least) reject them?

 

And I clearly stated that god is an aditional supply for doing the right thing, not the only one, and in my case not the main one.

 

If god is not the main motivator for you, then why are you asking? Your main reasons are probably the same as those who don't share your beliefs. (But if you cannot understand moral/ethical behaviour without god, then he/she is not only the main motivator but in fact the only one).

 

I think that people who are raised as believers fall into two broad categories: Those who believe what they have been taught without doubting or questioning all their lives, and those who (usually in their teens or young adulthood) evaluate their beliefs, think, struggle, pray, and eventually emerge with beliefs (or lack thereof) that really mean something to them; that they recognise as true, and know why.

 

People in the second group have usually got past immature arguments such as "Athiests have no moral basis for good behaviour and therefore are free to commit all sorts of evil acts".