Worldwide celebration of Christ's resurrection.

[Grumpy Santa]

Despite my negative opinions about organized religion, I think it would be a detriment to culture if religion was removed entirely. What a boring world it would be if everyone had exactly the same outlook.

I think religion certainly needs neutering on certain fronts. Its involvement with politics for one. And we need to move past sectarian violence etc. But once we reach that point I see no reason to "go the extra mile" and rid the world of religion completely.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I disagree a bit... I don't think it would be boring or that everyone would have the same outlook. What I think we'd have is a system that no longer has groups teaching kids things that are patently false and go against all the scientific understandings of reality. Everyone should be taught to think at least somewhat scientifically. Then we wouldn't have things like creationists trying to stuff bullshit into our schools. We ultimately wouldn't have things like anti-vaxxers, moon-landing-hoaxers, flat-earthers, etc.

If our kids, from their very earliest comprehensive years, were only taught things that we know are true (or at least pretty sure...) as well as being taught empathy for all (we know genetically, for example, that "races" are only slight tweaks in our DNA, less than different tribes of chimps have for example), then how could it be a detriment to culture?

 

[Laurens]

I disagree a bit... I don't think it would be boring or that everyone would have the same outlook. What I think we'd have is a system that no longer has groups teaching kids things that are patently false and go against all the scientific understandings of reality. Everyone should be taught to think at least somewhat scientifically. Then we wouldn't have things like creationists trying to stuff bullshit into our schools. We ultimately wouldn't have things like anti-vaxxers, moon-landing-hoaxers, flat-earthers, etc.

If our kids, from their very earliest comprehensive years, were only taught things that we know are true (or at least pretty sure...) as well as being taught empathy for all (we know genetically, for example, that "races" are only slight tweaks in our DNA, less than different tribes of chimps have for example), then how could it be a detriment to culture?

I totally agree that scientific literacy is very important and we should do all we can to combat psuedoscience via our education system.

But still scientific literacy is a step or two away from eradication of religion. Sure people might naturally become less religious because of their increased scientific literacy, but religion would mostly just adapt to being more accepting of science. I can live with that. Getting rid of religion just seems like a waste of energy to me. I'd rather focus on eliminating inequality, hatred, poverty and so forth.

 

[Steelmage99]

But still scientific literacy is a step or two away from eradication of religion.

I believe that is only the case because religion is seen as belonging to a special category of convictions, as opposed to all others - be they political, social or other.

Religion has seemingly attained the status of a big acceptable case of special pleading.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Despite my negative opinions about organized religion, I think it would be a detriment to culture if religion was removed entirely. What a boring world it would be if everyone had exactly the same outlook.

I disagree a bit... I don't think it would be boring or that everyone would have the same outlook. What I think we'd have is a system that no longer has groups teaching kids things that are patently false and go against all the scientific understandings of reality. Everyone should be taught to think at least somewhat scientifically. Then we wouldn't have things like creationists trying to stuff bullshit into our schools. We ultimately wouldn't have things like anti-vaxxers, moon-landing-hoaxers, flat-earthers, etc.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "outlook" because I am not sure what is meant by it.

To clarify, I live in an area of North America that is considerably unreligious and from my generation to those that came after even less so. Yet despite our unreligiosity, we have a variety of political, social and artistic opinions.
So does that mean we have different outlooks? If not, what is meant by outlook?

 

[thenexttodie]

Never read the bible. Any "principles" I identify, if they're similar to something in the bible, are purely coincidental.

Well lets start with sexually. Every Atheist on this forum will agree that it is good to pretend boys are girls. Right?

Only in the same sense that every Christian agree that it is good to torture people.

Do you find the above statement overly simplistic and that it misrepresents the opinions of a lot of people?.

No. It is good to put murderers to death in a painful and scary manner. Burning them alive for instance.

Keep in mind that every objection you can possibly present in opposition to my statement, I can use in opposition to yours.

Be honest, how many little boys are alive today that you think should be dressed up and treated like girls? Millions? Give us your best estimate.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Never read the bible. Any "principles" I identify, if they're similar to something in the bible, are purely coincidental.

Well lets start with sexually. Every Atheist on this forum will agree that it is good to pretend boys are girls. Right?

Only in the same sense that every Christian agree that it is good to torture people.

Do you find the above statement overly simplistic and that it misrepresents the opinions of a lot of people?.

No. It is good to put murderers to death in a painful and scary manner. Burning them alive for instance.

Keep in mind that every objection you can possibly present in opposition to my statement, I can use in opposition to yours.

Be honest, how many little boys are alive today that you think should be dressed up and treated like girls? Millions? Give us your best estimate.

Next, have you been drinking? Your posts this evening are especially... off.

 

[australopithecus]

Well lets start with sexually. Every Atheist on this forum will agree that it is good to pretend boys are girls. Right?

You really want a time out, don't you?

 

[Gnug215]

Well lets start with sexually. Every Atheist on this forum will agree that it is good to pretend boys are girls. Right?

You really want a time out, don't you?

That's actually what I initially though, but reading it again, if this is meant to be some kind of bait or provocation, it's... just so lame and pathetic.

I started out annoyed, but then just became sad on his behalf.

I mean, can you imagine being a person who actually writes something like this? How emotionally, psychologically, heck, even spiritually stunted and underdeveloped would you have to be?

Watching theists grapple with various "advanced" psychological concepts, such as sexuality, is almost endearing - in the way watching my 2-year-old daughter strulling her way up the stairs is endearing - until you realize that these people are adults... on paper at least.

It's just such a confusing experience to see them trying to launch zingers and gotchas over on our side, because all it ever does is paint themselves in a horrible, cringe-inducing, sad light.

And I would be a lot more entertained if it weren't so bloody sad.

 

[Laurens]

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "outlook" because I am not sure what is meant by it.

To clarify, I live in an area of North America that is considerably unreligious and from my generation to those that came after even less so. Yet despite our unreligiosity, we have a variety of political, social and artistic opinions.
So does that mean we have different outlooks? If not, what is meant by outlook?

I suppose by outlook I just mean the synthesis of opinions and ideas that form the world view of an individual.

Atheists differ mostly on the social and political viewpoints, but tend largely to agree on the materialist/scientific world view.

My point would be that regardless of truth some world views are interesting and worth having around, if not only for the sake of reaffirming what our own views are. Some of the best discussions I've had are with people whom I fundamentally disagree with, so long as there is a mutual open mindedness a lot can be learned. I wouldn't want a world where that potential was vastly reduced.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[thenexttodie]

Atheists differ mostly on the social and political viewpoints.

My point is that there is no Atheists who would disagree with the idea that we should pretend men are women. For example, when a man dresses up like a women and tells everyone he's a women we should pretend he's a woman and let him use the womens restroom and play womens sports ect and address him as women.

Do you not support this idea?

 

[Laurens]

Atheists differ mostly on the social and political viewpoints.

My point is that there is no Atheists who would disagree with the idea that we should pretend men are women. For example, when a man dresses up like a women and tells everyone he's a women we should pretend he's a woman and let him use the womens restroom and play womens sports ect and address him as women.

Do you not support this idea?

I think people should have the liberty to live our their lives as they feel comfortable, so long as that doesn't impinge upon or harm anyone else.

I don't see how homophobia or transphobia constitute legitimate harms or concerns that would give people a right to demand who goes in what bathroom.

I know for a fact that there are atheists who would disagree.




Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Atheists differ mostly on the social and political viewpoints.

My point is that there is no Atheists who would disagree with the idea that we should pretend men are women. For example, when a man dresses up like a women and tells everyone he's a women we should pretend he's a woman and let him use the womens restroom and play womens sports ect and address him as women.

Do you not support this idea?

I think you're confusing transvestites and transgenders.

They are not the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

I think you're confusing transvestites and transgenders.

They are not the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you Dragan Glas. Now I know everything.

 

[thenexttodie]

Atheists differ mostly on the social and political viewpoints.

My point is that there is no Atheists who would disagree with the idea that we should pretend men are women. For example, when a man dresses up like a women and tells everyone he's a women we should pretend he's a woman and let him use the womens restroom and play womens sports ect and address him as women.

Do you not support this idea?

I think people should have the liberty to live our their lives as they feel comfortable, so long as that doesn't impinge upon..

Impinge upon who?

I don't see how homophobia or transphobia constitute legitimate harms or concerns that would give people a right to demand who goes in what bathroom.

Right, your ideas about sexually demand we should pretend men are women and visa versa.

I know for a fact that there are atheists who would disagree.

Well there's none on this forum. Unless they are to scared to admit it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As you seem to not know and/or understand about sexuality, thenexttodie, perhaps I should explain it to you.

Biologically, there are four sexes: male, female, intersex (where a individual is born with both male and female genitalia), and asexual (where a individual is born without any discernible genitalia).

In terms of sexual orientation, there are - again - four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, and asexual (where the individual, despite having genitalia, is psychologically incapable of experiencing sexual arousal).

There are two genders: male and female.

This gives, at least, 32 categories into which any human may be placed.

I say "at least" because it's theoretically possible that there are two other genders - androgyne (where a individual may perceive theirself as simultaneously male and female), and neuter (where a individual perceives theirself as without gender).

As far as I know, there's no evidence for either of the latter, though there are those who say they're androgynous - or, at least, live their lives as such - when pressed, they tend to identify as marginally either male or female.

I trust that that clarifies some of the misconceptions under which you appear to be labouring.

Kindestt regards,

James

 

[leroy]

I think people should have the liberty to live our their lives as they feel comfortable, so long as that doesn't impinge upon or harm anyone else.

I

what do you mean with anyone else?


I am assuming that you mean other humans, but why setting the barrier at that level ? ...........what if you live your own life as you feel conformable and you harm other primates, or other mammals, or other vertebrates, or other animals, or other living things ?

 

[Steelmage99]

Greetings,

As you seem to not know and/or understand about sexuality, thenexttodie, perhaps I should explain it to you.

Biologically, there are four sexes: male, female, intersex (where a individual is born with both male and female genitalia), and asexual (where a individual is born without any discernible genitalia).

In terms of sexual orientation, there are - again - four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, and asexual (where the individual, despite having genitalia, is psychologically incapable of experiencing sexual arousal).

There are two genders: male and female.

This gives, at least, 32 categories into which any human may be placed.

I say "at least" because it's theoretically possible that there are two other genders - androgyne (where a individual may perceive theirself as simultaneously male and female), and neuter (where a individual perceives theirself as without gender).

As far as I know, there's no evidence for either of the latter, though there are those who say they're androgynous - or, at least, live their lives as such - when pressed, they tend to identify as marginally either male or female.

I trust that that clarifies some of the misconceptions under which you appear to be labouring.

Kindestt regards,

James

I have a somewhat different understanding.

A somewhat simplified overview - to get the conversation going - would be;


Biological sex: Male and Female.

Gender Identity: Male, Female, Non-gendered, Both-gendered, Fluid (add to taste. I will happily identify you any way you want
)

Sexual orientation: Go ahead. Swing for the fences. Whatever gets your rocks off. Only limited by law and consensus.

 

[Steelmage99]

I think people should have the liberty to live our their lives as they feel comfortable, so long as that doesn't impinge upon or harm anyone else.

I

what do you mean with anyone else?


I am assuming that you mean other humans, but why setting the barrier at that level ? ...........what if you live your own life as you feel conformable and you harm other primates, or other mammals, or other vertebrates, or other animals, or other living things ?

I think you are making a decent point here, leroy.

The impingement and harm issue should apply, at least in a limited sense, to animals and other living things as well.

 

[leroy]

I think you are making a decent point here, leroy.

The impingement and harm issue should apply, at least in a limited sense, to animals and other living things as well.

but why in a limited sense? why are humans more important than animals, plants or bacteria?


should we kill 10 wolves just to save a single human being? .............if yes..............why?

and what if this single human is an old man, that consumes more products and services than what he produces?.............(his net contribution to society is negative).........would you change your answer?


my point is why are you putting humans in a special category, as if humans where different from other animals in a meaningful way? the question was originally for Laurens, but others are free to answer,

 

[Visaki]

but why in a limited sense? why are humans more important than animals, plants or bacteria?

Yes. My answer is, of course, subjective based on my own ethical values. Then again what do you mean with "important"?An alien race visiting Earth and feeling it is important to preserve the diversity of nature on this planet might have a different answer.

should we kill 10 wolves just to save a single human being? .............if yes..............why?

Generally, yes. Because I value a human more than 10 wolves. If that person is someone with the personality of Ted Bundy (or God) et al then I'll reconsider. Would you kill 10 wolves to save Jesus? If no, why? If yes would you kill all the wolves to save Jesus, or would have some limit on how many wolves would you kill to save Jesus?

and what if this single human is an old man, that consumes more products and services than what he produces?.............(his net contribution to society is negative).........would you change your answer?

No. I also reject your idea that an individuals contribution to society is limited to his consumption and production of products and services.

my point is why are you putting humans in a special category, as if humans where different from other animals in a meaningful way? the question was originally for Laurens, but others are free to answer,

Because I, naturally I think, empathize more with other members of my species than other mammals, other animals, other eucaryotes, plants, bacteria, rocks, planets or stars. It's the same reason why I care more about what happens to my family and friends than some random person in New Zealand. And the same reason why I have no problem killing a chili plant, but a big problem killing a cheetah. We empathize more with things that are more similar to us, things we know personally.

Also humans are different from other animals in many meaningful ways. That is kinda self evident from the title Homo sapiens. But remember that there are many ways to be meaningful.