Question about the Christian God

[Meteor]

I'd concede that we're technically accidents (as opposed to deliberately created), but that has to be one of the most ridiculous non sequiturs ever, to say atheists hate themselves for it. Seriously. Where is the connection there?!

[Silvercrow]

Yea, I'm an atheist and while I believe our existence is essentially accidental, that certainly doesn't equate to having some kind of nihilistic feeling that life is meaningless. On the contrary, the fact that the existence of intelligent life is so astronomically improbable only makes me appreciate life more.

[Esau of Isaac]

I wouldn't say that life, and the direction life has taken, is any more accidental than gravity taking hold of a ball when one drops it off a bridge.

[Sophius]

To be quite honest, I don't feel that inteligent life is improbable. Organisms are naturally inclined toward evolution, meaning, that the creation of sentient beings was bound to happen given sufficient time. What I believe is truly improbable, is that the circumstances occured within the universe that allowed the fabrication of such a perfect and well designed eco-system(at least, before mankind rose.)I personally do not believe that the creation mankind was the whim of mere chance, but rather it was the encouragement of an already functioning natural process.

In my opinion, the existence of the sense of taste could signify this. Speaking in terms of survival, taste is used as a means to discern the edibility of food a human may consume, and as means to encourage a human to eat. However the torture that is starvation ii plenty motivation to consume food, and the human taste would not need to be as complex or sensitive as they are to ensure that they function as a survival tool. Therefore it could be concluded human tastebuds exist for human enjoyment. But why would nature, who concerns itself with survival, bother creating function that serves no other purpose than to producee pleasure?

Edited September 4, 2010 by Sophius

[Esau of Isaac]

To be quite honest, I don't feel that inteligent life is improbable. Organisms are naturally inclined toward evolution, meaning, that the creation of sentient beings was bound to happen given sufficient time. What I believe is truly improbable, is that the circumstances occured within the universe that allowed the fabrication of such a perfect and well designed eco-system(at least, before mankind rose.)I personally do not believe that the creation mankind was the whim of mere chance, but rather it was the encouragement of an already functioning natural process.

Did you just say that the world's eco-system is or has ever been perfect?

How do you define perfect?

In my opinion, the existence of the sense of taste could signify this. Speaking in terms of survival, taste is used as a means to discern the edibility of food a human may consume, and as means to encourage a human to eat. However the torture that is starvation ii plenty motivation to consume food, and the human taste would not need to be as complex or sensitive as they are to ensure that they function as a survival tool. Therefore it could be concluded human tastebuds exist for human enjoyment. But why would nature, who concerns itself with survival, bother creating function that serves no other purpose than to producee pleasure?

Taste better allows an organism to identify the material they are chowing down on. Those that are best able to understand what they are eating survive better, since they'll know what tasting foods do what to them.

What, is taste for all mammals made for pleasure? Or just humans?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Did you just say that the world's eco-system is or has ever been perfect?

How do you define perfect?

To be fair, I would say using the word perfect in a description of a climax community would not be absurd.

[Esau of Isaac]

To be fair, I would say using the word perfect in a description of a climax community would not be absurd.

I doubt in even such a situation wherein the term could be applied to the entire planet rather than a single area could perfect still be applicable.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I doubt in even such a situation wherein the term could be applied to the entire planet rather than a single area could perfect still be applicable.

Can't really argue there... 8]

[Sophius]

Did you just say that the world's eco-system is or has ever been perfect?

How do you define perfect?

When I say perfect, I mean to have an ecosystem as complex and intricate as the one on earth and have it still be able to sustain itself even under harsh conditions.

Taste better allows an organism to identify the material they are chowing down on. Those that are best able to understand what they are eating survive better, since they'll know what tasting foods do what to them.

Not nesscesarily. If we were to identify what we should eat by taste, that would mean we would have shove poison into our mouths to know it is poison. Sight, smell, and touch are safer and better ways to identify food than taste.In addition all animal have a built in natural instinct that tells them if something is edible or not(this is how animals know what to eat.) The factor of taste generally provides only enjoyment and not as means of identification. Or did you not know that Amanita Phalloides is said to taste qite good.

What, is taste for all mammals made for pleasure? Or just humans?

Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Sophius

[BK-201]

When I say perfect, I mean to have an ecosystem as complex and intricate as the one on earth and have it still be able to sustain itself even under harsh conditions.

How about sustainable?

Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

Actually, the catfish has about 10x more tastebuds than a human.

[Phoenix Wright]

When I say perfect, I mean to have an ecosystem as complex and intricate as the one on earth and have it still be able to sustain itself even under harsh conditions.

Conditions on Earth are nothing compared to conditions on other planets, as well as exoplanets. The reason that the Earth sustains life at all is because we don't have poor conditions (ie, life will never be seen on Venus).

Not nesscesarily. If we were to identify what we should eat by taste, that would mean we would have shove poison into our mouths to know it is poison. Sight, smell, and touch are safer and better ways to identify food than taste.In addition all animal have a built in natural instinct that tells them if something is edible or not(this is how animals know what to eat.) The factor of taste generally provides only enjoyment and not as means of identification. Or did you not know that Amanita Phalloides is said to taste qite good.

Yeah, that's exactly his point. Taste helps us to better our definition of what we eat. Sight is what we use to identify what it is, taste helps us identify if we'll have it again (like how sharks don't like the taste of human flesh).

Animals don't have a magical instinct that tells them what to eat and what not to eat. Rather, it is through defense mechanisms, such as the poisonous dart frog's bright colors, that warn another animal to not eat them. It is the same with herbivores.

Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

I don't think animals evolve to enjoy food more. For humans, something that tastes disgusting can sometimes lead to stomach aches and whatnot, therefore taste helps you identify a better diet, instead of identifying what makes you feel good. Edited September 6, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

When I say perfect, I mean to have an ecosystem as complex and intricate as the one on earth and have it still be able to sustain itself even under harsh conditions.

If you mean for the ecosystem to stay the same under any conditions, then what you're talking about doesn't exist.

Not nesscesarily. If we were to identify what we should eat by taste, that would mean we would have shove poison into our mouths to know it is poison.

Taste allows us to differentiate between different foods. Rather than needing to rely solely on sight, our tastes allow us to know what is inside the food as well.

Two sets of red berries are on the ground. One is bitter, and not nutritious. One is sweet, and perfect for a growing animal. Rather than having to eat the entire fucking pile, the organism is easily able to pick out the good ones.

Sight, smell, and touch are safer and better ways to identify food than taste.In addition all animal have a built in natural instinct that tells them if something is edible or not(this is how animals know what to eat.)

Right. All animals have that. Which is why if I place an odorless, tasteless poison inside of your food, you'll totally know you're being poisoned.

The factor of taste generally provides only enjoyment and not as means of identification. Or did you not know that Amanita Phalloides is said to taste qite good.

Exceptions are not the rule. Assuming that taste would be perfect as a means of identification is unreasonable.

Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

Are you also going to tell me that humans have the best hearing and smelling, too?

[Sophius]

How about sustainable?

If "perfect" is an inept word to describe our ecosystem, then so is "sustainable." Sustainable implies that a sentient care taker is responsible for upholding the ecosytem. The only race we know capable of doing such a thing is currently raping the earth, not sustaining it.

Conditions on Earth are nothing compared to conditions on other planets, as well as exoplanets. The reason that the Earth sustains life at all is because we don't have poor conditions (ie, life will never be seen on Venus).

What I mean is that it is amazing that the conditions which would allow earth to sustain life and that the conditions that would create such a complex system should also be fulfilled.

Taste allows us to differentiate between different foods. Rather than needing to rely solely on sight, our tastes allow us to know what is inside the food as well.

Two sets of red berries are on the ground. One is bitter, and not nutritious. One is sweet, and perfect for a growing animal. Rather than having to eat the entire fucking pile, the organism is easily able to pick out the good ones

Yes , but the qualities which define the edibility of food are not exculsive to taste. Taste is both a minor and inconsistent means of identification. In other words, it is not nessesary and provides no significant benefits other than pleasure. Also, there are plenty of sweet berries on can eat that would nescesetate a stomach pumping. Meaning, there are enough flaws to make taste identification frequently unyielding. Again, there is no quality in food that is identified soley by taste.

Right. All animals have that. Which is why if I place an odorless, tasteless poison inside of your food, you'll totally know you're being poisoned.

Animals don't have a magical instinct that tells them what to eat and what not to eat. Rather, it is through defense mechanisms, such as the poisonous dart frog's bright colors, that warn another animal to not eat them. It is the same with herbivores.

This instinct is not "magical" as you so woefully misconcieve. All animals instinctively know what is good for them merely by touching them. In other words, the various subconcious avenues of perception infor the animal as to the objects edibility. Teaching humans to get in touch with this instinct is important in native american teachings. And we all know that the native americans are experts at wilderness survvival.

Are you also going to tell me that humans have the best hearing and smelling, too?

You know what I mean.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Sophius

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes , but the qualities which define the edibility of food are not exculsive to taste. Taste is both a minor and inconsistent means of identification. In other words, it is not nessesary and provides no significant benefits other than pleasure.

No matter how many times you repeat this, you're still going to look stupid to everyone else. Because it's silly. Countless species of animals utilize the sense of taste for survival daily.

Also, there are plenty of sweet berries on can eat that would nescesetate a stomach pumping. Meaning, there are enough flaws to make taste identification frequently unyielding. Again, there is no quality in food that is identified soley by taste.

There are exceptions, but that is to be expected in a changing environment. If you expected taste to be a perfect system then you're a moron.

This instinct is not "magical" as you so woefully misconcieve. All animals instinctively know what is good for them merely by touching them.

So if you touched the delicious juice you love so very much that I filled with an odorless, colorless, tasteless poison, you would know instinctively that I am poisoning you?

In other words, the various subconcious avenues of perception infor the animal as to the objects edibility.

Stop trying to seem as though you are intelligent by dressing up your batshit insane beliefs with needlessly complex terms. You're saying animals have a magic ability to detect whether something will kill them if they eat it. You are an idiot for believing this, because gigantic amounts of animals are poisoned on a daily basis through both natural and artificial means without their knowledge at the time.

Teaching humans to get in touch with this instinct is important in native american teachings. And we all know that the native americans are experts at wilderness survvival.

Are dogs also trying to get in touch with the native american voodoo? Because mine was killed as a child because poison was placed in its food bowl by a crazy neighbor. But hey, let's keep going; how about those rats I poison with rodenticide? You know, the ones that are not detectable by the animal's taste and smell?

You know what I mean.

No, I don't. You're saying that humans have the best sense of taste in the world; you are woefully mistaken, and likely believe this to be true based on the false notion that because humanity is the most intelligent species on the planet, it must be the best in every other department as well.

Let's just cut to the chase here; you're attempting to push forward a religious worldview --undeniably Biblical in nature-- when you lack any knowledge of the subject you're attempting to piss all over with your statements. You're making the same mistake that every single other nut does; you are forming a conclusion and farming for facts, not observing facts and forming a conclusion.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

Sophius, Esau pretty much said it but I'd like to point some things out:

This instinct is not "magical" as you so woefully misconcieve. In other words, the various subconcious avenues of perception infor the animal as to the objects edibility. Teaching humans to get in touch with this instinct is important in native american teachings. And we all know that the native americans are experts at wilderness survvival.

I said it wasn't magical. You are still implying that it is. So it is you, not I that is misconceiving nature. :/

That's enough of thesaurus.reference.com for you, brah.

Not anymore they're not, on a general scale. Guess what they mostly do nowadays: run casinos. They don't "become one with nature" too much anymore as YOU so woefully misconceive.

All animals instinctively know what is good for them merely by touching them.

Compare that with this statement by you:

Sight, smell, and touch are safer and better ways to identify food than taste.

Disregard the uninformed opinion.

Notice the contradiction? If your statement above this quote was true, most, if not all, animals would be blind, deaf, tasteless, and anosmic. Most, if not all, animals would solely focus on the sense of touch.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[BK-201]

This instinct is not "magical" as you so woefully misconcieve. All animals instinctively know what is good for them merely by touching them. In other words, the various subconcious avenues of perception infor the animal as to the objects edibility. Teaching humans to get in touch with this instinct is important in native american teachings. And we all know that the native americans are experts at wilderness survvival.

He evidently is not the one trying to pass it off as magical as he specifically said it wasn't magical. Instead, you're evidently the one trying to say that animals have some magic ability to inform them whether or not an object is edible. If that were true, animals could not be exterminated with posion as Esau stated. The native Americans are experts because that's their daily lives. If a certain groups of berries is found to be lethal, then the people who tried it out would die, but the next generation will be aware of the berry's poison. Also, native Americans certainly didn't have animals that poisoned their food, so therefore they could rely on experience.

[Florete]

Here's some more food for thought from the wondrous members of my college.

What do you all think of female ministers/pastors/preachers/etc? According to two of my male friends it is a sin to be a female preacher (yes, both of them are hardcore Christians). One even compared it to rape and murder until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Red Fox of Fire

[Malexis]

Here's some more food for thought from the wondrous members of my college.

What do you all think of female ministers/pastors/preachers/etc? According to two of my male friends it is a sin to be a female preacher (yes, both of them are hardcore Christians). One even compared it to rape and murder until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

Uh, well, I've never had anything against it. I'm a woman, but I was taught that it was a sin... Dunno, didn't seem like God could actually hold it against anyone. My grandfather taught me that, too. I think some religious people are just infinitely more ignorant than other religious people.

[Silvercrow]

Did they give any specific reasons for it (rational or not)? Just saying FEMALE PREACHERS ARE WRONG isn't exactly a good discussion point.

Pretty interesting that people still subscribe to that sort of thing though.

[Dies Mori]

Here's some more food for thought from the wondrous members of my college.

What do you all think of female ministers/pastors/preachers/etc? According to two of my male friends it is a sin to be a female preacher (yes, both of them are hardcore Christians). One even compared it to rape and murder until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

Condoned discrimination. Not that it's any wonder, though, considering that essentially every organised institution still pulls off the same schtick (Muslims with disallowing female preachers themselves, separation of genders in Jewish synagogues, etc).

[Life]

Condoned discrimination. Not that it's any wonder, though, considering that essentially every organised institution still pulls off the same schtick (Muslims with disallowing female preachers themselves, separation of genders in Jewish synagogues, etc).

What's bolded isn't "condoned discrimination". Men and women have different mitzvot to fulfill. For example, only women can light Shabbos candles which welcomes in Shabbat. That's a mitzvah that men can't do.

[Defeatist Elitist]

What's bolded isn't "condoned discrimination". Men and women have different mitzvot to fulfill. For example, only women can light Shabbos candles which welcomes in Shabbat. That's a mitzvah that men can't do.

That is dicrimination. You might not think it is negative, but to say "only women can do this thing" or "only men can do that thing" or both at the same time is discrimination.

[Phoenix Wright]

One even compared it to rape and murder

Wat. This by itself is lol worthy and completely shows they still have primitive opinions. Hearing a woman preach the gospel and comparing it to losing a life is retarded.

until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

"At least she believes in God." Really, that's the only defense a female Christian preacher can have? Edited September 12, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Aleph]

Bleh, the first post irks me because I've seen that so much.

Why give the Christian god so much attention anyway? Sure, Christianity seems to be the religion of the majority at the moment, but it's still just a religion. One of many.

I personally believe any god or gods there may be don't make a lick of sense, like the rest of everything.

Is there a word for "nihilist who enacts utilitarian ideals"? I myself don't make a lick of sense.

Just take from Christianity and anything else you can think of that will benefit people the most and don't mind the rest;

(1:53:34 AM) Hextator:

if life gives you a break you should take it

(1:53:38 AM) Hextator:

it may be "manipulative"

(1:53:42 AM) Hextator:

but you don't just let things get away

(1:53:45 AM) Hextator:

or you're an idiot

(1:53:46 AM) [CrownOfNaga]:

(ryrumeli) If life gives you a break, debug it. XD

Carlos is cute

Anyway, I don't understand pondering religion (or anything really) because I thought the whole point of it was to moralize some people and entertain others.

All of those people who "adhere" to religion so closely that discrimination and other forms of pain arise must be missing the point of it. People who question the validity of it seem to be too.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Obviam

[Meteor]

Here's some more food for thought from the wondrous members of my college.

What do you all think of female ministers/pastors/preachers/etc? According to two of my male friends it is a sin to be a female preacher (yes, both of them are hardcore Christians). One even compared it to rape and murder until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

See 1 Timothy 2:12.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

So it's definitely not allowed by their book if they are preaching to men. I'm not sure where the comparison to rape/murder came from. I do know that according to the Catholic church, ordination of women and pedophilia are equitable offenses; maybe they were talking about that.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Meteor