U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-27-2012, 12:52 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 2,747,811 times
Reputation: 3318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Oh now I understand. Of course, it is false.

Really? Coinsidering that ALL lifeforms on the planet reproduce, and live lives that are centered around reproduction and/or rearing of offspring, how is it a false statement that the "primary goal/purpose for all life is to reproduce/bear offspring"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,114,454 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
'Do you agree that there is at least one purpose in life - reproduction?'
The more I think about it, the stranger that question gets.

What if I believe that there are one or more purposes in life, but that reproduction is not one of those purposes. Should I answer Yes or No?

Wouldn't it be easier to ask, "Do you agree reproduction is a purpose of life?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,114,454 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Really? Coinsidering that ALL lifeforms on the planet reproduce
Even though Barney Frank is engaged to be married, I doubt he plans to reproduce. He qualifies as a lifeform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 01:36 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 2,747,811 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Even though Barney Frank is engaged to be married, I doubt he plans to reproduce. He qualifies as a lifeform.
And yet he is biologically evolved to reproduce. Homosexuals have a sex drive like the rest of us, and that sex drive is there to support the biologically evolved function of reproducing, whether or not the individual actually desires to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 579,497 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
This is an English-speaking forum. When people say empirical on this sub-forum they are generally referring to it in the scientific context, not whatever context you are using it in. Empirical data is that which can be verified or disproven by observation.

Exactly! That is a word that can have no other meaning.
Their gods the ancients described as empirical ideas. They were living alongside the gods, they were having lunch with them, they were making love to them and you can say that our ancestors were psychos for imagining such things but you cannot deny that they described their gods in the same way they described whatever it was they observed.

Do not expect to find in dictionaries a distinction between the meanings of the terms “god” and “deity” because if they stated that gods were thought to be observable they would have to offer some explanation and they cannot do that because once they start with explanations there would be no way to stop explaining, until everything was explained and that would have been very bad for religion.
Suppose. Just suppose that they were consenting to the fact that the ancients used the name “gods” for a group of people they were living with. You will ask “What happened to these people named gods?” There is only one answer to this question: “They ascended to the heavens!” Will you stop asking questions after that? You will not!
If they would havwe kept answering your questions, all religion’s strong holds would have fallen one after another leaving religion bare and ridiculed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
And what is your alternate hypothesis? Since people believe in magic deities right now, I don't find it difficult to believe that ancient peoples also believed in their deites.

The alternate hypothesis is not mine. It has been recorded and can be found in the ancient texts. The ancient people did not believe that the God made man out of clay, they say that gods were fashioning people naturally, by raping some women called “Mother-wombs.” It is now that people believe in magic deities.
Men were feeding and clothing the gods!

The following is from the book “Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia” by Jeremy Black and Antony Green:

The widespread Mesopotamian idea of man having been created to act as the servant of the gods meant that it was considered necessary to feed and cloth the gods constantly and to make them presents. Among these various sorts of offering, the term “sacrifice” refers especially to the killing of an animal. Exactly the same foods and drinks were offered to the gods as were consumed by humans, with perhaps more emphasis on the luxury items: frequent fresh meat, fish, cream, honey, cakes and the best sorts of beer. Incense and aromatic woods were burned before them (their statues are meant), as they might be at a human banquet. These sacrifices and offerings took two forms: the “regular” offerings, offered at meal times daily throughout the year (just as daily services are performed in a Christian church); and the special occasional offerings made at festivals which might be monthly or annual occurrences. Clothing was also offered.

How do you persuade people to offer food and clothing for immaterial deities?

P.S. Sorry, no time to discuss angels now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 03:54 PM
 
39,091 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
The more I think about it, the stranger that question gets.

What if I believe that there are one or more purposes in life, but that reproduction is not one of those purposes. Should I answer Yes or No?

Wouldn't it be easier to ask, "Do you agree reproduction is a purpose of life?"
If you don't take reproduction as a purpose in life, then 'No' would be the answer.

The way you rephrase it is good enough. One might answer 'It is the only purpose nature has for us. All others are the purposes that are meaningful to humanity but perhaps not to nature.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Greenbelt, MD
8,964 posts, read 6,500,939 times
Reputation: 44349
I NEVER have doubts. I used to be a believer so I have seen both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:57 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 10,938,562 times
Reputation: 3547
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango View Post
Exactly! That is a word that can have no other meaning.
Their gods the ancients described as empirical ideas. They were living alongside the gods, they were having lunch with them, they were making love to them and you can say that our ancestors were psychos for imagining such things but you cannot deny that they described their gods in the same way they described whatever it was they observed.
Once again - empirical data is that which can be verified or disproven by observation. There is no way to verify or disprove that ancient Greeks were having lunch and sex and whatever else with supernatural beings. Supernatural beings are not empirical concepts, they are supernatural concepts.

Quote:
Do not expect to find in dictionaries a distinction between the meanings of the terms “god” and “deity”

There is no distinction, these are synonyms.

Quote:
because if they stated that gods were thought to be observable they would have to offer some explanation and they cannot do that because once they start with explanations there would be no way to stop explaining, until everything was explained and that would have been very bad for religion.

So what are you claiming here, that deities are deities but gods are people? And even if I was to accept that for the sake of argument, what does it have to do with atheists and whether we ever have doubts?

Quote:
Suppose. Just suppose that they were consenting to the fact that the ancients used the name “gods” for a group of people they were living with.

Once again - if the gods of ancient mythology were just people, why are they described as having supernatural powers?

Quote:
You will ask “What happened to these people named gods?”

Uh, no, I asked a different question, see above. If they were just people, then clearly what happened to them is that they died.

Quote:
There is only one answer to this question: “They ascended to the heavens!”

Obviously, there is more than one answer to the question as shown in my response. This particular answer is only satisfying to people who believe in deities. To those of that don't, it's a typical side-stepping non-answer.

Quote:
Will you stop asking questions after that? You will not!

This much is true. I've been asking difficult questions of theists since I was a small child and I see no reason to stop now.

Quote:
If they would havwe kept answering your questions, all religion’s strong holds would have fallen one after another leaving religion bare and ridiculed.

And that would be bad why? The ridiculousness of religion should be laid bare for all to see.

Quote:
The alternate hypothesis is not mine. It has been recorded and can be found in the ancient texts. The ancient people did not believe that the God made man out of clay, they say that gods were fashioning people naturally, by raping some women called “Mother-wombs.” It is now that people believe in magic deities.
Quote:
Men were feeding and clothing the gods!

The following is from the book “Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia” by Jeremy Black and Antony Green:

The widespread Mesopotamian idea of man having been created to act as the servant of the gods meant that it was considered necessary to feed and cloth the gods constantly and to make them presents. Among these various sorts of offering, the term “sacrifice” refers especially to the killing of an animal. Exactly the same foods and drinks were offered to the gods as were consumed by humans, with perhaps more emphasis on the luxury items: frequent fresh meat, fish, cream, honey, cakes and the best sorts of beer. Incense and aromatic woods were burned before them (their statues are meant), as they might be at a human banquet. These sacrifices and offerings took two forms: the “regular” offerings, offered at meal times daily throughout the year (just as daily services are performed in a Christian church); and the special occasional offerings made at festivals which might be monthly or annual occurrences. Clothing was also offered.

How do you persuade people to offer food and clothing for immaterial deities?
The same way you persuade them to do anything for immaterial deities. You tell them stories about how this is necessary because it is written, or because your grandpa told you it was necessary for a good harvest, or whatever. Ignorant people are gullible. People who never learn to reason will instead react from emotion and can be manipulated with fear, just like the hell-threats in more modern religions.

Quote:
P.S. Sorry, no time to discuss angels now.

LOL, well you are the one who brought up angels. I still don't see how any of this relates to the OP and I am running out of patience for going round and round with you. Get to the point or start a thread on whatever idea it is that you are trying to convey.

Last edited by tilli; 01-28-2012 at 06:10 AM.. Reason: added thought
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 579,497 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
Get to the point or start a thread on whatever idea it is that you are trying to convey.
OK. I’ll do that and let you know by pm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 08:27 AM
 
16,598 posts, read 14,078,554 times
Reputation: 20562
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
And yet he is biologically evolved to reproduce. Homosexuals have a sex drive like the rest of us, and that sex drive is there to support the biologically evolved function of reproducing, whether or not the individual actually desires to do so.
Actually I would argue more for the selfish gene than individual.

Meaning all species have evolved to see their genes passed on, but not necessarily by THEM (even though for most species and individuals that is the case).

The passing on of shared genes also explains a lot of "social altruisms", like meer kats sacrificing themselves to save offspring of their relatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top