Re: Religions
 

The North Pole is real...Midgets are real....reindeer are real....there are plenty of fatass people who are old and have huge white beards. And who doesn't like milk and cookies.

I think Santa is pretty probable, all things considered. :p

Re: Religions
 

Santa Claus: The world's favourite Canadian... Or Russian. I'm not sure. Both countries colours are primarily red, and the gift-giving can be seen as general Canadian niceness, or horrible Soviet Communism.

Re: Religions
 

Re: Religions
 

What's your primary exposure to religion? The southern evangelicals? I think that may be skewing your view of religious people a bit (understandably so I might add).

Re: Religions
 

My family is religious, but not overly so. I've never even been to church a day in my life.

They just believe in a god - for me that's enough to cross the line into strangeness. That someone could believe that, with not a shred of evidence. It's just so obviously a fairy tale to me - written by people for other people.

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

Re: Religions
 

NEVER compare religion to Santa Claus.. I did that once many years ago.. turned out well.

Re: Religions
 

It's a combination of evolution, tradition, family, and politics. Religion is ingrained in so many aspects of our society.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Unfortunately, most of the good wisdom is ignored. I'm pretty sure God hates Republicans (AND TO DISCOURAGE AN UNNECESSARY POLITICAL DISCUSSION, he hates Democrats too :p).

Jesus was a hippy who hung out with prostitutes and blind people and preached the New Testament. He was more about giving your stuff to the poor and asking for forgiveness...which is kind of just saying "genuinely love your neighbor and God and good things will come to you."

Re: Religions
 

Jesus asked people to be charitable with their own wealth, to CHOOSE to give to others. He never asked them to take from A to give to B, and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Back on topic: Now that the discussion has degraded into calling believers "stupid", I'll jump in.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".

Now either of these may be true, but there is no evidence for either of them. They are guesses. Statements made out of belief, and not fact. Feel free to choose your religion, atheistic or theistic, but no one should pretend that they know more or are smarter than anyone else simply because they choose to not believe in the "spaghetti monster". You simply choose to believe in something else, but in the end, it's just faith... same as the most devout Baptist.

Re: Religions
 

Not disagreeing because I don't know, but I would like to see an actual source for that.

Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

Re: Religions
 

No, it's really, really not the same. I don't believe in anything. I don't pretend to know the origin of life, but I think I remember reading back in high school about how scientists had conducted experiments using electricity in a box with similar atmospheric conditions to Earth, and small microorganisms formed.

If that's true, then isn't it extraordinarily more probable that life got it's start that way, as opposed to some all-powerful, omniscient being that no one has even a shred of evidence of willing life into existence?

And even if that isn't true and I'm remembering incorrectly, it doesn't change the fact that all religions were created by man, for man. They are a guess, but have no basis in fact. Science does. That is the difference. One is from someone's imagination, the other based on observations.

If one religion or another does turn out to be right, I'll eat my hat, because they just won the cosmic lottery in a most epic fashion.


-----

EDIT: Sorry Teuth, didn't see your post. Looks like I was remembering right.

Re: Religions
 

Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

I see that they created primordial goo (amino acids), but I fail to see the part where life was created. In fact, experiments have been done where every amino acid needed for life have been put together in ideal conditions with favorable stimulus and nothing has happened. No life created. In the end, we are left with assumptions and the only possibility not being considered is a supreme being. IMO, to believe that the results of the experiments noted in that article = life being created is a leap of "faith" if I've ever heard one.

Again, we see mountains being made out of molehills. The ability to recreate the components of life does not = spontaneous formation of life. Science is about observation and proof, not conclusions based on assumptions that may be correct or incorrect.

I think this is caused by noble cause corruption. People feel the need to prove to everyone that God does not exist, so they extend their argument beyond the boundaries of science in order to "free the ignorant masses". In the end, its things like this that reinforce my belief that most atheists are "true-believers" and not nearly as rational as they think they are. If they were, they would be agnostic.

Re: Religions
 

In terms of probabilities, I believe both come out to about nil. Note: Spontaneous creation of life is not absolute zero, but the chances are so remote it is considered a virtual impossibility. I believe the probability is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. To give some context, there is a far greater chance of observing every known atom in the universe than of life spontaneously erupting. (since you can't statistically measure the God equation I'll give Him an absolute zero). The best part of all of this? The most common argument against the probability dismissal is that the creation of true life is NOT RANDOM. So, the defense of abiogenesis is order, or one might say, design?

So we are left with the point of my post: You pick your belief, and I'll pick mine. But one zero doesn't get to be obnoxiously condescending to another zero. They are equal in terms of probability.

Re: Religions
 

I linked that because you said it was statistically impossible. Which it is not. Imagine you have all the ingredients to make a cake. You still need to figure out the right proportion, what to mix with what and when, and even if you somehow manage to get all that right, you need to set it at the exact temperature for the correct about of time. Now think of creating life as infinitely harder and with far more variables, all of what we don't know. Life isn't like making a pie.

To make the jump to a supreme being for anything that can't be explained is the laziest course of action possible.

Re: Religions
 

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

Re: Religions
 

Like I said before, I'm not claiming to know how life on Earth got started.

You are - you are putting forth a hypothesis that there is a supreme being who created everything, but you don't have any evidence, at all, for this.

Also, this question has been asked a million times before, but if a supreme being did create life, then that just begs the question as to how that supreme being was formed.

Either it was created by another supreme being (who created that one?) or it spontaneously sprung into being. And if that life could spontaneously form, why couldn't life on Earth?

Re: Religions
 

You're asking us to prove a negative - it isn't possible. So I guess you win this argument by default?

Re: Religions
 

Heh, going to refer to god as the Baker from now on. The holy trinity of the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick-maker :)


I do find it your shift in perspective to be interesting. I mapped out my logic behind an afterlife previously in this thread. There's enough proof for me to believe life started without a guiding hand. Especially when you consider the sheer size of the universe and the number of planets within it. A freak accident like life is bound to happen. I can't wrap my mind around what existed before the big bang though. Even if this universe is the offshoot of another, where did that one come from? Or if everything was condensed and the universe is cyclical in nature of expanding and contracting, there has to be a starting point. So if I was to give the plausibility of a god to anything it would be that. But then where did that god come from?

But really, why would a supreme being who created all of everything, make one-celled organisms on this planet? Given this discussion, I'm assuming you don't believe all the creatures on Earth were magicked into existence like the really religious types do.

Re: Religions
 

It's funny to think that anyone can "win" this argument. My goal isn't to convince you that God exists and that He created the universe, even though your goal is to convince me that he doesn't and didn't.

Here are my goals:

1) To encourage those that don't believe in God to be honest about the scientific arguments against his existence. Stretching science beyond it's boundaries does not disprove anything, and only hurts science.

2) To make non-believers realize that disbelief in God is a belief, not a fact. Facts must be proven, correct? I'm willing to admit my belief in God is a belief, and not a fact. Can you admit that nonexistence of God is a unproven belief, and not a fact?

3) Combining goals 1 and 3, to encourage atheists to drop the condescending attitudes and superiority complexes. Atheists have one belief amongst many. No need to act like assholes every time God or religion is mentioned.

Overall, I think everyone should be open to the possibility that God is real; not to accept Him, just to be open that he might just exist (I lived in this spiritual limbo for years). An open mind never hurt anyone.

Re: Religions
 

You made that one too easy for me. But I think a baker is a decent analogy.

Probably because I am a deist, and not tied to religion or dogma. In many ways, my belief in God is based in reason. Without a definite answer to everything, and the failure of atheist evangelists like Richard Dawkins to adequately make their case (often betraying themselves when they try), I still have this underlying belief in my chest that there is a God, so I choose to follow that belief.

Good questions, but I doubt I have answers. My belief is that God gave the components and the spark, but then let the engine run on its own, but this isn't a strong belief. Hard to say, but I love trying to find the answer.

As for evolution, I definitely think evolution in a species exists, and there is a strong chance that evolution between species takes place, but I'm not convinced of that. There are a lot of holes in Darwinism that need to be worked out. I'm not anti-Darwin, but I'm also not a blindly devout Darwinist like Richard Dawkins.

My biggest problem with people like Dawkins are that they are so devout in their faith that they lose their objectivity, and at that point they cease to be scientists, and become evangelists. Essentially, he is everything he says he hates, just the perspective is reversed.

Re: Religions
 

Haaaa, that was good, I liked that.

Theres a funny show on netflix called "Animals that Defy Evolution". Its about some scientist guy who believed in evolution but then saw the light and now is trying to disprove it with stuff that doesnt make any sense. Hes things like, if theres a giraffe sitting there and it sees a zebra, hes just gonna chill, but if it sees a lion it runs away. Evolution didnt tell it to run away, god gave it the ability to distinguish between predators and other animals. And if god didnt make whales right on the spot like they are, theres no way it would have survived through evolution. Hes pretty much says that if god didnt make every animal it would have died.

Re: Religions
 

I only ever hear the term "Darwinism" from folks who question evolution, equating it to a belief with Darwin as a prophet of sorts. Dawkins is a bit of a dick. I'll give you that.

Ah, I've heard about him. His doctorate is in dentistry.

Re: Religions
 

Not to farm back 18 (or whatever) posts, but that's not entirely accurate.


I'll try break this down simply. I don't mean that as an insult, I just meant so it's as easy as possible for everyone to understand - and to try not to sidetrack myself.

I watched a show on the probable origins of life in the Universe a while back, and it made amazingly valid, and exceptional points.

They found elements of organic material on asteroids floating through space, meaning that asteroid impact can be a very likely cause of life. Not just on Earth, but everywhere. Asteroids are like the seed bags of life, and planets are the Earth for it to grow in.

Now that leaves the question of "well why isn't life everywhere, then?"
Maybe life isn't possible everywhere, but the possibility for life is everywhere, and life just happens to be a statistical inevitability of circumstance. (Sort of like Mold! Mold won't grow on every loaf of bread you have that goes bad, but if you give mold the conditions to grow, it always will.)

If you go dig in the middle of the Gobi desert, you might not find a plant, or even any traces of plants - but there are sure as shit plants on Earth, despite the fact you might not have found any in the 50 feet where you're standing in the Gobi desert.

Just because one may scatter seeds everywhere on the ground, doesn't mean the ground will be littered with plants; but just because there aren't any plants doesn't mean there aren't any seeds. You dig?


Edit:

But what if the ingredients for that cake were floating in space under their own power, and came together randomly, over billions of years to form a cake? a cake can't bake on it's own, you say?

What if the materials for the cake's oven were also spontaneously formed after billions of years of random coincidences, and inside of that oven a cake also formed. The oven then cooks the cake.

Now, I can see how the cake would say "How the fuck did I get here? I'm just a cake. I wasn't anything before, but now I am a delicious treat. How did I come out of billions of years of nothingness?"

See, the cake can't comprehend the reality of being a cake, because it is simply only a cake. In the cake's mind, the oven always was. The oven created the cake. But in reality the oven was also spontaneously formed after billions of years of perfect scenarios.
It doesn't understand that billions of years of swirling gasses and pressure can have nearly limitless possibilities.

Now, you might think "Wow, it's amazing that an oven was formed by simply gas, pressure and billions of years. And it's even more amazing that a cake was formed inside of that oven."

It might seemed far fetched to you, pastry-lover. "Why aren't there more cakes, then?" you might say.
Well since the spontaneous oven/cake was a series of perfect events, take the lack of other cakes as the sheer mindboggling fraction of a chance that came together for that one cake to form in the first place.

--------
While I try to be spiritual, I don't believe in creationism. By no means does that diminish the amazing happenings to take place for simply me to be here. I believe in the power of man. To give in to a higher power in the sense of creationism; I feel, diminishes the intelligence and sheer capability of man.

I like religion because it gives people piece of mind, and teaches good values. The one reason I don't like "religion" is because it holds people back from learning about the Universe. This is the struggle I always have.

I always think, if religious people are so sure there is a God, what's the harm in being knowledgable about the Universe. Surely he must have created everything, so what's the harm in studying more of his creations? Astronomers don't study planets and deep space to say "Nope, still haven't seen the face of God", so in that sense I don't understand the medieval divide that still remains between the two.


if anything I'm thrown off that religion suddenly ceased changing it's tone. Religions typically changed to encompass new understandings. World was flat, etc. But somewhere along the line, as massive un-repairable rip happened between learning about the stars, and believing in God. At one time, they were the exact same thing. Until somewhere along the line one person said "Hey, I'm afraid you won't find a God up there, don't look there." and someone else said "Hey buddy, I just want to know what shape the world is."

Re: Religions
 

By Darwinism I am referring to those that have full faith in Darwin's theory without exception. You can believe in evolution without taking everything Darwin believed as fact. I believe in evolution, but I am not a Darwinist.

And Typhoid, I appreciate the discussion, but I'm not sure your contribution addressed my points. The statistical impossibility of life originating spontaneously still exists whether from a meteor or on planet or the result co-mingling ingredients of a celestial pastry.

Re: Religions
 

My point was more that it's nearly impossible for humans to comprehend things beyond our lifetime. We're finite creatures trying to comprehend infinite possibilities.

I'll try prove what I'm saying a lot simpler.


How did your parents meet?
Did they live in the same city?
Did their parents move from separate cities to meet in 1 singular location, on one specific chance-happening?

Now go back further, what about your grandparents? Possibly they came from overseas.
Not to mention you were the winning sperm, and so was every other living person. That in itself is an amazing accomplishment for every living person. You fought for your right to exist before you even knew it.

Now let's just say one of your great grandparents didn't get on that boat, or your mom didn't go to that McDonald's that day and meet your dad - how different things would be for you - You wouldn't exist. Granted, you wouldn't know about it. But in going back 100+ years, there have already been an amazing amount of spontaneous coincidences for simply you to be alive. Now what about every other person who has ever existed. Now what about every single living thing that has ever existed. Now think about the specific location of every single planet, and floating body in space. If one of them is even a millionth of a fraction off (of say a collision, for example), billions of years down the line everything might be entirely different.


Now, it's a hell of a lot easier to say "wow, that sounds amazingly impossible. Someone must have controlled all of that", than it is to say "Wow. Imagine how insanely minute of a chance my sole existence is even going back only 100 years."




Edit:
*Places tongue in cheek*

What you (Not you, you) have to grasp to really understand it, is that humans aren't important. Life isn't about us. We're simply animals. We can just comprehend that, is all. A lot of us aren't okay with being animals - that we're better than they are. And in a lot of human-viewed ways we totally are. But in the grand sceme of the Universe we're just an organism on a small blue planet floating around an insignificant star among a throng of other suns on a non-descript arm of a galaxy just like countless others.

But I digress... :lolz:

Re: Religions
 

On an off topic I wish we could go back and review some of the old religion threads we had several years back. I just remember some of the stuff we talked about then, and see how much we have all learned and grown since.

Anyway, I kind of agree with Prof here.

Either way, life as a whole, is a wonderful thing. However it happened, it did.

I stopped trying to figure it out, or trying to disprove a higher power. I rarely ever discuss it either, but will with people who generally aren't closed in their beliefs.

I just enjoy people who are constantly questioning. At the end of the day you can't know for certain, science or anyone really. Which is why death is the next great adventure they say. I hope that's true :D

Re: Religions
 

Wow, this thread exploded.
I would encourage you to read and/or listen to Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Both are Oxford professors and extremely distinguished in their fields. Both are also Christian apologists (people who defend Christianity on a rational basis), in the same vein of G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis.

My intention is by no means to persuade or convert you, but rather to show you the best of the other side. I'd be happy to link you to a few specific lectures as well.

Re: Religions
 

I'm totally stressing over finals and papers due, but I want to take just a quick moment to thank God for all he has done for me. Even in my perpetual stupidity, he has been merciful. All of the scripturally loaded words I have to praise Him with are understandably antagonistic given the nature of an open discussion about religion, but I feel at this moment I want to share the transformative influence that humbly approaching my creator has enacted in my life. My attitude towards life's obstacles has not been proactively beneficial in a lot of cases, but in this moment, reflecting on my blessings(appropriate time of year) I find that as always, the entirety of my felt joy is derived solely from His love.
His love is evident everywhere, and I really appreciate the people in my life who have demonstrated this actualization. Praise God! I find myself stepping back from institutionalized apathy and remembering that religion is completely an individual experience, and only real when the matters of self are replaced by a more acute understanding of collective needs.

It's disgraceful to recollect how I have neglected people who aren't of my immediate family and close friends. Even the closest people to me I have betrayed through lack of empathy. Part of it has to do with accepting and loving myself for who I am. Whether altruistic actions, in this light, can remain definitively unselfish, is irrelevant to me considering I can perceive an emotional and spiritual need in my community. Thank God for bringing clarity back into my life! Whether or not gases collapsing in univeral grandeur as the form of life's origin is the case, I know through my own experience that there is an omniscient creator who's love for creation superscedes the intercessory doubt that I have nurtured through personal and communal neglect.
God is love. We praise Him for his inalienable nature, and look past the stunted interpretations of people who's influence tends to eclipse the vast examples of his goodness.

Thank you all for your insights on this thread's topic.

Re: Religions
 

Alright, going to ask a question here that I've always wanted answered, but was too afraid of conflict to ask a religious person I know in real life.

Why do you think god has chosen to be merciful and assist you in your life? Why you, a relatively privileged person living in a first world country with access to opportunity, food, and education? Why does he spend time helping you, while he seemingly ignores the masses of children around the world who literally starve to death, probably the most painful death imaginable?

I'm just really curious as to how this gets rationalized.

Re: Religions
 

That's like asking what is good without evil, what is life without death, or what is beautiful without ugly. The fact is, as long as you're alive you have something to be thankful for. Just because our society has access to more perks then another one doesn't mean that god hasn't been merciful to the other society relative to some other circumstance.

And yeah, obviously there's a bottom of the barrel, but I think that is not having experienced life to begin with. We should be happy to be in a position where we can bless other people and excersize that power.

Re: Religions
 

When I was living in Thailand this question was pressing.
In the Bible, evil is identified repeatedly, and regularly defined as having no regard for the poor.
In some ways I feel that by simple passivity, the extreme poverty that is rampant in much of the world, is in part my doing, and consequently my responsibility.

Matthew 25:31 talks about this concept of those blessed with ability(whatever their's is) and those who are in trouble, and need help. The people gifted disproportionately are expected to not show contempt for the poor and needy.
Jesus said in verse 35, 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

He identifies these acts of goodness as the dividing 'behaviour' which will bring one close to God and eventual relief from the pains(it is painful to share in the misery of others) of this world.
Freedom of choice right? If a few greedy men extort a nation, or an economic class, it is their right as free individuals to exercise contempt for others, for their own gain.
The book of Matthew basically recounts Jesus' admonition of what we could presently identify as bloated religious 'saints', outwardly demonstrating reverant iconography and pious pretension, who perform actions through vanity as opposed to respect and love for God. Verse 40, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inas much as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

I don't have control over others, just the personal control that through living rightly, I can influence positively. The fact that sin is in the world, and enough people with too much material wealth tend to exploit the situation of vulnerable masses, is addressed as being part of the temporal experience that sin as brought about on this planet. I believe the actions of everyone on this planet are universal testaments to the goodness of God, whether people are blinded by sin or uplifted through their submition to divine love. It is a choice after all and we are free to exercise.
The gospel books are powerful literature. I love how God becomes approachable throughout my stressful days, if I take a bit of time and devote it to open mindedly reading the Bible and praising Him. Through acknowledgement of His power I can testify to a change in my character and the way I interact with others.

Re: Religions
 

Eh, neither one of you are really answering my question.

I'm an atheist, and I'm also a very thankful person. I'm thankful for my family, for my friends, for my relative wealth, for my fiance, for my cat. I'm a very fortunate person, relative to others.

The point is that I'm not thankful to anyone in particular - I'm just in general thankful to have what I have, and to have been as fortunate as I have been. I'm kind to others and I donate to charity, so in that sense I'm using some of what I have to help others. All while being an atheist and not bringing a god into the equation.

I'm asking specifically, why do you thank god for what you have. Why do you think he expended his power to help you, but not use it to feed someone who is starving?

In a similar thought, most religious people say that praying to god helps to heal their loved ones who are sick. If that's true, why is god only capable of healing things that modern medicine is already capable of? For example, I've never seen or heard of anyone having their limbs regrow. However, if some experimental procedure were to be developed that had say, a 10% chance of regrowing someone's limbs, I'm sure religious people would start praying, and when it worked they would thank god.

Also, I see sporting events all the time where a player will have a great game and his or her team will win. At the end, they usually thank god.

How do they justify believing that god helped them win a football game, but he isn't saving starving people?

These kinds of religious people confuse me way more than deist like Professor S. While I think his belief in something where this no proof is quite strange, I think he views god more as a force of nature than a benevolent father figure.

Re: Religions
 

I'll sort of add to Vamp's question, because this - too is something I've wanted to ask (it's practically the exact same thing, but I just can't ask my religious family, they're family after all).


I want to know how you cope with the idea that you pray to the God to heal your family that he made sick in the first place. Do you really believe God to be so fickle? If God made them sick, and God makes them healthy, why pray in the first place. It seems to me that God acts entirely randomly - kid on an anthill. Praying didn't stop the sickness from coming, and countless times praying hasn't healed anyone. In fact, everything people typically pray for is the result of God doing something terrible to their lives/to them/to a loved one. Unless you pray every night against every single disease you currently don't have in order to ensure you won't wake up tomorrow as a leper with polio and a sore throat.

And if God has a plan for everyone, and things are pre-determined (Destiny and all that), sin isn't really a big deal, is it? If life is pre-determined it was God's plan for those people to sin - or else they would have never sinned in the first place.

Life cannot be pre-determined if you have a choice, and if life is pre-determined, nothing you actually decide is a 'choice', it has all already been chosen for you by God.

Re: Religions
 

I know why my cynical response is going to be...

I'm gonna see if I can find some journals that might support the observation.

Re: Religions
 

I have a question too that you all can ponder while I ponder my previous comment.

Are all humans evil?

Let me expand. I have a fascination with serial killers and people with whacked out perceptions of reality. You might think that someone like John Wayne Gacy, who killed and raped 33 teenage boys is probably going to burn in Hell. After all...killing and raping 33 boys seems to go against one or two of the Ten Commandments. But, upon further analysis, we see some interesting things. For starters, John Wayne Gacy has serious brain damage. This is of the genetic variety, and is completely out of his control. This type of brain damage predispositions certain people to have strong antisocial tendencies. It's actually been shown in a number of studies that certain types of latent brain development in the Frontal Cortex is associated with behavior problems. Frontal Brain development happens last, and up until 25 years of age. That's why Teenagers act like dumbass fuckwits and adults have better behavior on average.

So, Gacy had a volatile brain chemistry to start with. Gacy's dad was also an alcoholic and abusive father. So he abused and beat Gacy. Now, it turns out when you have a ticking time bomb brain, being violently abused during childhood can trigger the "right stuff" to make you an antisocial serial killer. This in fact has been studied quite well. Google "serial killer brain studies" if you don't believe me.So all of a sudden, Gacy, this horrible serial killer...is just an unlucky soul who had the wrong brain type and got abused at a young age. I can empathize with him. How many religious folks are going to empathize with Gacy? That doesn't matter. That's a trick question. My real question is:

Does God empathize with Gacy?

Even if Gacy was an Atheist, didn't ask for forgiveness, and killed a bunch of people...he was basically dealt a fucked up biological hand from day one, and was placed into a fucked up living situation. This is no different than asking what happens to stillborn babies or children born with rare genetic defects who die at an early age. Or someone with down syndrome who will never comprehend religion, Original Sin, or forgiveness. Gacy is an extreme example. But you could argue that people who break the very moral codes outlined by the 10 Commandments are in fact not acting out on their own behalf.

Someone is going to chime in and say, "Gacy could have controlled his urges." And that type of judgmental statement typically shows a lack of empathy. It would be frowned upon in the professional Psychology, Psychiatric, and Medical field. To some degree we need to either decide that all humans are inherently evil - hence, Original Sin. Or the brain is like a car engine. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't: but it is always a product of the environment that it operates in.

I think there are profound implications in conversations and questions like these. There is also a "pushing people under the rug" mentality - even in fields like Psychology. From a moral standpoint: what do you do with a child molester or a serial killer? You can certainly extend some empathy towards them...but you cannot necessarily rehabilitate them. And again, I wonder...does Gacy go to Hell for being dealt a fucked hand? Did God deal him that fucked hand? Is he just a loophole to make us question faith? He certainly doesn't fit into the notion or concept of Original Sin, and free will, and choosing your own adventure in life.

I honestly have no answer to this. But the notion of Heaven and Hell bothers me. The notion the God might not be empathetic is concerning to me. Maybe he is extremely empathetic: maybe Gacy will be in the same part of heaven with all the stillborn babies and kids with early deaths.

Does anyone know how to address this answer from a religious standpoint? And please don't say something lame like "God has a plan."

I'm already a Level 14 Catholic Church-Goer.

edit: People don't have a lot of empathy towards child molesters or serial killers. I don't blame them. But I wonder if some of this lack of empathy is associated with strong Religious views or beliefs. Again...I feel like this might be worth looking into some research. I'm giving away too much, but this empathy stuff kind of ties into my previous comment.

double edit: there is a butt-load of empirical evidence and studies that basically prove the choices we make are the result of biological predispositions, and behavior experiences. This is called Epigenetics, and is the emerging popular thread in new Biology research. Some people develop in a way that they can make choices which fit the "moral constructs." Some people do not develop this way. It seems rational to extend empathy to the latter group knowing that your brain and behavior are really a product of your environment. Knowing these facts strongly challenges "free will," "Original Sin," "Judgement," and "Heaven and Hell." Is God a cool cat with lots of empathy, or the judgmental character as written in the Bible...?

Re: Religions
 

I'm not sure how you'd like me to answer this question differently.

-Do you believe that having food would still be a blessing if it was readily available to everyone all the time?
-Do you think that being alive would be a blessing if people didn't die?
-Do you think that winning a football game would be a blessing if people didn't lose?

It's all about perception. If you're alive and/or got the chance to live, it's a blessing relative to never being born or dead. What you get above and beyond that is what you make of it. The people born into bad situations where they starve to death are and should be humbling, but at the same time.. if that's all they know, maybe they feel blessed by different things for different reasons that we take for granted.

Re: Religions
 

Let me further expand again.

We need to make a philosophical distinction right away: Are there intrinsic and natural "morals." Assuming, hypothetically, there in no religion, no God, no divinity: are there natural moral rules?

I would argue yes. Life is intrinsic to living things. Therefore, killing a living thing compromises the natural right to life.

Let's assume that killing is morally objectionable and should be taken seriously. Let's also ignore killing for food and war. Remember, this is hypothetical.

I strongly oppose the 10 Commandments because they do not stand up to the empirical weight that humans do not have free will. Let me say outright, most people have a set of instilled rational beliefs, and "know" better than to act against them. People who fit into "normal" social constructs don't kill other people. Now, there are mounds and mounds of empirical evidence that suggest that "normal" people have a set of genetic predispositions and behavior predispositions. Odds are most people here don't have Gacy's brain damage. Odds are most people here weren't abused in such a way that has caused them to feel the need, or actually act on the urge to kill another human being.

Now, some of us have had sex, stolen, done drugs, or done other things that question the 10 Commandments. But I feel like this is more of a reflection on the aging church policies. None of us here have killed people (ignoring food and war), and I would attribute that to normal social-psycho upbringings.

Time after time, empirical after empirical after empirical study has shown that people do not control their choices outside of their "normal" sense of perception. Heroin addicts cannot control their addiction without tons of support, medication, and help. Food acts cannot control eating. People with anxiety or schizophrenia cannot put a lens of "normal" perception over their own skewed view. And even using the phrase "skewed view" makes me judgmental. Psychology and medicine has a holistic and humanistic philosophy, and has had that view for a long time. Psychology isn't about treating someone, it is about making their life comfortable. If you have anxiety, but live a comfortable life: then you are not abnormal. We would define "abnormal" as disruptive to daily functioning and healthy living. And even that is a tough philosophical point in medicine.

The brain in a pure sense is a clean slate. We add genetics into the equation and the brain now has certain characteristics that will influence development. You add behavior and those behaviors influence the outcome of the individual. My own behaviors, perceptions, and experiences are the result of my genetics, and the experiences I have had in my life. If you changed just a few external stimuli or experiences, I may never have been the video game loving person I am today. If you change a few experiences and stimuli, John Wayne Gacy may not have raped and killed 33 teenagers.

The point is, I reject the traditional notion of free will for the sound empirical reality which is that we are largely not in control of our behaviors. I would argue by extension: my decision to fit into society's "normal moral construct" and not kill people is the result of a fairly normal upbringing. There are "standards" and "practices" to develop normal humans. There is a sensitive window to learn language, for example. We send children to school. We tell parents not to rape or abuse their kids. We try to control for behavior; so much so we would punish a parent molesting their child, because it goes against the "normal construct" we have established in society. Some parents who do a perfect job raising their child still have issues: maybe it is genetics, maybe it is external stimuli or experiences from another source. The point is, it is something.

I don't make the choice to not kill people because I have some sort of moral compass. I make the choice not to kill people because I have a complex view and understanding, as imparted on me from other people, my upbringing, my genetic backdrop, and everything else that I have experienced up until this point.

I don't believe you could honestly hold someone to 10 Commandments unless you were a judgmental, non-loving, non-empathetic God. Understanding what we know about development and the brain today, we can see that many people make the choices they make due to their environmental circumstances. And when I say "environmental circumstances," I refer to the Epigenetic realization that your brain and YOU are made up of experiences and neural paths.

To place judgement on someone who was abused, or is genetically susceptible to eating too much sugar or using heroin, is just shallow and uneducated.

On a slightly related note, I feel like there is either a lack of empathy in posts in this thread...or a deflection of empathy. Forwarding would-be-empathy to religion doesn't help make the world a better place.

Re: Religions
 

Basically, a human brain is a box of legos.

Through thousands of years of evolution and social interaction, humans have a set of instructions that are ideal.

Ideally, you build a lego brain so that it doesn't kill people, molest children, or whatever.

Sometimes, genetics throws you a curve ball and you don't have enough legos to make a brain that perceives the same world we do where killing is wrong.

Sometimes, the person building the lego brain does a very poor job and doesn't follow the instructions.

Both situations often result in a lego brain with a "distorted perception" compared to the "normal perception" we all follow. When that lego brain rapes and kills 33 boys, causes the Holocaust, or whatever:

Does that brain go to Hell?

If you answer yes, there might be a good chance your God lacks empathy and understanding.


Edit: A final disclaimer to avoid confusion.

I don't empathize with the monster that John Wayne Gacy became. The man who raped and killed kids? I can't empathize with that monster. I'm empathetic to Gacy, the human, who was abused as a child and had the unfortunate set of genetic traits that crippled his brain. I'm empathetic and feel VERY SORRY about the entire situation. I literally feel emotionally sick when I think about his victims. It's a tragedy that his father, the alcoholic and abuser, was also likely abused. It's a horrible situation all around, with no winners. My view, which I find is shared and common with some of the most decent people I have ever met, may or may not align with the Biblical view. Which is why I raise this issue.

Re: Religions
 

We aren't talking about the same things. I think you think I'm saying no one should ever be sad because there is always someone more sad, and no one should be happy because there is always someone more happy.

I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about tiers of happiness.

I'm saying that there is hunger in the world, and that people die from it. I don't think you're fully comprehending how painful that would be - to starve to death. And it happens. Maybe these people feel blessed for some things, but I doubt the children who die this way do. I know when I was a child I never really stopped to think "wow, I'm really blessed."

I'm just saying that these atrocious things happen, and there is no god in any of it - at least not a kind god. Then you have these religious people in first world countries who talk about how god has entered their lives and made their lives better.

Now THAT is a matter of perspective. Their lives are good because they lived in a developed nation and had good opportunities, not because of an act of god. Why do they give credit to him, when it's easy to see that it's just the natural entropy of the universe, that some people are very lucky and some are very unlucky?


@KG: yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. I don't think it was directed at me, probably more at Typhoid, but yeah.

Re: Religions
 

Let's talk about the lego box. There is a very sensitive window in early childhood development where children can learn social behaviors and language. If you miss that window, the kid is absolutely fucked. The reason is that the neural networks (remember...the brain develops til 25, but the bulk of the development happens EARLIER rather than LATER) slow their development.



The genetics that are in place to allow humans to learn language and social interactions so easily is the result of evolution. It's crazy fucking stuff, but it is also totally awesome.

These same principles apply to other areas of development. If you abuse a young child? They grow up to have problems. If you smoke during pregnancy? You cause genetic damage which results in development issues.

To assert that a Feral Child has any free will or "Original Sin" or anything like that...well...I don't know. Can someone enlighten me?

Re: Religions
 

I understand what you're saying, but I for one would rather be born and die from starvation then to not have lived at all. Life is a gift. Your original question was asking how it's rationalized, and I'm telling you how it is rationalized.

For example... I hate to use myself as an example, but my little brother died form cancer at the age of 2. Do I think it's unfair/sad that he never got the chance to live a normal life? Of course I do. If I could go back in time and stop him from existing so he wouldn't have to deal with the cancer? NO.

Even though he had a short life he blessed a lot of people and brought our family back together. He helped me put my own life into perspective at an early age, and appriciate the time that I do have here because it's not promised. Even if you're born in te NA or Africa, you aren't promised a longer life or a less painful death at all. Nor are you promised a happier life.

That's why there are wealthy people out there killing themselves, and poor people loving life.

So yes, when I see a poor person that I can help, I help them. When I see people dying from starvation, it makes me upset. But at the same time, it makes me remember how blessed I am to even be here and have the chance to experience life. I could have died just as quick or quicker then anyone who ever lived.

The less fortunate should create humility for you. People aren't at church going "Thank God that I have a better life then a few billion people", It's more like "Thank you for letting me be here and giving my this gift of life, because I didn't have to be here and didn't have to have this gift."

Then we can get into prayer, which is basically wishing well for other people that you can't help, and thanking god for what you have already recieved. You can pray for yourself to succeed at something, or to make it through something, but my personal preference is to wish the best for others. Usually if I'm praying for myself, I'm praying to have a good outlook regardless of how things turn out, and I leave things in God's hands.

See now I'm just preaching to GT. lol

I gotta go get my haircut.

KG Typhoid, I'm not ignoring you guys, just too much to read. I'ma have more time to look tonight.