God? Don't be silly!

[DaGaffer]

Heh, if evolution can be so amazing as to create the world we live in and our bodies don't you think it would have sussed out living longer?

Why? As mammals we've evolved to live just long enough to breed and nuture the next generation so they're ready to breed; other species don't even last that long. Longevity is a byproduct of intelligence (e.g. we can repair and maintain ourselves in a way other species can't), and intelligence is a byproduct of a social defence strategy for a group of not particularly strong, not particularly fast omnivores.

You're making the mistake of assuming we're somehow the end product of a process; all we are is a vessel for carrying and passing on genes (and there's evidence to show that genes are just vessels for carrying and passing on very old viruses); all man's works are just a fringe benefit for keeping us comfy while we do that.

 

[DaGaffer]

Accounts of accidents written by multiple parties can read very differently. It doesn't mean that the event is made up, but people always write from their own perspective.

Please don't just tell me there are contradictions, tell me what they are or, tbh, they don't exist. I know you won't accept my take on the apparent contradictions but don't do me the disservice of not even offering examples.

According to Christian tradition the Gospel of John was the last one to be written and it is supposedly filling in the gaps from the other accounts. You do realise that there is an extant version of the Gospel of John dated to around the year 100?

The small matter of "salvation" in the first three gospels is centred on good works, humble life etc. in John its about belief in Jesus as the son of God; a pretty big distinction.

Then there are the tons of factual differences (length of ministry, location of ministry etc etc that just directly contradict each other).

For people who claim to have the intellectual and moral high ground and such a dim view of "superstition" you get mightily worked up about that "superstition". Revelation is written in symbolic language, there isn't much teaching in there that could upset anyone -- unless you have problems with Jesus criticising the 1st century congregations for how they imitated his life?

And I can't see what would be so upsetting to anyone in the book of Romans, it deals with issues of sin and salvation.

Because Revelations is the cornerstone of all the worst "ooh you're all going to hell" crap in the bible, and Romans because that's where we get the delightful concept of original sin (NOT in Genesis as everyone assumes) and 2000 years of catholic beating up on women.

 

[Yoni]

Please explain to the simplistic of us why this debate continues... you can not prove the existence nor can you prove the lack of an existence in my opinion therefore the continued tooing and froing will go on for an eternity...

live and let live..

 

[nath]

Please explain to the simplistic of us why this debate continues... you can not prove the existence nor can you prove the lack of an existence in my opinion therefore the continued tooing and froing will go on for an eternity...

live and let live..

I don't see why it's a difficult thing to grasp - people enjoy discussing it, there doesn't necessarily need to be a "win" at the end of the discussion.

 

[Yoni]

Nothing wrong with it but don't you think this debate is becoming just a little long in the tooth?

 

[nath]

Nothing wrong with it but don't you think this debate is becoming just a little long in the tooth?

Not at all, it's awfully long but it's moved away from rehashing the same old points.

 

[mr.Blacky]

live and let live..

what and turn the other cheek? :kissit: nah thats too biblical (or how ever you spell it)

 

[Panda On Smack]

You're making the mistake of assuming we're somehow the end product of a process; all we are is a vessel for carrying and passing on genes (and there's evidence to show that genes are just vessels for carrying and passing on very old viruses); all man's works are just a fringe benefit for keeping us comfy while we do that.

I've made a mistake?

From your view and opinion perhaps I have but that assumes you are correct? I'm not saying you are or aren't, each to their own but can we avoid assuming that everything we say is correct please.

What I was trying to say is that don't you think we should live longer? Isn't it sad we do die so quickly?

 

[Calaen]

I don't think it's sad that we live such a short amount of time.

What people need to realise is that we should all endeavour to enjoy our time and try and have a positive impact on the other people that we meet along the way.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What people need to realise is that we should all endeavour to enjoy our time and try and have a positive impact on the other people that we meet along the way.

Been away from the discussion a while, but this caught my eye;

Why?

Why should we care when we're doing back to the dustbin?

I can accept people caring right now how others feel, as it effects directly your life, but after you're dead, it's not going to matter now is it?

And the rest of those people, in the grand scale of things, are heading for that same dustbin, so why even try to make the effect positive, instead of having as much fun as you can?

 

[DaGaffer]

I've made a mistake?

From your view and opinion perhaps I have but that assumes you are correct? I'm not saying you are or aren't, each to their own but can we avoid assuming that everything we say is correct please.

What I was trying to say is that don't you think we should live longer? Isn't it sad we do die so quickly?

Yes, from a coldly logical perspective, you've made a mistake. Just because you don't like to hear it, doesn't make it any less true (that's another mistake, that all opinions are equally valid).

What I wish for is irrelevant; what I was explaining was the reason why human lifespan is what it is, from a genetic perspective, which is what you criticised; "Heh, if evolution can be so amazing as to create the world we live in and our bodies don't you think it would have sussed out living longer?". Genetics wouldn't "suss out" living longer, because there's no genetic requirement for it. Do I want to live longer? Of course, provided I can do it in a young and healthy body, and I'd be quite happy for science to give me that option. It has massive cultural, economic and environmental implications though.

 

[Calaen]

Been away from the discussion a while, but this caught my eye;

Why?

Why should we care when we're doing back to the dustbin?

I can accept people caring right now how others feel, as it effects directly your life, but after you're dead, it's not going to matter now is it?

And the rest of those people, in the grand scale of things, are heading for that same dustbin, so why even try to make the effect positive, instead of having as much fun as you can?

You make it sound like you can't have fun and have a positive impact on peoples lives. Or you are suggesting that having fun means you have to be a prick for your time spent alive.

As for everyone ending up in a dustbin that's all well and good but we all live on in the lives of others after we have died whether good or bad. If me being nice and helpful has an effect on others they will pass it on. If I was a rapist and destroyed peoples lives my actions would still have an effect on people after I died.

 

[Turamber]

The small matter of "salvation" in the first three gospels is centred on good works, humble life etc. in John its about belief in Jesus as the son of God; a pretty big distinction.

The Gospels aren't primarily concerned with issues of salvation, they are records of Christ's ministry.

Matthew is aimed with a Jewish audience in mind so goes to great lengths to show him as the fulfiller of Jewish prophecy. Mark is written more for a Gentile audience. Luke attempts to be scientific and comprehensive in his approach, which in part is why he is so incredibly accurate with the use of the correct Roman titles. John is more interested in filling in gaps from the other accounts and emphasing Jesus' humanity and his love for others.

Then there are the tons of factual differences (length of ministry, location of ministry etc etc that just directly contradict each other).

Not aware of any. Aware of lots of supposed contradictions which don't stand up to a reading of the text.

Because Revelations is the cornerstone of all the worst "ooh you're all going to hell" crap in the bible

No. You'll find that theologians disagree hugely about what the Lake of Fire is. You'll also find that not all Christians believe in hell. Most of the passages that are used by pro-hellfire types are not really specific.

Romans because that's where we get the delightful concept of original sin (NOT in Genesis as everyone assumes)

It is explained in Romans but the concept is consistent with the rest of the Bible as a whole. Neither Jews nor Christians consider themselves to be perfect, we leave that to atheists

and 2000 years of catholic beating up on women.

So all catholics that have lived for the last 2000 years have beaten up women? Heh. Why is that all desire for clinical and rational discussion, which atheists claim they are so interested in, goes out the window when discussing religion?

The above statement is as puerile as the 'religion has never done anyone any good' I've read a few times. It cannot possibly be true, yet it gets repeated ad nauseum ad infinitum.

 

[DaGaffer]

So all catholics that have lived for the last 2000 years have beaten up women? Heh. Why is that all desire for clinical and rational discussion, which atheists claim they are so interested in, goes out the window when discussing religion?

I meant metaphorically, the whole madonna/whore thing. Original sin is targeted at women thanks to St. Paul.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You make it sound like you can't have fun and have a positive impact on peoples lives. Or you are suggesting that having fun means you have to be a prick for your time spent alive.

As for everyone ending up in a dustbin that's all well and good but we all live on in the lives of others after we have died whether good or bad. If me being nice and helpful has an effect on others they will pass it on. If I was a rapist and destroyed peoples lives my actions would still have an effect on people after I died.

Not at all. Just asking for the reason why one would need to make a positive effect if you're not around.

To the people you leave behind the effect is clear and understandable, but from a personal view there's no reason.

 

[nath]

Not at all. Just asking for the reason why one would need to make a positive effect if you're not around.

When you're not around you won't care because you won't have a conciousness thus the means to care. That doesn't mean we can't care *now* how we affect others - both currently and when we're dead.

 

[Wij]

Not at all. Just asking for the reason why one would need to make a positive effect if you're not around.

To the people you leave behind the effect is clear and understandable, but from a personal view there's no reason.

Of course there's a reason. While you're alive you want to make sure the people you care about are happy once you've gone. After you're dead it's too late to do anything about it anyway. Your position doesn't make sense. I don't think "well my son can go fuck himself after I'm dead cos I won't be around to see it."

:/

 

[old.Tohtori]

When you're not around you won't care because you won't have a conciousness thus the means to care. That doesn't mean we can't care *now* how we affect others - both currently and when we're dead.

Of course there's a reason. While you're alive you want to make sure the people you care about are happy once you've gone. After you're dead it's too late to do anything about it anyway. Your position doesn't make sense. I don't think "well my son can go fuck himself after I'm dead cos I won't be around to see it."

:/

Yes, now. "Now" i said means something, it's given. After death, no matter.

So the "people are happy after i'm dead" is not a valid concern, if you've got no afterlife situation.

 

[Calaen]

Yes, now. "Now" i said means something, it's given. After death, no matter.

So the "people are happy after i'm dead" is not a valid concern, if you've got no afterlife situation.

It does mean something to someone though, to the person you left your mark on. If they take on things from you and pass them on to others it will continue to have an effect.

 

[Wij]

So the "people are happy after i'm dead" is not a valid concern, if you've got no afterlife situation.

Of course it's a valid concern. It's a concern to me now. It won't be when I'm dead.

You're making the logical error of equating the fact that I can't be concerned about a future event in the future with the non-fact that I can't be concerned about that future event now. They're entirely different things.

Or do you only care about the present moment here and now ? I think not.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It does mean something to someone though, to the person you left your mark on. If they take on things from you and pass them on to others it will continue to have an effect.

Given, to others it means. Wasn't saying it doesn't.

Of course it's a valid concern. It's a concern to me now. It won't be when I'm dead.

You're making the logical error of equating the fact that I can't be concerned about a future event in the future with the non-fact that I can't be concerned about that future event now. They're entirely different things.

Or do you only care about the present moment here and now ? I think not.

I never said you can't be concerned about it now. I was curious on the "why" of caring what happens after.

After you're dead, taking out all afterlife, you won't care. As such. what people think of you when you're dead is moot.

And yes, i "only" care about here and now, as much as possible. I don't bother myself with too much what ifs and how others think about me when i've kicked the bucket.

 

[Calaen]

The way you actually started this discussion was by coming across as if you had to be a dick to everyone in your life if you wanted to have fun.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The way you actually started this discussion was by coming across as if you had to be a dick to everyone in your life if you wanted to have fun.

That was how you took it, it was explained as not being the case.

 

[Calaen]

That was how you took it, it was explained as not being the case.

Hard to take it any other way and no you did not explain this.

why even try to make the effect positive, instead of having as much fun as you can?

You can't even try and spin that any other way.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You can't even try and spin that any other way.

I don't have to try and spin it, i can de-spin it thought for you;

Why use effort in making a positive effect on people instead of having AS MUCH fun as possible.

Now drop it.

 

[nath]

I don't really understand why you don't get it Toh. If one cares about others, it stands to reason they'd care about them regardless of whether you're around to reap the "benefits" of caring for them. When we die, despite the fact that we won't experience anything it doesn't stop us being concerned about what effects we have on others after we're gone.

If I were in a foreign country and leaving the very next day never to return, I wouldn't litter the streets because it was more convenient for me than finding a trash can. It's not the fear of consequences or the desire for thanks that would drive me. I am concerned about the effects I have on my surrounds whether I'm around to appreciate them or not.

 

[Krazeh]

We care about what others think and having a positive impact on others because, like most other higher primates, humans are social animals. It's simply part of who we are.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't really understand why you don't get it Toh. If one cares about others, it stands to reason they'd care about them regardless of whether you're around to reap the "benefits" of caring for them. When we die, despite the fact that we won't experience anything it doesn't stop us being concerned about what effects we have on others after we're gone.

If I were in a foreign country and leaving the very next day never to return, I wouldn't litter the streets because it was more convenient for me than finding a trash can. It's not the fear of consequences or the desire for thanks that would drive me. I am concerned about the effects I have on my surrounds whether I'm around to appreciate them or not.

Yes, the benefit is now right there too.

I was arguing the "it matters to me what people think after i'm gone" being pointless.

It shouldn't matter to you because it doesn't matter.

Taking it to extremes like littering, public nuisance and RAPE for gods sake...ofcourse is NOT what i meant.

 

[nath]

I don't think littering is an extreme example at all, in fact I think it's quite apt.

Also you say "ofcourse" but I don't agree that's valid at all. You're now suggesting that we shouldn't care what people *think* of us when we're dead, because we'll be dead. That's fair enough to an extent but you said earlier:

Not at all. Just asking for the reason why one would need to make a positive effect if you're not around.

To the people you leave behind the effect is clear and understandable, but from a personal view there's no reason.

That's different. Leaving a positive effect is different from being concerned with what others think of you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's different. Leaving a positive effect is different from being concerned with what others think of you.

Not really. It all comes down to that.

You can do nice things now, but afte death, it has no meaning on a personal level.

To return to your example; It wouldn't matter it you littered if there was no reprocautions, you don't do it because you think there might be.

You're not that good a person because you're still human.