No matter how open-minded...

[Whit]

Furries... I don't understand what happens in a persons life that eventually makes them want to dress up in animal customs and get into furry piles.

I can understand other deviant sexual pleasures like BDSM. Costumes like school girls, goth, etc. Even the illegal things like necro and pedophilia. It all can be drawn back to something that happened in childhood.

But furries, what the heck happens in a persons childhood to cause that?

Actually at least one aspect of BDSM has nothing to do with personal background, some people enjoy pain because the body has a tendency to (exclusively when highly aroused) interpret ANY strong sensation as sexual pleasure, this is EXTREMELY common, some people just embrace this to a greater extent than simple bites and spanks. It's neurology, not psychology.

Oh yea believe me I know, choking, slapping, biting, perhaps even tie ups are all very common. I was more referring to extreme BDSM. Like Sub and Dom, Slave and Master.

If thats common, I would be rather surprised.

It is more common than most people think, but yeah, that stuff is still pretty out there

 

[Esotera]

Why people are religious. Despite the fact that for the majority of my life I was Catholic.

Also American Politics...are things really that bad over there?

If the system were working the way it was intended, it wouldn't matter how much squabbling went on in Washington, because the federal government doesn't constitutionally have the power to make a strong impact on everyday life. As it stands, they can stick their dirty little paws most anywhere. However, most people just sit back and let the politicians have their little spats in the Capitol. That is, until the taxman comes knocking. Then we get pissed off.

I'm beginning to think that this is how the majority of governments work. America seems particularly bad though, maybe it is partly due to the media.

OT: I'm going to take the other side of the religion topic and say I can't understand how people can be atheistic or agnostic. The odds of you being born from the thousands of eggs in your mother and millions of your father's sperm are high enough. Now consider the odds that your parents met, had sex, conceived, were born in the first place. While we're at it, how about the survival of your familial line all the way from early human evolution and beyond. Then consider the odds of Earth having the right chemical makeup and astronomical conditions to support life, or that physics works in a way to have stable reactions, or that the universe was formed at all.

The odds aren't actually worth calculating because the number is so far beyond human comprehension that it would just be meaningless text. I've heard it's ten to the power of (number of all atoms on Earth), but that could be wildly inaccurate. In essence, it's like betting, say, 17 on a roulette wheel and winning once a minute, every minute, without ever losing until the end of time. Confronted with those odds, I don't know how anybody can take them. That's the point where a magical man in the sky starts to look like the rational, level-headed response to existential questions.

I don't mean to come across as bitter. This is one of those arguments where the two side's viewpoints completely miss each other. All the arguments are based on assumptions that the other side either doesn't acknowledge or use reasoning that the other side doesn't accept. That is why nobody will ever scare an atheist with the threat of eternal damnation and nobody will convert a creationist by showing them fossils.

The odds of us (humans) getting here is actually very small. Same for every other species. But the odds of some species occurring is actually quite high, if you're starting from a set of common chemicals. The interesting thing about our biochemistry is that Amino Acids, which are basically essential for life as we know it, have been found on asteroids in space. It's not like the conditions to make them are hard. Also when you wash a oily saucepan in the sink, you get little bubbles on the surface of the water. That's the spontaneous assembly of oil molecules into a sphere, which could potentially evolve into a cell.

As for physics I don't really know that much, but given the surprising places where we can find life these days (nuclear reactors, hypersaline lakes) then I wouldn't be too surprised if life existed if our universe's parameters differed slightly.

I think we share similar viewpoints but have interpreted the evidence differently. And neither one of us can really be proven right.

 

[cgaWolf]

The alleged lack of morality is not entirely misplaced, however, as the belief that there is no spiritual power also implies no immortal Moral Law, meaning that, to an atheist, morality has no meaning beyond what they are or are not punished for.

I mean no offence, but I personally can't understand how atheists can be so hypocritical. Atheists often claim that those who are religious are being illogical. Yet, when taking an "objective" viewpoint, atheists assume that religion must be false, without any concrete proof either way.

If you assert the existence of something, the burden of proof is on you, not on the sceptic.
At this point, the discussion usually diverges, as the faithful argue on the philosophical level for the existence of a god, while being unable to prove his existence on a physical level - whereas the materialist (that many atheists are) requires to accept the proposition that a god exists.

The problem here is that one posits the existence of an (omnipotent, omniscient & omnibenevolent) being that is clearly outside the realm of nature, whereas the other requires a natural proof as he refuses that things outside his physical reality have or should have an impact on him.

The discussion can't even agree on the same topic, which makes science & faith not be direct opposites, but very compatible, provided faith takes a step back when science proves something in the natural world. The refusal to accept logic as it pertains to natural facts or the models we build to explain them is ununderstandable for someone firmly rooted in the scientific method; thus the statament that faithful are illogical.


All that said, i refuse your implication that the lack of an immortal moral law means atheists are morally bankrupt. We see intrinsic value in good deeds, and there are humanist and social-evolutionary reasons why "doing good" is worth doing. In contrast, the refusal of an immortal moral law absolves me of having to push it unto someone else who may not share those laws or beliefs, and that is A Good Thing!

That evangelical behaviour of religious people is the root of many evils committed by faithful. The opinion that my, and only my, belief is the One Truth, is one of the most damaging ideas ever known to mankind - regardless of whether it's rooted in faith, though it usually is.

Most churches have their own version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus - that dogma that my faith is The One True Faith is the cause and justification for all evil done by good men of faith; and that is the true crime of religions against humanity: It makes good people do bad things.

 

[Whit]

OT: I'm going to take the other side of the religion topic and say I can't understand how people can be atheistic or agnostic. The odds of you being born from the thousands of eggs in your mother and millions of your father's sperm are high enough. Now consider the odds that your parents met, had sex, conceived, were born in the first place. While we're at it, how about the survival of your familial line all the way from early human evolution and beyond. Then consider the odds of Earth having the right chemical makeup and astronomical conditions to support life, or that physics works in a way to have stable reactions, or that the universe was formed at all.

The odds aren't actually worth calculating because the number is so far beyond human comprehension that it would just be meaningless text. I've heard it's ten to the power of (number of all atoms on Earth), but that could be wildly inaccurate. In essence, it's like betting, say, 17 on a roulette wheel and winning once a minute, every minute, without ever losing until the end of time. Confronted with those odds, I don't know how anybody can take them. That's the point where a magical man in the sky starts to look like the rational, level-headed response to existential questions.

I don't mean to come across as bitter. This is one of those arguments where the two side's viewpoints completely miss each other. All the arguments are based on assumptions that the other side either doesn't acknowledge or use reasoning that the other side doesn't accept. That is why nobody will ever scare an atheist with the threat of eternal damnation and nobody will convert a creationist by showing them fossils.

I know I'm not going to change your mind here, I just want to try to bridge the philosophical gap so you can understand the atheist perspective

you bring up an interesting point about probabilities, and yes, it's statistically improbable for things to be exactly the way that they are, but, from an atheists perspective, the odds don't really matter, we had to wind up with something and this is just what we got. We don't attach philosophical significance to the series of events that got us here.

I'm probably doing a pretty terrible job of explaining this, but it's a really hard gap to bridge.


My worldview may sound depressing to you, but it essentially boils down to four basic concepts
1. Here I am.
2. May as well do something interesting.
3. Try to have fun with it.
4. If possible, try to help other people do interesting or fun things.

 

[cgaWolf]

The whole point of my "fetch" analogy was that dogs don't usually require consent for you to be able to do things with them, or even to use them for things (think work horses). It seems to me that you are making an arbitrary distinction by saying that sexual activity always requires consent to be morally permissible, where other types of activity do not. If you think it's not arbitrary, then what is the relevant distinction? What about sex requires that the animal be able to give consent?

Just because you don't buy the consent argument, doesn't make it any less valid ^_^

That said, simply because we tolerate one form of abuse (work animals, slaughtering them for food) does not automatically validate other forms of abuse, and while the distinction made is arbitrary, it's not a moral one: informed consent / abuse of power pertains to the legality of the act, not the morality of it.

 

[Whit]

The alleged lack of morality is not entirely misplaced, however, as the belief that there is no spiritual power also implies no immortal Moral Law, meaning that, to an atheist, morality has no meaning beyond what they are or are not punished for.

I mean no offence, but I personally can't understand how atheists can be so hypocritical. Atheists often claim that those who are religious are being illogical. Yet, when taking an "objective" viewpoint, atheists assume that religion must be false, without any concrete proof either way.

If you assert the existence of something, the burden of proof is on you, not on the sceptic.
At this point, the discussion usually diverges, as the faithful argue on the philosophical level for the existence of a god, while being unable to prove his existence on a physical level - whereas the materialist (that many atheists are) requires to accept the proposition that a god exists.

The problem here is that one posits the existence of an (omnipotent, omniscient & omnibenevolent) being that is clearly outside the realm of nature, whereas the other requires a natural proof as he refuses that things outside his physical reality have or should have an impact on him.

The discussion can't even agree on the same topic, which makes science & faith not be direct opposites, but very compatible, provided faith takes a step back when science proves something in the natural world. The refusal to accept logic as it pertains to natural facts or the models we build to explain them is ununderstandable for someone firmly rooted in the scientific method; thus the statament that faithful are illogical.


All that said, i refuse your implication that the lack of an immortal moral law means atheists are morally bankrupt. We see intrinsic value in good deeds, and there are humanist and social-evolutionary reasons why "doing good" is worth doing. In contrast, the refusal of an immortal moral law absolves me of having to push it unto someone else who may not share those laws or beliefs, and that is A Good Thing!

That evangelical behaviour of religious people is the root of many evils committed by faithful. The opinion that my, and only my, belief is the One Truth, is one of the most damaging ideas ever known to mankind - regardless of whether it's rooted in faith, though it usually is.

Most churches have their own version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus - that dogma that my faith is The One True Faith is the cause and justification for all evil done by good men of faith; and that is the true crime of religions against humanity: It makes good people do bad things.

Very good points, I'd just like to reiterate that morals are just as easily derived from philosophy as they are from religion. And, in addition, religious moral codes are frequently self-contradictory, ex: the Old Testament tells you that you have to stone homosexuals, yet Jesus tells his followers "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", so, what's the good Christian supposed to believe? The son of God, or the word of God?

Also, the religious tend to ignore rules they just don't want to follow. When asked why it's ok for Christians to eat shellfish, Christians will explain that this rule doesn't really apply because it's from the Old Testament, specifically, Leviticus, guess which book of the Old Testament is the one that Christians will cite when explaining why homosexuality is "wrong", it's Leviticus. So basically, when it's a rule they don't want to follow, it doesn't count 'cause it's Old Testament, but when they do want to follow it, it doesn't matter where it came from.

 

[putowtin]

how a McDonald's burger can be classed as a burger when it has nothing but cardboard in it?

what about how pizza is legally a vegetable in the U.S. now, in spite of the fact that of the 3 primary pizza ingredients the closest you can find to a veggie is the tomato paste, which comes from a FRUIT.

I don't know if to laugh or cry, so instead I'm gonna curl up in the corner and hope the world goes away!

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Religion. I can't wrap my head around willful delusions like that. Yes, I know it's not the popular stance to take, nor politically correct, but I just can't look at any of the religions I know and figure out why people believe in it. It's got the same factual weight as santa claus and makes about as much sense from any logical perspective and yet these religions are not only widespread beliefs but it's political and at times even social suicide to speak against them.

It's mindboggling to me. There's no scientifically backed indication of any of it having even a nugget of truth to it and yet it's 'narrowminded' or 'hateful' to point out the ridiculousness of it all.

I'll of course respect anyone's right to believe in these things, but the most aneurysm inducing part of it all is that there's no respect given to those who believe religion holds about as much water as a sieve.

I don't understand why people display there views on religion all over the place. It's nice to have them but don't go whipping em out.

 

[Kreett]

I try to be open minded about religion, I'm trying sooo hard.

 

[Peter Croft]

Me? I don't get the occupy movement.
I understand that the gap between poor/rich people is bad but the movement has no clear goals and quite frankly seems like a waste of otherwise decent people's time.

 

[Mau95]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

German grammar makes total sense, although it depends on where you're from.

The people that dont get religious people: where are you from? Most religious people I know are alright, rly.

I dont get some weird fetishes.

 

[Mau95]

Could someone remove this comment somehow?

 

[Balodal]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

German grammar makes total sense, although it depends on where you're from.

The people that dont get religious people: where are you from? Most religious people I know are alright, rly.

I dont get some weird fetishes.

German grammar makes sense, but it's pretty damn complicated compared to other languages

 

[Mau95]

Hail the mighty C-130 cargo plane.

 

[Mau95]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

German grammar makes total sense, although it depends on where you're from.

The people that dont get religious people: where are you from? Most religious people I know are alright, rly.

I dont get some weird fetishes.

German grammar makes sense, but it's pretty damn complicated compared to other languages

Ever tried to learn Dutch? My first language, and German is rather similar.

 

[Balodal]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

German grammar makes total sense, although it depends on where you're from.

The people that dont get religious people: where are you from? Most religious people I know are alright, rly.

I dont get some weird fetishes.

German grammar makes sense, but it's pretty damn complicated compared to other languages

Ever tried to learn Dutch? My first language, and German is rather similar.

German is my first languague. I know how it works, but you have to admit it's way more complicated than some other languagues.

 

[Avalanche91]

Religious extremism. I just don't......how......why......

Also American Politics........really? REALLY? One of our newspapers literally had a article about the people currently running for president and titled it something that roughly translates to; 'the idiot list'.

 

[ZeroMachine]

For the life of me, I'll never understand people who see 2001: A Space Odyssey as THE greatest movie of all time.

I'll agree with that one.

But for me, I'm far more confused as to how anyone could make the conscious decision to smoke cigarettes. It smells gross and is drastically bad for your health. I mean... ew. Just, blech. I'll never get it.

I don't understand people who do things 'out of the goodness of their heart'. There's no profit for the doer, unless the doer has the ideas of favours in mind, it just seems illogical to me.

Some people, myself included, just feel good when we're nice to people. So I guess you could argue, if you decide to work on cold, hard logic only, that we do it for self gratification.

But in reality, we're just nice.