Jealous of the Ned Flanders?

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:30

monkai666 said:
I can understand that, when my Dad had a kid with my step mum even when she was very young, not even old enough to speak decently, if she did something wrong her face would show it. You just looked at her and knew she'd done something. I can't remember what it was, something to do with the hamster I think, but she'd never done it before and never been told off for anything like it but she knew she id something wrong. It's inbuilt.

Children are very perceptive, they pick up how to talk for a start, telling when they're about to get a ******ing is easy by comparison.

monkai666 · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:34

Tefal said:
Children are very perceptive, they pick up how to talk for a start, telling when they're about to get a ******ing is easy by comparison.

Fair point. I guess a lot of what I do (being a good person) is dictated by what I've been taught is good and what the law will arrest me for. There are times when I've been a but tipsy and somebody was trying to start a fight and I didn't go for it, not because I am a good person, but because I don't want to get done for:
-drunk and disorderly
-assault
-vandalism (might break something)

or anything else I can get arrested for. I like comfy beds, not prison cells.

p4radox · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:36

KNiVES said:
Instinctively, it's quite the opposite - look out for number 1 and screw the rest

I agree, but wouldn't most people feel something telling them to risk all for the sake of another? What's the point in saving someone else's life? In doing anyone a favour?

You need to be told what's right and what's wrong. I can't be the only one who has to force myself to do good/selflessness over bad/selfishness with nearly every decision I make.

Then why have such morals never died out? Why would we continue to perpetuate dangerous ideas about putting someone else before yourself?

I'm talking more about the conflict that takes place inside your head, and ultimately decides which impulse to follow. Also, the fact that we're quite happy to even debate what's right and wrong in the first place.

Prove it. We argue because the concept was ingrained at childhood. The 'higher' thing is actually the simple morals. You're sort of trying to bring God into this now.

Many things are ingrained in childhood, which you ultimately grow out of. This isn't one of them, so I propose that it's not something that you're taught.

God need not have anything to do with this. Although personally I see this as a pointer to something beyond our understanding. Are you averse to the idea of something beyond our understanding?

KNiVES · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:39

No, I'm averse to people insisting it's some higher being telling us what to do, instead of things taught to us during childhood. We're told to save people because that's what we were told to do as kids. We continue to perpetuate dangerous ideas about putting others before self because that is what we were told to do. The moral conflicts in our heads come about because that is what we are told to consider during our childhood.

Many things are ingrained in childhood, which you ultimately grow out of. This isn't one of them, so I propose that it's not something that you're taught.

So because we 'don't grow out of it', means it must be a result of something 'higher'? I'm unsure what you're getting at here.

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:39

p4radox said:
I agree, but wouldn't most people feel something telling them to risk all for the sake of another? What's the point in saving someone else's life? In doing anyone a favour?

Potential for reward.

Thinking ahead is part of being human

Then why have such morals never died out? Why would we continue to perpetuate dangerous ideas about putting someone else before yourself?

Because the alternative is even more dangerous, better everyone is controlled by a code, than everyone fighting for themselves.

I'm talking more about the conflict that takes place inside your head, and ultimately decides which impulse to follow. Also, the fact that we're quite happy to even debate what's right and wrong in the first place.

Gain/risk = ....

depending on what you could gain for the risk is what will judge most of your actions.

Many things are ingrained in childhood, which you ultimately grow out of. This isn't one of them, so I propose that it's not something that you're taught.

But it;s continually enforced through out your life, unlike Santa clause and the easter bunny.

p4radox · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:41

Tefal said:
How are you justifying that statement?

See above

Because :

fair, we all want the most we can get, however we also generally don;t want to risk a fight an equal share is the best solution.

So why argue on someone else's behalf? Why do we feel the need to give to charity, or help someone onto a train?

ethical, because we're taught that there are certain ways to act and we should abide by them, if you do not wish to face punishment.

See above. This isn't something that can be taught.

Being an utter **** usually ends up with you being dead or other such unpleasantness occurring (at least in the early stages of human development) and so a structure formed around that.

That's a fair point I guess. Let me have a think...

Snakedoctor · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:43

The only real god humans have is the act of sexual intercourse. It governs everything we do. It is the reason we exist, it is the reason we do things. Even so called "self less" things, such as helping a stranger, the reason? To get the chicks. To impress someone, somewhere at sometime which may lead to an encounter. There is no god, at least no god which we know of and to blindly follow faith is a fools errand.

We try to justify our existance with a god of some sort. We are a virus, crawling across the globe and consuming it.

Grrrrr · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:44

This is a thought i've had just now and for the first time...

So we've established there is no way to confirm the existence of otherwise of god? Agree? It sounds an awful lot like the Schrodinger's cat experiment, suggesting God both exists and doesn't exist - at the same time.

Which would, in a way, fit in with my views of God, the belief there is no such thing as God other than the imagined concept of humans.

KNiVES · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:44

Snakedoctor said:
The only real god humans have is the act of sexual intercourse. It governs everything we do. It is the reason we exist, it is the reason we do things. Even so called "self less" things, such as helping a stranger, the reason? To get the chicks. To impress someone, somewhere at sometime which may lead to an encounter. There is no god, at least no god which we know of and to blindly follow faith is a fools errand.

Sex is everything! I like the cut of your hijab - er I mean jib. Too many muslim threads about nowadays.

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:45

So why argue on someone else's behalf? Why do we feel the need to give to charity, or help someone onto a train?

see above, more people you help the more people will be willing to help you, the gain is very small, but the cost/risk is also very small.

See above. This isn't something that can be taught.

Pretty much anything can be taught, especially if it starts when the baby is watching is mother/father so it can learn how to survive

p4radox · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:45

KNiVES said:
So because we 'don't grow out of it', means it must be a result of something 'higher'? I'm unsure what you're getting at here.

I'm saying that I can't find a reason for it being there. I'm proposing (note, not "telling") that there might be some fundamental aspect of our nature beyond our understanding.

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:46

Grrrrr said:
It sounds an awful lot like the Schrodinger's cat experiment, suggesting God both exists and doesn't exist - at the same time.

YES!

A very good analogy.

p4radox · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:47

Snakedoctor said:
There is no god ... to blindly follow faith is a fools errand.

Did you realise this was a contradiction?

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:48

Snakedoctor said:
It is the reason we exist,

You're trying to give reason where there doesn't need to be one.

There is no god, at least no god which we know of and to blindly follow faith is a fools errand.

*Facepalm*

lsg1r · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:48

monkai666 said:
My friend is very religious (luckily not there at the time) and believes in his relatives and friends going to heaven and believes that God is watching over him. He's so content with this and is pretty chilled out because of it. "It'll be fine, it's all in the lords plan."

This is my view on religion - religion is there to make the person feel good/better about themselves and allow them to live their lives in a way which is best for that person, I see it as a comfort thing so to speak.

When I get told about God I instantly need proof and a science to back it up and since that's not available I'm extremely sceptical. I don't think this is my fault, I've been brought up in the education system where science is fact and (maybe foolishly) believed them. Now my mind is logic based and I like it that way.

Now I'm not like you in that I need science to prove everything when it comes to my beliefs, however I haven't followed any one religion and you could say that my beliefs combine both science and blind 'faith'. I was never forced to believe one way or another and came to my own conclusions about everything. As such I picked a more elemental belief (ie fire, wind, water etc) but I still believe in spirits (more guides in life) and a 'guardian angel'. However I also believe in alternate dimensions/realities with multiple branches stemming from my conception (think sliders) - meaning I could by my own beliefs believe in something different (say christianity) in another reality :eek:

.

So as you can see (for me atleast) you don't need to believe in a god to have a faith/belief system and theres nothing to say that your beliefs can't be made up with scientific facts and theories. It's as I say there to make you feel comfortable (uncomfortable if you 'sin) in the way you live your life and I would never force anyone else to believe differently to what they do as in my view its a deeply personal thing.

Gilly · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:48

p4radox said:
Did you realise this was a contradiction?

Nice selective quoting.

Snakedoctor · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:49

Gilly said:
Nice selective quoting.

Indeed! Thats not what I said.

p4radox · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:50

Grrrrr said:
So we've established there is no way to confirm the existence of otherwise of god? Agree? It sounds an awful lot like the Schrodinger's cat experiment, suggesting God both exists and doesn't exist - at the same time.

There's no way to scientifically establish the fact, no.

I don't agree with the Schroedinger analogy though. Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of parallel existences, each with or without a God?

Tefal · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:51

p4radox said:
I don't agree with the Schroedinger analogy though. Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of parallel existences, each with or without a God?

huh? Schroedinger's cat is just you can;t tell if it;s alive or dead, and so it is effectively both alive and dead at the same time.

what's that got to do with dimensions?

Or have I missed something? :confused:

Gilly · 18 Sep 2008 at 23:51

p4radox said:
There's no way to scientifically establish the fact, no.

I don't agree with the Schroedinger analogy though. Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of parallel existences, each with or without a God?

Schrodinger shows us only that the state of the cat is at once both alive and dead. Where does infinity and/or parallel universes come into it?