and how many Christians do you think actually believe that? — Wayfarer

Then number of Christians believing in it does not change its status form a myth to a non-myth. Your answer is a non-sequitur. It neither supports, nor denies my point.

It is not clear to me whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I've said. You seem to be describing what it may be in our reproductive interests to believe or desire, but what I am talking about is the moral significance of sex (not its biological significance). — Bartricks

In my world, morals are closely connected to societal institutions, and societal institution try to instill into people what the rulers of the society want for that society. Most times the rulers want a stable (or stagnant) moral code instilled into people's behaviour.

Some morals don't get changed, as they represent a "don't care" state for the rulers.

Marriage, sex, and sexual reproduction has been a major issue in the development of morals. Some rulers wanted all possible sex partners, or the most desirable ones, for themselves, and they by-and-large achieved this goal. Ghengis Khan, Attila the Hun, Agoston the Strong, many feudal landlords, and the pharaos, the Roman emperors and centurions, and celtic and other tribes chieftains are prime examples.

Christianity destroyed these ideals, and now on paper even the president of the USA is expected to have only one sex partner, his wife. (This is a big laugh, though.)

So today's societies in the world reflect the pattern of families of prehistoric times. One man, one woman, and their children. Special exceptions exist for same-sex couples. Their children are not biologically theirs but many heterosexual marriages adopt as well.

The similarity between the morals necessitated for survival and the morals today are a coincidence; but I believe that this is actually a DNA-borne quality, a cogenital moral expectation (if they can exist). The reason I say this is that one man normally falls in love with one woman at a time, and vice versa. If the love does not become fruitful, i.e. does not lead to marriage, the person can fall in love in short notice again.

But sex is rampant, if it is let loose. Why? to increase the likelyhood of the survival of the derivative of one's DNA. It is IN us to be promiscuous. Only diseases and the threat of moral face-losing stops us from it. In some states, the law also punishes cheaters by way of finding the marriage divorcable, and thus a large chunk of a person's wealth may be lost to the divorcing spouse.

In all, I think it is all DNA related. I do believe that a lot of our moral and emotional stances are inherited, not learned.

I completely agree with you WF. Perfect answer.

Prove, apologies. — StreetlightX

Science proves nothing. Proof is not one of the aims or functions of science. In math and logic you don't prove hypotheses. You prove theorems.

Sorry. Not my fault. I did not do it.

humanism today is too often grounded in the myth that life is a chemical reaction and humans accidents of fate. It's not actually 'humanism' at all. — Wayfarer

A. It is not a myth. A myth is that the world was created in six days, and is less than 6000 years old. That's a myth. Reality is a myth only to the ignorant. "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Not different now from when they were first said.

B. Humanism is not precisely defined, but it has to do something with human beings' conscious ability to make a life without the help (real or imagined) given by any supernatural forces.

atheist humanism has no conception of why humans are in the universe in the first place. Like them or not, religions situate mankind in a story, give them a reason for being here and something to strive towards and live up to. — Wayfarer

This is true, but for me, personally, it takes a lot of the magic away from the otherwise cute stories that give mankind a reason to be, that they are complete bullshit.

solve, say, the Riemann hypothesis — StreetlightX

Hypotheses are not to be solved. In math and logic, they are taken as assumptions, as givens, as accepted as true. In science hypotheses are to be supported, or shown some credibility by actual observations of test results or natural phenomenon.

haha, I feel like almost everyone is discussing a slightly different version of the same topic. If we each are visualizing a different scenario where complicated language is used, how can we agree on the usage? — ZhouBoTong

I thought that complicated language is not the issue, but the usage of esoteric words. If the language of a text is proper, it is never complicated. I guess I am not quite right in this statement; but the only exception I can find is legal documents. They don't need to use complicated words to say something complicatedly. "It is an offence notwithstanding paragraph 8, section 27, except exemptions of section (9) and sections (494) through to (49303). when and only if the sheriff's duties are delegated to a paralegal under the provisio of paragraph 4, section (44), regardless of however many wickets the crickets dicker."

Its a “dating” app. People use it to have casual sex. — DingoJones

Thanks! I've seen those in action... the next closest willing applicant to you is typically 500 miles away from you, and she fat or a hooker. Guys too. Some are planted ghosts by the website management. They are the gorgeous ones with good ads who never reply to anyone.

Thanks, anyway, for kindly providing the info, DingoJones.

You oughta see the political forums. — fishfry

Politics is a form of religion. You act largely by faith. And most often you are betrayed, so it is little or not at all different from the batting average of the religious' trust in gods' promises coming true, or from prayer being answered.

What, as an atheist, would be a quality discussion about religion? — DingoJones

How stupid, inconsequential, and hair-raisingly seriously taken some of the beliefs of the religious are.

This gives us Humanists topics for millions of hours of satisfying discussions.

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. — Terrapin Station

Which continent? America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or Antarctica?

And how does that make any difference which continent the loser is from? I am from two continents.

↪Fooloso4 I do agree with you, — removedmembershiprc

↪Terrapin Station I do not disagree — removedmembershiprc

Yes, that too! — Fooloso4

hat was expressed in familiar language (using words ranked in the most frequent 25% of the English corpus of 172,000 words -- that's still about 43.000 possible words -- or would you like to read texts composed with many of the least frequently used words (like cenacle) and freely borrowing from languages with which you are not familiar? — Bitter Crank

I agree with everyone else here, too.

I just want to add that "obscure" scientific writing and journals full of it may use words that are less frequently used than normal, or they may be extremely little frequently used; but the vocabulary of these trade journals is surprisingly impoverished. They use, typically, 2000 words, except the words they use are esoteric.

The more esoteric a trade or profession is, the more esoteric words they will use. But their word usage is not wide. AND the in common English rarely occurring words they use are those that relate to their trade. So I think -- despite agreeing with everyone else on this thread -- is that this thread is complete total ignorant bullshit.

but there is also Tinder — DingoJones

The closest I come to is "tündér" which in my language means "fairy" as in winged beautiful women.

sexual predation is at an all time high but there is also Tinder — DingoJones

What is tinder? I keep seeing their ads on the porn sites I visit for autoerotical purposes. But I never figured out what it is. I don't click on suspicious or dubious links on porn sites, they could or theoretically ought to link to traps, malware, viruses.

Sex leads to kids. You don't want your woman to fool around because that'd mean you'd be raising someone else's kid. And you don't want your man to fool around lest he divide his resources among many responsibilities.

This was worked out by customs and observations and realizing what makes a baby, by our species' early representatives, back a very long while ago. Today we have more than enough resources to raise kids, but back then death by starvation or by exposure was a real fear, because it was a real threat. Life was hard and sexual investment was big, bigger than life.

On the other hand, the man who fools around expands his chances of getting his progeny survive, and the derivative of his own DNA get propagated. And the woman who fools around and bears children out of wedlock to a husband who is faithful and will raise the little bantling, also increases the chances of derivatives of her DNA surviving, by simply diversifying her DNA derivative portfolio.

Thus, for human beings, the most important thing in reproduction is a faithful and loyal spouse; and the second most important thing is to fool around behind your spouse's back without anyone else finding out but you and your lover married to someone other than you.

Islamic law does not allow for liberally inventing new extensions. Read the page on Sharia. The consensus of religious scholars will never defend the view that politicians would have the authority to extend Islamic law. That is unthinkable. — alcontali

What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Law has nothing to do with faith. You can't legally force someone to believe in something or not to believe in something.

Your argument is completely superfluous and meaningless.

A shan't read the page on Sharia. It would be a waste of time. Mine and Sharia's.

My conviction from this point is that you are not a sensible person. (With all due respect.) You are enwrapped in religious thoughts, so much so, that reason and logic can't penetrate your thoughts and understanding. This is my opinion on you.

It is futile to argue with you, as you are a fanatic. This is another opinion I formed on you.

And thirdly, your behaviour is a classic case of trolling: you make statements out of the blue, that have no connection in any way to anything that has been said to you. This is a fact, not an opinion.

I suggest the mods would remove you as a major troll. But it's their call, not mine.

The only incentive to stay is to gain more knowledge. — Wallows

To gain more knowledge is one incentive to to stay, but it is not the only incentive.

I come and go as my need to argue and my need to prove to myself that I can prove things to others wanes and waxes.

We do not believe that we should pay — alcontali

That's your belief, not mine.

Thou art the perfect example of a gullible person, who believes everything unbelievable.

For example, is there anything more gullible than paying more taxes, because politicians have increased the tax rate? — alcontali

This is not gullibility at all that drives people to pay taxes. You are gullibilized by your own blind devotion to a god that does not exist. Taxes, at their most basic, much like laws, are necessary to alleviate the fatal fractures that would be caused and created by social forces. Why, do you think that law courts should be abolished, and let criminals run free? Or that schools be closed to the common people's children? Or that roads ought not to be built? You are a fool if you think taxes are wasted money.

We believe that God has invented all the laws already, and that politicians are not allowed to further restrict our freedom. — alcontali

This is one thing I don't believe. Speak for yourself. 1/2 of the world's entire population don't believe this.

The ancient texts are deemed to appeal to the otherwise unknown mental faculty. — alcontali

I think I discovered what you call "unknown mental faculty". It has a name, too, alright.

The hitherto unknown mental faculty that miracles in ancient texts seem to appeal I call "gullibility to the max".

One problem is that programmers who discuss pipelining rarely use categorical language in their discussions. So, I cannot determine if both things are related (monads versus typical pipelining practices). — alcontali

I'ts okay. Philosophers use no categorical language; they say, "That's post-modernist regressivism" or something of the like, and they leave it at that. It's us, dilettante, who spell everything out for each other.

What is the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity?

Same as between doing sex and an ability to do sex. That's how I'd explain this to my six-year-old.

↪god must be atheist I'm not sure what you mean? — Coben

You are asking for parameters to define a concept as if those parameters could be established for sure. Well, some parameters of values expressed by language can't be established. For instance, "life" is undefineable in its essence; so is "good", and so on.

To ask me to define the parameters of the precise division between hate speech and non-hate speech is a tall order. I can tell one when I see one; but I can't possibly provide you with a precise, unfailing, and perfect conceptual definition of such.

So what are your rules for acceptable expressions of hate and not? If when telling one person you hate them you justifiy it and others can see this, could this not incite hatred in others? Likewise with groups?What makes a communication of hatred one that incites others? — Coben

You are asking questions as if we were still in the pre-postmodernism era.

So I don't consider Hitler to have caused anyone's death. — Terrapin Station

Okay, I'll disregard your future comments. If you are so stupid as to not notice the causation between Hitler's speeches to the Reichstag and to the people of Germany, his book "Mein Kampf" and the ensuing Nazi rule, then I have no hope of ever getting through to you.

Say what you will, I will not read your comments.

Causes are physically deterministic forces, where, if A is the cause of B, B must follow A, ceteris paribus. — Terrapin Station

Thank you for the explanation.

. . . that's just evidence of not understanding how I use the word "cause." — Terrapin Station

You gave no explanation as to its specific meaning. Why do you blame me for that?

@DingoJones you have no clue what hate speech is. You can still hate someone, and express your hate. But you can't incite others to join your hatred. That's what it means.

You can hate me, and you can express it on these pages. And I can hate you, and I expressed on these pages that I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred.

you clueless douche, — DingoJones

You mother-fucking cunt, you go fuck yourself. Right now. Pronto.

Societies set their own laws, but those laws can still be right or wrong — NOS4A2

Anything can be right or wrong in the sense of society's morals. By society's morals I mean those moral behaviour forms, which are encouraged by a particular society, independent of the individual person's own interest.

So from society's point of view, there are no society-created and maintained "WRONG" rules. The wrongness is only established by an individual whose interest or else whose moral feeling or attitude disagrees with the so-called MORAL rule pushed and advocated by society.

Societies are like nature in the proverb: red in tooth and claw. They don't play well with others. They do what they want without regard to others. And they're too big to argue with, so we don't. Societies are sociopaths. — Pattern-chaser

I wholeheartedly agree with this. You don't specifically target hate speech, but the meaning is there: some soiceties approve of it, some disapprove, so you just have to roll with the flow. This is true. In our society hate speech is disallowed, and that's that, you say, as "that's that" applies to all rules of any society.

Your question actually makes no sense. — S

To me it makes sense. @Maureen is not asking if ANY god was in existence; the OP is asking if the particular god of the particular religion was in existence.

This is contentious, because some religions claim their god has been in existence for ever (muslims, jews, christians); yet prior to their religion's beginning, there was no spiritual or worshipped evidence of THOSE gods precisely. A god which has been in existence forever, must have had some traces of himself or herself before a religion adopted it as its own.

But there might still have existed a God, — S

If there was a god, then perhaps it, as an entity, worshipped himself or herself. Therefore God as such can be a self-creating entity, or more precisely, a self-supportive enitity once it has come into existence.

Carrying this over to the other side: if and when God has been around for ever in the past, then there is no creator needed for god's existenc, only a worshipper to sustain its existence; and the worship may come from an already existing entity, god himself or herself.

, therefore the proposition by the OP is moot, inasmuch as human beings are not necessary to sustain such a god that is only sustainable by worship / faith.

A necessary condition for doing any science is choosing/determining which evidence to believe and how much weight to give it. How do you do that without free will? Because without free will, you're simply compelled to believe that a particular piece of evidence supports a hypothesis. It might, it might not. — RogueAI

Free will is only there whether to choose reason and logical thinking or not. Beyond that, it's on automatic pilot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. The ability to make choices is a necessary condition for the evaluation of evidence.
2. Evaluating evidence is a necessary condition for science.
3. Without the ability to make choices, evaluation of evidence is impossible.
4. If evaluation of evidence is impossible, science is impossible.
5. The universe is deterministic.
6. Therefore, the ability to make choices is impossible.
7. Therefore, science is impossible. — RogueAI

In the above, (1.) is wrong. (3.) is wrong. Therefore (7.) is a false conclusion, because it depends on (1.) and on (3.), among other things, for it to be true.

The ability to make choices is a necessary condition to set up details of experiments, for instance, but it is not a necessary condition to evaluate results. Evaluating results is straightforward.

The choices presented when making up an experiment will invariably result in one set up at a time, and one setup only. This feature accommodates the rigour of the deterministic world.

Evaluation of evidence is possible without making choices. It is actually pretty straightforward. If a result agrees with the hypotheses, or disagrees,is all one needs to observe. We don't decide whether it agrees or not; it is the data that satisfies the prediction of the hypotheses / theory or it dissatisfies it, which allows us or disallows us to draw conclusions from it.

I don't think we have direct and unequivocal evidence that hate speech causes violent actions, — Isaac

This is why I included you in the list. You are a black wolf in white sheeps' clothing. You are undermining, or trying to, huge empirical evidence, by downplaying the effect.

I said enough. To those who advocate the return of unrestricted hate speech to society, i have only one message for you: go fuck yourselves.

Those who started wondering about my figures: six million Jews DIED in WWII death camps. 4 million Jews survived horrible conditions, torture, starvation, and constant and severe sleep deprivation, as well as exposure to the elements. That figure creates 6 million plus four million, which is ten million (give or take a few.)

, @Terrapin Station and @necrofantasia, please see my comment two up form this. It is ridiculous to claim that hate speech is ineffective. The empirical evidence that hate speech is effective, has been proven by history over and over again. What the heck other would you need to convince you of this, if you even ignore the death and suffering of ten million Jews?

For those who insist on finding case studies of empirical evidence of hate speech causing undue and unwarranted violence, I offer the example of Nazi Germany. The Jews and the Christians reluctantly had mulled about doing their own business, and more-or-less had strived within the situation of multi-religious nations. Then came a hate speaker, and as a direct result of his efforts, six million Jews were brutally executed, or horribly tortured or both. This is a direct result of having a single solitary person spewing out hate speech. If you need any more evidence than this that hate speech is effective, then first drive a dagger through my throat.