Society

[Jos Elkink]

Yay! Yet another point to discuss about society

[The Industriallist]

Wow.. I've never met so many people who don't believe in God. If you guys want to believe that there was a "Bang", and "poof", the universe and all it's living things with souls were created, that's fine. I pray for the whole world all the time so I'm sure you guys are covered. No need to thank me in the afterlife

Ok, so now we're going into things I can sink my teeth into. Not only is there a creator, but:
At least some subset of 'life' possesses 'souls'. These 'souls' (I infer) go on after the associated life-form ceases to function, and what happens to them can be effected by your attempts to comunicate with god.


First point: Do these 'souls' have any means of interaction with the physical world?
Second: Where do 'souls' go after 'death'?
Third: What influence does 'god' have on the subsequent fate of 'souls'
Fourth: why does God care that you've spoken for all the other 'souls' on the planet?
Bonus: Define 'life' and 'death'. Not an easy question, but vital to your theology, I think.
Double Bonus: How does one determine whether a life form has a 'soul'?

And for a little dose of actual theory...no one ever suggested that life originated in the Big Bang. Certainly not humans. The theory calls for Millions? Billions? Trillions? I don't remember how many years before even stars start to form...

Humans have the right to free will. So if their assholes, their assholes on their own accord. Just like, I don't think at the end of the world some higher power is going to smite us all, I'm pretty sure were just going to self implode. We were given one earth and were slowly destroying it. Free will.

Uncomfortable question: Where is 'free will'? The laws of physics are pretty deterministic...I don't know if there are any non-deterministic components hiding someplace. If there are, you could conceivably hide some kind of free will in them...
Anyway, assuming that physics actually is a deterministic system, free will is a bit of a problem. What power associated with humans allows them to act in a manner contrary to what a theoretical supercomputer with their entire physical bodies internally represented, running a physical laws simulation, would conclude?

Also, I can't agree with the claim that humans will succeed in wiping themselves out here on earth. I've got this annoying optimism. *shrugs*

I don't believe this is the same scenario. This is not a math problem. I'm not intent on having an answer. I'm content to not know. I know what I feel though. You guys are so technical about everything. All your answer to life are not going to be in neat little statistics found in books. I guess my advice to a non believer would be just be close your eyes for a moment, and open your heart. It's been interesting discussing it with you though. I've never heard such clinical opinions on life. It was interesting.

That experiment would be interesting. But I really don't think I need cardiac surgury right now. Or did you mean something else...
"Open your heart" is a popular phrase. But what does it actually mean? My best interpretation so far is "follow your impulses". Which isn't a way to find definitive truth...

"This is not a math problem"
No, it's a physics problem. Physics is devoted to finding out what rules govern the universe. By definition.
Math is a method (or growing army of methods) of symbolic manipulation used to represent physics, among other things.

And I don't know what an answer to life would be, but if it were in a book, that just means a human put it there. Which doesn't actually mean much. Being "so technical" is saying: we see evidence for many things. Your claim isn't among them. And repeating it doesn't constitute evidence...

What do you believe created the very first dot of existance?

I think the question about eternity is a concept the human brain can't fully grasp. Both a creating god and a big bang needs something to create them...and if we find what that source is something in turn must have created that, and so on.

It's the same with trying to grasp that the universe is endless.
I don't think anyone can trully grasp what endless means...

Somewhat true...but really, if you can simply understand a number line, with no end in either direction, you have comprehended an endless universe. In just one dimension, it's true, but it's a start.

More interestingly, is that an accurate look at a timeline? Refering to God as a universal creater takes as given that the line does have at least one end-point. And I don't think it's possible for physics to prove that given a time x, there was a previous time y. If you just position everything in the arrangement for time x, it's impossible to tell whether it came there by normal rules from y, or just happened to start out that way.

As for time having an end. I would say not possible. But That could be wrong. Some relativistic argument might give a conclusion that in a 'big crunch ' situation, time would have no meaning, or something akin.

[kroner]

More interestingly, is that an accurate look at a timeline? Refering to God as a universal creater takes as given that the line does have at least one end-point. And I don't think it's possible for physics to prove that given a time x, there was a previous time y. If you just position everything in the arrangement for time x, it's impossible to tell whether it came there by normal rules from y, or just happened to start out that way.

taking this a bit further, only the single instant x can be verified. both the before and after are extrapolated (the before more so), including their existance all together. there's no way to verify how far time extends in either direction, or if it does at all. but based on physics, which is our best guess as to how things work (by definition), we can assuming it's infinite in the forward direction, and most likely in the backward direction as well (but note that it's just an assumption).

[Nick]

First of all I agree, can a Mod please split this thread or something?

Racism:

"Dont judge people based on the country they live on, thats what people in Russia do."
-Bart Simpson

See a little resemblance, Seko? There are racist turks, yes. Just like there are racist Mexicans, Albanians, South Africans... racism exists everywhere. Just because they are racist does not mean that racism is right. Its wrong to judge someone based on trivial facts like their skin color. Should we say that everyone with blue eyes are theives? Of course not, why would something as pointless as eye color matter? Same goes for skin color.

Creation/Religion:

Well personally I dont believe that any greater being exists. And if it did exist, its hilarious to think that you could actually learn his(?) name, or think that he created us in the same image as him. How would we know? Its impossible to know that he exists. Religous people know that, so they invented "faith". If you believe hes there, hes there. If you believed I was 86 years old, would I be? No. Perhaps that didnt make much sense but I just cant really make sense of things that cant be proven, or even close to it. Basically there were a whole bunch of people who attempted to explain what they dont know, and then over time those religions gained power and there were fewer and fewer of them, as people joined various bandwagons. Eventually, the Romans adopted Christianity and slaughtered thousands of people, enforcing their religion. And because of that, most people on this forum and in the world are Christian. So because the Romans beat the hell out of so many people... God is real?

Homosexuality:
There is one thing, however, that I find rather strange about the subject. I like to think of things from an evolutionary point of view. These days, where we arent in danger of losing the species from lack of reproduction, gays can contribute to society just like any other, as they are just as capable of learning and performing tasks.

However, when humanity was in its infancy, and humans as a pack (?) could hardly get enough food to feed its members, and they would have to reproduce, ever so slowly. Not to sound crude, but wouldnt gays have just been a waste of food? (If you read my posts before, I am not anti-gay in any way, even though this paragraph may sound that way). Now dont JUST read the last sentence. If you think about it, it makes sense. They wouldnt be able to reproduce, and therefore wouldnt contribute to increasing the numbers and ensuring the survival of the species.

[The Industriallist]

Homosexuality:
There is one thing, however, that I find rather strange about the subject. I like to think of things from an evolutionary point of view. These days, where we arent in danger of losing the species from lack of reproduction, gays can contribute to society just like any other, as they are just as capable of learning and performing tasks.

However, when humanity was in its infancy, and humans as a pack (?) could hardly get enough food to feed its members, and they would have to reproduce, ever so slowly. Not to sound crude, but wouldnt gays have just been a waste of food? (If you read my posts before, I am not anti-gay in any way, even though this paragraph may sound that way). Now dont JUST read the last sentence. If you think about it, it makes sense. They wouldnt be able to reproduce, and therefore wouldnt contribute to increasing the numbers and ensuring the survival of the species.

Fun point: Evolution doesn't work for the survival of the species: Evolution is just the tendency of genes that succeed in getting passed on to become more common.

Then, to evaluate your case: reproduction in those circumstances wouldn't be slow for lack of people to breed. The limitation would be on survival and food, which would reduce the rate of effective reproduction. So more productive pack members would be useful, even if they had no children of their own, because they support and protect the 'pack's children.

Now one theory advanced for why homosexuality, if genetic, might not be selected against (much supposition is involved):
Suppose that an autosomal gene exists which recessively (genotype s/s) causes homosexuality (or a tendancy towards homosexuality) in males. But further suppose that male heterozygotes (S/s) are more nurturing or 'sensitive' or some such thing than the 'wild-type' (S/S) (yes I know this is playing with some stereotypes. This theory is not my own, so it isn't my fault.) This could be a favorable trait for either obtaining a mate or successfuly raising offspring, so heterozygotes would have a reproductive advantage, preventing the gene from fading out of the population.

This is aimed solely at male homosexuality. That isn't my fault either.

[SekoETC]

I'm just trying to be honest. I'm not going to love a nation just because you say racism is wrong. The main thing I hate in them is not their nationality, it's the way they are. I have chatted with a couple of Turks that where not so bad but most of them are. I'm not going to keep someone on my contact list just to prove people I'm no racist.

Imaginary conversation that describes how it usually goes:

x: hello. i am ahmed. u got pic?
me: Yeah.. I'm damn ugly. *Posts url to prove and get him of the subject.*
x: u r beatifull. do you have boy frend?
me: Actually I do.
x: that ok we can be just frends have u ever been in turkey before??
me: No, and you can't say before because I'm not there now and I'm not going there at the moment.
x: ok.....will u come eat my kebab?
me: No
x: why not?
me: Because I'm a vegetarian.
x: wuts a vegetarian?
me: Nevermind. What are your interests?
x: wuts intrets?
me: Hobbies, things you like to do.
x: me likes cars and getting frends from all over world. can we be frends?
me: I don't think so.
x: why?
me: Because we have nothing in common plus you cannot write properly for us to have a chat with any depth whatsoever.
x: sorry me been studing english two years.
me: Well you still can't type.
x: sorry.. can i come see u?
me: No.
x: why not?
me: Because we just met, I don't know you and mommy said I shouldn't talk to strangers.
x: fuck u ur racist whore!!!
me: Well that's not polite at all. *ignores*

Ok, I am cold. But can any of you honestly say that you'd like to continue that kind of a conversation?

[The Industriallist]

And when chatting with random strangers online who start conversations by wanting pictures of you, you expect something different? My impression has been that there is no way a conversation starting that way can be a good thing, but I'm not part of the random chat society.

I admit that I've never been in such a situation, but have you ever gotten better results from similarly behaved people who did not claim to be from Turkey?

[Pirog]

SekoETC>

I don't think you are fair now.
You have characters in the Swedish part and you don't speak better Swedish than the Turk in your example speaks English.

Secondly, there are plenty of Turks who speaks English fluently, so your claims are unfair...especially since Finnish people doesn't exactly stand out when it comes to speaking English.

Thirdly, about your example. That kind of behavior has nothing to do with being a Turk. I have seen endless amounts of example of Swedes and other Western Europeans behaving in exactly the same way.
Just this day my ex told me that some guy had asked her on the Internet if she wanted to come such his cock...and they had never even spoken before.

[SekoETC]

Hmm... maybe I should just playing there then? I could go all English. Just like the Turks could go all Turkish. Except no Turk area in Cantr.. I don't think they play Cantr. Or do they? They just blend in with the mass writing perfect English that no one notices.

[kroner]

what if i told you i was turkish?

[SekoETC]

I'd compliment you since you are the best Turkish writer I've met this far.

[Chrissy]

...will u come eat my kebab?

You shouldn't talk to any strangers no matter what their nationality if they say, will you eat my kebab. I don't think it has to do with nationality. Quit talking to perverts.

[Nick]

Hmm... maybe I should just playing there then? I could go all English. Just like the Turks could go all Turkish. Except no Turk area in Cantr.. I don't think they play Cantr. Or do they? They just blend in with the mass writing perfect English that no one notices.

You still dont get the point. Stop saying "they".
Let me guess, youre the type that things anyone with olive skin works for Al Qaeda.

[kroner]

Kroner.. I closed my eyes opened my heart and sent you a hug via the lord last night. Did you get it? If not, that's o.k., I'm going to keep trying.

i don't think i got it, but i do appreciate the gesture.

[SekoETC]

You still dont get the point. Stop saying "they".
Let me guess, youre the type that things anyone with olive skin works for Al Qaeda.

Actually, no. I was in a demonstration against the war in Iraq, I think in that case the Americans were begging for what happened. Too bad when the attack came it was on civilians in the towers, so sympathies were all on yankees. It's a tricky situation, no side is better than the other. If Americans can oppress people in Iraq and Afganistan it's not alright, but if they don't watch over things in there, the local government will do the oppression for them. So nobody can win.

Sorry, maybe I am just stupid but I don't get your point at all. If a million flies says that shit tastes good, I'm still not going to taste it. What do you want me to do, lie to you and say I have suddenly turned openminded and international? I have no reason to fool people like that. I am what I am.