Religious Typology Quiz

BidenPresident said:
So you gave birth to yourself? You invented the concept of sexual desire? These are goals of nature.
Click to expand...

They are not goals of nature! I was born because my parents had sex one day in April probably because it felt good to them. That isn't a "goal" of nature. It just is.

Why does nature need a "goal"? Why can't something just BE?
 
BidenPresident said:
So, your parents had no reason to procreate?
Click to expand...

Do they need to? Does there NEED to be a reason for two adults who are married to have sex? Do you and your spouse ONLY schedule "sex appointments" every so often with the EXPRESS intent to "procreate".

Not everyone is like that. My wife and I have sex and I have had a vasectomy so we don't have kids. Do you want to know why we do it?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Do they need to? Does there NEED to be a reason for two adults who are married to have sex? Do you and your spouse ONLY schedule "sex appointments" every so often with the EXPRESS intent to "procreate".

Not everyone is like that. My wife and I have sex and I have had a vasectomy so we don't have kids. Do you want to know why we do it?
Click to expand...

So sex is natural. It is a natural desire. So nature causes it.
 
BidenPresident said:
So you gave birth to yourself? You invented the concept of sexual desire? These are goals of nature.
Click to expand...

The goals of nature are to reproduce. Making it fun is nature's means of incentivizing critters to fuck. Mixing DNA increases the odds of a mutation surviving any particular calamity at the time. Usually disease or climate changes.

Until the late 1800s, the global infant mortality rate was 25% with 50% of the survivors not making it past age 15.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#child-mortality-around-the-world-since-1800
1800: Demographic research suggests that through to at least the year 1800 more than one-third of children failed to reach the age of five. Despite estimates in 1800 coming with substantial uncertainty, it’s expected that in some countries rates could have been as high as every 2nd child. Let’s think about what this meant for parents of this period. The average woman in 1800 had between 5 to 7 children.12

Parents probably lost 2 or 3 of their children in the first few years of life. Such loss was not a rare occurrence but the norm for most people across the world.
Click to expand...

Fucking is part of our nature. :thup:
 
Doc Dutch said:
The goals of nature are to reproduce. Making it fun is nature's means of incentivizing critters to fuck.
Click to expand...

That could be backwards. Instead of attributing higher mental functions like "will" to all of nature, what if those animals in which sex felt particularly good reproduced more (duh) and that led to more creatures for whom sex felt good.

Now you have a situation without any "will" or "intent" on the part of anything that results in it looking like there was a "goal". When no such goal necessarily existed.


Which is more rational: a somehow thinking "nature" that has goals and a will or one that just exists?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
That could be backwards. Instead of attributing higher mental functions like "will" to all of nature, what if those animals in which sex felt particularly good reproduced more (duh) and that led to more creatures for whom sex felt good.

Now you have a situation without any "will" or "intent" on the part of anything that results in it looking like there was a "goal". When no such goal necessarily existed.


Which is more rational: a somehow thinking "nature" that has goals and a will or one that just exists?
Click to expand...

No one said nature was thinking.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Isn't that the same thing as saying that teleology of the universe is a "null set"?

I am always fascinated by people who need the universe to have a "meaning", or "goal". Those seem like absurd notions.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the cosmos has a purpose or not.

I have been pushing back on the notion that science is a silver bullet, a grand panacea that pretty much can answer most all of the questions we have.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. Studying the physical universe before it became the universe is beyond their ability.

AFAIK, there's no word for before Space/Time. It's a clear line dividing science and philosophy/beliefs.

All the quantum stuff is interesting because it's studying the fabric of space.

That may be a path to restitching it for our gain...and the galaxy's loss...in the name of Jesus. BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAA
Click to expand...
That's why I feel like there will always be room for science, philosopy, religion. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know if a time equals zero even makes sense. If time is quantized, time could never actually reach back to the zero right before the countdown. And if time really depends on the second law of thermodynamics, then maybe the singularity existed at Planck time and Planck scale infinitely long before cosmic expansion and inflation began.

The other way to look at it, is there was a realm of entirely unknown physics before the first nanosecond of creation.
 
Cypress said:
That's why I feel like there will always be room for science, philosopy, religion. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know if a time equals zero even makes sense. If time is quantized, time could never actually reach back to the zero right before the countdown. And if time really depends on the second law of thermodynamics, then maybe the singularity existed at Planck time and Planck scale infinitely long before cosmic expansion and inflation began.

The other way to look at it, is there was a realm of entirely unknown physics before the first nanosecond of creation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a problem when people either try to mix them too much or declare one is superior to the other.

When push comes to shove, I prefer to follow the facts. Studying and understanding the Universe is a good thing. Those who are religious and truly believe God created the Universe should also believe God gave humans a brain with the expectation people would use it. People saying, "No, we should do it like our ancestors Og and Olga did in the old days because they saw a grass fire" are not using their brains.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
That could be backwards. Instead of attributing higher mental functions like "will" to all of nature, what if those animals in which sex felt particularly good reproduced more (duh) and that led to more creatures for whom sex felt good.

Now you have a situation without any "will" or "intent" on the part of anything that results in it looking like there was a "goal". When no such goal necessarily existed.


Which is more rational: a somehow thinking "nature" that has goals and a will or one that just exists?
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding the point. Fucking = more babies = more distribution of human DNA = maximizing the ability of species survival under a variety of conditions. It's all very natural.

Metaphorically, yes on goal. The fundamental truth is that mammals are driven to reproduce. Humans are no different in that respect. We can joke about guys thinking with their little heads over their big heads all we want, but it remains true for many men. Not all, but many. It'd take a psychological study to see what percentage of American males remained 100% faithful to their mate.

It's illogical to be unfaithful due to the negative effects of divorce. So why do it? Because they are not thinking clearly due to emotions (animal instincts) being the dominant part of their personality.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-common-is-cheating-infidelity-really#statistics
A 2021 survey by Health Testing Centers polled 441 people and reported:

  • a little over 46% of respondents in a monogamous relationship said they had affairs
  • nearly 24% of marriages affected by infidelity reported staying together
  • 47.5% of relationships affected by cheating said they established and enforced new relationship rules, such as sharing phone passwords, to minimize the likelihood of more affairs
Click to expand...

Why the difference? To what "purpose" or "goal" would these trait differences exist in humans?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america
cheating1new-w640.png
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
Already told you. Sex drive.
Click to expand...

Another supporter of the little head/big head theory. As a previous graph displayed, men greatly outnumber women in being driven by their sex drive...but more than a few trailer sluts do too. They usually end up in homemade movies. :)

https://www.meetmindful.com/mindful-penis/
As men, we tend to be overpowered at times with our emotions and want to do what our penises (little head) tell us, instead of our brains (big head).

It’s important to think rational and logically in the times of tough decisions. Let’s explore these different situations and explain why it’s best to think with the “big head.”
Click to expand...
BTW, don't Google Little head big head unless you want a lot of links to gay porn. Googling thinking with your little head provides optimal results.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I define "grace" as a combination of respectable deportment, taste, poise, good will, and adequate refinement.

That's as much as we can expect from our very imperfect species. Probably a little more, it seems.
Click to expand...

Why? Wouldn't building a bridge or rocket be better?

Snooty people are only a minor segment of the world's 8B. A quarter of whom lack safe drinking water. Nearly half of the global population has unsafe sanitation practices at home. Open sewers are common. Half a billion just shit in the street.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html#
Drinking Water
  • 2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water at home. Of those, 1.2 billion people have basic drinking water service.1
  • Between 2015 and 2020, 107 million people gained access to safely managed drinking water at home, and 115 million people gained access to safe toilets at home.1
  • 8 out 10 people who continue to lack basic drinking water services live in rural areas.1

Sanitation
  • 3.6 billion people, nearly half the world’s population, do not have access to safely managed sanitation in their home. Of those, 1.9 billion people live with basic sanitation services, and 494 million people practice open defecation.1

Hygiene
  • 2.3 billion people lack basic hygiene services, including soap and water at home. This includes 670 million people with no handwashing facilities at all.1
  • In 28 countries, at least 1 in 4 people have no handwashing facility at home.1
  • In rural settings, only 1 in 3 people have access to basic hygiene services (such as soap and water at home).1
 
Doc Dutch said:
Why? Wouldn't building a bridge or rocket be better?

Snooty people are only a minor segment of the world's 8B. A quarter of whom lack safe drinking water. Nearly half of the global population has unsafe sanitation practices at home. Open sewers are common. Half a billion just shit in the street.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html#
Drinking Water
  • 2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water at home. Of those, 1.2 billion people have basic drinking water service.1
  • Between 2015 and 2020, 107 million people gained access to safely managed drinking water at home, and 115 million people gained access to safe toilets at home.1
  • 8 out 10 people who continue to lack basic drinking water services live in rural areas.1

Sanitation
  • 3.6 billion people, nearly half the world’s population, do not have access to safely managed sanitation in their home. Of those, 1.9 billion people live with basic sanitation services, and 494 million people practice open defecation.1

Hygiene
  • 2.3 billion people lack basic hygiene services, including soap and water at home. This includes 670 million people with no handwashing facilities at all.1
  • In 28 countries, at least 1 in 4 people have no handwashing facility at home.1
  • In rural settings, only 1 in 3 people have access to basic hygiene services (such as soap and water at home).1
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending to be the world's ultimate authority on every subject, Oom, but if you allow me a moment of perfect candor,
you come across to me as being just a little bit crude and unfinished.

People start out that way, but those who don't think that it's worth trying really hard to improve upon that

have a difficult time trying to acquire respect from those who actually have tried.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I'm not pretending to be the world's ultimate authority on every subject, Oom, but if you allow me a moment of perfect candor,
you come across to me as being just a little bit crude and unfinished.

People start out that way, but those who don't think that it's worth trying really hard to improve upon that

have a difficult time trying to acquire respect from those who actually have tried.
Click to expand...

I prefer concise and condensed. It's much better than self-inflated and useless in a survival situation. :D

What was the hardest thing you ever did, neef?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top