What is the Purpose?

[frz]

Therefore, in a world full of evil and suffering

most perpetrated by theists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Therefore, in a world full of evil and suffering

most perpetrated by theists.

That's such a tired bromide. Can we just say this is an area where reasonable people can disagree and leave it at that. Please. We need fresh ideas.

[Simon Moon]

We need fresh ideas.

So, lets get them from texts written by ignorant superstitions Iron Age tribesmen.

[Ryantology]

The beads of an abacus have no meaning in and of themselves. An intelligent agent must assign the meaning of '1' to some beads and the value of '5' to others. Not to mention the order of magnitude represented by each column. The abacus itself has no meaning.

The universe has no meaning in and of itself. An intelligent agent must assign meaning to its constituent parts and how they work together to make up the whole thing, and assign a reason for its existence and operation. Not to mention, the order of magnitude difference between the scale of the parts we know of. The universe itself has no meaning.

You prove our point.

[Gabriel Syme]

In my experience, for all they talk about criticial thinking and reason, the Godless do not practice what they preach.

In all contemporary debates regarding (eg) homosexuality, abortion and same-sex marriage, the religious position is backed up by demonstrable scientific knowledge and critical thinking. In contrast, the secular position is based on nothing, other than what personally suits the people advancing the arguments.

That secular society denies the teachings of science in all three of the examples I give - and displays great hatred and intolerance towards anyone who accepts what science says - is very telling.

It is clear to see that Godless people are not comfortable with facts and often prefer to replace them with some made-up rubbish - eg abortion isnt murder. Homosexuality is equally valid as heterosexuality (and the other rubbish which secular people spout).

Accordingly then I would say an advantage of faith is that it gives us the courage and intellectual credibility to accept reality and accept ourselves. Its very clear that many people in secular society reject reality and attempt to create a fantasy world for themselves.

This is why social discourse can often be fraught and bad tempered - the Godless dont like it when you impinge on / knock-down the comfortable fantasy world which they have created for themselves.

Another advantage which derives from this is that people with faith have an accurate world-view, one built on unchanging solid ground. In contrast, the secular world view is built on the shifting sands of changing public opinion and fads. Only the former view is credible, as truth itself is unchanging.

[pocaracas]

---

In my experience, for all they talk about criticial thinking and reason, the Godless do not practice what they preach.

In all contemporary debates regarding (eg) homosexuality, abortion and same-sex marriage, the religious position is backed up by demonstrable scientific knowledge and critical thinking. In contrast, the secular position is based on nothing, other than what personally suits the people advancing the arguments.

That secular society denies the teachings of science in all three of the examples I give - and displays great hatred and intolerance towards anyone who accepts what science says - is very telling.

It is clear to see that Godless people are not comfortable with facts and often prefer to replace them with some made-up rubbish - eg abortion isnt murder. Homosexuality is equally valid as heterosexuality (and the other rubbish which secular people spout).

Accordingly then I would say an advantage of faith is that it gives us the courage and intellectual credibility to accept reality and accept ourselves. Its very clear that many people in secular society reject reality and attempt to create a fantasy world for themselves.

This is why social discourse can often be fraught and bad tempered - the Godless dont like it when you impinge on / knock-down the comfortable fantasy world which they have created for themselves.

Another advantage which derives from this is that people with faith have an accurate world-view, one built on unchanging solid ground. In contrast, the secular world view is built on the shifting sands of changing public opinion and fads. Only the former view is credible, as truth itself is unchanging.

---

The godless practice the non-existence of a god.... that's it.

Which solid ground is this you speak of where you have your god thing?
If it was that solid, don't you think there would be only one religion, no godless people and no inter-faith conflicts?

[Whateverist]

In my experience, for all they talk about criticial thinking and reason, the Godless do not practice what they preach.

In all contemporary debates regarding (eg) homosexuality, abortion and same-sex marriage, the religious position is backed up by demonstrable scientific knowledge and critical thinking. In contrast, the secular position is based on nothing, other than what personally suits the people advancing the arguments.

That secular society denies the teachings of science in all three of the examples I give - and displays great hatred and intolerance towards anyone who accepts what science says - is very telling.

It is clear to see that Godless people are not comfortable with facts and often prefer to replace them with some made-up rubbish - eg abortion isnt murder. Homosexuality is equally valid as heterosexuality (and the other rubbish which secular people spout).

Accordingly then I would say an advantage of faith is that it gives us the courage and intellectual credibility to accept reality and accept ourselves. Its very clear that many people in secular society reject reality and attempt to create a fantasy world for themselves.

This is why social discourse can often be fraught and bad tempered - the Godless dont like it when you impinge on / knock-down the comfortable fantasy world which they have created for themselves.

Another advantage which derives from this is that people with faith have an accurate world-view, one built on unchanging solid ground. In contrast, the secular world view is built on the shifting sands of changing public opinion and fads. Only the former view is credible, as truth itself is unchanging.

Rubbish. Unsupported rubbish at that. Science supports homophobia and a ban on abortion? You clearly do not know where science applies or how it works. You leave me to guess but I assume you find support for homophobia from science in the finding that procreation requires the sexual union of opposite sexes? [You really do keep up with the literature, don't you?] If that is what you have in mind, I am really just talking to myself here aren't I? You fail the test for sapience but are you even sentient?

[Gabriel Syme]

Rubbish. Unsupported rubbish at that.

Science supports homophobia and a ban on abortion?

Who said that?

I said:

In all contemporary debates regarding (eg) homosexuality, abortion and same-sex marriage, the religious position is backed up by demonstrable scientific knowledge and critical thinking

Thats quite different from your (eg) "science supports homophobia?" remark.

To be fair to you - perhaps I should have explictly stated "Catholic positions" as opposed to "religious positions".

The religious, (in my case mainstream Christian), positions on homosexuality and abortion are:

Homosexuality is disordered (that is, 'misaligned'). Biological science clearly and undeniably describes to us how every human body works. Anyone familiar with biological science - even just at high-school level - cannot deny that biological science demonstrates that homosexual activity is disordered (misaligned) activity. It represents a fundamental misuse of the physical body and its functions.

Abortion represents the destruction of an innocent human life. No-one can deny this: The science of Human Embryology has long since taught us that a new form of life with 46 Chromosomes - which is scientifically defined as a 'human being' - is created at the moment of conception.

You have got to respect science and what we learn from it. You cant pretend it says something else, because it suits you better. Thats just not credible.

You clearly do not know where science applies or how it works.

If this is so, please identify the flaws in the arguments above.

You leave me to guess but I assume you find support for homophobia from science in the finding that procreation requires the sexual union of opposite sexes?

Theres that "Homophobia" concept again, which you introduced to the conversation, not me. You know, "playing the victim" is a poor retort to scientific knowledge.

What does that word "Homophobia" mean, by the way? Its never very clear.

Do you genuinely consider it "homophobic" to properly understand how a human body works, and the purpose of each of its constituent parts?

Please think carefully before answering!

Do you consider it "homophobic" to speak the truth about how human bodies work?

If that is what you have in mind, I am really just talking to myself here aren't I? You fail the test for sapience but are you even sentient?

Well, you are talking to yourself, in that you are putting words into my mouth (about vague concepts such as "homophobia").

However, I am more than willing to engage with you, so there no need to pretend I said things which I didnt.

I look forward to your reply, and I really hope - for the sake of your own crediiblity - that you dont come back and attempt to argue against biology etc.

[Whateverist]

You leave me to guess but I assume you find support for homophobia from science in the finding that procreation requires the sexual union of opposite sexes?

Do you genuinely consider it "homophobic" to properly understand how a human body works, and the purpose of each of its constituent parts?

Please think carefully before answering!

Do you consider it "homophobic" to speak the truth about how human bodies work?

You want to justify your prejudice against same sex sex by pointing out how it doesn't lead to procreation. Most people I know don't fuck to make babies. They fuck to cum, you know, have an orgasm. Of course orgasms do not result in procreation but since that isn't the purpose people were looking to achieve by engaging in sex, who the hell cares?

The purpose of each of the body's constituent parts might surprise you. Did you know that opposable thumbs makes it possible to wank off all alone even without a vagina? No, really. Also a mouth or bum can also take the place of vagina with no loss of effective orgasming.

Why don't you give it some more thought? Maybe you can make better sense of the true uses of our body's parts than you've managed so far, asshole.

[Ryantology]

Why did God design my body so that my G-spot is inside of my anus, if it was his intention that I not be sexually stimulated in that region? Why did he design the anus so that it is pleasurable for both parties, sexually? Why is it acceptable for God to kill zygotes and fetuses (most of which never carry to term), yet it is evil for us to do so?

Who gets to decide what is a 'misuse' of my body? This body is mine. I have to take care of it, maintain it, clean it, and use it. Nobody else owns this body or has any say in what I do with it. And, why is this particular 'misuse' of the body so much worse than all the others, such as drinking, smoking or having poor posture? Why is it so terrible that I might stick my penis in another man's ass, yet entirely okay to mutilate my penis through the God-approved barbarism we call male circumcision?

There's nothing scientific about the dripping horse shit you just posted. It is nothing but your backwards, primitive religious bias in a cheap costume.