The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by moxieman99 That we know for a fact that animals are not evil. Hostile, maybe, but not evil. If we find animals that are self-aware and capable of higher thinking, then I'll reconsider. But bears? No. Animals, in short, have no need for gods. Gods are strickly a human need.

I disagree, but this direction of discussion is not interesting for me.
Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 If we find animals that are self-aware and capable of higher thinking, then I'll reconsider. But bears? No.

What? Self aware animals with higher thinking? Holy Cow!!!
Mind throwing some light on this?

Originally Posted by PrinceSharma What? Self aware animals with higher thinking? Holy Cow!!! Mind throwing some light on this?

Means, "if there would be an animal that thinks and is self aware, then..."

then it would be a human being :-)

And I agree, only human beings need Gods.
Other animals do not need any.

I dont know why people get stuck on the 'problem of evil', it only applies IF you believe in a single 'creator' god who has all the omnis. If any of the other possibilities are true (dualism, polytheism, a single creator god with all the omnis who is a bit of a bastard, a single god who isnt omnipotent, etc.) then the problem of evil doesnt exist.

Originally Posted by PrinceSharma What? Self aware animals with higher thinking? Holy Cow!!! Mind throwing some light on this?

Complex subject, a good start point is the mirror test-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

If you really want to get deeper, try the December 2003 issue of "The Behavioral and Brain Sciences", small link here-

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...igher_thinking

Originally Posted by aizkorri Means, "if there would be an animal that thinks and is self aware, then..." then it would be a human being :-) And I agree, only human beings need Gods. Other animals do not need any.

I don't think intelligence and self-awareness are necessarily exclusively human. THere is no reason why we must be the minimum level of complexity necessary for self-consciousness.

Originally Posted by cascade9 I dont know why people get stuck on the 'problem of evil',

Because it disproves christianity, and certain people wasted 3 previous months trying to "prove jesus" on this forum.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I don't think intelligence and self-awareness are necessarily exclusively human. THere is no reason why we must be the minimum level of complexity necessary for self-consciousness.

erm no..., and I agree, some animals can be intelligent and self conscious and are not humans,
that wasnt my point, that is why I put the smiley.

My point is that humans are the only animals that need gods. (unless of course someone discovers a monkey praying... or something similar )

Originally Posted by aizkorri erm no..., and I agree, some animals can be intelligent and self conscious and are not humans, that wasnt my point, that is why I put the smiley. My point is that humans are the only animals that need gods. (unless of course someone discovers a monkey praying... or something similar )

So... If humans are just animals then why the push for birth/population control, global warming, etc? After all if there isn't a $DEITY then I'm just a common animal. My dog doesn't mind chasing the bitches and cranking out all the puppies he can. What's the deal with people telling me 2.5 kids is enough? Am I an animal or not?

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So... If humans are just animals then why the push for birth/population control, global warming, etc? After all if there isn't a $DEITY then I'm just a common animal. My dog doesn't mind chasing the bitches and cranking out all the puppies he can. What's the deal with people telling me 2.5 kids is enough? Am I an animal or not?

Other "lesser" animals are still largely subject to the harshness of life and therefore nature takes care of population stabilization (ie: death when there aren't enough resources to sustain their numbers and fast reproduction when resources are abundant).
We humans, although still animals, have used our brains to tame the environment we inhabit (climate-controled living/working environments, industrialized food production, large-scale sanitation facilities, advanced medical treatments) and artificially increase our planet's carrying capacity.

However, we are still breeding way faster than we are dying, which means that not too long from now we WILL hit that artificially created ceiling. It will happen because our planet and resources are finite, unless we do something to curb our population growth before we reach a point where our infrastructure (and planet) can no longer sustain us. If we overshoot that threshold, then nature will start taking care of things: people will die until balance is restored.

Your dog can fsck around as much as he wants because he probably doesn't know or care whether or not his offspring will reach adulthood at all. Nature will do what it always does: your dog's pups will die if they don't have food. Other dogs will live because those pups aren't competing for the resources.
We on the other hand have the mental capacity to prevent resource scarcity, if we really work together towards that goal.

TL;DR version: We are animals, yes, but we have brains and we can make long term decisions concerning the well-being of our descendants. Your dog can't.

PS: I rather like this quote from Isaac Asimov about the problem of overpopulation and its implications on even the most basic of our society's principles, such as freedom:

"- Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?

- Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I will use what I call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters."

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So... If humans are just animals then why the push for birth/population control, global warming, etc? After all if there isn't a $DEITY then I'm just a common animal. My dog doesn't mind chasing the bitches and cranking out all the puppies he can. What's the deal with people telling me 2.5 kids is enough? Am I an animal or not?

That's easy one. Do you mind if your descendants (and possibly your children) die or if humanity will go extinct? If you do not want this to happen, then it makes sense to worry about population control. In the world without "loving/caring/omnipotent/omniscient/just" god any type of animal that runs out of resources, dies, and humans are not an exception from the rule.

Originally Posted by easuter However, we are still breeding way faster than we are dying,

That depends on the country.

So "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"? It's an idea perpetuated by man that we are smarter/wiser/better than the rest? We should be managing and maintaining the earth? Better be careful for an atheist the discussion is starting to sound like Genesis 1:28

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

I don't know if I buy the artificial planet capacity argument either, are we getting resources from another planet? I don't see anything artificial about using what we have. Moving a step further I would argue that scarcity is caused more from political/social issues than lack of resources. Las Vegas is built in a large desert area, similar to any of the area's you see starving people in Africa, if it's purely geographically based Vegas shouldn't be around. Vegas is the 28th most populous city in the US, in an area that naturally shouldn't hold more than a few thousand people. I can question pulling water from 100's of miles away but nature seems to have turned a blind eye to it. To say we are out of resources is like the early discoverers of Vegas saying the area is a desert and can't be inhabited.

Originally Posted by SigTerm That depends on the country.

The global trend is very fast population increase.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"? It's an idea perpetuated by man that we are smarter/wiser/better than the rest? We should be managing and maintaining the earth? Better be careful for an atheist the discussion is starting to sound like Genesis 1:28

Yes we should be managing and maintaining it. That doesn't mean we should treat other animals like trash, nor does it mean we should plunder the resources our descendents will also need in order to live comfortable lives.

I don't know if I buy the artificial planet capacity argument either, are we getting resources from another planet? I don't see anything artificial about using what we have.

What exactly did you learn in school? Ever learn about the Industrial Revolution? The Green Revolution?
Basically, by using resources such as petroleum to create fertilizers/pesticides for our crops and fuel for our agricultural equipment we have managed to increase the amount of food we can produce, and this amount is a lot more than what was possible during the time the bible was written, for example. Hence why it's called artificial carrying capacity, because without our direct intervention with technology and science we would be unable to maintain this amount of production.

Not to mention shipping, refrigeration, long term preservation (canned food, etc).

If none of this seems artificial to you, then you are completely blind and living in a fantasy world apart from the rest of us.

Moving a step further I would argue that scarcity is caused more from political/social issues than lack of resources.

I have to agree with you here to a certain degree.The world could have equal distribution of resources but our current economic and political systems don't favour it.
However, even if this weren't the case, unchecked population growth will eventually outgrow available resources.

Las Vegas is built in a large desert area, similar to any of the area's you see starving people in Africa, if it's purely geographically based Vegas shouldn't be around. Vegas is the 28th most populous city in the US, in an area that naturally shouldn't hold more than a few thousand people. I can question pulling water from 100's of miles away but nature seems to have turned a blind eye to it. To say we are out of resources is like the early discoverers of Vegas saying the area is a desert and can't be inhabited.

You actually made my point for me here. Vegas is a great example of artificially increasing the livability of an area.
But nature is only "blind" so long as we don't overstretch our resources. Vegas is already needing to upgrade it's water pumping facilities to avoid water shortages.
But since its primary source of water is Lake Mead, what happens when Vegas' population has grown to a point when the lake runs dry? What then? Then nature does its thing as usual.

We can increase our numbers by using technology, but we have to do it in a responsible manner. Being able to suck a lake completely dry doesn't mean we should do it. The ideal solution would be to limit the city's population depending on the long term amount of available water. In other words, the population should be just large enough so the lake's levels remain stable, and not dropping non-stop without having a chance to replenish.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So... If humans are just animals then why the push for birth/population control, global warming, etc? After all if there isn't a $DEITY then I'm just a common animal. My dog doesn't mind chasing the bitches and cranking out all the puppies he can. What's the deal with people telling me 2.5 kids is enough? Am I an animal or not?

You, and I, are animals. That is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a supreme being. Overpopulation will simply allow us to die like animals as well. Through starvation, war (chimps have been shown to have wars), and disease.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

The correct version is that "no two animals are equal". Sounds like you have some kind of "scale of superiority" in your mind. There's no such scale. You can't compare ant to elephant.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid I don't know if I buy the artificial planet capacity argument either, are we getting resources from another planet? I don't see anything artificial about using what we have.

As far as I know, the only reason why people didn't already lost 1 billions of people due to starvation is because some dude has improved agriculture, and getting more food requires genetic engineering. Can't say if this is true or not, but as far as I know, there's nothing natural about currently used food production.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid Las Vegas is built in a large desert area,

And your point is...?