Men and their.. insatiable lust

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Im not saying we have to follow instincts. Im saying monogamy is not an instinct. That is all I am saying - it is a social and sometimes legal arrangement.

This has been explained several times. You haven't addressed or reponded to any of the posts with a counter-argument.

You also seem to be singling wicknightout, which may seem to some as being "personal".

So are you trolling or do you just have a policy of ignoring factual posts that contradict your beliefs and continuing the argument around in circles?

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

So wicknight, are you saying that anything other than an orgy qualifies as monogamy?

I consider monogamy as having one sexual partner in any one period and polygamy as having more than one sexual partner in any one period. So does the dictonary -

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamy
mo·nog·a·my
n.
The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.

That period of time is not defined, and does not have to be ones entire life time like with marriage. In the animal world the period is defined as the mating session of the speices. Since humans don't have a mating session a strict definition is not possible. Biologically with humans, if we are talking about families, it would be the period of raising a child or children. But because modern humans often have sex without resulting in children this definition of a period, would not be satifactory for modern relationships.

lazydaisy wrote:

Im sorry, but monogamy is swimming upstream against our instincts.

As Psi has pointed out, you have not put forward any reason to believe that is true except you seem to want to believe it (why, I have no idea).

lazydaisy wrote:

Let me ask you what you consider counts as sex?

In a biological sense? When the errect male penis enters the females vagina.

lazydaisy wrote:

How do you define CHEATING, a word you like to toss around.

There would not be a single definition, but the common one might be Having sexual or romantic relations with a person when you have arranged with another person to be exclusively romantically linked to them only.

lazydaisy wrote:

You do realise that saying something is biological and instinctive implies that anything that is different from that is abberrant and unnatural.

I didn't realise that, probably cause it isn't true :rolleyes:

lazydaisy wrote:

Im not saying we have to follow instincts. Im saying monogamy is not an instinct.

And I, and the evidence, are saying you are wrong.

I would point out that you seem to be basing your belief monogamy isn't an instinct on the idea that we all must follow our instincts and because we are not all monogamous therefore monogamy isn't an instinct.

lazydaisy wrote:

As for jealousy - we can choose our emotions. It's part of being an adult.

We don't choose our emotions (without the help of strong drugs), if we did I would choose to be happy all the time. What we do choose is how we react to these emotions.

lazydaisy wrote:

Once again you are ascribing your own values to entire populations.

What values??

I said westerns have sex for pleasure more than reproduction now they have mastered birthcontrol. Because of this fact the instincts governing family units have less power over people's relationships as they once did because these relationships are not resulting in children.

All this was coming from me initally asking people how many men do they think would cheat on their partners if each time they did it resulted in a child. The point being contraception allows people to have multiple partners (and cheat) without invoking the biological instincts to raise children, cause they aren't producing children in the first place.

You then seemed to claim no we actually still have sex for babies (you claimed most sex does result in children, not sure how but you claimed it), and I pointed out that is ridiculous because i have had sex a couple of hundred times and never had one child, and I think most people have too.

Now we are talking about Latin America?? Why exactly?? Are you being argumentative for argument sake?

lazydaisy wrote:

I will also ask you to refrain from your usual pattern of condescension and patronising overtones.

And I would ask you what the hell you are basing any of your "ideas" on exactly?

lazydaisy

No PSI. I dont mean to single out WK. Its just that his hers has been the dominant voice here. For me to untangle every self-contradictory thing s/he has said here would take me a lot more time than I have to spare. Besides which s/he can fight his own battles. He consistently personalises things by asking me about my relationship history. I dont ask him but he still tells me how often he has sex when he's with someone and you accuse ME of making it personal? You're funny. :rolleyes: Can you please justify your accusation of me trolling?

Also -Im not saying anyone is wrong to push or encourage anything and I still dont understand why morality keeps being dragged into this conversation.

All of you keep talking about cheating and not one of you has yet to say what you mean by it. I presume you mean sex outside the primary relationship where you don't disclose your activities and LYING about it? Do you include oral sex in this definition?

I have addressed the posts several times with a counter-argument.

I never said the Judeo/Christian churches INVENTED monogamy. I said that they require it, at least officially, in that you can have one wife/husband, as in one legal sex partner of the opposite sex. This courtesy does not extend to the same sex.

I have also responded to Vangelis several times and other posters here. Are you feeling ignored and would like some of my attention? Is that it? I have to respond to WK because he consistently makes assumptions about what I am saying, puts words in my mouth, and projects all over the place.

I get what your saying about swimming and flying. But for me, that is just not true. I was never ever afraid of water. I taught myself to swim very young, and like a lot of kids loved the water and loved baths. I know there are people who are afraid of water, but I dont know how you can generlise in either direction. We gestate in water. It seems strange that you would think that we are all afraid of it. Lots of babies and kids love water. I dont know what you mean by "at first" we are afraid of it.

If what you mean by monogamy is everything but an orgy or threesome, than of course its present everywhere. So your definition of mongamy is having one sex parter at a time? One per week is mongamy, a different one every day is monogamy? Three different partners a day is mongamy? Exactly where does your definition stop?

Vangelis - adultery is in many places legal grounds for divorce. I didnt say it was exclusively necessary or universally acknowledged as grounds for divorce. But that in SOME places it is grounds for divorce, whether you or I approve of that is entirely irrelevent.

Vangelis

PSI, I asked Wicknight a question because I was genuinely interested in his opinion. I'm not some stupid teenager who wants to twist arguements against the arguer just for my own satisfaction. And if you had explained the point Wicknight made in response to my question, I apologise for not having noticed that. I read all posts as best as I can.

Wicknight, I accept your arguement that monogamy is not confined to having one partner only throughout your life. Please remember though that repetitious monogamy, if I can word it that way, or having many monogamous relationships after one another, is called serial monogamy.

Wicknight wrote:

I don't accept the position that doing something that doesn't necessarily follow biological instinct is "cheating" ...

Allright. But what I'd like to know is your opinion on non-monogamous behaviour. What is this a result of? If the want for monogamous relationships lie in our genes, how come some do not live differently? I cannot see that you have expressed any opinion on that yet.

My point is here, which you stated earlier and we agreed upon, that our biology is reflected in our social behaviour(culture, traditions etc).

(To me this is a complicated question:)

Do those whose sexual behaviour differs from the instinctive monogamy, have a different biology?

I'm not attacking your statements, just trying to understand the whole picture.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

No PSI. I dont mean to single out WK. Its just that his hers has been the dominant voice here. For me to untangle every self-contradictory thing s/he has said here would take me a lot more time than I have to spare. Besides which s/he can fight his own battles. He consistently personalises things by asking me about my relationship history. I dont ask him but he still tells me how often he has sex when he's with someone and you accuse ME of making it personal? You're funny. :rolleyes: Can you please justify your accusation of me trolling?

I didn't accuse you of trolling. I asked if you were trolling or just ignoring the arguments you can't answer. This is indicated by the question mark (one of these: "?") at the end of the sentance. If you feel you're not trolling then I must ask, why do you continue to ignore explanations that are quite simple and rephrasing your questions? Do you think that by asking the same question or making the same erroneous point multiple times you will somehow get off the hook?

I have addressed the posts several times with a counter-argument.

Could you please link this post and what the counter argument was to. I've looked twice and can't see any argument anywhere.

You linked a wiki article. I explained why it was wrong. Gave you a ton of resources and you post like it never happened.

I never said the Judeo/Christian churches INVENTED monogamy. I said that they require it, at least officially, in that you can have one wife/husband, as in one legal sex partner of the opposite sex. This courtesy does not extend to the same sex.

What has this got to do wither its an inherent trait of humans?

I have also responded to Vangelis several times and other posters here. Are you feeling ignored and would like some of my attention? Is that it? I have to respond to WK because he consistently makes assumptions about what I am saying, puts words in my mouth, and projects all over the place.

No, but I think that when you post questions that have been repeatedly addressed in the thread and ignore posts directing you to them and then STILL come back and ask the questions again, you're either in denial or just unable to comprehend the subject matter.

I get what your saying about swimming and flying. But for me, that is just not true. I was never ever afraid of water. I taught myself to swim very young, and like a lot of kids loved the water and loved baths. I know there are people who are afraid of water, but I dont know how you can generlise in either direction. We gestate in water. It seems strange that you would think that we are all afraid of it. Lots of babies and kids love water. I dont know what you mean by "at first" we are afraid of it.

Firstly, did you read what I posted about this, because you seem to be confusing me with wicknight. Secondly, your anecdotal retrospective example doesn't actually mean anything or lend any sensible contribution to an argument.

If what you mean by monogamy is everything but an orgy or threesome, than of course its present everywhere. So your definition of mongamy is having one sex parter at a time? One per week is mongamy, a different one every day is monogamy? Three different partners a day is mongamy? Exactly where does your definition stop?

I assume this is not addressed to me, it doesn't seem to relate to anything I say (at least not coherently).

Monogamy is defined as the tendancy towards a single recurrent sexual partner over a period of time. It doesn't mean a life long bond. It simply means confining yourself to one sex partner over a period of time. For the intents and purposes of the definition in an evolutionary context, it would be long enough to produce an offspring (note "produce" as opposed to conceive). On a more literal context, it could be considered long enough to decline sexual relations with another possible mate.

If one has continuous non-recurrent sex partners or has multiple sex partners (by which we mean sex with several people multiple times over a period) then this would be considered polygamous behaviour.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

PSI, I asked Wicknight a question because I was genuinely interested in his opinion. I'm not some stupid teenager who wants to twist arguements against the arguer just for my own satisfaction. And if you had explained the point Wicknight made in response to my question, I apologise for not having noticed that. I read all posts as best as I can.

It seems non-sensical to continue a line of argument having not read all the responses. What if your point/questions have been previously addressed?
Doesn't that strike you as slightly dumb?

For instance

Please remember though that repetitious monogamy, if I can word it that way, or having many monogamous relationships after one another, is called serial monogamy.

Already addressed in previous posts.

Allright. But what I'd like to know is your opinion on non-monogamous behaviour. What is this a result of? If the want for monogamous relationships lie in our genes, how come some do not live differently? I cannot see that you have expressed any opinion on that yet.

Already addressed.

My point is here, which you stated earlier and we agreed upon, that our biology is reflected in our social behaviour(culture, traditions etc).

Not sure what you're referring to.

(To me this is a complicated question:)

Do those whose sexual behaviour differs from the instinctive monogamy, have a different biology?

Already addressed.

Why don't you try reading the WHOLE thread. Then coming back reading your posts and seeing why some posters might have slight indignation and conescending attitudes.

I mean, if you're not even going to bother reading the replies, why should anyone answer your posts?
I'm not attacking your statements, just trying to understand the whole picture. [/QUOTE]

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Already addressed in previous posts....

I mentioned serial monogamy because it felt like Wicknight was forgetting about this somehow.

It strikes me as slightly dumb that you care about my dumbness(which is not really dumbness, it's just my inadequacy to read all posts).

I will write more later(satisfied? Not that I'm here to satisfy your need for perfection!)

As for what you were not sure of in my post, Wicknight knows.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I mentioned serial monogamy because it felt like Wicknight was forgetting about this somehow.

It strikes me as slightly dumb that you care about my dumbness(which is not really dumbness, it's just my inadequacy to read all posts).

I will write more later(satisfied? Not that I'm here to satisfy your need for perfection!)

As for what you were not sure of in my post, Wicknight knows.

Hey, if you and wicknight wanna have a chat/debate about it in private, then PM.

If youre on a public forum, expect others to get involved. I'm not striving for perfection or particularly caring how dumb you are or aren't. But its a pain in the ass reading through the same repeated drivel that could be avoided if people just read the posts instead of reciting the same blurb over and over (and hence forcing others to do it.

Vangelis

PSI, I'll try to improve.

ionapaul

Looking at the monogamy question from a genetic level, the process of natural selection will ensure that those individuals whose genetic makeup results in traits that lead to greater reproductive success (on a individual basis!) become more frequent / dominant in the species. If a male and female reproductive couple stay in a monogamous relationship as a result of a specific gene, and because of the monogamous relationship (where both parents protect / nurture any offspring, rather than this being left to one parent; and both parent's resources given solely to their common offspring, rather than any offspring resulting from polygamous unions) their common offspring have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing than the offspring of individuals who do not have this 'monogamous gene', then that gene will gradually become more common down through the generations.

Hope that makes sense! Equally, a gene that manifests itself by facilitating the feeling of 'guilt', should that trait allow an individual to enjoy greater reproductive success than other individuals lacking this gene, than that gene will, via the process of natural selection, become more common in a species. I have no idea whether or not there is a gene that manifests itself by faciltating guilt, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were a genetic predisposition towards monogamy in the human genome. Natural selection at the genetic level (the only level there is, right?) could also be linked to the social evolution of the human species - it is our genes that have allowed this big brain to develop, a brain particularly suited to social involvement, and we may have different genes that manifest themselves in our mental disposition to various cultural mores.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

If what you mean by monogamy is everything but an orgy or threesome, than of course its present everywhere. So your definition of mongamy is having one sex parter at a time? One per week is mongamy, a different one every day is monogamy? Three different partners a day is mongamy? Exactly where does your definition stop?

I have to say that I'm wondering about this too.

A period of time can be one day, it can be one week. So in that sense, monogamy orgies and multiple person intercourses. But one can have sex with say three different person in one week and having been with each one for two days. Two days is a period of time.

Vangelis - adultery is in many places legal grounds for divorce. I didnt say it was exclusively necessary or universally acknowledged as grounds for divorce. But that in SOME places it is grounds for divorce, whether you or I approve of that is entirely irrelevent.

Yes, I understand this.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Look, its a perfectly simple concept. Humans are the "great thinking ape". They have set themselves aside from the rest of the animal kingdom, by being able to reason, rationalise and respond. Thats not to say instinct is alien to us. Evolutionary instinct got us where we are today. It is the reason we are us.

Yes. I understand this. But that is not to you can define human life as only instinct. And you haven't stated that, I know. But do you agree on that? Do you think that we can make choices that do not correspond with our instincts?

The biology of the animal instincts are still present and apparent in our body - most people have heard of the chemical nature of these such as dopamine & serotonin (reward system in the brain) and adrenaline (fight or flight). All the physiology that dragged us through the evolutionary process is still there and functioning.

Are you saying that we are we just chemicals and cells?

The difference between us and the animals? Well, we can process our responses, we recognise them.

There are many differences between us and animals(humans are also regarded as animals, at least physiologically speaking).

Consider a gazelle..

Consider a human...

Yes. Those are valid examples.

We are "the story telling ape". We can communicate in a far more complex manner than any other animal. On the foundation of this, we have set up societies and hierarchies far greater than any other animal. Our reasoning and rationalising has lead to the development of philosophy, theology, religion, social morality. We harness the power of electrical energy and how do we use it? We create means of communicating with people over great distances from a laptop so we can explain to each other how we evolved to do so in the first place.

The laboured point is, physiologically the same instinctive biology occurs in both scenarios. The difference is we have the intelligence to set a totally different cascade of events into motion.

Good, I don't have anything to add or critique here. My Biblical rambings are unwanted, and do not belong either in a discussion about evolution I suppose.

Take adoption, or rather, giving a child up for adoption. The instinctive nature of humans is that of a nurturing animal. We naturally spend a great deal of effort ensuring the survival of your young. The hormones during and after pregnancy dictate this (granted that many societies press the "family environment - this too is a social factor - compare our family unit attitudes with that of Germany or France).

Why then should a young mother give up her child for adoption? The reason is almost always socio-economic or traumatic in nature. Where does socio-economic pressure come from? The society (or community).

And thank God for that instinct!

Basically, you're trying to simplify things to suit your need, by taking either or cases and scenarios. You just can't do that.

Very well.

We cheat our nature every day. If we hadn't, we'd still be roaming about being eaten by Lions. You have to understand the difference between biological instinct and society driven pressure and see hwo it applies and influences every case.

Yapp. Now I have responded. Not with much.
But I've read your post. I'm not equipped obviously to critique your points which are all very good.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Yes. I understand this. But that is not to you can define human life as only instinct. And you haven't stated that, I know. But do you agree on that? Do you think that we can make choices that do not correspond with our instincts?

Of course we can and do. The question is, why do we do them?

To suggest, for instance, that there is something in the nature of men (biologically speaking) that makes them cheat is ludicrous. ALL of the science we have shows the exact opposite. Yet the truth of the matter is that, from time to time, humans (and this is the rub, women are as likely to cheat as men). cheat and/or pursue polygamous relations.

The reason is social influence. Society through, community, law, religion or whatever, can take advantage of our ability to think, to reason and to rationalise and influence us to act in ways that, evolutionary speaking are unnatural. The abortion example was a case in point.

Are you saying that we are we just chemicals and cells?

Yes, that is all we are. (It even says so in the bible - we are "base matter" or "dust"). Every emotion you feel, every instinct you have, is governed by the production and action of a chemical in your body or brain.

If you want to go on the metaphysical and suggest there is a soul behind it all, feel free, but whatever way you want to rationalise the soul, it can't deny or detract from the fact that pleasure, pain, fear, guilt, love etc etc are all down to the interactions of chemicals and cells.

There are many differences between us and animals(humans are also regarded as animals, at least physiologically speaking).

Indeed, but I think you and I both know the context of that statement and I'm sure you're smart enough that I don't need to elaborate.

Good, I don't have anything to add or critique here. My Biblical rambings are unwanted, and do not belong either in a discussion about evolution I suppose.

Everyone is entitled to faith and belief, so long as theydon't push it upon other people or expect people to accept a contradiction of some basic evidence or fact.

And thank God for that instinct!

Which God? But sure, why not, if there is a god that had a hand in the evolution of the chemical pathway that governs that instinct, praise to him indeed.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Only 16 percent of the 853 cultures on record actually prescribe monogyny, in which a man is permitted only one wife at a time. Western cultures are among them. We are in the minority, however. A whopping 84 percent of all human societies permit a man to take more than one wife at once--polygyny.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n2_v26/ai_13502145/pg_2


Monogamy isn't really common in the animal kingdom, of which we are a part. Animals that shag around have more kids with a larger amount of mothers.. More women to take care of less children each, it makes sense.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Of course we can and do. The question is, why do we do them?

To suggest, for instance, that there is something in the nature of men (biologically speaking) that makes them cheat is ludicrous. ALL of the science we have shows the exact opposite. Yet the truth of the matter is that, from time to time, humans (and this is the rub, women are as likely to cheat as men). cheat and/or pursue polygamous relations.

The reason is social influence. Society through, community, law, religion or whatever, can take advantage of our ability to think, to reason and to rationalise and influence us to act in ways that, evolutionary speaking are unnatural. The abortion example was a case in point.

Get your point. About society teaching us the way to live.

Speaking from a psychological point of view, do you think it is possible that society imposes a pressure on us to act in a certain way and that this pressure eventually results in a personal counter-insurgency, a break-up with society's institutions causing us to at in contradiction with them?

If you look at humanity's history, it is all a long range of protest against the establishment. We establish one world-view, one philosophy, and after some time people disagree, protest by making war, call for a change in the laws, convert to another religion(rare) etc.

That is the dynamics of a human community.

What if it is like this on a mental level, inside of us as individuals? That's an exciting thought, I think. It's like we can never find a final peace.

Yes, that is all we are. (It even says so in the bible - we are "base matter" or "dust"). Every emotion you feel, every instinct you have, is governed by the production and action of a chemical in your body or brain.

If you want to go on the metaphysical and suggest there is a soul behind it all, feel free, but whatever way you want to rationalise the soul, it can't deny or detract from the fact that pleasure, pain, fear, guilt, love etc etc are all down to the interactions of chemicals and cells.

I won't embark on a metaphysical arguement, but this is what you accept as the truth, right? I have a different opinion. A discussion about this we all know where will go.

Indeed, but I think you and I both know the context of that statement and I'm sure you're smart enough that I don't need to elaborate.

You don't need to.

Everyone is entitled to faith and belief, so long as they don't push it upon other people or expect people to accept a contradiction of some basic evidence or fact.

Agreed.

Which God? But sure, why not, if there is a god that had a hand in the evolution of the chemical pathway that governs that instinct, praise to him indeed.

John Paul II defined the body as the visualisation of God's wonders.
And he used chemicals and biology to construct its nature.

Saying that chemicals is just that does not feel right.
I wonder what kind of self-image that creates in a person. If you put it differently, that life is a wonderful thing, beautifully complex, that will give at least me a better feeling about my own brain and body.

I'm so impeccable.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n2_v26/ai_13502145/pg_2


Monogamy isn't really common in the animal kingdom, of which we are a part. Animals that shag around have more kids with a larger amount of mothers.. More women to take care of less children each, it makes sense.

The definition of monogamy in that article is "one wife" in one marriage. That is not what anyone is talking about, the article is a bit irrelivant. Also if you read on a bit you would see this ...

Because of the genetic advantages of polygyny for men and because so many societies permit polygyny, many anthropologists think that harem building is a badge of the human animal. But in the vast majority of societies where polygyny is permitted, only about five to 10 percent of men actually have several wives simultaneously.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

Monogamy isn't really common in the animal kingdom

Biological monogamy (one sexual partner in a mating session) is the norm in some animals and not in others. It depends on if it gives the species an advantage or not. A large number of bird species are completely monogamous, even over multiple mating sessions.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Speaking from a psychological point of view, do you think it is possible that society imposes a pressure on us to act in a certain way and that this pressure eventually results in a personal counter-insurgency, a break-up with society's institutions causing us to at in contradiction with them?

Do you mean do you think we invariably rebel against the system because it contradicts our natural instincts? If that is what you are asking, I think the answer is "probably not".

For the most part, the aspect of human nature that leads to insurgencies is corruption due to power and that is what they rebel against.

If you look at humanity's history, it is all a long range of protest against the establishment. We establish one world-view, one philosophy, and after some time people disagree, protest by making war, call for a change in the laws, convert to another religion(rare) etc.

Well thats why the call them revolutions, because they keep coming around*

*The fact that you haven't read Pratchett means I can paraphrase him and pass it off as my own cleverness

I won't embark on a metaphysical arguement, but this is what you accept as the truth, right? I have a different opinion. A discussion about this we all know where will go.

Well its an undeniable fact that we are made of proteins.

I've seen these proteins (with sophisticated equipment) and worked with and manipulated them.

If you are suggesting there is something else there, then it isn't a physical thing and I can't argue that because (A) there is no evidence for or against it and (B) non physical/natural phenomenon are outside the realms of science (no matter what Kansas State School Board say).

John Paul II defined the body as the visualisation of God's wonders.
And he used chemicals and biology to construct its nature.

That may be, but the fact is that the physical components are chemicals and proteins. Nothing more, nothing less. Souls, spirits etc are not emperically observable.

As one Priest-scientist said, "The body may be God's temple, but if you look you won't find him in it".

Saying that chemicals is just that does not feel right.

This is most likely because you don't understand it. Does it make you feel empty and alone? If so, this is most likely why you reject it. Out of comfort, not reason.

Like revolutions, history has shown us that when humans "don't feel right" about a scientific concept, they reject it, deny it and oppose it - look throughout history at breakthough discoveries that, at the time were scary for the people to accept (eg. the Earth NOT at the centre of the universe, the age of the planet/universe, global warming, magnetic attraction etc etc etc).

Have you considered that it "not feeling right" says more about you and your psychological conditioning than it does about the validity or truth of the matter.

I wonder what kind of self-image that creates in a person. If you put it differently, that life is a wonderful thing, beautifully complex, that will give at least me a better feeling about my own brain and body.

You may feel the idea of human life being a mass of chemicals and proteins terrifying and unatural and not a fulfilling self-image.

Again, its completely down to your outlook on life. Personally I find it simultaneously terrifying, wonderous and enthralling. It makes me want to know more, why and how could an arrangement of proteins and chemicals that make us - make us?

Its obvious we are more than the sum of our parts. But in order to explore the reason behind this, we first have to accept what exactly our parts are (chemicals and proteins) and work from there.

Throwing metaphysical aspects that may or may not exist only in our minds, into the mix, will not help us in this endeavour.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

Are you saying that we are we just chemicals and cells?

I think that's a fairly accurate description. We still have absolutely no proof which says we're anything more than a being which eventually dies and then rots.

Believing some BS which was beaten into you, or chosen by you to fill some kind of void, is just depressing. Jesus is not the son of God. Faith is not a good argument to believe something.

Why delude yourself? Or to be exact, why delude yourself and then tell others about it, as if you're proud?!

dalk

psi wrote:

Yet the truth of the matter is that, from time to time, humans (and this is the rub, women are as likely to cheat as men) cheat and/or pursue polygamous relations.

Has this has been discussed much on this thread? Cant remember...

Studies have shown that both sexes like to lie about how many sexual partners they have had in the past. Societies attitudes helps dictate that, women lie about having less (more chaste etc) and men lie about having more (more virile etc)... Not surprisingly, when they are being truthfull the figures even out. Makes sense of course.

"The number of sexual partners a woman reported nearly doubled when women thought they were hooked up to a lie detector machine."

:rolleyes:

So its more truthfull to say that men would like to have more sex, with more partners than they are actually having... Us poor frustrated men

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Do you mean do you think we invariably rebel against the system because it contradicts our natural instincts? If that is what you are asking, I think the answer is "probably not".

No that was not what I asked. Through the times, we've had many ways of looking at ourselves as individuals and as members of a larger community. We've had different laws and institutions to control our behaviour, our desires, and constantly someone breaks up. I'm speaking broadly here. Family values have changed, the way we look at our own bodies and brains have changed, the way we define what is sickly and not has changed, normal and unnormal changes all the time.

I do not expect Mankind to find a final way of living in peace with one another because we all look at ourselves differently. There will be no utopia where all ideologies fit in. Times change. And they change because a new generation disagrees with the latter and want to create something new. Then another generation comes, and another.

*The fact that you haven't read Pratchett means I can paraphrase him and pass it off as my own cleverness

I have to read this Pratchett-guy.

Well its an undeniable fact that we are made of proteins.

I've seen these proteins (with sophisticated equipment) and worked with and manipulated them.

If you are suggesting there is something else there, then it isn't a physical thing and I can't argue that because (A) there is no evidence for or against it and (B) non physical/natural phenomenon are outside the realms of science (no matter what Kansas State School Board say).

Ich weiss(Ger., I know)! I'm not actually suggesting that there is a Creator and that His Spirit was given to us, I know that this is so.

You say you've been studying proteins with professional equipment, are you a scientist? Or have you studied science?

That may be, but the fact is that the physical components are chemicals and proteins. Nothing more, nothing less. Souls, spirits etc are not emperically observable.

As one Priest-scientist said, "The body may be God's temple, but if you look you won't find him in it".

That's true too. Who said that by the way?

This is most likely because you don't understand it. Does it make you feel empty and alone? If so, this is most likely why you reject it. Out of comfort, not reason.

I would feel empty without accepting God as my Creator. But I don't feel empty now. I have not accepted God's existence and superiority out of comfort, but because I am convinced that he is. The Scriptures and what I have myself experienced by conducting a life according to God's Word and praying has all convinced me.

Like revolutions, history has shown us that when humans "don't feel right" about a scientific concept, they reject it, deny it and oppose it - look throughout history at breakthough discoveries that, at the time were scary for the people to accept (eg. the Earth NOT at the centre of the universe, the age of the planet/universe, global warming, magnetic attraction etc etc etc).

PSI is trying to convert me. I'm sure you know that the Earth being the centre of the Universe is not an idea derived from the Bible. Who stated this? was it the Catholic Church? At least they embraced the idea.

Nothing scares me except the day some scientist will come out with evidence that God does not exist. That day will never come. I fear nothing.

Have you considered that it "not feeling right" says more about you and your psychological conditioning than it does about the validity or truth of the matter.

Oh yes! I've had troubles being convinced by the existence evolution, but I know believe in it. I hope it doesn't sound like I don't. There is no indication in the Bible or in evolution that neither are consistent with the other. Nor is it any indication that they can be reconciled.

The important thing to me is that science changes. Theories are constantly disproved or accepted as true. God is my Creator no matter what changes, but rejecting scientific evidence of some phenomena is not right.

You may feel the idea of human life being a mass of chemicals and proteins terrifying and unatural and not a fulfilling self-image.

Again, its completely down to your outlook on life. Personally I find it simultaneously terrifying, wonderous and enthralling. It makes me want to know more, why and how could an arrangement of proteins and chemicals that make us - make us?

Nature is wonderful, no matter how simple it is in its smallest of particles and motions. As long as the reduction of humans to single chemicals that react with one another leads to a disrespect for life, I am content.

Its obvious we are more than the sum of our parts. But in order to explore the reason behind this, we first have to accept what exactly our parts are (chemicals and proteins) and work from there.

Throwing metaphysical aspects that may or may not exist only in our minds, into the mix, will not help us in this endeavour.

You do really sound like you are trying to reduce the value of my faith in something inobservable?

Vangelis

dublindude wrote:

Why delude yourself? Or to be exact, why delude yourself and then tell others about it, as if you're proud?!

I am not proud. I take pride in God's creation only.

Faith is not an arguement that I'm using. How can faith be an arguement?

I've taken you off my ignore list now, dublindude. And I looked back at page 13 where you say you bet I'm from America. I'm not, I'm from Scandinavia.

The Corinthian

When did this discussion become about religion? A few observations:

Vangelis wrote:

Ich weiss(Ger., I know)! I'm not actually suggesting that there is a Creator and that His Spirit was given to us, I know that this is so.

You believe it to be true; you don’t know it to be true. If you knew it to be true you would have proof and it would also no longer be faith, but fact. I assume this was a grammatical mistake on your part.

I would feel empty without accepting God as my Creator. But I don't feel empty now. I have not accepted God's existence and superiority out of comfort, but because I am convinced that he is. The Scriptures and what I have myself experienced by conducting a life according to God's Word and praying has all convinced me.

Your need to continually repeat this actually makes you come across as unconvinced, TBH.

PSI is trying to convert me. I'm sure you know that the Earth being the centre of the Universe is not an idea derived from the Bible. Who stated this? was it the Catholic Church? At least they embraced the idea.

I don’t know if it was originally derived from the Bible, but it is certainly implied there, in Joshua 10:13. Of course, it’s not an unusual mistake to make, no more than believing the World is flat, it’s just superficial examination and thus erroneous.

For the record, the Christian view id the Earth at the centre of the universe was probably Ptolemaic in origin.

Nothing scares me except the day some scientist will come out with evidence that God does not exist. That day will never come. I fear nothing.

Why do you fear it if you are so certain it will never come?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

No that was not what I asked. Through the times, we've had many ways of looking at ourselves as individuals and as members of a larger community. We've had different laws and institutions to control our behaviour, our desires, and constantly someone breaks up. I'm speaking broadly here. Family values have changed, the way we look at our own bodies and brains have changed, the way we define what is sickly and not has changed, normal and unnormal changes all the time.

Still can't see a question in there. How does this apply to your argument?

Ich weiss(Ger., I know)! I'm not actually suggesting that there is a Creator and that His Spirit was given to us, I know that this is so.

The Corinthian has already corrected this. You may feel or believe that, but as it is not a definitive tangible knowledge, you can't actually know it (at least not by a definition of knowing that is respectful to anyone else).

You say you've been studying proteins with professional equipment, are you a scientist? Or have you studied science?

My profession has nothing to do with this discussion.
Suffice to say, I'm a student of life.

That's true too. Who said that by the way?

Prof.Francisco Ayala, a dominican priest.

I would feel empty without accepting God as my Creator. But I don't feel empty now. I have not accepted God's existence and superiority out of comfort, but because I am convinced that he is. The Scriptures and what I have myself experienced by conducting a life according to God's Word and praying has all convinced me.

Accepting without question - is it any wonder you feel at a loss with science. Have you ever known anything else?

PSI is trying to convert me. I'm sure you know that the Earth being the centre of the Universe is not an idea derived from the Bible. Who stated this? was it the Catholic Church? At least they embraced the idea.

It seems you don't know your bible as well as you think. Again TC beat me to this.

I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am merely stating the facts before us. If you feel accepting basic truths and evidence is in clonflict with your religion, that is for you to weigh up.

The important thing to me is that science changes. Theories are constantly disproved or accepted as true. God is my Creator no matter what changes, but rejecting scientific evidence of some phenomena is not right.

Religion changes too. Religion has changed in a far dramatic way than science ever has.

God has changed too. There are marked inconsistancies between the God of the Old and New testament. In attitude and proclamation, the God depicted changed dramatically.

You do really sound like you are trying to reduce the value of my faith in something inobservable?

Can you suggest how one would go about observing your faith?

I am not "trying" to do anything of the sort by the way, I am merely exposing you to the axioms of the world around you. How you take this information is what defines you, not me.

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

When did this discussion become about religion?

I needed to answer by including my faith.

You believe it to be true; you don’t know it to be true. If you knew it to be true you would have proof and it would also no longer be faith, but fact. I assume this was a grammatical mistake on your part.

God says that: Belief is total conviction.

Your need to continually repeat this actually makes you come across as unconvinced, TBH.

No, I'm happy with my faith. You think this only because that is what you want me to be. Unconvinced.

I don’t know if it was originally derived from the Bible, but it is certainly implied there, in Joshua 10:13. Of course, it’s not an unusual mistake to make, no more than believing the World is flat, it’s just superficial examination and thus erroneous.

Is this what you mean?

Joshua 10:13:
So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and
delayed going down about a full day.

For the record, the Christian view id the Earth at the centre of the universe was probably Ptolemaic in origin.

I think you're right.

Why do you fear it if you are so certain it will never come?

Re-read what I read. I said I do not fear it.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Still can't see a question in there. How does this apply to your argument?

I think I lost my own point. Nevermind it. If I come up with a way to elaborate it, I will write it down.

The Corinthian has already corrected this. You may feel or believe that, but as it is not a definitive tangible knowledge, you can't actually know it (at least not by a definition of knowing that is respectful to anyone else).

Allready answered to this in post above.

Accepting without question - is it any wonder you feel at a loss with science. Have you ever known anything else?

I question my convictions all the time. Sometimes I even doubt God. I had a period of three years earlier in my youth when I abandoned Christianity. I ridiculed its simplicity and immersed in physics and astronomy to look for answers to my 'mean-with-life'-questions. So I have been an atheist, with quite a hateful view of related to do with God.

It seems you don't know your bible as well as you think. Again TC beat me to this.

You are only looking for my weaknesses. That's a cheap tactic. I've commented on Corinthian's example for where it says that the Earth is flat.

Religion changes too. Religion has changed in a far dramatic way than science ever has.

God's love for his creation has not changed. The rituals described in the Bible, like sabbath, hygiene, family relations have to be viewed in a historical perspective. Much of it is customs which belong to different epochs.

God has changed too. There are marked inconsistancies between the God of the Old and New testament. In attitude and proclamation, the God depicted changed dramatically.

That's correct. He realised a few things about the way Men behave and he adjusted himself in accordance with this.

Can you suggest how one would go about observing your faith?

If you had been inside of my mind those three years when I was an atheist and the difference from then and now, that would be sufficient. But I cannot give you my life story. That'd take too much space and I'd never finish.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

You are only looking for my weaknesses. That's a cheap tactic. I've commented on Corinthian's example for where it says that the Earth is flat.

No, I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument. You stated that the Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth. It mentions in it several instances. Most notably in Psalm 19:4-6

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

Go re-read your posts if you feel you are hard done by.

Incidently, you make reference to the bible and your knowledge of the bible in many of your posts (perhaps more so on other threads). If you do so, it is quite fair for people to spot and point out errors you make in that area.

God's love for his creation has not changed. The rituals described in the Bible, like sabbath, hygiene, family relations have to be viewed in a historical perspective. Much of it is customs which belong to different epochs.

I'd debate this. The scorn and heavy-handedness of god from the old testament is not the love and forgiving of the new.

They may have come from different eras, but if they are truely the word of the same god, why the change. At what point did he decide mankind was no longer to be treated with wrath and punishment and instead with love and forgiveness?

That's correct. He realised a few things about the way Men behave and he adjusted himself in accordance with this.

Ahh this answers my question above - If he is omnipotent why did it take him so long to realise these things? If he can know all our sins, how come he can't understand our nature to begin with?

If you had been inside of my mind those three years when I was an atheist and the difference from then and now, that would be sufficient. But I cannot give you my life story. That'd take too much space and I'd never finish.

I would not be observing your faith, I would be observing your change in theology.

You miss the point. Your faith is personal to you. It IS inobservable. It offers nothingto any debate, except perhaps a debate about your faith. It also makes no difference to many of the arguments you bring it in to.

I personally don't care what you believe, your belief makes no difference to the debate in this thread, except that it seems to have shunned you from some common scientific facts and tainted yur objectivity (and knowledge ) regarding science.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

No, I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument. You stated that the Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth. It mentions in it several instances. Most notably in Psalm 19:4-6

4 Their voice(praising of God) goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

It says that the Sun has a course and that it rises from one end to descend on the other end. The end is not the 'edge'. This does in no way tell us that the Earth is flat( and squared). There is no description of the sun not going around in a circle. The word 'circuit' indicates that the sun makes a circular motion.

They may have come from different eras, but if they are truely the word of the same god, why the change. At what point did he decide mankind was no longer to be treated with wrath and punishment and instead with love and forgiveness?

I'll get back to this, but first I need to back up my sayings with references.
And discuss with a friend of mine.

Ahh this answers my question above - If he is omnipotent why did it take him so long to realise these things? If he can know all our sins, how come he can't understand our nature to begin with?

Same with this.

I personally don't care what you believe, your belief makes no difference to the debate in this thread, except that it seems to have shunned you from some common scientific facts and tainted your objectivity (and knowledge ) regarding science.

What scientific facts has it shunned me from? Is it a scientific fact that human life is nothing but chemicals? No. I have not spoken against our bodies consistence of chemical substances. I have said that I believe in something additional. Something which is inobservable, if you like. What else of scientific facts have we discussed?

Evolution is a scientific fact, and I have not dejected this.
Instinct, is that a scientific fact? Perhaps. There are many opinions on that.
Wicknight will probably want to add monogamy as a biological factor.. a fact?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

It says that the Sun has a course and that it rises from one end to descend on the other end. The end is not the 'edge'. This does in no way tell us that the Earth is flat( and squared). There is no description of the sun not going around in a circle. The word 'circuit' indicates that the sun makes a circular motion.

Ahh you see, but there is the rub, that is your view of its meaning. Many many many, devout holy men before you have taken it to mean exactly that the Sun does do a "circuit" of the earth (if you want to reference the orginal translation - circuit infers a revolution, much like "circuit training").

So what makes your take on its meaning more valid than the previous popes and bishops and holy men that took another meaning?

Why not take the literal meaning of the day, in which case the actual meaning is that the sun travels around the earth.

Incidently, I never mentioned a flat earth, you just brought hat into your last couple of posts.

I'll get back to this, but first I need to back up my sayings with references.
And discuss with a friend of mine.



Same with this.

Fair enough

What scientific facts has it shunned me from? Is it a scientific fact that human life is nothing but chemicals? No. I have not spoken against our bodies consistence of chemical substances. I have said that I believe in something additional. Something which is inobservable, if you like. What else of scientific facts have we discussed?

Evolution is a scientific fact, and I have not dejected this.
Instinct, is that a scientific fact? Perhaps. There are many opinions on that.
Wicknight will probably want to add monogamy as a biological factor.. a fact?

Well monogamy, as has been explained to you countless times is biologically regulated. Instinct is also a biologically regulated oh and we've discussed many scientific facts on various threads. Your misunderstanding of Darwin, genetics and evolutionary genetics and how you applied it is one case in point.

Its not a crime, but like I said in the other thread. You base your arguments on one side ofthe coin, without any knowledge of the other. Thus your argument is inherently biased - in fairness to you, you do seem willing and happy to take on new facts - but only, it seems if they do not cause you insecurity in your own beliefs.

This is not an objective manner.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

God says that: Belief is total conviction.

And I am saying do not confuse belief with knowledge.

No, I'm happy with my faith. You think this only because that is what you want me to be. Unconvinced.

No, I think that because that’s how you appear to me.

Is this what you mean?

Yes. Well done.