[squealydan]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 05:09, said:

I've tried to explain some of my beliefs, but I reckon that some of my points are weak.

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

This non-believer values his life simply because it is all that I have.

I value other people's lives for the exact same reason.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 05:09, said:

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

Have you considered that human life is all the more precious if it's the only one you (and others) have, and you don't get another one afterwards?

[gwnn]

You can always go on asking 'yes but why' to anything, including 'I value my life because God gave it to me' and all subsequent answers. Try looking up the definition of something in the dictionary and looking up the definitions of every word of its definition and so on.

[Codo]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-10, 05:20, said:

There are numerous instances of Catholic agencies going into poor African countries and while distributing aid, promoting abstinence rather than condoms. Of course the people had sex anyway without them and AIDS spread more than it would have done otherwise although less people died of starvation.

Whether an organization is religious or not makes no difference to me if they're doing good. When they start spreading their beliefs at the expense of the best interests of the population I draw the line.

I have this argument heared quite often. And I guess I will be flamed for this, but:

1. If there is a correlation between AIDS and being catholic, it is inverse. The african countries with the lowest numbers of victims have usually a quite high number of catholic believers. (I just talk about middle and south africa, north afica is different for more then one reason...) The country with the highest number of victims is south africa with quite a small catholic population. I do not claim that there is a correlation, but noone can claim that it is the other way round.
2. I guess we can agree that abstinence is by far the best way to avoid Aids. So how shall the priest/socail worker work? Tell their sheeps that they have to be abstinent, but if they are not, they should at least use a condom?
This makes the strict rule much less strict.

This is like: Listen Kid, there is a big lake over there and you cannot swim. Do not go there. But look, here are some swimming aids, just in case that you will go anyway.
You won't do that to your kids, will you? I won't.

So you have two possibilities: Accept that many people do not choose the best way to avoid AIDS, but will have sex anyway. So you try to give swim aids to anyone, which is surely the secondbest way...
Or you try everything to show them your (catholic) view and convince them from the best way to avoid this disease- which luckily happens to be the right way of living anyway (in your catholic mind) and try to convice them not to go to the lake.
I see no numbers which support that the first way is saving more lives then the second, it is just our feeling that it must be handled this (first) way...

[mgoetze]

 Codo, on 2013-January-10, 06:51, said:

2. I guess we can agree that abstinence is by far the best way to avoid Aids.

Yes, but it does not follow that telling people to be abstinent is the best way to prevent them from getting AIDS. In reality, telling them to use condoms will be much more effective.

[billw55]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-10, 02:12, said:

Anyway. This thread is becoming less and less interesting. It seems that the thining believer has kept his or her belief private, and the contributing believers have managed to produce a whole load of drivel.

Actually I think Fluffy and Codo were doing quite well, far more rational and well spoken than much pro-religious discourse that is often offered, and which eventually arrived in this thread.

[Cyberyeti]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-10, 07:07, said:

Yes, but it does not follow that telling people to be abstinent is the best way to prevent them from getting AIDS. In reality, telling them to use condoms will be much more effective.

Correct, and if you're prepared to take a realistic stance rather than a purely dogmatic one, if you spend time in these communities, there are some people who you would know very well are likely to have sex, and you would distribute condoms to them. It is not helped by the fact that some of the African cultures have utterly unrealistic beliefs about what having sex with a virgin does for you, meaning that a lot of innocents are getting infected which a condom might prevent.

As to there being no correlation between AIDS and being catholic, I agree. "Catholic values" probably make you less likely to contract AIDS, BUT applying them to people without those values simply because you feel they should have them can be counter productive.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-10, 07:40, said:

As to there being no correlation between AIDS and being catholic, I agree. "Catholic values" probably make you less likely to contract AIDS, BUT applying them to people without those values simply because you feel they should have them can be counter productive.

Naturally it may be true that Catholics have fewer sexual partners than people of other or no faith, I would not be as prepared as you seem to be to accept the statement without any corroboration.

In any case, not giving advice on other ways besides abstinence to lower the incidence of contracting AIDS is not murder; I would be comfortable with manslaughter or even some sort of death by negligence.

If I remember correctly, during the Reagan years no missionaries or health workers receiving government funding were permitted to mention or give out condoms in the service of preventing AIDS.

[PassedOut]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-10, 01:56, said:

But 32's last post was illuminating. If his life is that grim, perhaps he needs some sort of "higher purpose" or at least an afterlife to keep from going mad.

My reaction also.

Constance and I are the makers of three sons. Each knows that I want him eventually to be able to look back with satisfaction on the way he has spent his own time, according to his own ideas and ambitions. Nothing more. Of course their ideas have been shaped some by the years they spent at home discussing matters with Constance and me and observing our actions, but each son has very different skills and interests.

It strikes me as utterly incongruous that the "god of the universe" would have the infantile need to be worshipped. I suppose that is tied in with the historical relationships between religions and monarchies.

[PassedOut]

 billw55, on 2013-January-10, 07:19, said:

Actually I think Fluffy and Codo were doing quite well, far more rational and well spoken than much pro-religious discourse that is often offered, and which eventually arrived in this thread.

Yes. I disagree with them about god, but neither means to harm me or others via religious aggression. There's no problem with folks believing what they will, so long as they don't wield those beliefs coercively. That goes for non-belief also.

[wyman]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 05:09, said:

I've tried to explain some of my beliefs, but I reckon that some of my points are weak.

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

Prisoners' dilemma. We're all better off cooperating, and at least in my corner of the world, people seem to do that.

Why I value my life? Vanity and ego, mostly. I only get one go, so I figure I might as well make the best of it.

I'm certainly more in tune now with the fact that I should be living in a way that maximizes my own enjoyment (and that of my loved ones, and without impinging on the happiness of others where possible) rather than in a way that conforms to some historical or cultural maxim.

[BunnyGo]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 05:09, said:

I've tried to explain some of my beliefs, but I reckon that some of my points are weak.

however non believers haven't told me yet why they value their life, and most important, why they value other's lives.

It was at about this stage of questioning the existence of a higher being that I caught up to the early 20th century philosophers and began reading Satre and other existentialists in earnest. When one comes to the decision that we are our own reason for being, and we only have one time through, it can be scary.

In the end, I settled with the "only got one time through, better make it a good one" philosophy. That, and I derive pleasure from my own good works--not because some supreme being will judge me well for them, but because good works are their own reward.

[Fluffy]

Yes, I've come to understand enjoying your own life, but the point about not getting rid of my enemies is the one that cost me more.

[Trinidad]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 10:31, said:

Yes, I've come to understand enjoying your own life, but the point about not getting rid of my enemies is the one that cost me more.

What enemies?

The point is that as long as you respect everyone's life and opinions (no matter how silly you think they are) it is hard to make enemies. After all, your enemies will already be fighting with those who don't respect their lives and opinions; they don't have time to be bothered by someone who doesn't bother them.

There are plenty of people I don't like, some that I actively dislike, some that have mistreated me (to get better themselves, not personal against me, but I happened to be in the way), but I can't come up with enemies that I would like to act against. Why should I? I just ignore the people that I don't like and enjoy the company of the ones I do like. Having enemies is an incredible waste of time and energy.

Rik

[32519]

 dwar0123, on 2013-January-09, 13:42, said:

Generically, the purpose of life is to procreate. [32519 asks: Is that it? Once we’ve done our bit, can we move on? Why then do we use condoms etc? Why do countries like China have a one child policy? What happens when the carrying capacity of the world is exceeded? Eventually it must happen. What happens to those living when it happens?]

So what will happen when the world starts suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect?

Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction film starring Charlton Heston which has a look at how things may turn out for those still living when the worlds carrying capacity has been reached. The year? 2022 which is not too far off now? Well worth a watch for all who have been following this thread.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-January-10, 01:13, said:

So am I to understand from this that life has no purpose at all for non-believers? If this is so, then we human beings are to be pitied more than any other living thing.

How droll. I find your delusional certainty equally pathetic.

Since I already quoted Conan, it seem à propos bring Keats into the picture.
Keats instructed that his grave marker should read "Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water".

I bring this up to demonstrate that the ephemeral nature of existence

1. Is widely accepted (though far from universal)
2. Can be the creative force behind some great art

Personally, I find a lot of inspiration in the fact that mankind can rise above base fears and doesn't need a magical sky fairy to find happiness.

[dwar0123]

 32519, on 2013-January-10, 01:13, said:

Quote

Generically, the purpose of life is to procreate.

[32519 asks: Is that it? Once we’ve done our bit, can we move on? Why then do we use condoms etc? Why do countries like China have a one child policy? What happens when the carrying capacity of the world is exceeded? Eventually it must happen. What happens to those living when it happens?]

Quote

Specifically and ideally the purpose of any individual life is what ever they want it to be.

[32519 asks: What if you are unable to reach what you want it to be? Does that mean your life has been a failure? Does death end it all?]

Quote

For you that is to glorify God

(32519 said: “And you” – see below).

Quote

A god who apparently created a 13.7 Billion year old Universe with 100 Billion galaxies sprinkled across the visible Universe that spans a mere 93 billion lightyears. Each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars. And which thanks to Kepler we now reasonable suspect that the planets out number the stars. Yet the God capable of this and so much more, needs you to glorify him

(32519 said: That is the very reason why you and I and everyone else exists; for the invisible God to become visible in us, the very reason for creation).

When I say the purpose of life is to procreate, I mean life in the most generic sense. The plants, the animals, the birds and the bees as it were. It might be better to say the purpose of life is to live but it is more salacious and less of a tautology to say procreate. It would be very foolish for mankind to allow itself to overpopulate the Earth, but it might also be inevitable. It remains to be seen if mankind is capable of curbing this basic purpose, but if any species can, it is man.

For me, one of the things that separate man from all other living things is that we are capable of giving purpose to our lives and yes if you fail to achieve your goals you failed to achieve your goals and death does end it all. Fortunately we are not bound by the goals of our youth and are free to change them as we age. No one achieves all their goals and no one here has failed to achieve any. For those that have lived a long life, their life will be filled with many successes. Many failures too, as to be expected, but lets celebrate the successes instead of dwelling on the failures.

[Fluffy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 11:07, said:

What enemies?

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...
http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36665-crazy-neighbour-cuts-down-my-internet/

[Cyberyeti]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 14:56, said:

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...
http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36665-crazy-neighbour-cuts-down-my-internet/

You got lucky, water company went through my cable with a mechanical digger, required a partial road closure to fix, that took 6 weeks.

[Fluffy]

I trust the water company doesn't throw garbage to your garden every few days since.