New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

[Valletta]

Speculation, mostly speculation. There is no evidence of what it would be, so it's all just speculation.

According to science there must have been something. What it was is speculation within science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to science there must have been something.

That does seem likely, but with out evidence backing a specific model, we can't say for certain.

What it was is speculation within science.

Models are built in a narrow sub-field of theoretical cosmology.

 

[Ophiolite]

Call what was there anything you wish, according to science something must have been there. We call what must have been there God, and we have an idea of God which may be different than others. Yet something was there according to science. It's just a matter of debate as to what was there.

There seems a disconnect in your argument. Yes, the provisional conclusion is that something preceded the Big Bang (on the presumption that the Big Bang is the correct explanation of observations to date), but nothing suggests that this something was a conscious entity of immense power, certainly not one who took a direct interest in some fleeting lifeforms, circling a mediocre star in one of many billions of galaxies. Reflecting on my beliefs as a Christian the suggestion that the material/energy something that may have preceded the Big Bang was somehow God, rather than material created by God strikes me as ludicrous.

 

[Niels]

So, my question is, do we really as a society want to encourage and coddle this delusional lifestyle where grown people have social problems because of this fad/trend? Here's one that got me. A person had their ears made pointed (plastic surgery) so they would look like an elf. This self expression is wrong and it should not be encouraged and it is totally bizarre that the medical and psychiatric fields have nothing intelligent to say about it. Their attitude seems to be, "let them do what they want, they aren't harmful". Really?!!!

Getting plastic surgery to resemble an elf is extreme. However, the percentage of fantasy fans who do so is negligible. Furry is an offshoot of the science fiction fandom that overlaps with the fantasy fandom. Enjoying science fiction or fantasy doesn't mean you want to become Frodo Baggins or Captain Janeway. It doesn't even necessarily mean you want to roleplay as a fictional character. Some do and some don't. There isn't one unified furry lifestyle much like there isn't one unified fantasy or science fiction fan lifestyle.

Furries tend to be imaginative people. Many of whom are creative in fields like art and technology. We need to decouple this from unhealthy behavior. Some are healthy and some are unhealthy. A furry with psychological problems is a human being who needs help. The others are about as harmful as the typical healthy person. That's why the medical and psychiatric establishments don't have much to say about them. Anthropomorphic animal characters were popular long before the fandom became a thing and liking them isn't a disorder.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I just enjoy that, in my lifetime, we're seeing the Democrats saying "stop the nanny state oversight of people just trying to live their lives" and Republicans and hardline Christians yelling "NO! FORBID PEOPLE FROM GETTING ELF EAR PLASTIC SURGERY!! I AM MAD WITH WHAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR WITH THEIR MONEY ON THEIR OWN BODY."

 

[rambot]

I remember playing ALL different kinds of dress up as a kid.
I had no idea that it was so bad to use my imagination and pretend.

I didn't bother to read this thread.

 

[hedrick]

I remember playing ALL different kinds of dress up as a kid.
I had no idea that it was so bad to use my imagination and pretend.

I didn't bother to read this thread.

I think what got this started was the term "identify as." Furies identify as animals, which of course trips political sensibilities. We can't have people identify as things other than what they were born as. However "identify" is being used loosely. They don't (as far as I know) actually live in dog houses and refuse to use the Internet because animals can't read.

 

[Godcrazy]

Good morning, what do you think about the rather disturbing belief that's currently trending among young people on platforms like Tumblr, TikTok, and Reddit, in which members believe they are animals and record themselves walking on all fours on TikTok?

They call themselves Therians, and they truly believe they are animals, most often dogs, cats, or other popular mammals. Many of them believe they have "species dysphoria" and that their souls are not human souls but animal souls. I even heard of a case of a teenager who wanted to rip off her skin because she felt she was a dog, and dogs have fur.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit terrifying? Not to mention the large number of children and teenagers who follow this trend. Even ten-year-olds are posting about it on TikTok and even creating special masks to sell on platforms like Vinted or Etsy. I've even seen adults walking on all fours in the mall or barking at strangers or howling.

-Marlena Telep.

It is part of sexual deviation. I saw that when I was away from God. It takes any form and like this. They are truly that deluded they do believe in it. It is a spirit behind.

 

[Meowzltov]

These "moral laws" seem only to apply to one species of ape and not the rest of the living beings. Sounds like something specific to those apes.

That's not accurate. Our morality rests upon two instincts: empathy, and fairness. You will find both present in Chimpanzees. I realize that most religious people find the idea of other animals evolving a sense of morality to be offensive. I am not most religious people. I am me.

 

[Meowzltov]

Here I disagree. Science tells us there is no evidence for a God.

Ah. The standard reply. Here is the standard reply to the reply: "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence." This would especially be of anything that not part of the natural world, such as a God or gods. Trying to use science to prove God is analogous to using a PH strip to determine whether a symphony is in a major or minor key. The tool simply isn’t designed for the question.

I think the combination of scientific findings and reason strongly suggest that we must define the meaning of life.

Science itself doesn’t suggest anything about meaning; it only provides data about the natural world. The inference that “we must define meaning” comes from philosophy, not science strictly speaking.

Science shows a progressive development of emergent properties; amongst these is the remarkable emergence of conscious intelligence that allows a portion of the universe to examine and gradually understand that universe. Science also tells us that in that emergence, via evolution, cooperation plays at least as great a role as competition. That suggests, to me at least, that is best summarised by the Golden Rule. The Jesus of the Bibble seems to have hit on the same notion, though by a different route.

Science can document this evolution. But science does not cause it or determine what it will be. You are giving credit to science for something beyond its purview.

Well, we'll have to differ on science/reason telling us nothing about certain things. I use intution and pattern recognition all the time, but I do so aware (from science) of the limitations and false readings that can be produced by both. I apply critical thinking to their products, just as I do with the findings of science. As far as I can see, based upon the content of your posts, it is another area where we are in agreement.

Yes I agree. So for example, while I'm definitely a theist, based on my intuition, I also know that my intuition may be wrong.

Excellent. We end upon another agreement.

Always a nice thing

 

[lismore]

Good morning, what do you think about the rather disturbing belief that's currently trending among young people on platforms like Tumblr, TikTok, and Reddit, in which members believe they are animals and record themselves walking on all fours on TikTok?

If people can self-identify as a different gender in defiance of reality why can't they self identify as a dog, or indeed as a poached egg?

God Bless.

 

[hedrick]

It is part of sexual deviation. I saw that when I was away from God. It takes any form and like this. They are truly that deluded they do believe in it. It is a spirit behind.

What does identifying with animals have to do with sex?

 

[Meowzltov]

Anything that leads you to know and love God is good and anything that leads you away from God is evil.

No, that doesn't work as a standard because "knowing and loving God" is far too subjective. The BTK killer said he knew and loved God.

Try again. I'll wait.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not accurate. Our morality rests upon two instincts: empathy, and fairness. You will find both present in Chimpanzees. I realize that most religious people find the idea of other animals evolving a sense of morality to be offensive. I am not most religious people. I am me.

In what way does many species evolving empathy and fairness instincts imply the universe has a fundamental moral aspect to it.

 

[Meowzltov]

In what way does many species evolving empathy and fairness instincts imply the universe has a fundamental moral aspect to it.

You mean proof? I'm not claiming it proves it.

I'm claiming it is a reasonable hypothesis. Just as the evolution of sentience has given us an awareness of the laws of physics, we might propose that the evolution of moral sentience has given us a window into the laws of morality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mean proof? I'm not claiming it proves it.

Nope. I meant what I wrote.

I'm claiming it is a reasonable hypothesis. Just as the evolution of sentience has given us an awareness of the laws of physics, we might propose that the evolution of moral sentience has given us a window into the laws of morality.

Morality doesn't have anything to do with the universe or fundamental properties of it.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

No, that doesn't work as a standard because "knowing and loving God" is far too subjective. The BTK killer said he knew and loved God.

Try again. I'll wait.

It took you a while to counter my response. Sorry, those are the facts, Jack. Anything else determining what's good and what is evil is all totally subjective. That is your problem if you don't believe in God.

 

[Niels]

Morality doesn't have anything to do with the universe or fundamental properties of it.

Sure it does. Firstly, we are comprised of the fundamental properties of the universe. Secondly, morality pertains to interacting with universe and its fundamental properties.

if the universe was different, do you suppose your moral code might also differ?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure it does. Firstly, we are comprised of the fundamental properties of the universe. Secondly, morality pertains to interacting with universe and its fundamental properties.

She has been implying that "morality" is embedded in the fundamental structure of the Universe. It is not.

if the universe was different, do you suppose your moral code might also differ?

It would be different if i had a different upbrining too. Morality is far to subjective to have anything to do with the fundamental properties of the Universe.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

No, that doesn't work as a standard because "knowing and loving God" is far too subjective. The BTK killer said he knew and loved God.

Try again. I'll wait.

His killing is what led him away from God. Anybody can say they love God (even the devil says that much). You are kind of mixing apples and oranges here. Something is good if it leads you to God and being led to God means doing His will and obeying His commandments (Thou shall not kill).