New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Meowzltov · Sunday at 9:35 PM

Fervent said:
The fact that you get upset at my acceptance of faith is evidence in and of itself.

I am a woman of faith. But I also know that faith is not evidence of anything. People can and do place their faith in things that are not true, and may even be dangerous.

Fervent said:
If atheism is true, why is there any issue with me choosing to believe in things because I want them to be true?

Because desire doesn't alter reality. I greatly desire that the world were just. But, it's not true. My desire didn't make it true.

Fervent said:
Why should I care about silly little things like what can be proven, when at the end of the day it really makes no difference?

It depends. Make a difference for what? It makes no difference whether a story is true or fiction when it comes to learning its moral lesson. But it makes a very great difference whether a gun is actually loaded with bullets when it comes to me getting shot or not.

Generally speaking, I would put religious beliefs into the first category, and I would say it is a flaw in atheist thinking not to recognize that. But they are not without their point.

CS Lewis said we need our skeptics, because they keep us honest.

Fervent said:
If faith improves my life, why would I not embrace faith? To be left with existential angst in an uncaring universe for my short miserable life? You cite ethics, but you have no basis for any sort of ethical high horse since in your view it can only be a matter of personal preference with no reason to abide by ethical principles so long as they aren't convenient.

There is a lot to be said for what WORKS. Religious community WORKS. It's a very dangerous thing for atheists to call for the abolition of religion when they have nothing that can substitute.

I would also ADD that there is a lot to be said for what is adaptive. There is a REASON that the instinct towards religion evolved.

Fervent · Sunday at 9:44 PM

Meowzltov said:
I am a woman of faith. But I also know that faith is not evidence of anything. People can and do place their faith in things that are not true, and may even be dangerous.

I wasn't saying faith was evidence, but the negative reaction to me taking things on faith.

Meowzltov said:
Because desire doesn't alter reality. I greatly desire that the world were just. But, it's not true. My desire didn't make it true.

Sure, but if there is no central subjective truth then there is no reason that adhering to reality in one's belief system is better than an untrue belief that makes life tolerable.

Meowzltov said:
It depends. Make a difference for what? It makes no difference whether a story is true or fiction when it comes to learning its moral lesson. But it makes a very great difference whether a gun is actually loaded with bullets when it comes to me getting shot or not.

Generally speaking, I would put religious beliefs into the first category, and I would say it is a flaw in atheist thinking not to recognize that. But they are not without their point.

CS Lewis said we need our skeptics, because they keep us honest.

All of this is all well and good, but it misses that I am working from a skeptical(philosophically speaking) framework for knowledge, with the point I was making being a pragmatic one; namely a modified version of Pascal's wager.

Meowzltov said:
There is a lot to be said for what WORKS. Religious community WORKS. It's a very dangerous thing for atheists to call for the abolition of religion when they have nothing that can substitute.

That's kind of my point there.

Meowzltov said:
I would also ADD that there is a lot to be said for what is adaptive. There is a REASON that the instinct towards religion evolved.

I suppose, though I'm not sure I'd lay down stakes on that one.

Meowzltov · Sunday at 9:47 PM

Ophiolite said:
If you had told us that earlier, all this discussion would have been unnecessary, since clearly your own beliefs are without foundation. Or did you not dig deeply enough to recognise that?

Last time I checked, science and logic were NOT the only foundations for belief. Are they the most reliable? Yes. But there are many things that science and reason say nothing about. The existence of God. The meaning of life. What has value. What is right. What is good. If it is something like those things, where science and logic tell us nothing, it is perfectly okay to go to less reliable sources, such as intuition or pattern recognition.

There is so much more to life than knowing the earth is round, or that we all evolved, or that a star is a glowing ball of gas.

Meowzltov · Sunday at 9:56 PM

Hans Blaster said:
[The "entity" in question is a being that caused the universe to come into existence.] At most we could say that such an entity would set the rules of nature (create physics). There is no reason to think a priori that it would create moral rules, or even care about such things.

Can your rule it out?

If a created universe does indeed have moral laws embedded into it, wouldn't it logically follow that these moral laws came from the same source as the laws of physics?

I'm not arguing that the world has a creator or that he has given moral laws. I may personally believe that, but that's not the point of this post. My point here is simply to say IF THERE IS a creator, that there is the possibility that universal moral laws are built into the fabric of the universe just as natural law is, and that as we evolve and become more sentient, we discover these moral laws, just as we discover the laws of physics.

Meowzltov · Sunday at 9:58 PM

Fervent said:
Are you saying your atheist beliefs are your faith?

Forgive me for being picky, but technically atheism is the LACK of belief or faith. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying bald is a hair color.

Fervent · Sunday at 10:04 PM

Meowzltov said:
Forgive me for being picky, but technically atheism is the LACK of belief or faith. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying bald is a hair color.

I'm aware, which is why I was pressing them with a question rather than leveling an accusation. Though your analogy does give an interesting point, in that bald is a unique expression of hair. It is not a null position, and faith isn't a belief in and of itself but a means of arriving at such belief, I do wonder why people who describe themselves as people of faith are so quick to carry water for atheists.

Meowzltov · Sunday at 10:12 PM

Fervent said:
I do wonder why people who describe themselves as people of faith are so quick to carry water for atheists.

Because we should be gleaning truth wherever we find it. It's a very bad idea to reject a truth simply because it comes to us from a source we don't care for.

Fervent · Sunday at 10:15 PM

Meowzltov said:
Because we should be gleaning truth wherever we find it. It's a very bad idea to reject a truth simply because it comes to us from a source we don't care for.

I know of only one truth, everything else is speculation. But it would seem to me anything that makes it easier for others to maintain in their rejection of the truth is a disservice to them, such as giving ground to the semantic games that so often dominate these discussions.

Meowzltov · Sunday at 10:41 PM

Fervent said:
I know of only one truth, everything else is speculation. But it would seem to me anything that makes it easier for others to maintain in their rejection of the truth is a disservice to them, such as giving ground to the semantic games that so often dominate these discussions.

SMH

The moment someone thinks they have arrived is the moment they will no longer progress. The moment someone thinks they have all the answers is the moment they stop learning.

Fervent · Sunday at 10:48 PM

Meowzltov said:
SMH

The moment someone thinks they have arrived is the moment they will no longer progress. The moment someone thinks they have all the answers is the moment they stop learning.

It's not about arriving, it's about coming to the end of ourselves. It's usually not what we don't know that gets us, but what we know that isn't so. Once we see that there is but one truth, we can begin the true learning.

Hans Blaster · 2025-09-15T00:40:50-0500

Meowzltov said:
Can your rule it out?

No, but what obligation do I have to demonstrate a negative. The lack of necessity is sufficient to not be concerned about some such entity.

Meowzltov said:
If a created universe does indeed have moral laws embedded into it, wouldn't it logically follow that these moral laws came from the same source as the laws of physics?

It might, but the Universe has no such laws embedded into it.

Meowzltov said:
I'm not arguing that the world has a creator or that he has given moral laws. I may personally believe that, but that's not the point of this post. My point here is simply to say IF THERE IS a creator, that there is the possibility that universal moral laws are built into the fabric of the universe just as natural law is, and that as we evolve and become more sentient, we discover these moral laws, just as we discover the laws of physics.

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.

Ophiolite · 2025-09-15T11:34:46-0500

Meowzltov said:
Last time I checked, science and logic were NOT the only foundations for belief. Are they the most reliable? Yes.

Excellent. We begin with agreement on both points. (It's some time since I posted the remarks and recall nothing other than the apparent absence of critical thinking in their remarks.

Meowzltov said:
But there are many things that science and reason say nothing about.

True.

Meowzltov said:
The existence of God.

Here I disagree. Science tells us there is no evidence for a God. There are observations that could readily be consistent with the existence of a God, but for which there are wholly natural (rather than holy natural) explanations. Reason has been by both sides to both "prove" and "disprove" the existence of God. Given the conflicting arguments I think reason, in this case, should be set to one side - at least for the moment.

Meowzltov said:
The meaning of life.

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

Meowzltov said:
What has value. What is right. What is good.

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.

Meowzltov said:
If it is something like those things, where science and logic tell us nothing, it is perfectly okay to go to less reliable sources, such as intuition or pattern recognition.

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.

Meowzltov said:
There is so much more to life than knowing the earth is round, or that we all evolved, or that a star is a glowing ball of gas

Excellent. We end upon another agreement.

caffeinated.hermit · 2025-09-15T12:00:47-0500

25 years ago, Furry subculture began to blip on the radar. Vanity Fair did a piece on furries back then. The culture has continued and has, to an extent, intersected with the transgender ideology that began to take off about 15 years ago. I've noticed that a lot of furries are trans-identified males. A lot of transgender people have fursonas.

I've seen it be (mostly) harmless, but have also seen grown men report sobbing in the breakroom at their workplace because they can't literally become a seal. And have seen young people become slowly panicked because they don't know if they're a fox, a dog, or a coyote. Like, actual anxiety, fear, and sadness.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-09-15T13:44:31-0500

caffeinated.hermit said:
25 years ago, Furry subculture began to blip on the radar. Vanity Fair did a piece on furries back then. The culture has continued and has, to an extent, intersected with the transgender ideology that began to take off about 15 years ago. I've noticed that a lot of furries are trans-identified males. A lot of transgender people have fursonas.

I've seen it be (mostly) harmless, but have also seen grown men report sobbing in the breakroom at their workplace because they can't literally become a seal. And have seen young people become slowly panicked because they don't know if they're a fox, a dog, or a coyote. Like, actual anxiety, fear, and sadness.

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?!!!

caffeinated.hermit · 2025-09-15T13:52:26-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
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?

Honestly, no. We're humans. It's best to accept this, and not get into a headspace where you're panicking because you don't know if you're "fox gender" or "coyote gender". So, yeah, there's some intersection between transgender identities and furry identities, and it's all based on distracting, sad lies that can hurt people.

On the other hand... if I had a kid who just liked to draw himself as a mouse, I wouldn't come down too hard on him. If something is pretty much harmless, gunning for a kid can cause them to run at 100 miles per hour in the other direction. I wouldn't encourage it, but wouldn't make a huge deal out of it, either.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-09-15T16:25:43-0500

Meowzltov said:
What makes something good and another thing evil?

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

Meowzltov said:
When you can answer that, you will understand why so many, including many Christians, no longer see things like LGBTQ as sinful, and don't freak out if someone identifies closely with a particular animal.

So now that I have told you what makes something good and what makes something evil (and I didn't say "God says so"), I want you to understand that those people (including some Christians) are being lead away from God by these distracting selfish desires. Hopefully, they will be lead back to God's Truth.

Valletta · 2025-09-15T19:13:50-0500

Ophiolite said:
Here I disagree. Science tells us there is no evidence for a God. There are observations that could readily be consistent with the existence of a God, but for which there are wholly natural (rather than holy natural) explanations. Reason has been by both sides to both "prove" and "disprove" the existence of God. Given the conflicting arguments I think reason, in this case, should be set to one side - at least for the moment.

Science tells us that something cannot come from nothing. Thus, according to science, there was something (not just evidence of something, but something) there before the Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang we call God.

Ophiolite · 2025-09-15T19:36:56-0500

Valletta said:
Science tells us that something cannot come from nothing. Thus, according to science, there was something (not just evidence of something, but something) there before the Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang we call God.

The third sentence is not consequential upon the second. It is not ruled out by it, but nothing leads to it automatically. That is the function of faith.

Valletta · 2025-09-15T23:58:40-0500

Ophiolite said:
The third sentence is not consequential upon the second. It is not ruled out by it, but nothing leads to it automatically. That is the function of faith.

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.

Hans Blaster · 2025-09-16T00:58:02-0500

Valletta said:
Call what was there anything you wish, according to science something must have been there.

Technically, it would be here. Whatever it was either expands to become a universe, or is the medium from which a universe can generate.

Valletta said:
We call what must have been there God, and we have an idea of God which may be different than others.

Are you sure you want to call the substance universes arise from "God"?

Valletta said:
Yet something was there according to science. It's just a matter of debate as to what was there.

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

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

Similar threads