What's new

Beliefs, Non-Beliefs, Worldviews and Philosophy v2.0

Pan1cMode

AUS FGC represent!
That kid was floating by itself, thank god. It still didn't look right.
Regardless, the rooting reflex, Morow reflex, blinking and stepping reflex are all things innate at birth. None of which require a creator and all of which can be explained by our biology.
 

nwo

Noob
Regardless, the rooting reflex, morow reflex, blinking and stepping reflex are all things innate at birth. None of which require a creator and all of which can be explained by our biology.
I clicked on that video (like I always do) it brings you to YouTube. Read all the top comments, saying how cruel these parents are.
 

Pan1cMode

AUS FGC represent!
I clicked on that video (like I always do) it brings you to YouTube. Read all the top comments, saying how cruel these parents are.
How does that refute the fact that the swimming reflex is an innate reflex in infants?

I don't understand how that's even remotely relevant to your point.
 

nwo

Noob
How does that refute the fact that the swimming reflex is an innate reflex in infants?

I don't understand how that's even remotely relevant to your point.
The kid wasn't swimming.

The video was actually quite disturbing. Which was my original point about you atheists.

EDIT: The child wasn't an infant on top of that. I'm not a parent, but he's at least 1 or 2 years old.
 
Last edited:

Pan1cMode

AUS FGC represent!
The kid wasn't swimming.
It's not about swimming, it's about the fact that if you place an infant in water they will begin paddling and kicking in swimming motions regardless of any training. This is an innate reflex. Whether or not you agree this is swimming doesn't change the fact that it is called the 'swimming' reflex. This reflex is a result of our central nervous system communication and can be explained by our biology and the evolutionary advantage of such an infantile reflex.
 

nwo

Noob
It's not about swimming, it's about the fact that if you place an infant in water they will begin paddling and kicking in swimming motions regardless of any training. This is an innate reflex. Whether or not you agree this is swimming doesn't change the fact that it is called the 'swimming' reflex. This reflex is a result of our central nervous system communication and can be explained by our biology and the evolutionary advantage of such an infantile reflex.
That wasn't an infant bro. It walked to the pool for god sakes.
 

Pan1cMode

AUS FGC represent!
That wasn't an infant bro. It walked to the pool for god sakes.
So he used a poor video example, doesn't refute the fact that the swimming reflex - and a bunch other I mentioned - are real and explainable by out natural biology.
 

aj1701

Noob
Why does it matter if it's bad? You're going to heaven anyway. Why does it matter if God doesn't like it? You're going to heaven.

And which denomination says, "you have to believe in Jesus and work hard". Christians always say they are promised/guaranteed heaven.
Catholics don't believe that. Some things it doesn't matter, if you do them you'll end up in hell. Suicide is one of those things; its supposed to be the most offensive thing to god as you are rejecting the gift of life he gave.

You're absolved if you go to confession and are truly sorry for your sins (and Jesus is supposed to know I guess), its not just a free ticket.
 

aj1701

Noob
Better question is, why wouldn't someone wait?
Not like heaven is going anywhere. Also I have concerns about the idea of "free reign in heaven" since you're not in charge up there.
Is it more peaceful? Sure. Is it better? I guess. Can you do whatever you want? I doubt it.
Satan (an angel) was kicked out for doing what he wanted.
 

aj1701

Noob
see this sounds extremely black and white... this is extremely dangerous and archaic thinking.... What if i steal from the rich to feed my starving family??? What if i murder to protect myself or my family??? each situation is different and to deal in ultimatums undermines the complexity of the human condition and decision making. I have my own moral code which i believe is much more rational and sound then this.
Stealing to feed your family is still wrong, and it doesn't matter who you stole from. This is called rationalization, and you can rationalize any bad behavior to try and justify it. And there are typically legal ways to feed your family.

Murder has a fairly specific definition and its typically the unjust taking of another's life; if you take the life of another while defending your life or the life, that's typically considered just as you were preventing murder. This makes sense; if someone is trying to murder you or your family, what else are you supposed to do? Run? Hope they don't follow? Call the police and hope they show up in time (unlikely)?

Going back to the family, what if you found the guy stealing just to feed is family was in the situation because he didn't save any money and blew it on non-essential things like xbox, iPhone, etc. That is, being irresponsible with their money. Is it still justified to you that he can steal? Its not to me; he made irresponsible choices and put himself in that situation, and its annoying to say the least that others ARE responsible and don't end up there but still pay the price for another's irresponsibility.
 
Stealing to feed your family is still wrong, and it doesn't matter who you stole from. This is called rationalization, and you can rationalize any bad behavior to try and justify it. And there are typically legal ways to feed your family.

Murder has a fairly specific definition and its typically the unjust taking of another's life; if you take the life of another while defending your life or the life, that's typically considered just as you were preventing murder. This makes sense; if someone is trying to murder you or your family, what else are you supposed to do? Run? Hope they don't follow? Call the police and hope they show up in time (unlikely)?

Going back to the family, what if you found the guy stealing just to feed is family was in the situation because he didn't save any money and blew it on non-essential things like xbox, iPhone, etc. That is, being irresponsible with their money. Is it still justified to you that he can steal? Its not to me; he made irresponsible choices and put himself in that situation, and its annoying to say the least that others ARE responsible and don't end up there but still pay the price for another's irresponsibility.
i am more talking about a third world survival behavior, you are arbitrarily throwing in situations where the culprit appears guilt.. you couldn't possibly think of a situation i.e. someone living in an extremely resource exhausted environment where they need to steal??? It's not "always wrong" in my opinion.

You could argue every behavior is rationalized and that there is no selfless act.
 

Zoidberg747

My blades will find your heart
I was watching a Yale lecture on the hebrew bible and one theory the professor pointed out is that the temptation and "fall" in the garden of eden could actually be a metaphor for sex. The serpent(phallic symbol) tempted the woman to eat fruit(sexual metaphor) then gave it to the man to eat(sexual metaphor).
You mean this isnt basic knowledge? I always thought it was pretty clear lol.
 

aj1701

Noob
According to some.

The question you have to ask yourself is, do you care what the people who think it's "wrong" think?
Given I don't see an exception in the law that says stealing to feed your family is permitted, I think its safe to say society agrees its wrong. I'd like to know why people think its ok given the legal alternatives available.
 

aj1701

Noob
i am more talking about a third world survival behavior, you are arbitrarily throwing in situations where the culprit appears guilt.. you couldn't possibly think of a situation i.e. someone living in an extremely resource exhausted environment where they need to steal??? It's not "always wrong" in my opinion.

You could argue every behavior is rationalized and that there is no selfless act.
You never specified any context at all. You can't have a functioning society where people can rationalize things away when its convenient. And id wonder the same of third world people as some first; if you can't feed yourself, why are you bringing kids into the world? Of course that's the biggest problem in the third world, war lords that rationalize their behavior and keep the country poor by robbing from everyone.
 

Pan1cMode

AUS FGC represent!
Given I don't see an exception in the law that says stealing to feed your family is permitted, I think its safe to say society agrees its wrong. I'd like to know why people think its ok given the legal alternatives available.
While I agree with you, I just want to point out that the law isn't always morally correct. For example, interracial marriage was illegal for several decades; didn't make it right. It's easy to look with a 21st century lens and forget that in the past stealing may have been the only viable option to maintain food for your family.

It's like the 'medicine' problem. You're mother/partner/loved one is severely ill. There is a medicine which will cure them of their ailment however it costs way too much money and even if you took out a loan, sold your house and borrowed money from friends you wouldn't be able to afford even half of it and the pharmaceutical company will not supply the drug for cheaper nor are you able to obtain charitable help. You live near the manufacturer and know a security guard who would turn a blind eye if you paid him off. Do you steal the medicine?


When you pose this problem to children you will almost certainly get a, "No, stealing is wrong," response. However adults are able to understand the nuances to this ethical dilemma.
 

aj1701

Noob
The satan (hasatan) was never kicked out of heaven. That's not in the torah or the bible. There is no devil in the old testament(torah). The god in the old testament has no rival in power, which is why there is no devil. Hasatan is not a devil or a demon, he is god's(yhwh, el, el shadai, el yon, adonai, hashem) prosecuting attorney. He points out fucked up stuff mankind does, or might do(see book of Iyov(Job)).

The satan doesn't become the devil until the book of jubilees, which is neither in the torah nor the bible, as "mastema".

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

I was watching a Yale lecture on the hebrew bible and one theory the professor pointed out is that the temptation and "fall" in the garden of eden could actually be a metaphor for sex. The serpent(phallic symbol) tempted the woman to eat fruit(sexual metaphor) then gave it to the man to eat(sexual metaphor).
This section does talk about the typical Christian view, I know the fallen angel idea is part of the roman catholic teachings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Christianity
 

Zoidberg747

My blades will find your heart
While I agree with you, I just want to point out that the law isn't always morally correct. For example, interracial marriage was illegal for several decades; didn't make it right. It's easy to look with a 21st century lens and forget that in the past stealing may have been the only viable option to maintain food for your family.

It's like the 'medicine' problem. You're mother/partner/loved one is severely ill. There is a medicine which will cure them of their ailment however it costs way too much money and even if you took out a loan, sold your house and borrowed money from friends you wouldn't be able to afford even half of it and the pharmaceutical company will not supply the drug for cheaper nor are you able to obtain charitable help. You live near the manufacturer and know a security guard who would turn a blind eye if you paid him off. Do you steal the medicine?


When you pose this problem to children you will almost certainly get a, "No, stealing is wrong," response. However adults are able to understand the nuances to this ethical dilemma.
The nuances dont really change the fact that most people will agree it is wrong. The problem is if you are stealing food or medicine you are taking it away from someone else. Theoretically you could make sure to steal food from a rich person who doesnt need it but chances are if you stole the medicine you would be keeping someone else from getting cured as well.