Especially if anyone has read the lyrics to Apeman by The Kinks, and agrees wholeheartedly with them. Im just trying to find some intelligent beings that remember that humans ARE animals, and are no better than other animals. Im so sick of society being so money obsessed and Im so tired of everyone forgetting that were all so actively participating in our own demise. I want some people who want nature to runs its course - NATURALLY. Please, someone give me faith that everyone elses brains havent turned to mush.
Answer: You are ready for Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 a major Genevois philosopher, writer and composer. Rousseau believed man was good by nature and society the cause of corruption and vice You will enjoy his "Theory of Natural Man. Excerpt: Theory of Natural Man "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ” .
Category: Philosophy; 2010-09-06 18:04:52
Why would you object to your god being called an "it"?
Greek Roman, Norse or Hindu gods were given unique characteristics, a gender and personalities by their respective religions. They often are given a family and their own abilities. They are often imperfect, they have needs and rely on each other just like mortal human beings. The Abrahamic religions offer no such incite into who or what their god is supposed to be. Its this thing that hangs out somewhere in the ether poofing things into existence at will, unless it is making a woman, then it needs a few spare parts from a male. We are not told exactly what this creature looks like or what its physical characteristic are. The only thing we are told is "man is made in gods image", but that is a pretty broad description. If it has feet then what is it standing on or if it has teeth then what does it eat? There is no hint if it has genitalia or not. Why would an omnipotent creature even need genitals, the very defining characteristic of a male, if it has the power to poof most things into existence at will? In a primitive bronze age male centric society when the concept of this god was dreamt up it would have been quite natural to label this thing as a he. So, since we dont know what this thing is supposed to be, why do so many object to this imaginary creature as an "it"
Answer: They get their beliefs about God from a book that personifies God as a male. The same book gives God human attributes - specifically male human attributes. God was created in the image and likeness of man, and not the other way around. Thats why.
Category: Religion & Spirituality; 2010-09-06 09:56:41
Adam and Eve, in the beginning...?
In the bible, incest is a sin. Adam and Eve were the first two people on this earth and the start of our human race. For population of the earth to increase Adam and Eve would have to have many children and those children would have to breed with each other and also their parents. This being incest. Children who are born from and incest relationship have a much higher risk of having birth defects mental, physical and also have a lower survival rate. If the story of Adam and Eve is in fact "true" why are the majority of people today "normal" no birth defects and incest is not a norm and isnt frowned upon by society? Can anyone explain why the bible says this and contradicts itself? Note: I definitely do not agree with incest.
Answer: Jessa, you ask a reasonable question. First of all: incest is a sin and has always been. Adam and Eve were perfect which means they were without sin and therefore had absolutely no defect. Their purpose of the earth was to reproduce, so they were created as man and woman - not brother and sister. That comes from giving birth and neither of them were. Obviously it brings into the question on how did their offspring find marriage mates if they were all begotton? The answer lays in the fact that despite the imperfection that Adam and Eve caused to happen and therefore all future people are born into sin - they were still far more perfect than us today. Plus, again, for procreation to occur, brothers and sisters HAD to have sexual relations. You see, the BIG difference with our Creator and us, is that He has the complete right to state what is going to occur. I have to say, that it makes me feel sick - the notion of brothers and sisters having sexual relations, but that is because despite what God decreed in the beginning, to start off the human race, He did not approve of it when there was no necessity anymore. So, because we are imperfect, it means there is a MUCH great risk of defect then there ever was in time gone by. Remember, our Creator has the right to say what is good and what is not If you still cant get your head around it, then please ask away and I will try to explain in a different way.
Category: Religion & Spirituality; 2010-09-06 01:48:09
What is the title of this vampire movie played on the Sy Fy channel?
It played on the Sy Fy channel maybe three months ago and for the life of me I cant remember the title. The movie was probably made around 2005 to 2009 set in the 1920/30s Britain? It involved a sort of vampire society which worked with humans. One infected and crazed blond vampire was putting his blood into the citys water supply which infected humans who drank it. A handsome vampire male and a human red haired woman with a gun were trying to stop him. Though the movie was set in the past it had a sort of steam punkish feel to it. Anything ring a bell to anyone?? Ill tell more detail if it doesnt.
Answer: Perfect Creature 2006 starring Dougray Scott, Saffron Burrows, Leo Gregory, Scott Wills, Stuart Wilson IMDb synopsis: Set during the 1960s in an alternate New Zealand known as Nuovo Zelandia, "Perfect Creature" imagines a world where vampires and humans peacefully co-exist, with the bloodsuckers the next step in human evolution. This delicate balance looks to be destroyed when an influenza epidemic begins to sweep the human population and one vampire turns to preying on humans. The church sends out Silus to catch the renegade vampire, Edgar. Silus joins forces with a human police captain, and discovers that Edgar harbors dark secrets. IMDb summary excerpt: "Perfect Creature" is set on an alternate world "not unlike our own", but the technology and settings make it look like something from the 1940s with some 18th century Dickens tossed in. The vampires are long-lived, fanged, drink only donated human blood, and call themselves "the Brotherhood". The Brotherhood has taken over the Catholic Church, live loveless, ascetic lives as monks, and exist to serve humans with spiritual guidance and scientific research. Although born of human mothers, Brothers are the result of a now banned genetic science that caused a mutation that becomes activated when in the presence of a certain virus. Whenever a Brother is born, he is immediately whisked away to be brought up in the Church. There are no female vampires. You can read the rest of the summary here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403407/synopsis Heres the movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?vqc3SWpzl868
Category: Movies; 2010-09-05 18:33:45
Why havent the Sciences, History, Biology, Physics, etc. torn Religion apart?
Im learning more everyday and each day more and more questions about the human brain, society, life, the universe, etc. are explained and make the concept of religion and God even more ludicrous. So why arent more people following suit? I know we are conditioned and brainwashed into believing in God and religion from birth by society and/or family. No one is born a Christian or Muslim they are taught to believe. But it seems that most people dont really brainwash their kids to believe in religion as much as they did in the past, so i think eventually as time goes by the new generation will take hold and eventually religion will become extinct in Western Societies. My questions to those that still believe: Have you actually objectively thought about what you believe and considered whether or not it makes sense and is true? Are you allowed to question it, and if so do you fully question without bias and with full objectivity the concept of God and religion? Do you consider yourself and educated person? Do you realize that the more educated a person becomes, the less they believe in God and religion? Would you be willing to lose your belief in God if the evidence showed that he is a logical impossibility? If you were not raised to believe in a God, would you even bother with religion after realizing in any other circumstance especially under the scrutiny of a classroom it would be laughed at and not even considered as possible truth? Why do you think most atheist dont believe in God? For personal reasons or logical intelligent reasons? cswolffe, you make a sad but good point. I havent done much research into the evolutionary collection of information. But it will be hard indeed after centuries of conditioning.
Answer: Note: I am a Catholic. I am NOT an atheist. And yet I am a firm supporter of science. So read the following with that in mind. Science by itself has nothing at all to say about religion. No more than, say, medicine, or computer graphics, or car mechanics has anything at all to say about religion. In its purest form, it is absolutely mute on the subject ... neither arguing for nor against a belief in God. About the worst thing science can say about religion is not that it is "ludicrous" ... but just unnecessary. That we can find explanations for things without invoking the "God-just-did-it-that-way" answer. However, "unnecessary" does not mean wrong. And people of faith should not be all bent out of shape about "unnecessary." For example, the existence of God is "unnecessary" to understand the mechanics of human reproduction and childbirth. And yet that does not prevent us from recognizing the birth of a child as a "miracle." So we are free as a matter of FAITH to believe that God plays a hand in human reproduction and childbirth, even though it is not "necessary" to explain it Why arent people of faith OK with that? But for some baffling reason, many religious forces have decided that it is a good idea to wage war against science To overtly state that science is WRONG about the answers it is converging on, on such questions as the origins of species, the origins of life, and the origins of the universe. If this war persists, this can only end badly for religion. This is one of the reason I as a Christian battle Creationists. I think the war they have declared on science can only be harmful to Christianity. Creationism sends the message that Christianity requires such a blind devotion to religion, that one must be willing to sacrifice science literacy, rationality, logic, and even HONESTY AND INTEGRITY in order to become a "true Christian." Why on earth do Creationists think this is a positive image to attach to Christianity? So now to your questions: "Have you actually objectively thought about what you believe and considered whether or not it makes sense and is true?" I think about it every day. In fact, I think that the mistake that too many of my fellow Christians make, is to stop thinking about it. To have made a firm DECISION some time in their life which may have been when they were 9 years old, or at some critical "born again" moment later in life to follow a specific religious doctrine for the rest of their lives. A doctrine that is beyond question ... that they even feel frightened to question again. "Are you allowed to question it, and if so do you fully question without bias and with full objectivity the concept of God and religion?" Am I "allowed"? Yes. The day I let someone else decide what I am "allowed" to question or think about, is the day I abdicate being an adult. "Do you consider yourself and educated person?" Yes. "Do you realize that the more educated a person becomes, the less they believe in God and religion?" Yes. But I attribute that to the educational wasteland of modern religion Where are the great theologians of our age The Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustines? Today our "great" theologians are ... Pat Robertson, Kirk Cameron, Kent Hovind, Glenn Beck? "Would you be willing to lose your belief in God if the evidence showed that he is a logical impossibility?" Yes. But I also know that both "disproving" God is itself as much a logical impossibility as "proving" God. The existence of God is beyond science, beyond mathematics. That is why I reject Biblical apologetics, like Creationism. But that is also why I am not worried about the scenario you describe. It is no more likely that you can prove that the sentence "God exists" is a logical impossibility, than proving that the sentence "sunsets are beautiful" is a logical impossibility. In both cases, logic has nothing to do why I would agree with the statement in the first place "If you were not raised to believe in a God, would you even bother with religion after realizing in any other circumstance especially under the scrutiny of a classroom it would be laughed at and not even considered as possible truth?" Thats a good question ... but asked in a condescending way. If I was not raised as a Catholic, would I bother with religion? I honestly have no way of knowing. "Why do you think most atheist dont believe in God? For personal reasons or logical intelligent reasons?" Most atheists I have talked to or read, dont believe in God for good, logical, intelligent reasons. I will also add that they are some of the most moral people I know. Because their morality does not come out of any fear of punishment or hope of reward. Their morality is intrinsic. Maybe you were hoping for something more confrontational? :-
Category: Religion & Spirituality; 2010-09-05 15:49:00
Are you a Geologist and/or a Farmer?
I am writing a story. What I need to know is in two parts. First, is it even theoretically possible for there to be a place that is close to a bay or anything else that leads into a sea/ocean, and also has several hills maybe 300 to 500 feet high as well as hundreds of tall trees that have plenty of leaves and branches, all through the year? There also need to be plenty of sources of fresh, flowing water -- springs, rivers, streams, waterfalls, it doesnt matter, but some kind of fresh, flowing water that is available all through the year for years and years. There is a community of people living here about five thousand people, give or take a few hundred in any given year. They have access to information computers, satellites, etc. but they have no artificial stuff -- no machines, such as power-tools, tractors, etc. They have electricity but it comes from windmills and from solar cells, not gas-powered or nuclear-powered machines. The forest in which they live is about five hundred square miles in size. But they occupy only ten square miles. half of that is for housing the people and farm animals sheep and cows. The other half is agricultural land. They are a completely vegetarian society except that they use milk and wool. Would five square miles of fertile land be enough to feed five thousand human beings and maybe twenty cows and twenty sheep, each year, for twenty or thirty years?
Answer: If you want somewhere that the forest has leaves all year then either you need a coniferous pine forest or somewhere tropical where there is no cold winter season - basically a rainforest or jungle. Everywhere else youll get deciduous forest - i.e the trees will lose their leaves in the winter. Its perfectly possible to have a bay surrounded by forested hills which has a fresh water supply all year. But pine forest is adapted to colder climates and in the winter the water supply is likely to freeze although larger rivers may continue to flow under the ice. This takes us to the agricultural side - in a colder climate the land isnt going to be so productive as theres a shorter growing season and the people will need to consume more food to survive. In a warm climate the growing season will be longer in the tropics there can be several harvests a year, depending on crops. In a warm/tropical climate you seem to have enough acreage depending on what your community is growing. But I would increase the number of cattle and sheep as thats quite a low number to allow for milk and wool production and to take into account the occasional death. I would suggest at least two breeding herds kept separately so that disease doesnt easily spread to both and to allow better cross-breeding. If your community could catch fish from the river or bay then the issue of protein in their diet wouldnt be a problem but as it stands the main source of protein for 5,000 people is the milk from 20 cows - which doesnt seem enough.
Category: Earth Sciences & Geology; 2010-09-05 09:33:16
Why is wastage the only way of showcasing wealth and what does that say about human society?
It seems that the only way people seem to know of showing their wealth to the world is to use in a manner that is conspicuosly wasteful of resources such as buying an expensiveeven overpriced car or house when others manage fine with options more in tune with their needsmany of the extra features or advantages of these are never used by them or purchasing extensive land and property for no good reason other than to show that they canoften it isnt even a good investment when compared with other options available to them or throwing massive parties or weddings or the like. When I thought about it, I realized that the common link between all forms of showcasing ones wealth to the worldwhen not serving a secondary utility purpose are connected to one thing - wastage of resources. It seems that the only thing we can come up with to showcase our wealth to the world is to conspicuosly waste it in the absence of anything more we need to spend it on since, after all, one man or even a family actually have rather modest requirements to lead a comfortable life. Im not critcizing the capitalist system for encouraging wealth accumulation here because this has been done since time immemorial through accumulations of artwork, palaces, etc. but rather the culture we seem to have worldwidein one tradition or another that states that excess wealth can and often should be used frivolously in order to garner attention to itself rather than usefully in order to achieve something more productive for either oneself or society in general. I admit that some rich people do invest their money or donate to charities but that isnt my point. Its the cultural acceptance of those who use it for lavishand ultimately under-used facilities and items that concerns me here. Why do we celebrate such excess with such glee as in the case of say, multiple palaces to kings? Why does the enormous loss of wealth on these things not appall us? Most important is the tacit approval of those without wealth of this behaviour which suggests that this is actually a cultural behavioral phenomenon. What does it say about a society that actively encourges wastage of resources as the only way of showcasing ones wealth?
Answer: Ive often thought the exact same thing. Conspicuous displays of wealth seem incredibly vulgar and primitive to me, yet so much of our culture promotes this kind of behaviour. I guess we dont get to hear about the incredibly rich people who instead spend their money on helping the poor or building hospitals because it doesnt sell newspapers or promote some pointless bling product. To flaunt your ability to squander resources to show how powerful you are to those with no resources is unbelievably crass, yet this system of rewards is apparently what motivates the masses to create wealth so is necessary to perpetuate the capitalist system. Sad, I reckon.
Category: Other - Society & Culture; 2010-09-05 03:57:45
Do you agree with Stephen Hawking?Did God create Universe or did it create itself?
Heres what different sections of society think about his views... What do you think ? Shiraz Minwalla, Theoretical Physicist, TIFR The bar is set really high for saying that you know what exactly happened. I wouldnt speculate about how the universe was created. What we do know, from observation and according to the laws of physics, is that about 13.6 billion years ago the universe was very small. You can think of it in terms of a movie running backwards. The laws of physics apply for the length of the movie. But at the end of that period, when everything ends very near to the point we call the Big Bang, our ignorance takes over. Roughly, to start with, there was a lot of space-time. One theory for which there is increasing evidence suggests that there was initially a small bubble of space and time, which expanded exponentially fast. Christianity: The Bible presents the creation of the universe in seven days. In six days, He creates the elements, the environment, the animal kingdom and lastly but not least humans. On the seventh day, God rests. Fr Savio Fernandes, Spokesperson, Archdiocese of Mumbai, says Stephen Hawking is using Physics to explain God, who can be explained only through metaphysics. He says the law of gravity can explain scientific phenomenon. Where does the law of gravity come from? There has to be an originator. Hinduism: Existence is cyclical. The cosmos represents only one turn in the perpetual wheel of time. The Universe expands for a period of time. It is made of eight elements – earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and ego. It is out of Gods desire and his will that the other elements manifest themselves. Chaitanya Charan Das, ISKCON: Hawking assumes that the laws of nature existed before the universe. He simply substitutes God with the laws of physics. Our experience shows that laws need an organising intelligence. Islam: Allah created the universe and earth in six days though each of these days could represent months or years, how many is not specified. The Quran says Allah created everything: the solar system, the earth, the sun, the sky and life. Maulana Zaheer Abbas Rizvi, Secretary, All India Shia Personal Law Board: Even if we agree with Hawking that our world was created by the big bang, where did those elements responsible for this phenomenon originate? Everything we see around us is created either by human beings or by God. The Quran has proof that Allah created everything. Jainism: The universe has existed since infinity and has no beginning or end. Everything on this planet – from a drop of water, to the greenery, to the mountains – has a life of its own. Atul Shah, Jainism scholar: I fully agree with Hawkings theory that god has not created this universe or the earth. We are the authors of our destiny and can achieve salvation only by looking into our own souls. Science is an infant while religion is an Olympics gold medallist. What do you think ?? http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?pagearticle§id2&contentid2010090420100904020434356e89cd2b
Answer: God created the universe and time. God is eternal. Assuming the theory of evolution to be a fact, not a faith, and assuming the universe created itself from what, where, how? are all assumptions including the assumption of time as always present.
Category: Current Events; 2010-09-05 03:36:47
Human Sexual Selection and....?
Well, from a purely evolutionary standpoint... Based on the fact that for the most part in most societies women select men based on their various physical and social attributes, would you expect to see an increase in the average males penis size, creativity, and/or intelligence in subsequent generations? Personally I think it is likely, but Im curious as to the thoughts of others. @ ColeT: I can agree with that for the most part, although do you feel that creativity and intelligence tend to correlate with financial independence? And penis size with height?
Answer: Evolution works across a population. Without a strong selection pressure across a large swath of the population that selects them out and removes the other then the average person, and hence society as whole, will remain relatively the same in penis size, creativity, and/or intelligence. The use of condoms and birth control also make sexual selections difficult since babies have to form to make it a success. One observable quality that will continue is the desire of women for taller men. And so over time men and women will continue to get taller with men on average being taller than women. This is why each generation both sexes get taller than their parents...this is sexual selection in progress. Women also select on Financial independence. The more wealthy a man is the more attractive he becomes and the less important height is to her even though a mans height is an extremely important quality to all women. Money makes it easier for her offspring to have a better chance of survival and why financial wealth is important to all women too.
Category: Anthropology; 2010-09-05 03:12:09
Why do people not respect authority as much as they used to?
A lack of respect for authority- why? Ive written a little of my own perception and some articles from other people and wonder whether you have any views yourselves? This is not for an essay Im doing a criminal justice degree but assure you Im not into plaigerism and ask for my own benefit not the UNIs - Cmon give me your views- do you agree with anything Ive said or with Melanie Phillips what she wrote in 2004? Do YOU feel there is any truth in what I have written below? A lack of respect for authority In any organisation there needs to be structure and any lack of respect for its structure can have implications of an undermining of such a structure. To maintain authority can be concluded as being prevalent to its continued prosperity in the direction the organisation is intended whether it be for monetary gain or otherwise. Amitai Etzioni, an instructor in the department of sociology at Columbia University says “An important factor in the ability of an organisation to achieve its goals is its authority structure” The Mail Online writes this: “A growing lack of adult authority has bred a spoilt generation of children who believe grown-ups must earn their respect, a leading psychologist has warned. The rise of the little emperor spans the class divide and is fuelling ills from childhood obesity to teenage pregnancy, Aric Sigmans research shows.” I found this next snippet from a site called ‘The labor of love .com under ‘Parenting – it may not be scholarly but I genuinely assume its a popular perception: “No Respect for Authority Our world is made up of rules and those who follow the rules, at least most of the time get along just fine and have good lives. However, those individuals who have no respect for authority frequently break the rules and end up with all kinds of problems as a result. This could be problems with the police, problems maintaining employment, and more. Many children who do not receive discipline as a child grow up with little if any respect for authority. This results in the child having problems for the rest of his life, unless he learns on his own to discipline himself and respect authority and laws. Dont allow this to happen to your child. Instead, enforce rules and discipline while your child is growing up.” In 2004 Melanie Phillips writing for the mail had something to say about people having no respect for authority because it had none for itself- to a point I believe this can be one cause for the erosion of values within society but as we all know- the press do sensationalise some stories and the public are handed a perception to believe- please follow this link and consider what has been written: www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p… - Some theories on rebellion and lack of obedience suggest that self esteem can be built in an individual, from an early age, from disobedience but this suggests no lack of respect merely the desire to prove oneself. An individual is naturally competitive through human nature and can be expressed in different ways such as mental ability- the ability to be cognitive, emotionally or physically able. Some people win superiority through knowledge gained through their mental ability whereas others can do it through physical prowess or the emotional state to ignore pain or duress. When all of these things arent enough to win a battle, a person has to deviate from normality and any set of rules- this is where I believe rebellion and disobedience occur. Unless Authority is defined in such a way as to reward compliance and punish deviance – there is no norm to achieve and if authority is not maintained throughout there is no structure in which to stabilise when a person stops rebelling and being disobedient. Some of the above is contrived from personal experience, my own philosophy and my perception of what I read. I intend no statement as such only that respect and defiance cannot be wholly linked because someone can defy the law but still respect it- in my opinion. The project Im embarking on has to show the lack of respect in society and the potential dangers and security risks of such an erosion in respect of authority. I aim to prove that individuals actually LOSE self esteem and consequently disrespect others, eventually becoming so low in their own self regard that they emotionally turn off or shut their minds to punishment. I do believe that there may be some sense in what I have written here and though it isnt part of my project- it may have some bearing- I promise NO PLAGERISM Does a lack of faith in our authorities have a real bearing on why a man no longer wears a suit in court or is it that this individual is so poor he cant afford one OR is it just that he isnt bothered in showing any respect to those that may punish him? Nutrino Sonic: sometimes we all need to be led, Ive not met a man yet who can do everything for himself. Do you know how to diffuse a nuclear warhead should you be sat on one that was about to explode? Ms B: how can you state they are corrupt when they accounts for all those that protect you? There may be corruption because the authorities themselves have squads to track it down and dispatch with it- but that doesnt mean the whole system is corrupt and no good- where would you be if there were no police- at the mercy of every gang rapist in town or worse Do any of you feel there are more extroverts being created in society with all the speed of supposedly progress and what is on offer? If so have you read Hans Jurgen Eysencks work and how an extrovert can allow punishment to go straight over their heads?
Answer: Why so many have asked for a World Court; to control not just individual politics but; World Politics. Laws we have in society today are: Civil Common Religious Civil / Common Civil / Religious Common / Religious. Since the earliest of times, we have had laws to abide by. The most documented Codes, were that by King Hammurabi 1760 BC known as the "Code of Hammurabi." When discussing Law, one has to take into account the Social, political and economics of their proposal for this law in and of itself. To have society function, we have to have laws to live by, without law, is best said in " When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied. " Tacitus Of course there are those who will never live by any laws, except what they want to live by.
Category: Psychology; 2010-09-04 17:41:52
