Hmm butterfly you started off well. I certainly agree that it does seem that the only "truth" in our and every other living thing's existence is the need to procreate. The struggle to pass on one's DNA to the next generation is universal.
I do however dispute the "science" which you so liberally quote in your reply. "a sceintific fact" of a superior being....well no I don't think so. Belief for me is so simply explained I am still amazed that so many people believe in God (let alone organised religion). Observation of the evolution of man discussed yesterday shows the beginning of ritual burial (and effectively religion) coincides with self awareness. i.e. once people realised that dying was something that was going to happen to them they got afraid and hoped for an afterlife. Not one of the three major monotheistic religions has a place for animals and yet quite obviously that is what we are.
How on earth can you argue that people who believe in God are more capable of achieving things? What spurious science or propaganda could possibly claim that. Perhaps because most major science was done by people who believed in God. Hardly surprising when most major science was done in the past. Please show me where a medical journal says that people who believe in God "have less risk of.....any other mental illness". Mmmm please.
Here is a quote from the American Psychiatric Institute "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), delusions are "erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecution, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose)...The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity" That sounds a lot like people who believe in God to me!
Certainly human beings have developed a very complex society. This is in fact a meme (rather than a gene) as it is a human construct that aids our survival and makes it more likely our offspring will make it to sexual maturity. You have argued that the institute of marriage is simply one of these aids. I think this may have had more validity in early society where the social infrasructure was less well established. Now I am not so sure. Remember I said that marriage itself was the issue. However, I think that living with the mother of your child in a monogamous relathioship is probably a good thing based on the arguments you presented.
I don't hink it is a VERY dangerous choice to have sex with multiple partners. No doubt your risks are increased but then I don't imagine even you subscribe to a risk free life. I feel the risk is minimal when compared to the upside.
The book came up because the topic evolved to evolution.
By the chlamydia actually does affect the carrier. It can damage a woman's reproductive organs and cause infertility. It can cause pneumonia and conjunctivitis in infants. Not blindness.
Hmm butterfly you started off well. I certainly agree that it does seem that the only "truth" in our and every other living thing's existence is the need to procreate. The struggle to pass on one's DNA to the next generation is universal.
I do however dispute the "science" which you so liberally quote in your reply. "a sceintific fact" of a superior being....well no I don't think so. Belief for me is so simply explained I am still amazed that so many people believe in God (let alone organised religion). Observation of the evolution of man discussed yesterday shows the beginning of ritual burial (and effectively religion) coincides with self awareness. i.e. once people realised that dying was something that was going to happen to them they got afraid and hoped for an afterlife. Not one of the three major monotheistic religions has a place for animals and yet quite obviously that is what we are.
How on earth can you argue that people who believe in God are more capable of achieving things? What spurious science or propaganda could possibly claim that. Perhaps because most major science was done by people who believed in God. Hardly surprising when most major science was done in the past. Please show me where a medical journal says that people who believe in God "have less risk of.....any other mental illness". Mmmm please.
Here is a quote from the American Psychiatric Institute "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), delusions are "erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecution, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose)...The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity" That sounds a lot like people who believe in God to me!
Certainly human beings have developed a very complex society. This is in fact a meme (rather than a gene) as it is a human construct that aids our survival and makes it more likely our offspring will make it to sexual maturity. You have argued that the institute of marriage is simply one of these aids. I think this may have had more validity in early society where the social infrasructure was less well established. Now I am not so sure. Remember I said that marriage itself was the issue. However, I think that living with the mother of your child in a monogamous relathioship is probably a good thing based on the arguments you presented.
I don't hink it is a VERY dangerous choice to have sex with multiple partners. No doubt your risks are increased but then I don't imagine even you subscribe to a risk free life. I feel the risk is minimal when compared to the upside.
The book came up because the topic evolved to evolution.
By the chlamydia actually does affect the carrier. It can damage a woman's reproductive organs and cause infertility. It can cause pneumonia and conjunctivitis in infants. Not blindness.
Please stop with "survival of the fittest".