• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The "Why" thread

I accept that I know less at my current age than I ever thought I would. That is because I thought I knew more about everything beforehand.

How were things made/created, what happens when we die, how infinite is outer space, is thereother life out there, all questions I frankly don't have the appetite to spend energy trying to get answers to. Why? What would the purpose be? If I were meant to know then the answers would be a little more adjacent to humanity.

Is there a 'creator'? I don't think so. I think it's all chemicals and atmospheres. How can I reconcile that with the beautiful colours of a butterfly or iradesence of a lizard, or humour of a duck-billed platypus? I can't. And that's OK. If there is a single creator, great. It makes no difference to me. I DO want to learn more about that butterfly, that bee, that creature with whom I share this place. I DO want to continue trying to positively connect with as many people as possible (whether locally or via positive collective conscience). I DO want to place my energy into things which can help today be better for me and everyone I come into contact with, rather than ruminate on matters which will be inconsequential so far as my conscious state can divine.

Accepting what I don't know, and investigating some of the very tangible local things around me is of great importance.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Yes Science says agnosticism is the only answer.

My view is there is some design. And it makes me wonder about a creator. I don't know anything of course. Or think anyone else should agree with me.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in a creator, for various reasons, but I find religion a fascinating thing and I loved RE at school and its one reason I wanted to study sociology. Tribes in primitive areas of the world with no contact with humans have been found to have the basis of a religious belief and a GHod, which many say is a strong argument for there being a GHod, but I see it the other way, I think its a testament to the brain power of the human race and that even in primitive locations, human brains can think "why" and "who" enough for their brains to form this idea of a higher being rather than their being one.

The sheer volume of beliefs and gods that people believe in makes me believe strongly that the idea of GHod is a human thought process rather than a reality in the same way that humans have created stories, books, characters that have made their way into peoples minds through history.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I don't believe in a creator, for various reasons, but I find religion a fascinating thing and I loved RE at school and its one reason I wanted to study sociology. Tribes in primitive areas of the world with no contact with humans have been found to have the basis of a religious belief and a GHod, which many say is a strong argument for there being a GHod, but I see it the other way, I think its a testament to the brain power of the human race and that even in primitive locations, human brains can think "why" and "who" enough for their brains to form this idea of a higher being rather than their being one.

The sheer volume of beliefs and gods that people believe in makes me believe strongly that the idea of GHod is a human thought process rather than a reality in the same way that humans have created stories, books, characters that have made their way into peoples minds through history.
Click to expand...

There are definitely football gods. It's not even a debate.

That makes other types of gods very plausible :cool:
 
scaramanga said:
Agree with all of that except your last sentence.

I believe sociopathy is the next stage in human evolution.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be an evolution, it would be an accentuation of existing characteristics moving them closer back to the start of human evolution (probably pre and early homosapien level).

I think Neurodiversity is the a stage of human evolution. Although I don't think either ND or Sociopathy are the next stage - they are already present, they are just masked by the societal Norms We've created.
The principles that underpin those two areas are likely to become the next stage of cultural divergence though.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I am not sure I agree. I think in terms of a dystopia it's very real in the sense of how different our lives are from any age before. The scale of suffering might have changed but the amount of us on the planet has increased so much thst measuring current quality of life vs pervious eras is hard to do. Dunno. Good discussion
Click to expand...
Suffering, oppression and unease are what characterise Dystopia, so we definitely can compare.
I would fascinating to see if anyone has attempted to apply things like the Gini Coefficient to previous times. I'm going to Google that - that seems like the kind of thing someone would do as a PhD!
 
monkeybarry said:
That wouldn't be an evolution, it would be an accentuation of existing characteristics moving them closer back to the start of human evolution (probably pre and early homosapien level).

I think Neurodiversity is the a stage of human evolution. Although I don't think either ND or Sociopathy are the next stage - they are already present, they are just masked by the societal Norms We've created.
The principles that underpin those two areas are likely to become the next stage of cultural divergence though.
Click to expand...
Many people imagine evolution to be linear, like the branches on a tree. In fact, it's far more like the messy tangles on a bush.

Not all beneficial characteristics are selected and not all undesirable ones are filtered.

The timespan that modern humans have been around for is incredibly small in evolutionary terms. If we're around long enough, plenty of characteristics will return and some will be successful ones.

Just because humans had a trait and then didn't, it doesn't make it a bad one.
 
scaramanga said:
Many people imagine evolution to be linear, like the branches on a tree. In fact, it's far more like the messy tangles on a bush.

Not all beneficial characteristics are selected and not all undesirable ones are filtered.

The timespan that modern humans have been around for is incredibly small in evolutionary terms. If we're around long enough, plenty of characteristics will return and some will be successful ones.

Just because humans had a trait and then didn't, it doesn't make it a bad one.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
Yes, of course, accentuating a lost and/or diminished trait is evolution. I hadn't properly considered that. Evolution itself is partly a reaction to conditions and surroundings - so it makes perfect sense.

Why do you think Sociopathy is the next stage?
 
Sociopathy is the next stage because pseudo intellectuals read a bit of Nietzche and learned what nihilism is and decided to only live for their own advancement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back