Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Tbf we're just superior to other species, it's why we've managed to cage them so we can go and spray champagne, shouting "we're number one" at some chimps at our own leisure. 

Pretty much my favourite pass time tbh. 

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Pretty much my favourite pass time tbh. 

Who doesn't enjoy heckling zoo animals?

[Dr The Singh]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If your faith doesn't say that only humans get an idea into the workings of a deity and we're special because of it, then fair enough.

 

Apologies if I'm going a little tough on this one but I've seen that hypocrisy so many times.

That is correct, there is no such thing as a chosen or particular god group.

 

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Tbf we're just superior to other species, it's why we've managed to cage them so we can go and spray champagne, shouting "we're number one" at some chimps at our own leisure. 

When we've lasted as a species able to record stuff for several million years and managed to extend our reach to all the parts of the known Earth (and out into the universe), then I'll share that sentiment

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, Illusion35 said:

That not everything currently being called 'sexual assault' by the media  is actually a sexual assault.

 

Putting your hand on someone's knee. Sending someone a card saying you find them attractive. These things are not sexual assault and should not be construed as such or compared with actual incidents of sexual assault which are clearly very distressing for the victims. 

I can be quite touchy feely, I often touch someone's arm when I'm talking to them. It could be a man, a woman or a child. I'm not sexually assaulting them, and I wouldn't feel sexually assaulted if anyone did it to me. The world has gone completely over the top. 

[Wymsey]

Christmas is too commercialised, and its fashion choice is quite daft, having seen this advert at the bottom of this thread..

 

[Illusion35]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I can be quite touchy feely, I often touch someone's arm when I'm talking to them. It could be a man, a woman or a child. I'm not sexually assaulting them, and I wouldn't feel sexually assaulted if anyone did it to me. The world has gone completely over the top. 

Couldn't agree more! 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Christmas is too commercialised, and its fashion choice is quite daft, having seen this advert at the bottom of this thread..

 

Getting myself the rainbow onesie, quite fetching I think.

[The Doctor]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

When we've lasted as a species able to record stuff for several million years and managed to extend our reach to all the parts of the known Earth (and out into the universe), then I'll share that sentiment

I'm definitely not serious, I thought talking about taunting zoo animals would have given that away.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I'm definitely not serious, I thought talking about taunting zoo animals would have given that away.

Ha, yeah, I figured you weren't.

 

I mean, humanity in general is pretty full of itself and a lot of organised religion is just one way of displaying that.

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If your faith doesn't say that only humans get an idea into the workings of a deity and we're special because of it, then fair enough.

 

Apologies if I'm going a little tough on this one but I've seen that hypocrisy so many times.

Sorry, I have finally realised what you're going on about, I've misunderstood you. You're talking about animals.

 

Most religions believe that only humans have eternal souls and in my many debates with religious people, this is because of one of the major arguments for the existence of God, namely that objective moral values can't exist without a deity. Not really arrogant to think that.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Sorry, I have finally realised what you're going on about, I've misunderstood you. You're talking about animals.

 

Most religions believe that only humans have eternal souls and in my many debates with religious people, this is because of one of the major arguments for the existence of God, namely that objective moral values can't exist without a deity. Not really arrogant to think that.

 

Then we differ on that opinion, because I believe a species that has only been able to record its own existence for a flyspeck of time in temperate geological terms (as well as some thinking that same time period is all of history) believing the bolded part here is the height of arrogance. But I guess we just have to disagree.

Edited 11 November 2017 by leicsmac

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then we differ on that opinion, because I believe a species that has only been able to record its own existence for a flyspeck of time in temperate geological terms (as well as some thinking that same time period is all of history) believing the bolded part here is the height of arrogance. But I guess we just have to disagree.

Not really, all the evidence that eternal souls exist point to them existing in humans only so it follows logically that religions don't claim animals have them. I'm not religious and don't believe in eternal souls, just so you know.

[Rogstanley]

To be fair there’s what, millions of other species to have been on earth and they’ve all achieved absolutely **** all in terms of intelligent development. So I think it’s fair to say we are pretty special.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Not really, all the evidence that eternal souls exist point to them existing in humans only so it follows logically that religions don't claim animals have them. I'm not religious and don't believe in eternal souls, just so you know.

What evidence? Such things are a matter of faith much more than science, IMO. It's all guesswork and belief. And there you've pretty much hit the hub and crux of my opinion, here - the religions claim that humanity is a special case, when really it isn't - we're apes in sharper suits.

 

I appreciate the debate though, making me think.

 

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

To be fair there’s what, millions of other species to have been on earth and they’ve all achieved absolutely **** all in terms of intelligent development. So I think it’s fair to say we are pretty special.

Probably true (in terms of intelligent development we have found and can understand and interpret, anyway). But does that rally define success and mark humanity as special? What definition do you use for a successful species?

 

Don't get me wrong - humanity has a shitload of potential - we can manipulate the environment around us to be able to survive in a lot of different places and circumstances, and that'll only get better in the future. But the idea that gives us the right to believe we're the One Twue Species, chosen by a deity themselves and know their will and what they want from us...nah, not getting there.

Edited 11 November 2017 by leicsmac

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

To be fair there’s what, millions of other species to have been on earth and they’ve all achieved absolutely **** all in terms of intelligent development. So I think it’s fair to say we are pretty special.

It doesn't really have much to do with achievement as there are animals that do significantly better than us. It all comes from the evidence that God exists. One prominent reason for faith is that of objective moral values. It is mooted that objective moral values serve no purpose hence would not exist without a deity. Given that religious people believe there are objective moral values, they believe in God and further more they believe in eternal souls. Whilst evidence, though contentious and philosophical in nature, can be found for this in humans it is much harder to find in animals. Thus it stands to reason that religious people believe it is humans who have eternal souls and not other species. It is not arrogant to think that, just logical if you believe the aforementioned things.

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Not really, all the evidence that eternal souls exist point to them existing in humans only so it follows logically that religions don't claim animals have them. I'm not religious and don't believe in eternal souls, just so you know.

Why? There's plenty of genuine evidence that chimpanzees have a sense of self and they certainly recognise themselves in reflections. Why would they be exempt from that because of "evidence" (of which there is none) of eternal souls existing?

Edited 11 November 2017 by Sampson

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What evidence? Such things are a matter of faith much more than science, IMO. It's all guesswork and belief. And there you've pretty much hit the hub and crux of my opinion, here - the religions claim that humanity is a special case, when really it isn't - we're apes in sharper suits.

 

I appreciate the debate though, making me think.

 

Probably true (in terms of intelligent development we have found and can understand and interpret, anyway). But does that rally define success and mark humanity as special? What definition do you use for a successful species?

 

Don't get me wrong - humanity has a shitload of potential - we can manipulate the environment around us to be able to survive in a lot of different places and circumstances, and that'll only get better in the future. But the idea that gives us the right to believe we're the One Twue Species, chosen by a deity themselves and know their will and what they want from us...nah, not getting there.

Please please, for the love of the God I don't believe in, remember I am agnostic at best. I do not hold much for this evidence. That said if the evidence is to be believed it follows logically that you would believe only humans have eternal souls thus it is not arrogance, just logic.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Why? There's plenty of genuine evidence that chimpanzees have a sense of self and they certainly recognise themselves in reflections. Why would they be exempt from that because of "evidence" (of which there is none) of eternal souls existing?

Again, I as a non believer do not hold much for the evidence but being self aware and noticing yourself in the mirror is not the same thing as objective moral values.

[Sampson]

10 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Again, I as a non believer do not hold much for the evidence but being self aware and noticing yourself in the mirror is not the same thing as objective moral values.

But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? And what do moral values have to do with external souls?

 

Just seems to me like you keep repeating "I'm agnostic" to defend yourself against explaining the actual evidence as part of the debate - I'm not debating your belief system, it makes no difference to the questions I am asking and what you are defending - simple fact is: religious teachings aren't evidence for anything - there are religious teachings that atheists go to heaven and religious people don't, there are many anamalism religious teachings which say non-homo sapien animals have souls - some of which have dominated some of the biggest cultures in human history - including Ancient Egypt, Japanese Shinto, the Romans and 12th century Mogolia (the biggest country in human history).

 

Why are they not considered evidence but Christian teachings are? Why is the modern religions popular in the UK considered evidence, but the modern religions popular in Japan and Mongolia aren't?

Edited 11 November 2017 by Sampson

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? And what do moral values have to do with anything leicsmac is saying.

 

Just seems to me like you keep repeating "I'm agnostic" to defend yourself against explaining the actual evidence as part of the debate - religious teachings aren't evidence for anything - there are religious teachings that atheists go to heaven and religious people don't, there are many anamaliatica religious teachings whuch say animals have souls - some of which have dominated some of the biggest cultures in human history - including Ancient Egypt, Japanese Shinto, the Romans and 12th century Mogolia (the biggest country in human history).

 

Why are they not considered evidence but Christian teachings are? Why is the modern religions popular in the UK considered evidence, but the modern religions popular in Japan and Mongolia aren't?

I think it is you that has misunderstood. The debate myself and Leicsmac are having concerns whether or not religions are arrogant in assuming they know the will of God.

 

The reason I keep pointing out that I am agnostic is because Leicsmac and yourself keep replying as though you think I am suggesting that humans have eternal souls and animals don't or that I believe there are objective moral values that exist only in humans and therefore a deity exists. I don't believe any of that.

 

When I am talking of evidence I am talking about what religious people hold as evidence, not myself and this is important here because as I have pointed out as my main contention in this argument, this evidence that religious people subscribe to shows they are not being arrogant.

[the fox]

i find it criminal that a man can lose his career because a woman interpreted something he said the wrong way.

Edited 11 November 2017 by the fox

[Sampson]

21 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I think it is you that has misunderstood. The debate myself and Leicsmac are having concerns whether or not religions are arrogant in assuming they know the will of God.

 

The reason I keep pointing out that I am agnostic is because Leicsmac and yourself keep replying as though you think I am suggesting that humans have eternal souls and animals don't or that I believe there are objective moral values that exist only in humans and therefore a deity exists. I don't believe any of that.

 

When I am talking of evidence I am talking about what religious people hold as evidence, not myself and this is important here because as I have pointed out as my main contention in this argument, this evidence that religious people subscribe to shows they are not being arrogant.

 

But that is "evidence" changes from religion to religion. There is evidence which contradicts it in different religions. You cannot say that all the evidence which points to the external soul being only in humans because that simply isn't true. It is true of certain religions, but probably not even true of the majority of religions in history.

 

Even if certain people of certain religions think the evidence shows that, there are plenty of religions which don't and the fact is - humans have thousands of religions to choose from. If they *choose* to believe in a specific religion which says humans or even just homo sapiens have external souls whereas other animals which have a sense of self and we share 97% DNA with don't, then yes, I absolutely would say there's a sense of human hubris there when there are plenty of religions with their own evidence to the contrary and they make that particular individual choice.

Edited 11 November 2017 by Sampson

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

But that is "evidence" changes from religion to religion. There is evidence which contradicts it in different religions. You cannot say that all the evidence that the evidence which points to the external soul being only in humans because that simply isn't true. It is true of certain religions, but probably not even true of the majority of religions in history.

 

Even if certain people of certain religions think the evidence shows that, there are plenty of religions which don't and the fact is - humans have thousands of religions to choose from. If they *choose* to believe in a specific religion which says humans or even just homo sapiens have external souls whereas other animals which have a sense of self and we share 97% DNA with don't, then yes, I absolutely would say there's a sense of human hubris there when their are plenty of religions with their own evidence to the contrary and they make that particular individual choice.

I literally have no clue what your point is? You are just waffling on with unnecessary information.

 

The evidence doesn't matter, that is the point! It's the belief in that evidence that matters. If someone set up a religion and claimed they knew the will of god and spouted it around with no conviction or belief in it then that would be arrogance. The point is that Christian, Muslims or whatever religion Leicsmac is talking about believe in it with conviction, and therefore because they have that belief, it is not arrogance.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, the fox said:

i find it criminal that a man can lose his career because a woman interpreted something he said the wrong way.

 

It’s not so much what you said, Foxy, it’s having your cock out that caused the problem...