squeenie
And goodness knows...
Why do you have to question someone's beliefs (or lack thereof)? Seems kind of pointless, if you ask me.emytaylor164 said:so what was said to make you reject God?
Why do you have to question someone's beliefs (or lack thereof)? Seems kind of pointless, if you ask me.emytaylor164 said:so what was said to make you reject God?
LOL.Schroedinger said:Because she's a fundamentalist christian and we're all going to hell. Can't you see, she's trying to help us!
so you live on the plains of africa?squeenie said:LOL.
Thanks, but no thanks, fundies. I think I can manage on my own. After all, evolution and natural selection has made sure that we're well adapted to our environment.
LOL. No, but i'm sure that our ancestors did however many thousands of years ago. We didn't come from dirt man and rib woman, that's for sure.Will Shakespear said:so you live on the plains of africa?
Oh, well I wasn't referring to the Bible... I was referring to the theory that goes against everything in Bible, which, as you said is historically invalid.Schroedinger said:Um there is no mention of that in the bible, or quarks.
So they do not exist.
Um, having read that, yes - the social taboo is based solely on our genetic disgust and aversion to it. There is no other reason why it would be a taboo for any other reason.Enteebee said:You can go and declare that all you want but the fact remains that there are problems with such genetic theories as there may be issues with more culture centric theories, which would be why I said his theory doesn't tell the whole picture. I mean... personally I'd tend to want some form of a genetic approach but there's definitely room for debate here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo
Fine, I'll take the view of the anthropologist. The taboo is the cause of the 'psychological disgust and aversion'. I mean... incest actually does occur fairly commonly amongst other social animals.Kwayera said:Um, having read that, yes - the social taboo is based solely on our genetic disgust and aversion to it. There is no other reason why it would be a taboo for any other reason.
What do you say? Is this all rubbish?Sociologist Ian Robertson gives three main social reasons why incest taboo exist as a cultural universals. The first is that early human beings-living primarily in small kinship groups of hunters and gatherers- needed to protect themselves by forming alliances with other groups. By forcing their children to marry into families outside their own, each group widened its social links and provided itself with allies in time of famine or other hazards. These groups faced the alternatives of marrying out or dying. Marriage in most traditional societies is a practical alliance between groups, not a love match between individuals. That is why marriages were often arranged by the parents, often when their offspring were still children and sometimes even before they are born. The second reason for the incest taboo is that the family itself could not function without it, for the statuses of family members would be utterly and hopelessly confused. As Kingsley Davis points out: " The incestuous child of a father-daughter union would be a brother of his own mother, i.e. the son of his own sister; a stepson of his own grandmother; possibly a brother of his own uncle; and certainly a grandson of his own father." The third reason is that without an incest taboo, sexual rivalry among family members would disrupt the normal roles and attitudes of the various relatives. The father, for example, might experience role conflict as both the disciplinarian and the lover of his daughter; the mother might be jealous of both; and the child, of course, would be caught in the middle. Faced with constant conflict and tension, the family institution might simply disintegrate. The incest taboo has developed over time because it is vital to the survival of the family and thus of society itself. Of course, neither traditional nor modern societies consciously appreciate the reasons for the taboo. They simply accept it as natural and moral.
Blood clots? Never heard that one before.Schroedinger said:We were clearly created from a clot of blood. Infidel, read your koran!
Schroedinger said:Because she's a fundamentalist christian and we're all going to hell. Can't you see, she's trying to help us!
Does it really bother you so much that we don't follow a religion?*TRUE* said:Yes she is.
Hmm... thats a tricky question in a way.squeenie said:Does it really bother you so much that we don't follow a religion?
I have no problem with religion, I just choose keep out of it. Is that such a bad thing?
Well I see that they have good intentions, but I just don't want to have anything to do with it. I'm just saying 'thanks, but no thanks'*TRUE* said:Hmm... thats a tricky question in a way.
But i guess the thing is , for a Christian believer , those who do not accept Christ (so unbelievers) will go to 'hell'.
Its not about offence toward unbelievers at all , its to do with care for them... do you know what i mean?
'following religion' means nothing to me really. 'Following' God means more...but i suppose the two things will be similar in your mind maybe
squeenie said:Well I see that they have good intentions, but I just don't want to have anything to do with it. I'm just saying 'thanks, but no thanks'
I was always told that the 'unbelievers' have chosen that way of life, and that it's their choice, no-one else's.
I think beleaguered would be a bit of an understatement*TRUE* said:That the best thing to do
On Bos we debate everything ( like seriously everything ,lol) and atheist and Christians , muslims , nihilists....we all question one another all the time....so yes, id say thats why you are feeling a bit beleaguered
Im a Christian myself , and i think often the best way to represent Christ is to shut your mouth and live it....
Absolutely stay as you are.... i dont think it is healthy to just accept things willy nilly.squeenie said:I think beleaguered would be a bit of an understatement
Well it's in my nature as a science student to question everything. I can't accept something as truth until I've seen it for myself, or I have good evidence for it.
Eh, I question pretty much everything, though I learned the hard way that I shouldn't do it all at once. Well I was a (mostly) innocent year 10 student trying to figure out her subject choices back then.*TRUE* said:Absolutely stay as you are.... i dont think it is healthy to just accept things willy nilly.
Do also question academics and scientists as well as religious people , question absolutely everything (though not all at once - Headache material,lol)
Haha. Yes , medical research has been my thing. Im already wanting to change to diplomacy , lol.squeenie said:Eh, I question pretty much everything, though I learned the hard way that I shouldn't do it all at once. Well I was a (mostly) innocent year 10 student trying to figure out her subject choices back then.
This is why I'm going into Research and Development. I can't stand still in one place for too long... It... does things to me. And then I scare not only myself, but other people.