Daviso452
Boy Genius
It's not the we want to exist; its that we are programmed to by our genetics, which was due to evolution, which was caused by chemical reactions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Morality
- Thread starter Sleeppy
- Start date
It's not the we want to exist; its that we are programmed to by our genetics, which was due to evolution, which was caused by chemical reactions.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Even being a byproduct dictates that I had to exist from the reaction.. Otherwise, it wouldn't have had me as a byproduct.
Do I have to continue existing? Yes. Until there is something to dictate otherwise.
If I'm cremated, do I cease existing? No. I just don't exist as a living human being, but ash and energy and whatever else.
So, there's really nothing, ever, to dictate that the existence itself of something cease. It's to the contrary.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
You don't wonder why evolution programmed it that way? Or why the chemical reactions caused it that way? Perhaps because it is law, at least on Earth?
Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be
Daviso452
Boy Genius
Chemical reactions did not "cause it that way." It's just how matter works. Life is not special. We are just a different kind of chemical reaction. Again, we do not "want" to live, and life was not "programmed" to continue living. You misunderstood my analogy. It's just a chemical reaction. No more. And many believe that this reaction has lead to life elsewhere in the universe.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
They did cause it that way if it happened that way.
What do you mean we don't "want" to live?
Daviso452
Boy Genius
Sorry. I think I'm getting confused. Yes, it happened that way, but it would have made no difference had the reaction done something else and life was not created.
"Wanting" is not a thing. It is just another chemical reaction. Our drive to "live" is also just a chemical reaction. If you had the proper materials, you could make a fully functioning, feeling, breathing person without it being born, and it would be just like any other.
My point is that there is no part of us that makes us different than a rock, or a star. We are both results of atoms and chemical reactions. Nothing else. We, as life, are just a different kind of reaction.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The reaction couldn't have done anything else. We'd never have chemistry class if chemical reactions had a choice.
Wanting is a result of the chemical reaction. Why? What's the scientific explanation?
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I think if it exists, it at least had ought.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
The Holocaust.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
RE:Scenario 1:
Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?
RE Scenario 2:
Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?
From your logic it seems that pedophilia is ok but bestiality not?
How did you come to this conclusion?
Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?
RE Scenario 2:
Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?
So let's get this one straight.
From your logic it seems that pedophilia is ok but bestiality not?
How did you come to this conclusion?
RE:Scenario 1:
Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?
RE Scenario 2:
Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?
So let's get this one straight.
From your logic it seems that pedophilia is ok but bestiality not?
How did you come to this conclusion?
We have no evidence that the dog consents, we have evidence the girl does.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
It happened. Wasn't spontaneous. It was a result of things that forced it to happen. Same thing for the end of the Holocaust.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
No, because that is bestiality.
Against the order of nature, hence wrong.
Yes, because that is the provision of food.
Within the order of nature, hence right.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Therefore the Holocaust was meant to happen.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Hitler definitely meant it.
Not sure, the OP said she was, and this is a hypothetical situation, therefore whatever the OP says is true information about the hypothetical situation.
By order of nature do you mean that it happens in nature, it's just a natural thing?
Well there are two things wrong with that;
1) Cannibalism is also in nature, yet I'm sure you wouldn't approve of cannibalism?
2) Natural killing for food involves finding and hunting, not raising to die.
And Hitler was correct to himself.