The things they do in the name of religion

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Oh Baron, there you jsut made a slight mistake. Intelligence would teach you that old people are a waste of resources and girls at the age of 14 are ready for reproduction.

No, it would not, and no, it does not.

Quote[/b] ]

Now what makes you stop from killing the first and raping the second is not because of your instincts either, but it is because of your ethics. And what do you think, historical wise, is the base of the ethics of the western world?

Human intelligence? The fact that we are social animals who must cooperate to survive?

Are you seriously claiming that religion is the basis for all the ethics of the world?

Sorry, that simply is not true. As I said before, ethics pre-date every modern religion, and IMO religion came after ethics, not before. In order to survive as a simple tribe of hunter gatherers on the plains of africa, before language, we needed simple ethics.

Quote[/b] ]

And back to my example. When something terribly happened in my life, neither it was you who was there for me, nor my friends, but I didnt need you or my friends but was able to cope with it myself. And it wasnt god who supported me (I am not a fundamentalist) it was my brain and my belief that helped me out. Things could have turned out worse for me, much worse! So you neglecting the usefullness of religion makes me feel like you are neglecting what actually saved me to a certain extent!

Still curious as to exactly what benefit mythology gave you. I've never needed it, and none of my close friends have ever needed it. What use is it? I don't think it makes you better able to handle grief, because athiests are not less good at handling grief than theists. I don't think it helps you get over the loss better, for the same reasons. I don't think it helps you get out of, for example, a monetary problem because you're less likely to actually do something about it and more likely to kneel around praying all day (which doesn't accomplish anything anyway even if there was a god)

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh Baron, there you jsut made a slight mistake. Intelligence would teach you that old people are a waste of resources and girls at the age of 14 are ready for reproduction.

Intelligence would teach me that old people are a good source of information and that 14-year-old girls are not completely ready for childbirth, nursing the child, etc...

Quote[/b] ]Now what makes you stop from killing the first and raping the second is not because of your instincts either, but it is because of your ethics. And what do you think, historical wise, is the base of the ethics of the western world?

"If we kill them, then they'll kill us. Therefore, we should stop killing each other."

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Still curious as to exactly what benefit mythology gave you. I've never needed it, and none of my close friends have ever needed it. What use is it? I don't think it makes you better able to handle grief, because athiests are not less good at handling grief than theists. I don't think it helps you get over the loss better, for the same reasons. I don't think it helps you get out of, for example, a monetary problem because you're less likely to actually do something about it and more likely to kneel around praying all day (which doesn't accomplish anything anyway even if there was a god)

First of all Baron, I never got anoyed by what you said, you used tough language by i can cope with that. Are we wussies or what?

No, I wont tell you the exact story cause it is too private and not something I should share with the world.

But one suggestion may be allowed. Please, for yourself, work once in a hospital or home for old people for a month. There you meet old grandmas and grandpas that are left alone. Their family members do not visit them and the staff has rarely time to talk to them. All these old people have is their religion. I saw them praying, I saw them talking to a priest (which atheist organisation visits old people?) and they were able to cope with their short future and look forward to their death.

You can say religion is believing in something where there is no proof for it. You may claim that god isnt there because of the misery on our planet. But fact is these people gathered strength from something they believed in, may it exist or not!

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Human intelligence?  The fact that we are social animals who must cooperate to survive?

Plain wrong! Human intelligence are so full of flaws and so irrational. Rationality can at best only be intentional. Besides, ethics are not a result of silly survival theories but how the single individual interprets a society's norms. Moral and ethics are embodied and experienced - but hardly in a objective fashion. It is a result of subjective experience. Something informs our morale and it's certainly not intelligence. If it had been human intelligence - how then would you explain ritual killings in Inka society?

How could you otherwise explain that what we consider as murder actually have been considered deeds in antique Rome.

Quote[/b] ]Are you seriously claiming that religion is the basis for all the ethics of the world?

Are you seriously claiming that religion has nothing to do with the ethics of the world?

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, that simply is not true.  As I said before, ethics pre-date every modern religion, and IMO religion came after ethics, not before.  In order to survive as a simple tribe of hunter gatherers on the plains of africa, before language, we needed simple ethics.

There has always been what we conseptualize as ethics in the every society. To claim ethics and morale have not been affected by religion is delusional.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Albert Schweizer-

Quote[/b] ]You can say religion is believing in something where there is no proof for it. You may claim that god isnt there because of the misery on our planet. But fact is these people gathered strength from something they believed in, may it exist or not!

More likely he would claim that there is no reason to believe in a god because there is no supportable evidence for such a belief (as i would) which nicely relates to your first point about the lack of proof. The evils and miseries of the world simply make it appear even more unlikely. But as a non religious person i can recognise that people at least sometimes draw mental strength from their religious beliefs and that can be seen as one of the great strengths of religion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

No, I wont tell you the exact story cause it is too private and not something I should share with the world.

That is fair enough, I am not asking you to.

Quote[/b] ]

You can say religion is believing in something where there is no proof for it. You may claim that god isnt there because of the misery on our planet. But fact is these people gathered strength from something they believed in, may it exist or not!

And there aren't any old atheists???

There are. They are as well able to cope with death as theists, more so, I think.

Again, with my example (which you haven't answered yet) : the man believes that he is being abducted by aliens. But he isn't. It's just false hope. It's like telling children that they are going to disneyland when they are actually going to get painful cancer treatment. It might make them happy in the short term but long term it causes them more grief and suffering.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

How does an elderly person believing that their loved ones are in heaven and that when they die (soon) they will go to heaven cause them more grief and suffering in the long term? The Disneyland/Cancer treatment analogy is quite inappropriate. For one thing it seems to suggest that religious beliefs are beneficial and necessary to get people to act in ways they would not otherwise(?) yet painful though at first dressed in an attractive illusion. Almost the antithesis of what i understood your views on religion to be.

It seems to suggest that believers come to realise that their beliefs are not true?Can you really be so self centred as to think that because YOU have realised their beliefs are not true they must inevitably go through the same process? Surely a religious believer can go through life confident in their beliefs quite ignorant of the facts up until the very moment of death(as in fact can an atheist). Where then does the grief or harm arise?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Still curious as to exactly what benefit mythology gave you......... What use is it?

Why don't you ask a former drug addict now "spiritualy reborn as a christian" the same question?

I'm sure he had no use for it - I bet he didn't even long for a life in decency?

Would you have the nerve to suggest he is wrong and delusional? Perhaps you could explain to him that he could just as well start believing in alien abduction?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]How does an elderly person believing that their loved ones are in heaven and that when they die (soon) they will go to heaven cause them more grief and suffering in the long term?

Because, as I said, it is a false hope.

Quote[/b] ]

The Disneyland/Cancer treatment analogy is quite inappropriate. For one thing it seems to suggest that religious beliefs are beneficial and necessary to get people to act in ways they would not otherwise(?) yet painful though at first dressed in an attractive illusion. Almost the antithesis of what i understood your views on religion to be.

All it is is an illustration of what false hope is.

Quote[/b] ]

It also suggests that believers come to realise that their beliefs are not true?Can you really be so self centred as to think that because YOU have realised their beliefs are not true they must inevitably go through the same process? Surely a religious believer can go through life confident in their beliefs quite ignorant of the facts up until the very moment of death(as in fact can an atheist).

Maybe they won't find out. It is still false hope. Is false hope ever a good thing? I don't think so, because the suffering caused IF it is found out is greater than the burden lifted by it.

You might disagree. Fine. But for me, false hope is always a far worse thing that the simple truth.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]How does an elderly person believing that their loved ones are in heaven and that when they die (soon) they will go to heaven cause them more grief and suffering in the long term?

Because, as I said, it is a false hope.

LOL - what kind of logic is that? How on earth would the elderly person know there's no heaven when he or she is dead - unless there is a life after death? How could hope possibly be more harm than good if there is no heaven after all? The person's dead right - he or she never got to know the "truth"  -  so what harm did it do?

[whisperFFW06 0]

And he continues.

Carefully avoiding touchy comments, throwing assertions without backup, and continually criticizing religious beliefs with scientific "arguments" (his whole idea being that religion is not scientifically proven, which it should not have to). FSPilot has a new name!

Baron, all your questions are answered here :

Quote[/b] ]Oh come on, you know me since quite a while now. i believe in god and still are very open minded and I am probably representing the mayority of protestants around europe. My parents are pretty much atheists, my school was a very strict religious school and still I remained an atheist untill the age of 21. Something terrible happened in my life and religion was one of the things that helped me out. I will never force my children to go to school. I wont force chrisitanity upon them. I will not come along and teach them all sorts of prayer. But in case they are afraid of the dark I might tell them that there is someone watching them while they sleep. That isnt brainwashing, that is simply called care. I feel pressured into the extreme corner here even though I am very liberal and antiauthoritative.

Quote from Albert Schweizer, that you carefully ignored until he came back a second time. Religion is exactly about this, helping people when thay have problem that rationnal debating, logic and everything else fails.

You are lucky enough to not have stumble on such issues. But consider yourself lucky. That shouldn't mean that your case is the ultimate truth.

I can't believe you didn't see this post. I believe you simply ignored it.

Instead, after having repeatedly insulted people here, you try to make yourself a victim :

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together.

Do you realise that you are being incredibly insulting not just to me (I don't really care) but to every other free-thinker are irreligious person? You are saying that people without religion are sub-human - psychopaths.

You should learn the meaning of word "to help"... It's different from "to be the only way to..."... Or you perfectly know the difference and feel the need to be seen as the insulted one? (Yeah, you got it, I'm getting fed up with your attitude here)

You throw assertions scientifically proven :

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Eugenism is rational.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The genocide in Rwanda was rational for the Hutu leaders.

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was (\o/ whoohoo, THAT'S debate! scientific arguments flying everywhere!)

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Oh Baron, there you jsut made a slight mistake. Intelligence would teach you that old people are a waste of resources and girls at the age of 14 are ready for reproduction.

No, it would not, and no, it does not.

Yes, it would, and yes, it does (You know that I'm beginning to love your way of argumenting? I'm aroused!)

You see, same type of reply, nothing proven/explained, exactly like you do.

Ho! One last thing :

Quote[/b] ]Are you seriously claiming that religion is the basis for all the ethics of the world?

Sorry, that simply is not true. As I said before, ethics pre-date every modern religion, and IMO (<- note from quoter : this is the very first time you don't throw assertion, and accept that it's an opinion and could be false or subjective) religion came after ethics, not before. In order to survive as a simple tribe of hunter gatherers on the plains of africa, before language, we needed simple ethics.

And old religions pre-date the ethics which pre-date the modern religions.

In fact the first Homo Sapiens group considered as a civilization was the one who began to bury it's deads. As soon as they though about a possible after-death life, they are considered as "civilized" (and this is current scientific research). Even today scientist are not as science-fundamentalist (because that's what you show us, Baron, fundamentalism, the same kind as islamic one.... yes you can now feel insulted) as you are here (and, like you said, you wouldn't be IRL, just over Internet, how strange).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Baron, all your questions are answered here :

Quote from Albert Schweizer, that you carefully ignored until he came back a second time. Religion is exactly about this, helping people when thay have problem that rationnal debating, logic and everything else fails.

No I didn't. Please read the thread. I answered to him, and I answered the assertion that religion is somehow of use when rationality is not.

False hope is worse than the truth.

Quote[/b] ]

You are lucky enough to not have stumble on such issues. But consider yourself lucky.

You know nothing about me.

Quote[/b] ]

I can't believe you didn't see this post. I believe you simply ignored it.

I neither ignored it nor did not answer it.

Quote[/b] ]

Instead, after having repeatedly insulted people here, you try to make yourself a victim :

...because Atheists cannot be insulted? Because its ok for an ignorant comment to insult freethinkers because someone didn't like what one other person said?

Nice christian morals there, you hypocrite.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

You throw assertions scientifically proven :

Quote[/b] ]

Eugenism is rational.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The genocide in Rwanda was rational for the Hutu leaders.

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was (\o/ whoohoo, THAT'S debate! scientific arguments flying everywhere!)

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Oh Baron, there you jsut made a slight mistake. Intelligence would teach you that old people are a waste of resources and girls at the age of 14 are ready for reproduction.

No, it would not, and no, it does not.

Yes, it would, and yes, it does (You know that I'm beginning to love your way of argumenting? I'm aroused!)

Well done! You spotted what my point was in answering these ridiculous assertions then pretended you are so stupid you thought I was asserting things!

HE made the assertions. If someone makes a false assertion with no evidence or reasoning behind it, I will simply make a counter assertion.

Until there is some reason to think it is rational to kill old people (it isn't - for reasons already discussed in the thread by others- which maybe you would have noticed if you wren't too busy trolling) then that is a stupid assertion.

Quote[/b] ]

Ho! One last thing :

Quote[/b] ]

Are you seriously claiming that religion is the basis for all the ethics of the world?

Sorry, that simply is not true. As I said before, ethics pre-date every modern religion, and IMO religion came after ethics, not before. In order to survive as a simple tribe of hunter gatherers on the plains of africa, before language, we needed simple ethics.

And old religions pre-date the ethics which pre-date the modern religions.

Evidence for this ludicrous assertion?

Bearing in mind that CHIMPANZEES AND GORILLAS have ethics, with no religion?

Bearing in mind that our hunter gatherer ancestors needed ethics in order to even live as a group, which is nessesary to start religion?

Quote[/b] ]

In fact the first Homo Sapiens group considered as a civilization was the one who began to bury it's deads.

No it isn't. The first decent fossils are from the group that buried their dead (which is not inherently a religious process - it could just be to stop them getting eaten by scavengers, which could be traumatic to their families.)

Anyway, this is irrelevant, because you have conveniently ignored the point that to live as a group, before civilisation, our ancestors needed some form of ethics.

Quote[/b] ]

As soon as they though about a possible after-death life, they are considered as "civilized" (and this is current scientific research).

As soon as they were able to use language and communicate with each other they were considered as civilised. Where are you getting this nonsense? It is not current scientific research at all.

The we can only go on the scarce information we have on them. The fact that they buried their dead does not nessesarily imply a religious aspect, and does not in any way imply that whatever religious aspect they may have had influenced their ethics.

Quote[/b] ]

More trolling shite.

I haven't noticed you answering my earlier question. Afraid that your hypocrisy will show?

Answer it.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]...because Atheists cannot be insulted?  Because its ok for an ignorant comment to insult freethinkers because someone didn't like what one other person said?

Did you care to read what I wrote after?

Quote[/b] ]You should learn the meaning of word "to help"... It's different from "to be the only way to..."

Let's see the original sentence :

"It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil". Which in no way means that you can't draw this line without religion. Religion helps. And you feel insulted? Sorry, I don't see how...

Quote[/b] ]Nice christian morals there, you hypocrite.

1) No way you should fell insulted, see above

2) As I wrote earlier, I'm not christian. I'm atheist, even if I'm not quite sure of my convictions at the moment. But I forgot you didn't care reading my post, it was not correctly written by that time. Sorry, really, for not being native english

To the rest of my post : my bad, accept my sincere apologies. It should not have been written. I'm guilty of doing exactly what I was reproaching you.

Now that I'm more calm.

We repeated that religion (religion as opposed to atheism) helps answering questions like "what will happen after I'm dead" and "why am I here? Why this silly world? Is there a meaning behind it?". Science would answer... not really much. Appart from "don't know", "probably nothing". Accepting the existence of a god permits to see somthing after your death, some kind of mind behind the world's schemes. It helps certain people to accept living in this world.

Unless science disproves the existence of a God (something I'm not aware of), why refusing religion?

From what I see : What you refuse is the use and abuse of some religions by some people. You deny the right of a belief to avoid misuse of this belief by a certain portion of the believers. But the real issue is not the belief (scientifically not disproven) but the misuse (scientifically debatable).

[Pathy 0]

Sorry if im making a short judgement of the jist of this, ive read the last couple of pages breifly but havent been involved in this thread

Baron, what makes you think that going to heaven is a false hope anyway. What gives you the right to say to someone, "your religion is a lie"? Im not religious, but my opinion is, if it helps someone cope, its not a bad thing.

Its fine to express your opinions, but, respect others....

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Quote[/b] ]Is false hope ever a good thing? I don't think so, because the suffering caused IF it is found out is greater than the burden lifted by it.

You might disagree. Fine. But for me, false hope is always a far worse thing that the simple truth.

And here i think is the crux of the continuing argument. Because the Baron believes that religious hope is false hope (though in relation to matters such as a gods existence or life after death it is not verifiable here one way or the other) he therefore holds that no worth can come of it, even in extraordinary or ususual circumstances, as compared to the good endowed by what he regards as the simple and verifiable truths of science. Because truth is good whereas lies are bad and religious ideas are falsely held, thus religion is bad and therefore what follows from religion is inevitably worse than what follows from simple truth. For Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX it seems to be this simple. Is it?

If i am correct (unfortunatly i dont have time to wait for an answer right now) then it is inevitable that there will be continued disagreement whilst others still hold that the 'burden lifted' by religious beliefs (to put it in a rather negative way) is greater than any suffering caused by it.

I might add that when it comes to fairly vague general beliefs that are unverifiable such as belief in life (or 'something') after death or some divine force not materially detectable i cannot see how they can really be 'found out' at all. There can only be a body of opinion, testimony and more or less supportive evidence.

Does Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX argue that no good for either a person or society can ever come from religion due to its inherently false nature (in his estimation)? This would indeed seem to be an extreme position, that of a fanatic. It would seem to necessitate a wide renegotiation of what is good. Is what is objective always what is best? Is pleasure only to be derived from 'simple truth'? Surely a photograph is more objectively 'true' and 'accurate' yet many people may get more pleasure and even find more meaning in a less verifiably accurate more interpretative painted representation.

Or does he instead concede instead that some types of benefit may be derived in some circumstances by some people from religious beliefs?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

And here i think is the crux of the continuing argument. Because the Baron believes that religious hope is false hope (though in relation to matters such as a gods existence or life after death it is not verifiable here one way or the other)

Not verifiable yet. The fact remains, however, that its mind bogglingly unlikely to be true.

Quote[/b] ]

he therefore holds that no worth can come of it, even in extraordinary or ususual circumstances, as compared to the good endowed by what he regards as the simple and verifiable truths of science. Because truth is good whereas lies are bad and religious ideas are falsely held, thus religion is bad and therefore what follows from religion is inevitably worse than what follows from simple truth. For Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX it seems to be this simple. Is it?

Not inevitably worse. But potentially worse.

Do you not think that false hope is a bad thing?

Quote[/b] ]

If i am correct (unfortunatly i dont have time to wait for an answer right now) then it is inevitable that there will be continued disagreement whilst others still hold that the 'burden lifted' by religious beliefs (to put it in a rather negative way) is greater than any suffering caused by it.

I might add that when it comes to fairly vague general beliefs that are unverifiable such as belief in life (or 'something') after death or some divine force not materially detectable i cannot see how they can really be 'found out' at all. There can only be a body of opinion, testimony and more or less supportive evidence.

But there can be the whole, you know, thing about them not actually existing at all since there is no evidence for them. Once again: if something exists there is evidence for it. If something doesn't exist there isn't any. The only get out clause is that we may not have the equipment to detect such things yet. But since they would contravene most laws of physics... I doubt it.

Quote[/b] ]

Does Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX argue that no good for either a person or society can ever come from religion due to its inherently false nature (in his estimation)?

No.

Religion was useful in previous times. It is just no longer useful. It's like despotism: an OK way to rule, but there are better ways (think CIV)

Good can come from it. But overall I think it does more harm than good nowadays. But then, remember that I'm not advocating some extreme measures of eliminating it or anything. I'd just be happy if people started thinking, instead of believing. I'd like to reduce the amount of children brainwashed by it (think of the aliens example) but, I repeat, I'm not going to mount a campaign to eradicate it or anything.

Quote[/b] ]

This would indeed seem to be an extreme position, that of a fanatic. It would seem to necessitate a wide renegotiation of what is good. Is what is objective always what is best? Is pleasure only to be derived from 'simple truth'? Surely a photograph is more objectively 'true' and 'accurate' yet many people may get more pleasure and even find more meaning in a less verifiably accurate more interpretative painted representation.

But that is a misrepresentation of my position. It is a good question, though. Perhaps you'd like to make a new thread about it?

The question might be better phrased as 'Is truth more likely to benefit others than falsehood?'

Quote[/b] ]

Or does he instead concede instead that some types of benefit may be derived in some circumstances by some people from religious beliefs?

Yes. Some benefit can be derived by people who believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte, by people who believe that putting crystals in their water helps them when they have flu (its a good idea to drink water when you have flu anyway, the crystals are irrelevant)

[brgnorway 0]

I think you hit the nail spot on Isthatyoujohnwayne!

My personal opinion on this topic is a mixture of various experinces that has formed my understanding over several years. Some of it is a result of lack of religious spiritual experience and the rest is probably formed as a result of knowledge gained through years of studying at university.

Most of us go through processes that change us through time. Had I not started to study I would possibly still be claiming baron's view. Paradoxically - indulging in science has made me aware of it's limitations. For me science can only be a tool that enables me to seek appropriate answers about the world I live in. It is not flawless but it's perhaps the best way to seek comparative knowledge. However, knowing not only the philosophical basis of science - but also it's history - makes me highly sceptic about blind belief in it's shining truth:

It cannot answer all questions! It can only suggest a possible explanation - an explanation that can be falsified tomorrow.

It cannot be totally neutral and objective due to the final stage of interpretation by ourselves. The scientists themselves are part of a scientific community. The findings will be disputed by various scientific-philosophical factions.

Science is affected by politico-economical conserns. If a project/hypothesis is deemed too costly or too "unscientific" or even political sensitive - it will not receive any funding. This is the main point of the science-philosopher Paul Feyerabend. One of his illustrating examples is that the scientific community deems astrology as unscientific and utter rubbish. However, that the position of the planets have effects on life is generally accepted. Doesn't the moon have something to say about tide and flow of water? Does it not affect animals? How can we rule out the possibility that human beings are not affected? The answer is that the current scientific discourse does not allow for such knowledge projects and cost would be a great concern aswell.

Another serious limitation of science is that it cannot explain understanding and meaning. We strive for knowledge about ourselves - yet science can only explain HOW but not the significant meaning it produces! An obvious and touchy example is religion but it doesn't stop there. Our discriminately human ability is to form social organisation in a cultural way. Science cannot among other things explain the meaning of nationalism or the experience of being a Baktaman tribesman from Papa New Guinea. It cannot account for me feeling "norwegian" or why I perhaps feel I have more in common with an academic from London or Paris than a sheepfarmer from Austervoll in Norway. That is why science per se is not adequate - and we instead have "humaniora" - in other words the humanistic and hermeneutic sciences - disiplines that are not considered "sciences" by "hardcore scientists" .

As a result - science is only intentionally rational due to the various limitations. They are not true per se, but a result of "muddling through" .

Science is not a thing - it's not real and is not to be found in nature like a stone or a wooden stick. Science is all about ideas and an effort to conseptualize the world we live in. They are paradigms of todays truth that can be falsified by tomorrow. They are something that we choose to believe in! Just like religion - the only difference being that they don't promise eternal life!

On religion I only have this to say at the moment: I don't belive in any God. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, only that I don't care to try and find out. However, others do believe in him and that is of interest to me. Because anthropology is my field I want to find out about social organisation and the meaning it gives other people. I want to understand the way of life - how it appears for others. That means fieldwork and subjective experience - not meassuring becaue it would give me zero knowledge! If one doesn't want to understand other people - not just societies - but people in general one would have to give up if "science per se" was the only mean available!

This will probably/hopefully be my last post on this topic. I hope it made sense to some of you!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Guy who deliberately spoke utter mince to annoy scientists != a reason.

[Placebo 29]

brgnorway please refrain from name calling or moderators will be forced to take action, lowering yourself to the level of others makes you as bad as them.

[whisperFFW06 0]

I've missed something... The last 2 posts don't make sense at all. What are you referring to, guys?

Placebo, sure your post is not targeted at my poor post prior to my last (in which case I'm not brgnorway ;) )?

Whis', clueless

[Placebo 29]

No I'm referring to something 3 pages back.

[brgnorway 0]

brgnorway please refrain from name calling or moderators will be forced to take action

Noted!

Quote[/b] ] ...lowering yourself to the level of others makes you as bad as them.

...but not as stupid and illogical - but ethically eyes!

[igor drukov 0]

The main object of religion is to give a meaning to one’s life. Where do I come from ? Why do I live ? Where will I go ? Many people, and I am one of them, just can not live without at least trying to answer those questions.

No, that would be Philosophy and Ethics.  Are you saying that all atheists / irreligious don't want to answer these questions?  Because that is both insulting and wrong

Where did you get such an implicature ? I said : religion does A. Why do you infer that non-religion can not do A ? Is this some kind of Freudian slip ? Lay back, dude, and grab a beer. You are the only one insulting people around here.

Quote[/b] ]We can use intelligence to guide our ethics.

We can use intelligence to stifle and subvert our ethics. So it goes the other way round : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence.

It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together.

Do you realise that you are being incredibly insulting not just to me (I don't really care) but to every other free-thinker are irreligious person?

Whis' has rightfully underlined the importance of "help" in this sentence. I suspect you are longing to be actually insulted the way you do other folks. Anyone sensible (or may I say that has been to school and properly learnt to read ?) will have understood that I don't see religions as having the monopoly of ethics. Also, watch your syntax.

You are saying that people without religion are sub-human - psychopaths.  

Religion is not needed, in any way, for ethics or morality.  Neither stem from religion, in fact religon sometimes stems from them.  Chimps act with morality (although they are as susceptible to violence as humans) but they have no religion.

Another totally wrong implicature. By the way, what is the hierarchy ? Is a chimp superior to a peasant, who is himself superior to a psychopath, or is it the other way round ? And is a peasant a sub-human ? Is it to be understood from your very own words that you have the morality and ethics of a chimp, since you have no religion ? You are scary.

Eugenism is rational.

No it isn't.

Pretty convincing explanation there, thanks.

The genocide in Rwanda was rational for the Hutu leaders.

No it wasn't.

Your skills as a debater are breath-taking. Leader of The Economist, March 27th 2004 :

Quote[/b] ]The assumption that the genocide erupted amid chaos made it easier for western policymakers at the time to shrug that little could be done. They were wrong. The small gangs of Hutus who organised the genocide were rational men in pursuit of a rational -albeit evil- objective. They wanted to stay in power, and they harnessed ethnic hatred as a means to that end.

We are all able of thinking about our actions before we do them

Sure, but the ethical orientation of the action has nothing to do with this. Evil can be rationally planned, as the example above shows.

Much like the last time when everyone was a catholic, the Dark Ages.

I understand you like Heroic Fantsy, there. So when exactly were those "Dark Ages" ? The years when people built cathedrals, when women were equal to men, and education was spreading because a book was seen as holy ? Be careful not to confuse Catholic with Christian either, schisms happen...

Yes, when everyone was catholic, the world was a bastion of peace, tranquility and scientific advancement....

Hang on, so there was a time when everyone was Catholic ?

Intelligence would teach me that old people are a good source of information and that 14-year-old girls are not completely ready for childbirth, nursing the child, etc...

I would say this is dangerous thinking. How do I assess that the information old people MIGHT give me is more profitable than getting rid of them ? As to girls, why should I care ? I will just get another one, and another one, and so on...

"If we kill them, then they'll kill us. Therefore, we should stop killing each other."

Why do people always seek power ? Because if you are strong enough, you might just get away with it, and kill without being killed. Besides, and this is unfortunate, intelligent and rational people sometimes happen to kill. Goto loop : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Where did you get such an implicature ? I said : religion does A. Why do you infer that non-religion can not do A ? Is this some kind of Freudian slip ? Lay back, dude, and grab a beer. You are the only one insulting people around here.

You said

"just can not live without at least trying to answer those questions." which implies, at the very least, that it is impossible to do so without religon. Which is what I objected to. And since you don't need religion to do so, once again we are left with the question: why do you need religion?

What makes religion better at tackling these questions?? Nothing. It isn't.

Quote[/b] ]

We can use intelligence to stifle and subvert our ethics. So it goes the other way round : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence.

We can use ethics to stifle and subvert our intelligence; look I can put words in a different order too.

One wonders what you think ethics actually are.

Ethics are a product of intelligence and instinct. We instinctively want ot protect children, we intelligently refine our ethics.

Persuading people to believe that another race is sub-human, for example, is not using their intelligence. If they used their intelligence, they would not be persuaded.

Quote[/b] ]

It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together.

Quote[/b] ]

Whis' has rightfully underlined the importance of "help" in this sentence. I suspect you are longing to be actually insulted the way you do other folks. Anyone sensible (or may I say that has been to school and properly learnt to read ?) will have understood that I don't see religions as having the monopoly of ethics. Also, watch your syntax.

I suspect you don't actually see what the problem is. Your sentence suggests that people in some way need religion to know the difference between good and evil; insinuating that people without religion would not know the difference. Which is a blatant falsehood.

If that isn't what you meant to say, what was it?

Are you saying that only religious people need told what good and evil are because they are stupid? (Please note - I'm not saying that)

Quote[/b] ]

Trolling shite

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Eugenism is rational.

Quote[/b] ]No it isn't.

Pretty convincing explanation there, thanks.

Maybe, if you weren't busy calling people names, you may have noticed the whole point of my simply saying that.

YOU made an unsupported (ludicrous and wrong) assertion.

I am simply showing you the counter to that: another one. Why is Eugenism rational? Answer that.

Quote[/b] ]

Your skills as a debater are breath-taking. Leader of The Economist, March 27th 2004 :

Quote[/b] ]The assumption that the genocide erupted amid chaos made it easier for western policymakers at the time to shrug that little could be done. They were wrong. The small gangs of Hutus who organised the genocide were rational men in pursuit of a rational -albeit evil- objective. They wanted to stay in power, and they harnessed ethnic hatred as a means to that end.

"Anyone who organises mass genocide is not acting rationally" - Somone else.

Wow. Someone who made an editorial made an assertion = I am wrong. Your amazing argumentative skills have floored me.

Do you seriously think there are no competing editorials which say something completely different?

Quote[/b] ]

Sure, but the ethical orientation of the action has nothing to do with this. Evil can be rationally planned, as the example above shows.

No, evil can be planned. It's never rational to intentionally cause evil. Nice redefinition of words there.

Quote[/b] ]

I understand you like Heroic Fantsy, there. So when exactly were those "Dark Ages" ? The years when people built cathedrals, when women were equal to men, and education was spreading because a book was seen as holy ? Be careful not to confuse Catholic with Christian either, schisms happen...

I understand you never had a history class at school.

The age of persecution, war, hatred, extreme sexism, the inquisition, witch burnings, oppression and the time when the catholic church gained as much land as it could.

Be careful not to let your ignorance show.

Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, same as Protestantism.

Christianity is a subset of the three (main) abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Quote[/b] ]Hang on, so there was a time when everyone was Catholic ?

Missed our history class did we?

Most of Europe was catholic. Entire countries were Catholic.

Quote[/b] ]

I would say this is dangerous thinking. How do I assess that the information old people MIGHT give me is more profitable than getting rid of them ?

Rationality, you should try it sometime.

Quote[/b] ]

Why do people always seek power ? Because if you are strong enough, you might just get away with it, and kill without being killed. Besides, and this is unfortunate, intelligent and rational people sometimes happen to kill. Goto loop : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence.

'Sometimes happen to kill?' Would you like to word that in a more wooly way?

Try 'Who suspend their ethics in order to gain power.'

[shinRaiden 0]

Ok, here's my responses to your Q's Baron. Note that you don't have to believe them to be 'answers', as you were making statements, not actually asking honest seeking questions.

1) In what way is he being benefited in the long term or short term? Nobody else is getting benefitted. The sole focus is "I'm getting laid by hot chicks, every night I get some." Is this wank even concerned about giving some to the aforementioned aliens? No indication is given that he cares at all about them, just as long as they out out for him.

2) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly. People pay good money for porn, if only they'd spend that money on poor starving kids in various places or other social benefits, instead of financing the alien stripper's anti-STD drug cocktails.

3) So he presumes he's the aliens pimp-daddy now does he? Where's the aliens and their death-ray totting mothership when they need it the most? Again, money for joe, and the aliens his slaves. Where is the liberty and compassion and all the other social virtues?

---------------------------

I personally feel good when I go help other people. When I waste time engratiaing myself exclusively, or worse at the expense of others, there is a sense of guilt in realizing that I've been a lazy selfish turd.

Who here prefers SP over MP game playing? Why do we spend more time arguing religious semantics than playing soliatare? It's because we are social beings, and inherently want to associate with others. Some warped minds think that hurling abuse on others will make them the king of the hill, and that then they will find pleasure in the minions fawning at their feet. You'd have better luck in solitary.

Go spend some time in an old folks home, listen to their life's story, help them out, and be their friend. Find the joy of discovery in a child's eyes. Don't knock the love of friends, and He who gave you them.

Have a happy Easter everyone, it's happy only because you make it so. And to my Jewish friends, Shabbat Shalom, 'next' year in Jerusalem. And don't forget the upcoming b-day of the much maligned prophet of peace (pbh?) on May 1st.