[jdjtcagle]

I've said this before...
It's not the religion that's killing the people. (Terrorism, Wars, ect...) It's people killing people.  People don't open there eyes...
It doesn't say in the bible, to kill everybody that doesn't believe in the bibleor that has of money, whatever...  Yet this is the way it was meant to be and predicted to be, IMO.
And nobody likes it or want to believe that the world of Humanity has a inevitable (SP?) fate....

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Flipside
I'm fine with religion as long as it affects nobody but the believer. Alas, this is untrue of all major faiths I always felt it was the need to aspire to something greater, and that means making powerful sacrifices, like accepting the truth, of abhoring violence, because we can choose not to be.

I feel compelled to point out the irony of that statment.  If that statment is true, then each man is an island, seperated from everyone else and that truth is relative. However what is wrong with this? If truth is relative then the statment can be true for someone while false to another. Which means that your statment can be null to me, because I've decided that is it false. Lets take this farther. If truth is relative, each man must decided for himself what is true, and that you cannot 'force' your opinions on another. Why are you trying to convince me of it? And even farther. If thruth is relative, why should I trust what you're saying is true, when truth itself is relative?

Originally posted by Flipside
Yet, strangely enough, it is the major religions that are one of the main culprits for dragging us screaming from that plataeu over and over again. If all religions preached 'love God in your own way, and think not of people as things', which most religions claim, then that is what it says. it's easy to say 'Well, my way of worshipping is to burn people at the torch if they don't convert, but that is humanity interpreting, not God speaking. We need to tell the difference between the two

What are we if we are not things? What sets us apart from everything else?

Where did you get this thing about burning ppl? There are proper and improper ways to worship. (This is talking about and from a Christian perspective) Saying burning people is worship for you is like says, "I'm worshipping God through my explicit intentional sin."


Back to truth, trust, and faith:
Let me ask you a question. How do you know what your eyes are seeing is reality? The answer is, you can't. To say that you have no faith (religious or otherwise) is to say that you have rock hard proof that everything you trust is trustworthy.


[edit] spelling

[Grey Wolf]

I'm assuming his reference is to things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials.

[Flipside]

I feel compelled to point out the irony of that statment. If that statment is true, then each man is an island, seperated from everyone else and that truth is relative. However what is wrong with this? If truth is relative then the statment can be true for someone while false to another. Which means that your statment can be null to me, because I've decided that is it false. Lets take this farther. If truth is relative, each man must decided for himself what is true, and that you cannot 'force' your opinions on another. Why are you trying to convince me of it? And even farther. If thruth is relative, why should I trust what you're saying is true, when truth itself is relative?

But each man is an island, seperate from everyone else We cannot share experience or feelings, not from a base level, you cannot truly know how your comments or thoughts make another person feel. I am not trying to convert people, stating your own opinion is not an easy thing to do, as is not getting up tight when peoples reasons don't agree with yours (not yours but a hypothetical reader), that's why that path is so difficult, because it's so tempting to take the easy path. But I wouldn't try to force you to become what you are not, but you can force you not to hurt anyone else by doing it. That is the challenge.

We are not things because we can choose not to be, we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy, of at least to a tiny degree being able to place our emotions in other people and creatures. That's practically magical when you think about it. Yet we use it so so rarely.

I know my eyes are seeing reality because I believe them. They are only organs that transmit information to the brain in a manner your 'self' can interpret. If you start saying your eyes are lying to you, then you will probably just keep walking into lamposts

And yes, I was referring to Christian conversion by torture as practised in less civilised days. But smaller, and larger crimes take place in all religions, even today.

I wouldn't say I trust everything, but I know what I believe, and you don't have to believe the same, that's the whole beauty of it, we've disagreed on something completely fundamental in religions, and yet have not attempted to kill each other, you would not do so in real life, if someone disagreed strongly enough, you would simply give up. So why do individuals think like this, and mobs think the exact opposite? Lack of Empathy.

So why does empathy drop as the group gets larger? Strength of numbers. A conquerable 'animal' situation. A person who realises he is a single entity, even in a crowd, is far more likely to carry empthy, than one who thinks he is part of the 'pack', because the pack will find itself agreeing on the first multi-compatible emotions, ie. fear and suspicion of the new and untested, of challenges on what they believe to be unchangeable.

So once again hard choices arise, I'm not saying it is an achievable goal, mankind, by it's own self destructive nature, would never unanimously decide to make the hard choices.

It's an interesting fact that the medical term for an individual who is incapable of empathy is 'phsycopath'.

[Kazan]

someones fundamental thought processes being based off total and blatant irrationality is the most dangerous thing possible

"A Vorlon once said, 'The truth is a three edged sword, your side, their side, and The Truth'" - John Sheridan, B5 Episode "Into The Fire"


Science is the system of trying the best to be closet to the third option - theology is the system of choosing something that feels good even though it's the option with the least credibility (no credibility at all )

[Flipside]

I agree, and as far as the existence of 'God' is concerned, I still don't believe in an entity with a concience or a will. I am not saying that the universe is more than we could possibly imagine either, I will never ever know, until the day I die. But I refuse to let that annoy me. I cannot change that fact. But I can choose to see the animal in myself, and control it when I can.

I don't always succeed, but the less I am an 'animal' the more I am a human, and the more I am a human, the more I have truly lived

[Bobboau]

"we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy"
you know that's incorect right?

[Flipside]

Certain higher level primates bond, but once it is scared or intimidated, it immediately resorts to animal reaction, if that's what you mean. If not, tell me more

[Kazan]

um - tons of animals bond and when scared/intimidated band TOGEATHER in common defense

[Liberator]

Herd animals run collectively but they don't actually have any offensive capability.  Sure they could kill a human just by stepping the wrong way but they don't know that.  Other animals, let's take gorillas since they are pretty close to us genetically(then again so's a banana, but, anyway) they bond and have very strong family groups, but should a tiger or something attack, they either run or the silverback attempts individually to defend his family and territory.  Big Cats will hunt together, even using modest tactics, but they usually run if the defense is too strong(elephant)

The only species on Earth that actually combine efforts in common defense against an agressor is Man and ants, and ants don't really count because they have no mind or a rudimentary hive mind at best.

[jdjtcagle]

banana?

[Rictor]

I really must disagree with you Kazan. Man in fundamentally in irrational being, even more so than an animal.

An animal acts according to instinct, to survive. Self interest. But man has concepts that are totally irrational, such as love, freedom, the search for meaning, identity, truth. Man has ego, but also kindness. You can kill 10,000 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.

Denying everything in human that is not rational is denying our identity. Why do you think that we are constantly searching for something greater, an irrational concept if ever there was one, Why do all humans feel it necessary to spend their lives in pursuit of something else, something bigger. Science or religion, its just different paths down the same road.

Now, I do agree that religion should be kept out of politics, but religion is, in some form or another, a fundamental part of human beings.

[Kazan]

I'm not talking about herd animals

Originally posted by Liberator

The only species on Earth that actually combine efforts in common defense against an agressor is Man and ants, and ants don't really count because they have no mind or a rudimentary hive mind at best.

That is patently false - a great many primates for prime example

you = underinformed

[Rictor]

here's one for all you [l]antidisestablishmentarians[/l] religion bashers. Great song, I recommend you download it.

by Bad Religion
"God's Love"

Striking at mental apparitions
Like a drunk on a vacant street
Silently beset by the hands of time
Indelicate in its fury
An aberrant crack as skeletons yield
To unrelenting gravity
While viruses prowl for helpless victims
Who succumb rapidly

(Tell me!) Tell me;
Where is the love?
In a careless creation
When there’s no “above”
There’s no justice
Just a cause and a cure
And a bounty of suffering
It seems we all endure
And what I’m frightened of
Is that they call it “God’s love”

Twisted torment, make-believe
There’s a truth and we all submit
“Believe my eyes,” my brain replies
To all that they interpret

[Chorus]

I know there’s no reason for alarm
But who needs perspective when it comes to pain and harm
We can change our minds; there’s a better prize

But first you’ve got to…
[Chorus]

They call it God’s love
My pain is God’s love

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
I really must disagree with you Kazan. Man in fundamentally in irrational being, even more so than an animal.

perhaps the un- or undereducated pperson

that doesn't make it excusable in this day and age

Originally posted by Rictor
An animal acts according to instinct, to survive. Self interest. But man has concepts that are totally irrational, such as love, freedom, the search for meaning, identity, truth. Man has ego, but also kindness. You can kill 10,000 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.

Love is not irrational, freedom is extremely rational - religion is anything but truth.

Ego - religion is very much about ego (outwardly many are self-denialistic, however you become 'important in the eyes of a greater beying' -- you want to feel important)

You can kill 0 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.

Originally posted by Rictor
Denying everything in human that is not rational is denying our identity.

There is a difference between denying and being intellectually mature enough to exercise self control

Originally posted by Rictor
Why do you think that we are constantly searching for something greater,

Because most people don't understand that there no only doesn't need to be something greater, the think reality is subject to their emotional whims

Originally posted by Rictor
an irrational concept if ever there was one,

depends on what you mean by 'something greater'  -- the species as a whole is 'something greater' than the individual

the universe is something greater than the planet

if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)

Originally posted by Rictor
Why do all humans feel it necessary to spend their lives in pursuit of something else, something bigger. Science or religion, its just different paths down the same road.

Religion is not something greater - it's an opiate and a blinder -- science is trying to figure out what things really are.

Different paths down completely different roads

A) Religion - the 1000 pleasant lies
B) Science - the one boring truth


One is a mature decision, the otherone is not

Originally posted by Rictor
Now, I do agree that religion should be kept out of politics, but religion is, in some form or another, a fundamental part of human beings.

That doesn't justify or validate it - it just shows how succeptable the un- or undereducated masses are to irrational flights of fancy being taken as reality.

[Rictor]

*shakes head*

You'll understand one day, trust me.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan


perhaps the un- or undereducated person(corrected spelling)

Whereas Kazan and his superior intellect knows better?!?!?!?

Love is not irrational, freedom is extremely rational - religion is anything but truth.

Oh, quite the contrary, Love is very irrational.  Why voluntarily open yourself up to so much potential pain?

Freedom is also not as rational as you would believe, the only way for a human or a group of humans to be perfectly free is to take the freedom of all other humans who have differing opinions.

Ego - religion is very much about ego (outwardly many are self-denialistic, however you become 'important in the eyes of a greater beying' -- you want to feel important)

Religion(by this I mean Christianity, I'll specify if I mean differently) is not about doing things to be important in the eyes of God, in fact people who do this have tendency of falling, hard, Jim Baker anyone?  Religion is about coming to the realization that the almighty, all-knowing Creator of Everything knows you intimately and loves you individually.

Because most people don't understand that there no only doesn't need to be something greater, the think reality is subject to their emotional whims

depends on what you mean by 'something greater'  -- the species as a whole is 'something greater' than the individual

the universe is something greater than the planet

if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)

Quite the contrary, the more scientific evidence that comes to light, the more I am amazed at the complexity of the Universe and the more I realize that there was a conscience hand behind the Creation of it.

Religion is not something greater - it's an opiate and a blinder --

I've realized that you have a religion too, your irrational hatred of religion in all it forms is your religion, and your god is Niezchete(however the hell you spell it)

science is trying to figure out what things really are.

Do you realize how many of these scientists you idolize are Christian?

Different paths down completely different roads

A) Religion - the 1000 pleasant lies
B) Science - the one boring truth

One is a mature decision, the otherone is not

Umm, no.

Religion == Why and an All-Knowing Creator explaining how the universe works to a stunted imperfect creation in a way they can understand.
Science == How and the stunted creation realizing how imperfect and ignorant they really are.

It take true maturity to see that.  It takes both.  One is meaningless without the other.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
We are not things because we can choose not to be, we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy, of at least to a tiny degree being able to place our emotions in other people and creatures. That's practically magical when you think about it. Yet we use it so so rarely.

Sorry. Kazan is right. Chimps can do it too.

Since we can't talk to them it’s harder to tell if chimpanzees have theory of mind too. But at the Max Plank Institute they’ve designed ingenious experiments to find out. Chimpanzees are very hierarchical, a subordinate chimp won’t even go for the banana when a dominant chimp is around. In this experiment a student hid a banana, the subordinate chimp could see it but the dominant couldn’t. Did she know the dominant couldn’t see the banana? The subordinate chimp understood that the dominant chimp couldn’t see the fruit, so she snatched it. But to have theory of mind chimpanzees have to know what other chimps know. This time both chimps saw the food being hidden. The cage door was closed, so that the dominant couldn’t see what the subordinate saw. A student moved the food. The subordinate stood a chance of getting the banana, because she knew that the dominant chimp did not know where the food was.

Prof MICHAEL TOMASELL: In the experiments with chimpanzees they know whether the other one has visual access or not to a piece of food. So it’s very similar to the study with children in the sense that they know what the other one can and can’t see. And in one variation of the experiment they know what the other one saw a moment ago.

NARRATOR: So does this mean that chimpanzees can understand what other chimps are thinking?

Dr JANE GOODALL: There’s absolutely no question that chimpanzees understand the needs and the emotions of other chimpanzees and respond correctly. They can even understand the needs of another human being, so clearly they do have theory of mind.

The full transcript can be found (on yet another link to the BBC Horizon page ) here

[HotSnoJ]

By Kazan
if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)

But how do you know this? (poking a little fun) If something is outside of nature, and you say, therefore it doesn't exist. How can that be? To say something is outside of nature is to basicly admit it exists, but then to say it doesn't is a contradiction. It would have been better just to say nothing exists outside of nature (I'm sure this is what you meant BTW). But then again, we come back to the question, "How do you know?"




[edit, cool new 158th avatar!]

[Ace]

None of you exist, you're all figments of my imagination. Debate!