[Fineus]

Thats just it - I'm starting to realise that it's better just to have your own set of morals and - if you want - to believe in a god like figure. You really don't need a story or belief structure to go with it. As long as you can be a decent human being and if you need to, have something to believe in and fall back on you should be ok. If everyone was that way then yes the questions would still be there but at least humanity would be less likely to kill itself off over an un-seen creator.

[Zeronet]

When i was younger i thought the lord was an alien, who created life on this world and guided it and gave us a set of morals to follow in an attempt to shape us into a better race.

[Fineus]

Thats just it though - that's perfectly acceptable. It achieves everything a religion goes for without you having to adhere to the word of anyone else.

[CP5670]

The Catholic Church was still allowed to function. Hitler and the Pope signed a Concordat which basically said Hitler would not interfere with the Catholic Church as a whole, but was free to punish individual dissident members. In exchange, the Pope would not criticise the Nazi government - and in the south of Germany, where the population is (or was) almost entirely Catholic, that carried a lot of weight in legitimacy.

If I remember correctly, I think that the churches did function independently, but the preachers were only allowed to spread the Nazi doctrines instead of their normal stuff. One of the great mysteries of history there is why the people in the mainstream did not speak against again this; I think I had to do with the centuries of cultural influence pointing towards certain ideas. (irrevocably "ingraining" ideas into the minds of the people, just like religion) For example, if Hitler had tried to do the same thing in the US, there is no way it would have worked.

"Thou shall not murder" - Notice the word murder, turn a couple of pages and I'm sure I'll be able to find a quote where the bible instructs people to stone others to death for a ridiculously silly thing. Obviously if nobody murdered anyone the world would be a better place.

LOL that's the bible for you...

that'w when you're playing god, which no one can

This is what I am talking about: I expect another conflict between science and religion to surface as soon as cloning becomes more mainstream. And also, humans have already "played god" by generating life; so much for that. In this battle between science and religion, well, we all know who would win there, even if it does not come to violence.

There is NO proof of any religion, it revolves around faith, the renouncement of reason. If a god exists (which I very much doubt) then let him tell me what he wants me to do, not you. The bible is not accurate and contradicts itself thousands of times. For this to de inspired by an Omniscient god is Laughable.

I fully agree there.

1. you don't _have_ to worship the christian/judeo god. but if you don't, you go to hell.

Some famous guy (can't recall the name at the moment) once said "I want to go to hell, because all the other intelligent people who refused to believe this nonsense would be there." I agree with him on that point; it would be nice to see what hell is like out of scientific curiosity.

he was just there. all the time. and will be.

The same can be said about the universe without the inclusion of god.

Religion has always been used to explain what simple, primitive minds couldn't grasp. God made the sun rise and fall. God made the seasons. God made rain and lightning. God made people get sick. God made people get healthy. Blah blah etc etc.

Why do you think religions are historically so anti-science? Because they like their control, and the more science explains, the less need there is for a made-up god.

I am in complete agreement here. The second purpose of religion was just to explain science in a way that would be simple and appealing to the ignorant masses. The average stupid person will of course go for the religion instead of the science because it is simple and they understand it, despite all the contradictions and irrationality. As a man of science, this is why I really detest religion.

The latest theory on this is that a cyclic universe may be possible (Imagine an oscillating field of energy). It's still very controversial but here's the link:

This is basically the one I am going for from the current evidence (the transfinite time-based universes), although I think that one version of this requires a second and/or third time dimension. The other idea here is that the big bang was indeed set in motion by a random particle movement, since it has been shown that two identical particles can be generated from "nothingness."

[wEvil]

Your horoscopes' only as good as the astrologer interpreting signals for you - it will never be as accurate as you working it out yourself, pretty simple.

Either way, it might all be rubbish, it might not.  It's something I found works for me personally - hold me in contempt for that, I don't care.

As thunder said - I do not like the idea of a seen or unseen control mechanism.  I can handle the fact you may be influenced by factors beyond your control, but a concerted effort would always allow you to do what you damn well please.  It just makes me feel more comfortable, to a degree, that I may be able to predict how people act.

It's a security blanket, nothing more, nothing less.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by wEvil
It's a security blanket, nothing more, nothing less.

Mmm... to most people. But to those with influence it's untold power - more than any government.

[wEvil]

Exactly - Because nobody is apparently being forced to do anything.

It's like pre-cognitive mind-control.  Not that i'd admit to participating in something like that because I'd get very rapidly bored if everyone did what I expected them to the whole time.

Which they do...Most of the time - not all of it though.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by CP5670

If I remember correctly, I think that the churches did function independently, but the preachers were only allowed to spread the Nazi doctrines instead of their normal stuff. One of the great mysteries of history there is why the people in the mainstream did not speak against again this; I think I had to do with the centuries of cultural influence pointing towards certain ideas. (irrevocably "ingraining" ideas into the minds of the people, just like religion) For example, if Hitler had tried to do the same thing in the US, there is no way it would have worked.

Don't kid yourself. With complete control of all media forms (considerably easier back then) and no alternative viewpoints, people could be subverted relatively easily, no matter where. Look at Milgram's experiments based on conformity to authority figures - Americans scored the same as Germans.

Now I agree that Nazi propaganda was especially effective when reinforcing existing beliefs, such as equating Judaism with capitalism or Communism (both, actually) but that was a widely-held belief almost everywhere in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

In addition, America has it's own set of ugly little prejudices that could be played upon with ease.

[wEvil]

Ever wonder why dealing with humans on a nation-state level is so terribly depressing?

No, its not a rhetorical question.  I'm actually interested in exploring this peculiar little fact.

[CP5670]

Don't kid yourself. With complete control of all media forms (considerably easier back then) and no alternative viewpoints, people could be subverted relatively easily, no matter where. Look at Milgram's experiments based on conformity to authority figures - Americans scored the same as Germans.

Now I agree that Nazi propaganda was especially effective when reinforcing existing beliefs, such as equating Judaism with capitalism or Communism (both, actually) but that was a widely-held belief almost everywhere in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

I have not heard of the experiments you speak of, but cultural influences, especially around that period of history, would point completely against it. (remember that the US was founded on freedom and other moral ideals, while Germany was only held together by conquest and force for many years) There was this whole "total obedience to authority" thing that had been put into the people's minds over the years through culture almost like a religion, along with the fact that the German war machine had been badly defeated in WW1 and worse, humiliated and dishonored, after being used to centuries of victorious battles. The average German at that time was not nearly as much of a "freedom lover" as the average American (again, stemming back to that cultural thing); they just wanted to get their jobs back (although the US wasn't doing too well, Germany was much worse off) and also get revenge at their conquerors, and Hitler promised both.

Ever wonder why dealing with humans on a nation-state level is so terribly depressing?

Hey, I agree with that. Seeing the current trends, however, the nation-based system should collapse in a millennium or two, with only three or so major blocks, eventually combining into one block, economically speaking. (the EU is the first major political move towards this) So much for nationalism.

[Kellan]

Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.

Milgram's experiments (1963) have little relevance to the manner in which America was founded. Basically an 'experimenter' who looked like a scientist told a participant to administer successively greater electric shocks to another person based on their inability to answer word association questions correctly. With minor encouragement, most participants delivered voltages high enough to kill the person (who wasn't actually being shocked, of course).

The experiment was carried out in Stanford. It has been repeated all over the globe with generally similar results. In addition, other authority figures have been used, all of which work. It appears to show that everyone in all (Western) nations is conditioned from an early age to be obedient to an authority they perceive as legitimate. All you have to do to get public conformity and acceptance is appear to be legitimate as an authority.

Oh, and about your comments on America: remember that America was also founded as a slave state, and continued to be a slave state for many years after most European countries ceased to do so. In addition, from what I've seen Americans are some of the least freedom loving (yeah, they love their own freedom to do what they want but this comes at the expense of other peoples' freedom) and most conformist society on Earth.

Where was the criticism of American foreign policy after September 11th, for example?

[CP5670]

Well, remember that we are talking about 70 years into the future since then. There was little resistance to US foreign policy recently because violent revenge is exactly what the majority of people wanted, even they weren't sure of the specifics of what exactly happened. (an attack on the homeland tends to stir up pro-war sentiments, just as it did in Germany after the defeat of WW1) As you said, the US was a slave state (unless you mean racial slavery and not political "slavery"), but one that broke away and formed an independent nation, and so the original people valued their freedom even more. Due to cultural inertia, this lived on for some decades after that. Today, of course, people are not all that patriotic or anything with all the culutural changes, but I think that things were a bit different about 70 years ago. That's an interesting experiment, though; I need to look around for more details on that.

Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.

Again, I fully agree there. Nationalism is almost like religion in that way; very stupid and irrational, but widespread nevertheless.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Kellan
Nationalism is a petty, silly thing. To suggest that I have something in common with people based purely on geographical location and (formerly) race is nonsense. They're created basically to give legitimacy to rulers who wanted control of a large economic area. The price you pay is nationalism and the ridiculous idea that slights against your nation are like personal attacks.

Well you do, British people share a common heritage and culture. Live in denial if you want.

[Fineus]

Heritage? British nationalism has forgotten it's heritage. This is going wildly off topic but our nationalism is now controlled by the media. We hate who we are told to hate and those we look up to are not the Queen or Prime Minister but David and Victoria Beckham. No doubt David may be a good football player and whilst I don't like Victorias singing many do - but should they be our national symbols? No. But they are because by being so the media and major corporations can make millions.

Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.

In many ways this can be joined to modern religions. They change to suit society in the hope of gaining more followers and in spreading thier power. But this is not the power of a god but the power of a few men who carry out acts in the name of that god. Wether god exists or not is immaterial because he is no longer the focus of religions - control over others is.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Zeronet

Well you do, British people share a common heritage and culture. Live in denial if you want.

We only share a common heritage as a result of geographical location though. And besides, I don't agree with some of our heritage. Like Margaret Thatcher.

And CP, I was referring to racial slavery - abolished before 1830 in Britain, and a source of tension between the two nations for many years afterwards because British naval vessels used to stop and search - and impound - slave ships.

Minor point that Germany itself was never physically attacked, but the deaths of a million soldiers are something of a proxy for that. I know that the majority of the public wanted violent retribution immediately, but it's not just the role of the media to represent public opinion. Maybe it wasn't the right time to ask about foreign policy issues, but someone has to broach the issue at some point.

[killadonuts]

Kellan,  I am an American and I agree with every word you just said.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Thunder
Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.

I would much rather have this frothy, inconsequntial nationalism than the arrogant, superior, racist and expansionary nationalism that existed until 60 years ago, if I had to make a choice.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Thunder
Heritage? British nationalism has forgotten it's heritage. This is going wildly off topic but our nationalism is now controlled by the media. We hate who we are told to hate and those we look up to are not the Queen or Prime Minister but David and Victoria Beckham. No doubt David may be a good football player and whilst I don't like Victorias singing many do - but should they be our national symbols? No. But they are because by being so the media and major corporations can make millions.

Nationalism is now a lost cause - I dispise it in it's current form and am wary of those who support it because of what that tells me about them.

Thats not nationalism. They arent national symbols IMO.

[Fineus]

Kellan - I agree, but with a different view of sorts. I don't think we need nationalism. Yes we can celibrate a countries achievements and feel good about living there, but there is no need to give it a name and sell it to the masses. Look back at nationalism - first it caused conflict in the form you said was bad, and now the media uses it to control the masses who know no better than what they're told. If there was a sudden massive drive by the media against the French then most would hate the French on that basis alone.

The upshot? Celibrate our achievments, our history and our culture. But don't package it and ship it to control people. This is something both Nationalism and Religion has in common.

Zeronet - They may not be to you, but you may be amongst those with a mind of his own. Look in any newspaper and you'll see a different story. If they weren't national symbols then they wouldn't feature so highly in every form of media this country has.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by killadonuts
Kellan,  I am an American and I agree with every word you just said.

Thank you...As you can probably tell, I am not, but I'm honoured to be able to...erm...talk the same language, so to speak.