Religion
-
Dr Winston O'Boogie
If religion were wiped out tomorrow, human beings would find substitute communities for the churches. You, or others, have stated that religion is a source of a lot of human suffering. I contend that the real cause of the fighting in the name of religion is communities feeling threatened by those that are different.sleeper;1385154 wrote:I'll ignore the unproven assumptions that the afterlife is infinite because a statement that states the afterlife is "X" has the same validity and proof no matter what you make X.
To answer your question, no I still will not murder regardless if the law of the land allowed me to do so. I find it to be a broken question because there would be social reprocussions since killing someone else who have a material impact on your ability to achieve happiness in life. For example, if I kill someone from family "Y", they might have a vested interest in making sure I don't have a happy life. In reverse, if I prevent someone from family "Y" from getting killed they will likely have a vested interest in keeping me happy and protected.
There is a social fabric that binds us as human and being religious accomplishes none of that sort. In fact, being religious inbreeds a sense of division since one is simply an infidel if they don't maintain the same belief system. A world without religion would be much better off as those who choose to murder, steal, etc. would have a bad time and be unlikely able to survive long enough to reproduce; whereas those who treat their fellow humans well would have the ability to reproduce more causing more and more self-reinforcing societal norms to become prevalent.
Whenever humans count themselves as members of a community - a religion, a country, a sex, a school, etc., they inevitably find enemies of those who are not members. The cause of war is this human primative instinct. Wiping out religion would do nothing to eliminate it. -
O-Trap
No worse than anyone else. At least, that's my view.BORIStheCrusher;1385184 wrote:I've done plenty of things that god/the church would not approve of and don't "feel" wrong about it. Do you think I'm a bad person because I had sex before I was married?
-
sleeper
You've also likely lied, cheated, and stolen something in your life. You've also used the lord's name in vain and disrespected your parents at once. Most religious believers don't actually follow what they believe because what they believe in isn't really a core belief; it's simply a learned belief that they think makes them special or a good person. It's a joke and if you buy into it, perhaps a little self reflection is you need to reject the entire belief system.BORIStheCrusher;1385184 wrote:I've done plenty of things that god/the church would not approve of and don't "feel" wrong about it. Do you think I'm a bad person because I had sex before I was married? -
O-Trap
I thought this was about religion in general. Are we getting into specific religions now?sleeper;1385192 wrote:... used the lord's name in vain ... -
sleeper
The only community humanity needs is a humanity. We can't have that as long as people are believing in invisible ghosts and killing others because they don't believe.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385188 wrote:If religion were wiped out tomorrow, human beings would find substitute communities for the churches. You, or others, have stated that religion is a source of a lot of human suffering. I contend that the real cause of the fighting in the name of religion is communities feeling threatened by those that are different.
Whenever humans count themselves as members of a community - a religion, a country, a sex, a school, etc., they inevitably find enemies of those who are not members. The cause of war is this human primative instinct. Wiping out religion would do nothing to eliminate it. -
sleeper
I made the topic as broad based as possible. This is for any and all religious discussion as well as anything that could be attributed to .00000001% religion.O-Trap;1385194 wrote:I thought this was about religion in general. Are we getting into specifics now? -
O-Trap
Proof of this statement that sufficiently satisfies your traditional qualification of proof?sleeper;1385195 wrote:The only community humanity needs is a humanity. We can't have that as long as people are believing in invisible ghosts and killing others because they don't believe. -
O-Trap
Dear lord, then I need to get out now. I'm gonna get sucked in.sleeper;1385197 wrote:I made the topic as broad based as possible. This is for any and all religious discussion as well as anything that could be attributed to .00000001% religion.
-
BORIStheCrusher
You are correct, but when I die I will just ask for forgiveness so it's all good.sleeper;1385192 wrote:You've also likely lied, cheated, and stolen something in your life. You've also used the lord's name in vain and disrespected your parents at once. -
sleeper
I actually think it can be modeled.O-Trap;1385101 wrote:Careful. "Common sense" is not a proof of something. Can't be tested in a laboratory or experienced with the empirical senses. -
O-Trap
I'd love to see it if you could.sleeper;1385204 wrote:I actually think it can be modeled. -
Con_Alma
Not most...all. Man is incapable t be without sin. That's the point. No one is perfectly "good".sleeper;1385192 wrote:... Most religious believers don't actually follow what they believe because what they believe in isn't really a core belief; it's simply a learned belief that they think makes them special or a good person. It's a joke and if you buy into it, perhaps a little self reflection is you need to reject the entire belief system. -
sleeper
There is no definitive way to prove the above statement but I can provide a correlation. If all humans were treated as humans and had no attributes that were better(or perceived) better, then what would be the incentive to kill another? What society would be okay with the slaughter of those who are exactly like them? Answer, none or very few.O-Trap;1385198 wrote:Proof of this statement that sufficiently satisfies your traditional qualification of proof? -
sleeper
I am without sin. Please prove me wrong.Con_Alma;1385207 wrote:Not most...all. Man is incapable t be without sin. That's the point. No one is perfectly "good". -
Con_Alma
Why? I have no need to. Such a need would be what would inspire me to determine that which would provide such evidence.sleeper;1385211 wrote:I am without sin. Please prove me wrong.
I will, however, offer the following for consideration.
If sin is that which separates us from God, your claim in not believing in God separates you. -
O-Trap
And what is the rule about correlation?sleeper;1385208 wrote:There is no definitive way to prove the above statement but I can provide a correlation.
Personal benefit. The same way we see it happen in nature, whether for the advancement of territory or for a greater portion of the food supply, there are plenty of examples of killing being advantageous, if one is able to get away with it in light of anyone who could actually do anything about it.sleeper;1385208 wrote:If all humans were treated as humans and had no attributes that were better(or perceived) better, then what would be the incentive to kill another? What society would be okay with the slaughter of those who are exactly like them? Answer, none or very few.
If a man had great wealth, it might be in my best interest to travel to his home, kill him, and steal as much of his wealth as possible in the middle of the night. -
sleeper
You said human with no qualification on what type of human. I am not born with sin because sin is not rooted in reality.Con_Alma;1385214 wrote:Why? I have no need to. Such a need would be what would inspire me to determine that which would provide such evidence.
I will, however, offer the following for consideration.
If sin is that which separates us from God, your claim in not believing in God separates you. -
WebFire
So he leaves some people off that list? There are people that do bad things and don't feel bad about it.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1385179 wrote:I believe God wrote his laws in your heart, which is why you "feel" its good or bad to do stuff. -
sleeper
Correlation is self defined. There is no added definition needed for it.O-Trap;1385217 wrote:And what is the rule about correlation?
Personal benefit. The same way we see it happen in nature, whether for the advancement of territory or for a greater portion of the food supply, there are plenty of examples of killing being advantageous, if one is able to get away with it in light of anyone who could actually do anything about it.
If a man had great wealth, it might be in my best interest to travel to his home, kill him, and steal as much of his wealth as possible in the middle of the night.
If a man having great wealth is a target, perhaps killing him will just hand the target off to yourself. I find it interesting you resort to specifics when I merely am talking about humans as a whole. Those that kill and wrong others are more likely to be killed due to their high risk taking while those who work together toward a common good are more likely to survive and pass on offspring to the next generation. -
Con_Alma
I don't know of multiple types of humans.sleeper;1385227 wrote:You said human with no qualification on what type of human. I am not born with sin because sin is not rooted in reality.
Are you not separate or apart from that which you don't think is real? If so, then that is sin. -
O-Trap
Perhaps. But perhaps not. If I am wise enough to have a state-of-the-art security system in place, as well as outside guards, all of which I'm able to buy with my new-gotten wealth, I may indeed be better off.sleeper;1385229 wrote:If a man having great wealth is a target, perhaps killing him will just hand the target off to yourself.
You're speaking in generalities with little to no substantiation. You are passing the buck on motivations for morality without actually solving the question. Hence, I'm raising a potential defeater.sleeper;1385229 wrote:I find it interesting you resort to specifics when I merely am talking about humans as a whole.
I mean, theoretically, since you just pass the buck from legal to social, we could use the example today. Nobody kills for money in our current society, right?
Not if they insulate themselves with the type of security that others would most likely not be able to afford.sleeper;1385229 wrote:Those that kill and wrong others are more likely to be killed due to their high risk taking ...
As a society, yes. However, if this were a universal principle, you would see all animals existing in communities. Natural selection would have dictated it.sleeper;1385229 wrote:... while those who work together toward a common good are more likely to survive and pass on offspring to the next generation. -
Heretic
To put things simply.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1385153 wrote:that would require everyone to think the same way. And they don't
1. Four college students share a house.
2. Logic dictates that for efficiency, the four students share in bills and cleaning, etc. As close to 25% each as possible (ie: if one person has a special diet or something, they might be paying more or less for food because they wouldn't share in the "group-food" and just have their own stuff).
3. Logic dictates that if one person isn't doing their fair share, the other three have to cover. Making their situation worse.
4. Logic also dictates that if one person is killed by the other three because of this, that wouldn't improve their lot in life. First, that isn't getting any of their 25% of the work done or bills paid. Second, there's a real good chance the three would wind up facing jail, which wouldn't help any of their life goals, either.
No belief in god is necessary for any of this logic to be reached. You don't kill your slacker roommate because you're worried about your "lolImmortal Soullol"; you don't kill him because that's a really fucking stupid idea. Some people don't have the mental ability to use this logic. Some of those people are religious people from around the world whose inner voice is saying their deity wants them to do it. -
jmog
I am glad to see you finally realize you were wrong.sleeper;1385181 wrote:
I agree...By your own description here, being born with no knowledge, we are all born agnostic... -
O-Trap
Heretic;1385238 wrote:To put things simply.
1. Four college students share a house.
2. Logic dictates that for efficiency, the four students share in bills and cleaning, etc. As close to 25% each as possible (ie: if one person has a special diet or something, they might be paying more or less for food because they wouldn't share in the "group-food" and just have their own stuff).
3. Logic dictates that if one person isn't doing their fair share, the other three have to cover. Making their situation worse.
4. Logic also dictates that if one person is killed by the other three because of this, that wouldn't improve their lot in life. First, that isn't getting any of their 25% of the work done or bills paid. Second, there's a real good chance the three would wind up facing jail, which wouldn't help any of their life goals, either.
No belief in god is necessary for any of this logic to be reached. You don't kill your slacker roommate because you're worried about your "lolImmortal Soullol"; you don't kill him because that's a really fucking stupid idea. Some people don't have the mental ability to use this logic. Some of those people are religious people from around the world whose inner voice is saying their deity wants them to do it.
What if he's not only not paying any of his expenses, but he's also stealing money from them? By killing him, they eliminate the negative effect he is having on their expenses. They aren't hurting his contribution to the house finances, since he already wasn't doing much there. AND they have eliminated one person for whom they have to provide groceries, utility usage, etc.
Sounds like it might be advantageous to slay him at that point. -
sleeper
Sin isn't real. Sin is your belief system and it's called a belief because it's never been proven. :laugh:Con_Alma;1385232 wrote:I don't know of multiple types of humans.
Are you not separate or apart from that which you don't think is real? If so, then that is sin.