Religion

• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385305 wrote:Your example is up to the community. If the community feels it is justified than it is justified. Likely, the man with the wealth has earned it somehow and would decide if killing the man was now worth getting a few extra benefits then so be it. Likely, the community would try to work with the wealthy man rather than kill him for fear of repercussion from people who do have an incentive to keep the wealthy man alive. I don't think over the long run killing someone for short term gain is worth it since that may or may not allow my genes to continue passing from generation to generation.

  What if the man I robbed wasn't from my own community?
  
  And while you may not think the gain is worth the potential loss (which is unprovable, I might add), it appears that many disagree with you in our current world, despite religion not being a factor in their actions to do so.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1385308 wrote:What if the man I robbed wasn't from my own community?
  
  And while you may not think the gain is worth the potential loss (which is unprovable, I might add), it appears that many disagree with you in our current world, despite religion not being a factor in their actions to do so.

  It is provable but I do not have the evidence. The calculation is made subconsciously if the risk is worth the added benefit for their own offspring. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but the action itself justifies that they believe it is. Whether that risk pays off is up to chance and hopefully they chose correctly.
  
  If the man wasn't from your community, you better hope that their community doesn't have a vested interest in keeping you from being happy. You will pay for your insolence.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385311 wrote:It is provable but I do not have the evidence. The calculation is made subconsciously if the risk is worth the added benefit for their own offspring.

  You assume that what the subconscious perceives as risk and reward are the actual risk and reward. That is, I suggest, an incorrect assumption. Hence, it is not provable.
  

  sleeper;1385311 wrote:Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but the action itself justifies that they believe it is. Whether that risk pays off is up to chance and hopefully they chose correctly.

  So, in our current system, if someone evaluates that the risk of incarceration is worth the reward of robbing the millionaire, and they indeed do get away with it, was it a moral decision?
  

  sleeper;1385311 wrote:If the man wasn't from your community, you better hope that their community doesn't have a vested interest in keeping you from being happy. You will pay for your insolence.

  Assuming they know a member of my community was the one who committed the act. Again, that's a big assumption.
• sleeper

  

  I am not concerned with morality. If a person robs someone else to benefit their family, they may very well get away with it. They also very well could end up in ditch along with their entire family being murdered. Over thousands of generations we would finally see who comes out on top and my money is on those who cooperate for the greater good.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  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.

  My point was that if you took religion away, people would find substitute groups to belong to and then find fault with people who are different and therefore are not in the group. Your notion of humanity being one big happy family goes against the evidence that people are constantly in search of a group to belong to that is unique from the broader human group. Once together, this group keeps its cohesion by making enemies of those that don't belong. You see it on the playground, you see it with religion, you see it when nations interact. It's what causes religious wars, racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. Religion is only one piece of the pie.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385320 wrote:My point was that if you took religion away, people would find substitute groups to belong to and then find fault with people who are different and therefore are not in the group. Your notion of humanity being one big happy family goes against the evidence that people are constantly in search of a group to belong to that is unique from the broader human group. Once together, this group keeps its cohesion by making enemies of those that don't belong. You see it on the playground, you see it with religion, you see it when nations interact. It's what causes religious wars, racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. Religion is only one piece of the pie.

  If you took away religion, people would have no afterlife to look forward too. They would spend their time making sure they get to enjoy the life that they have rather than in jail or dead. Religion allows people to delude themselves into thinking that by acting in a certain way they will end up with 40 virgins and money in heaven(see: 9/11, the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, Israeli - Palestinian conflict, etc.) Why are you okay with people being murdered in the name of religion?
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385319 wrote:I am not concerned with morality. If a person robs someone else to benefit their family, they may very well get away with it. They also very well could end up in ditch along with their entire family being murdered. Over thousands of generations we would finally see who comes out on top and my money is on those who cooperate for the greater good.

  That may or may not be. You could be right. I suppose, then, that if we did start with anarchy, we would possibly not end up with dictators who seized power through force. I'm not sure how confident I am of that, but it's possible.
  
  So, for those who are handicapped to the degree that they cannot contribute a net gain to society, is there any sense of goodness associated with helping such an individual?
• jmog

  sleeper;1385251 wrote:Incorrect. Please list the evidence you have witnessed to form your belief system. I already know, but I'm curious to see what EVIDENCE, you know the kind that one would rationally use to derive a conclusion, that you used to move yourself from the default position of having no knowledge(thus no belief in god) to a belief in something.

  That was not the argument, the discussion was the definition of atheism vs agnosticism. You agreed that we are born agnostics not atheists.
  
  You can't change the discussion after the fact to suit your claim.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1385323 wrote:That may or may not be. You could be right. I suppose, then, that if we did start with anarchy, we would possibly not end up with dictators who seized power through force. I'm not sure how confident I am of that, but it's possible.
  
  So, for those who are handicapped to the degree that they cannot contribute a net gain to society, is there any sense of goodness associated with helping such an individual?

  If dictators seized forced and treated people poorly, there would be a strong incentive to eliminate that member and his kin from society. It happens even now with revolutions and people overthrowing their government. Over generations those who do not comply with the needs of the community will fall and eliminate themselves from the gene pool.
  
  There could be a sense of goodness to those who cannot help themselves. I think humans have an intrinsically built in desire to help the less fortunate and if we didn't have religion and welfare distribution mechanisms inefficiently distributing our dollars we may actually have the resources to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1385324 wrote:That was not the argument, the discussion was the definition of atheism vs agnosticism. You agreed that we are born agnostics not atheists.
  
  You can't change the discussion after the fact to suit your claim.

  I find the difference irrevocably indifferent. Your argument is weak and I'm disappointed(yet, not surprised) that you avoided my follow up question. I needed a laugh today and knew the answer to that question would make my day.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385327 wrote:If dictators seized forced and treated people poorly, there would be a strong incentive to eliminate that member and his kin from society. It happens even now with revolutions and people overthrowing their government. Over generations those who do not comply with the needs of the community will fall and eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

  Ah, but the more common example has been for others jealous of their position killing them. Coup d'etats throughout history have been pretty frequent in their own right. Still others (and without looking, I'd have to guess is historically most common) are removed by other dictators/monarchs/governmental bodies. In many cases, the serfs don't do jack, because they fear for their personal and familial safety ... which I daresay is necessary to further their offspring.
  

  sleeper;1385327 wrote:There could be a sense of goodness to those who cannot help themselves. I think humans have an intrinsically built in desire to help the less fortunate and if we didn't have religion and welfare distribution mechanisms inefficiently distributing our dollars we may actually have the resources to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

  You think humans have an intrinsically built-in desire to help the less fortunate?
  
  First, based on what scientific evidence?
  
  Second, why are there so many handicapped that are going un-helped?
• sleeper

  

  We don't help them because we assume our taxes and churches are helping them. Since the government is an inefficient waster of resources, they aren't doing enough and since churches are businesses designed to exploit the stupid from their wealth and add no societal value other than hosting funerals, we aren't helping enough people.
  
  Altruism is scientifically proven. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
  
  EZ.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385340 wrote:We don't help them because we assume our taxes and churches are helping them. Since the government is an inefficient waster of resources, they aren't doing enough and since churches are businesses designed to exploit the stupid from their wealth and add no societal value other than hosting funerals, we aren't helping enough people.
  
  Altruism is scientifically proven. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
  
  EZ.

  That article proves copying behavior. A man is stacking books. You begin to stack books, because you see him doing it. You help him without knowing it.
  
  Moreover, you're citing examples of behavior and assuming altruistic intent in that article. Hardly scientific proof of noble motives.
  
  As for the taxes/churches example, that's likely incorrect, because there were still plenty such people in ancient times, when taxes and religious institutions were not known to help such people.
  
  As for the blanket statement about churches, you're showing substantial ignorance there.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1385348 wrote:That article proves copying behavior. A man is stacking books. You begin to stack books, because you see him doing it. You help him without knowing it.
  
  Moreover, you're citing examples of behavior and assuming altruistic intent in that article. Hardly scientific proof of noble motives.
  
  As for the taxes/churches example, that's likely incorrect, because there were still plenty such people in ancient times, when taxes and religious institutions were not known to help such people.
  
  As for the blanket statement about churches, you're showing substantial ignorance there.

  You help him without expecting any perceived benefit. That helping is called altruism and it's built in because you don't know why you are helping. It's merely a natural reaction for humans to want to help. Those that don't naturally want to help aren't being weeded out of the gene pool because we have a bloated welfare system subsidizing stupidity. Cut the welfare net, cut the government, and make churches pay taxes and you'll see altruism like you've never seen before pop up overnight.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1385065 wrote:He existed out of time. As such, he/she/it (at this point in the discussion) would be the uncreated creator, which at some point, the question "Where did X come from?" begets. (ie the essence of the Kalam Cosmological argument)
  
  The fun part is discussing time itself, though.

  Personally I feel like it all, at that point, collapses into fideism. Whether you accept the Kalam Cosmological argument or a physicist's B-Theory of Time...you still never get anywhere close to figuring out why there is something rather than nothing...or, connecting all the dots from the establishment of some intelligence beyond space-time to reasons for why you might worship that being and follow certain, particular religious doctrines.
  
  It all seems to me these days to be an exercise that does not yield much fruit.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1385322 wrote:If you took away religion, people would have no afterlife to look forward too. They would spend their time making sure they get to enjoy the life that they have rather than in jail or dead. Religion allows people to delude themselves into thinking that by acting in a certain way they will end up with 40 virgins and money in heaven(see: 9/11, the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, Israeli - Palestinian conflict, etc.) Why are you okay with people being murdered in the name of religion?

  That's an awful big leap. I don't believe that if everyone quit believing in God today, that tomorrow we'd all be living happily in peace and joy. I still believe that in the place of organized religion, other groups would form. On top of that, the things besides religion that seperate us into groups today such as national borders, race, ancestry, etc. would still remain and woudl continue to be sources of conflict.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385359 wrote:That's an awful big leap. I don't believe that if everyone quit believing in God today, that tomorrow we'd all be living happily in peace and joy. I still believe that in the place of organized religion, other groups would form. On top of that, the things besides religion that seperate us into groups today such as national borders, race, ancestry, etc. would still remain and woudl continue to be sources of conflict.

  I don't think it would end conflict but it would reduce it substantially. I'm all about saving people's lives and enhancing their quality of life during their time on Earth; why are you so diametrically opposed to that idea?
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385356 wrote:You help him without expecting any perceived benefit. That helping is called altruism and it's built in because you don't know why you are helping.

  It's not that you're helping that I call into question. It's whether or not the intention is even to help. If I, as a baby, saw a six-year-old banging his head against the wall, I might do the same. Now, if he got excited because I helped him in some way that doesn't make sense to me (because, let's face it, I'm a baby), does that mean the behavior was altruistic? No. It was classic monkey-see-monkey-do.
  

  sleeper;1385356 wrote:It's merely a natural reaction for humans to want to help. Those that don't naturally want to help aren't being weeded out of the gene pool because we have a bloated welfare system subsidizing stupidity. Cut the welfare net, cut the government, and make churches pay taxes and you'll see altruism like you've never seen before pop up overnight.

  
  Except, again, such societies have existed in history, and yet they were not without the unhelped. So my position remains that your neatly packaged concept has been tried and found wanting.
  

  BoatShoes;1385358 wrote:Personally I feel like it all, at that point, collapses into fideism. Whether you accept the Kalam Cosmological argument or a physicist's B-Theory of Time...you still never get anywhere close to figuring out why there is something rather than nothing...or, connecting all the dots from the establishment of some intelligence beyond space-time to reasons for why you might worship that being and follow certain, particular religious doctrines.
  
  It all seems to me these days to be an exercise that does not yield much fruit.

  I have my own problems with the A-Theory and B-Theory, mainly that they don't answer the question, but that is a tangent for perhaps a different discussion. I haven't heard something that satisfies the question aside from there being an "other" entity. Granted, at that stopping point, you can't even truthfully suggest it still exists, or whether or not it ought to be worshipped. There is much to be discussed before that.
  
  As for trying to understand it, I just think it's part of trying to know our world, universe, and reality. I am willing to bet that much of our advancements in science and philosophy have, at one time, felt the same way. It can be discouraging, but the encouraging part is that we're all in it together.
• jmog

  sleeper;1385251 wrote: Please list the evidence you have witnessed to form your belief system. I already know, but I'm curious to see what EVIDENCE, you know the kind that one would rationally use to derive a conclusion, that you used to move yourself from the default position of having no knowledge(thus no belief in god) to a belief in something.

  I am not going to rehash all the same stuff I have put on here a couple dozen times.
  
  Do a post search on my name.
  
  In a nut shell I grew up believing. Yes, you will jump right at that and say "see, indoctrination".
  
  However, when I went to college, by the time I started I hadn't been going to church for years. I then, being an engineering and math major, obviously started taking many different science classes from biology (only a couple) to chemistry (freaking tons), to physics (tons), to math (freaking tons), and engineering sciences (tons).
  
  I will tell you honestly that there was most definitely a time in that time frame that I most certainly did not believe. I am sorry, but there are MANY atheistic science proffessors that are JUST as into indoctrination as Sunday school at church. You don't believe me? Go into one of their classes and question evolution, not deny it, just throw up questions that don't fit. Many of the professors will either blow their lid or will treat you like an idiot. However, being a SCIENCE class, and supposedly using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, you would think they would have actual discussions about observable/testable facts and not ad hominem attacks with dogmalike rehashed lines. I swear questioning evolution in a college science class gets about the same reaction as questioning the deity of God in Sunday School.
  
  Now, like I said, I stopped believing but I would say I was agnostic, meaning was open to the truth, whatever it was.
  
  I then studied the science for myself, BOTH SIDES, and finally decided that if you look at it objectively, both with the chance that there is a god and an equal chance that there is not, more logical and scientific evidence (do NOT read proof) falls on the side of there being a god.
  
  You think you are so smart, search my posts on here and you will find many that I have used.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1385370 wrote: I have my own problems with the A-Theory and B-Theory, mainly that they don't answer the question, but that is a tangent for perhaps a different discussion. I haven't heard something that satisfies the question aside from there being an "other" entity. Granted, at that stopping point, you can't even truthfully suggest it still exists, or whether or not it ought to be worshipped. There is much to be discussed before that.
  
  As for trying to understand it, I just think it's part of trying to know our world, universe, and reality. I am willing to bet that much of our advancements in science and philosophy have, at one time, felt the same way. It can be discouraging, but the encouraging part is that we're all in it together.

  I think it is a worthwhile enterprise however are we really any farther, even with the advances in physics and philosophy, than Aristotle was when he articulated the cosmological argument? It seems to me that we aren't.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1385378 wrote:I think it is a worthwhile enterprise however are we really any farther, even with the advances in physics and philosophy, than Aristotle was when he articulated the cosmological argument? It seems to me that we aren't.

  I think we have better understandings. I think our understandings in math have helped us get a more full picture, as well as our understandings of cosmology, physics, and epistemology. We might not have reached a decisive answer, but I think we have more of the pieces to the puzzle.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1385363 wrote:I don't think it would end conflict but it would reduce it substantially. I'm all about saving people's lives and enhancing their quality of life during their time on Earth; why are you so diametrically opposed to that idea?

  Not opposed to it at all. I just happen to believe it wouldn't reduce it substantially. I think human inclunation to form groups is what ultimately leads to problems your referring to. If you took religion away, something would fill that void. That's all I'm contending.
• sleeper

  

  It's not that you're helping that I call into question. It's whether or not the intention is even to help. If I, as a baby, saw a six-year-old banging his head against the wall, I might do the same. Now, if he got excited because I helped him in some way that doesn't make sense to me (because, let's face it, I'm a baby), does that mean the behavior was altruistic? No. It was classic monkey-see-monkey-do.

  Absolutely ludicrous. Even if we boil down the scenario into a simple monkey-see-monkey-do scenario, you are still performing an altruistic act. The person originally performing the act is now happier that other's respect him enough to want to participate in something that causes harm JUST to make the other person feel better. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with that explanation.
• sleeper

  

  I then studied the science for myself, BOTH SIDES, and finally decided that if you look at it objectively, both with the chance that there is a god and an equal chance that there is not, more logical and scientific evidence (do NOT read proof) falls on the side of there being a god.
  
  You think you are so smart, search my posts on here and you will find many that I have used.

  I won't even get into your offshoot of questioning evolution. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a reality. This would be akin to going into a math class and trying to argue with your teacher than 2+2 doesn't equal 4; you think the professor wouldn't get angry?
  
  Also, your "evidence" is flawed at best. You don't only have to prove the likely existence of a god, but you have to go a step above and prove that your "god" is the correct god. There a thousands of gods out there, why is yours correct? I know the answer; you were indoctrinated into your set of beliefs at a young and impressionable age and can't think with an unbiased mind when it comes to determining how you want to live your life. Sad really, such talent thrown down the wishing well all for an erroneous belief system.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385387 wrote:Not opposed to it at all. I just happen to believe it wouldn't reduce it substantially. I think human inclunation to form groups is what ultimately leads to problems your referring to. If you took religion away, something would fill that void. That's all I'm contending.

  Except other groups don't explicitly get benefits from eliminating infidels. See 9/11. I would love to get all the people's lives back that died on that day in exchange for the elimination of a belief system that can never, has never, and will never been proven. Sad that you think protecting religious freedom is more important than protecting people's lives.