#401 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@jnr6lil said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Just getting heated

Hardly.

It is, it's just not outright caps lock yelling.

The religion thread has being here long before I joined up and discussions on this thread have pretty much being very similar to the ones that take place there. It is a pretty civil thread really since although people do debate and clash heads over things nothing beyond that rarely happens. Mods very rarely have to "warn" people hell a few of them have even being involved in discussions which is great.

#402 Posted by OblivionKnight (3356 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: By all means, you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter. I personally feel the focus on punishment came about when order was incredibly key (again, we seem to be talking about the Catholic Church, which is understandable as it's such a prominent entity.) Initially, yes fear was quite possibly a great motivator: the idea that an All-Powerful being was watching you...still scary today. But, the question becomes: does the end justify the means? Does it matter that fear was initially a motivational tool to get people to become Christian, if it "made" them become moral (not saying morals didn't exist beforehand) and upstanding (in an idealistic light)? Especially if some of these people became the precursors of western civilization today?

Sorry, I kind of went on a tangent. To answer you more directly, one cannot forget that there's an ulterior motive to most everything. Some people feel they do something good just for the sake of being good, when in fact they are doing it because they've been conditioned to believe their action is "just" or "right"(by society) and take solace in the fact that they've done something "good." It makes sense that religion would take it one step further and add an extra incentive for one to do something good (in case moral fortification isn't enough.)

But don't forget some religions or denominations see it differently. Some Christian denominations believe in "sola fide" (something along these lines, so please don't kill me for butchering it.) essentially, only faith is required to get into heaven. Other groups may require some deeds be done. Others may believe that it doesn't matter what you do, and that it's all pre-determined.

As in, if that person loses their faith? Interesting. I'm sure it can be taken different ways depending on the person. A weak willed person may find that they have nothing to live for. A stronger person may simply accept that they were wrong and that life is still worth living.

#403 Posted by King Saturn (224811 posts) - - Show Bio

Have any of you ever talked with the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to your door ? Ever use the very Bible that they read from to create their theological standpoints to trip them up ? Man, you can have a good time with those people... LOL

#404 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@oblivionknight:

Playing the "Carrot/Stick" method is effective but does that resolve the main issue, man prey on other men because of greed (Inherent to us, we always want more, the problem is, we do not know when enough is enough), basically, it is survival of the fittest.

We do not prey on each other because of the fear of this being watching our every move, Why? Because this being is said to reward us if we do GOOD and punish us if we do something bad. Like you said, this is where self interest steps in, I do not want to be punished so I will do the things that society deemed right. I do not know about you but this is not moral fortification for me but reprehension.

What if the repressed feeling breaks out like a dam? And with time it will.

#405 Edited by sousukesagara (137 posts) - - Show Bio
#406 Posted by Superguy0009e (2265 posts) - - Show Bio

@sousukesagara: NP. You could try that renting thing, but I'm not sure how it works.

#407 Posted by King Saturn (224811 posts) - - Show Bio

Nah, don't you go crapping on my stuff.

#408 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

Have any of you ever talked with the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to your door ? Ever use the very Bible that they read from to create their theological standpoints to trip them up ? Man, you can have a good time with those people... LOL

Already done that when they tried to recruit my mother, the sight of them flipping their bible in panic is hilarious.

#409 Edited by The_PAIN (720 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@jnr6lil said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Just getting heated

Hardly.

It is, it's just not outright caps lock yelling.

The religion thread has being here long before I joined up and discussions on this thread have pretty much being very similar to the ones that take place there. It is a pretty civil thread really since although people do debate and clash heads over things nothing beyond that rarely happens. Mods very rarely have to "warn" people hell a few of them have even being involved in discussions which is great.

QFT

#410 Posted by King Saturn (224811 posts) - - Show Bio

Wonderful Video

#411 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

The answer is... nebulous...

Religion didn't hold humanity back from forming civilization... in fact it probably was a great help to it.

And if Religion didn't exist Rome might still exist... in which case, our modern way of thinking wouldn't exist because Rome, while it allowed people to think about things a lot of advancements were held back due to economical reasons or used specifically for tricking people into thinking divine power was at work.

However... it is clear that Religion did hold back scientific discovery for a long time in the middle ages and try to today... and have become even more outspoken as advancements have come about and will continue to get worse over the next hundred years if I and others are right about transhumanism and technological advancements that are coming. I think that ultimately, those of us who are more scientifically inclined will separate from those who are more religiously inclined... Ultimately, if you look at which of those two groups have the possibility of existing the longest... At best, the religious group has between a million and 5 billion years left to exist. The scientific on the other hand, has the possibility of living 1X10^100 years and possibly beyond that if we figure something out to.

So to some degree it matters what you mean by hold back... If you don't think it matters as long as it's not eternal life then possibly no... but if you mean in our knowledge and exploration and the chance at that eternal life... then yes. And you have to specify, do you mean hold back in general, or hold back completely... As pointed out. some times in our history religion was a good thing... and not all religions cause a complete block to the scientific...just the ones with the most abundant followers. But at the same time, it doesn't take a lot of people to mess up the world. Consider Aum Shinrikyo which nearly got off a plan to kill most of the world's population and it was just an accident that it was averted.

And then you gotta consider, does risking us blowing ourselves up count as holding us back? It could be that our scientific advancements end up killing us, from nukes, to GMOs, to femptotech, to any number of other technologies we have or will develop soon that could wipe us out or cause us not to care about survival any more.

While all these things may be the case... there is one major defining thing though... Guaranteed wipe out vs possible chance to eternal existence... Science is the only way we have a possible chance of existing forever. Religion and some people that are overly afraid of taking risks hold science back a lot of times but off no chance in that area and as such I have to come to the conclusion that yes, science hinders human potential, both on a personal and a civilizational level, but only after a certain point in a civilization's existence.

#412 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken:

While all these things may be the case... there is one major defining thing though... Guaranteed wipe out vs possible chance to eternal existence... Science is the only way we have a possible chance of existing forever. Religion and some people that are overly afraid of taking risks hold science back a lot of times but off no chance in that area and as such I have to come to the conclusion that yes, science hinders human potential, both on a personal and a civilizational level, but only after a certain point in a civilization's existence.

Why do you say that?

Guaranteed wipe out vs possible chance to eternal existence...

- Eternal Life of worshiping and doing nothing than that is less appealing to me.

#413 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: ^.^ Typo. Meant Religion.

Also, I'm not talking about eternal life of worshiping... I'm talking eternal existence doing whatever we want. Religion at best is a poor gamble that realistically isn't worth very much when you think about it.

Pro-science...Anti-Religion is I.

#414 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@overlordarhas: ^.^ Typo. Meant Religion.

Also, I'm not talking about eternal life of worshiping... I'm talking eternal existence doing whatever we want. Religion at best is a poor gamble that realistically isn't worth very much when you think about it.

Pro-science...Anti-Religion is I.

Ok

#415 Posted by NlGHTCRAWLER (2899 posts) - - Show Bio

If religion can be blamed for the evils of man then so can science. Religion/Science are tools. If they are used improperly then thats on us.

#416 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

If religion can be blamed for the evils of man then so can science. Religion/Science are tools. If they are used improperly then thats on us.

No. Religion is not a tool. Religion is a set of dogmas and doctrines. Science is a method.

You can use science to do immoral things

Religion however is immoral.

And terms of knowledge. Religion presumes that it is right and looks for information to support it being right, ignoring where it is shown to be wrong. Science makes no presumptions and uses all facts to come to a conclusion whether current beliefs agree or not.

#417 Posted by OblivionKnight (3356 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: I'm a little lost. What is the "Carrot/Stick" method?

As you said, it's your personal opinion (as is much of what we're saying.) Some people just connect the two (society and religion.) Some accept one and not the other.

Like I said, that comes down to the individual. I'd like to believe that someone is strong enough to withstand such knowledge. But I think a fair question to ask is how would an atheist or agnostic accept such a reveal? Would they openly accept that there is a God (or are gods, depending on the religion)? Could they accept that a being that they may see as pretentious, fallible, and incoherent is the creator of all life? I mean, it can work both ways and I guess it all depends on the person, you know? I'm sure there would be a spike in depression (for either side depending on the scenario.)

#418 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@oblivionknight:

As for the Carrot and Stick Method, here is the explanation:

Carrot and Stick Approach (also "carrot or stick approach") is an idiom that refers to a policy of offering a combination of rewards and punishment to induce behavior. It is named in reference to a cart driver dangling a carrot in front of a mule and holding a stick behind it. The mule would move towards the carrot because it wants the reward of food, while also moving away from the stick behind it, since it does not want the punishment of pain, thus drawing the cart.

Like I said, that comes down to the individual. I'd like to believe that someone is strong enough to withstand such knowledge. But I think a fair question to ask is how would an atheist or agnostic accept such a reveal? Would they openly accept that there is a God (or are gods, depending on the religion)? Could they accept that a being that they may see as pretentious, fallible, and incoherent is the creator of all life? I mean, it can work both ways and I guess it all depends on the person, you know? I'm sure there would be a spike in depression (for either side depending on the scenario.)

- I think there is a place for GOD in Science, the only question is, will he let himself be known?

#419 Posted by OblivionKnight (3356 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: Ah ok, now it makes sense.

Are you asking why doesn't this method solve the problems human have (as you've pointed out, one example being greed)?

That's a good question. Honestly, I don't think ANY of us would be perfectly contempt with a powerful being who appears one day and says they're God. There would be worldwide skepticism. Theists would argue over whose God he is and which religion is right, not to mention demanding miracles to be done.

Scientists would certainly demand some form of evidence that the Being can do anything.

Atheists would require proof as well. But proof measurable by our minds and technology.

#420 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader:

No we came up with religion long, long before christianity.

This is true. I see that you are focusing on the core of the main argument we are having. But here I am shifting to Christianity because of your statement which I quoted.

And as I have said and proven that morality existed before religion.

No you have not. You have theorized that it did and hoped that it did but you have not "proven" it by any means. Not to me any way. I am attempting to stay focused upon your used of "religion" as "organized religions" but it remains my position that religion defined as a supernatural understanding of the mechanics of the universe was there in the caves with our Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ancestors so there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to demonstrate that what you call morality somehow developed in a vacuum outside of their supernatural world-view (religion).

And again regarding christianity itself there are many points within christianity that are not true and have been disproven or have no proof to back up the claims.

This is not true. This is your belief (and the belief of others) but not proven true like when I say I am going to toss an apple up and I can prove it will fall back down.

I mean you disagree that religion did not come from us well then where did it come from?

If we agree for a moment to state that our earliest known ancestors viewed phenomena around them from a supernatural view of reality (religion) then I would have to say that this could have been from them (as you argue) or it could be from some core religious impulse (which would actually work for both of our positions) or it was endowed within them by their Creator.

Hardly Id say it is you who is naive or maybe simply ignorant to the fact that religion is simply becoming less and less relevant. The numbers of religious people are dropping.

Perhaps in the West and certainly in your dreams but it still remains that the majority of the world is religious (supernatural view of reality). By assuming that because it seems to be happening in the West it is therefore happening everywhere is discriminatory in my opinion.

This is really in part due to the fact we are no longer ignorant, we no longer have to make do with mythology. The more we know the less ignorant we become the more religion will dwindle. That is not naivety or even optimism but a simple fact. And we need secularism and societies that call themselves democracies will also be secular because secularism is fair since due to the fact that we live in a more enlightened times different faiths will co exist in one country but then of course non religious people will also live there. Secularism is their to keep things fair to make sure that one religion does not take province and start interfering with laws and how the country is run. Secularism is there to keep both the religious and non religious on equal ground and both parties happy.

While I share your desire for freedom from religious hegemony and therefore share your hope for secular society it is also true to say that secular societies must also bear the burden for some pretty nasty atrocities in the post-Enlightenment world. The Reign of Terror in post-Revolutionary France come to mind.

We don't need to base our morality on religion whatsoever. I find the assumption that we do both profoundly ignorant and flat out discriminatory.

Again I fear that when you hear (or read) me use the term religion what you are hearing is me saying "organized religion". And as this has once again expanded beyond my intended scope let me restate my point that it is my opinion that morality as it actually exists today in reality has been greatly influenced by religious precepts. Morality as it actually exists today does not exist in a vacuum.

God revealed himself in history? Well which god? There is no historical evidence for a supernatural being revealing himself.

New Testament scholarship. But I understand you don't argree. Although I still have not determined if this is because you have never really given it any serious effort or if you have just ruled it out de facto based upon your own biases and presuppositions. Of course you are going to say you have studied it deeply because you really couldn't admit otherwise, but it still remains that I see no evidence.

Discriminatory? Not really since there is proof that our morality does not come from religion.

In your opinion. Plenty of proof from my POV. Again I could understand if you stated that you believed it were possible to "cook up" some new morality in a vacuum, but I don't believe in all intellectual honesty that you can claim current human morality has evolved to it's current state with no influence from religion at all. And to attempt to "cook up" such a thing would indeed discriminate against those who view reality through supernatural lenses. So how do we arrive at a consensus eh?

But there does seem to be such a large insistence that you need religion to be moral, god to be good. When that is simply not the case.

Aha now you begin to reveal your wishful thinking.

We decide ourselves what is moral, what is right etc. We are social creatures so its in our nature to work around and get along in that way.

At least until we are no longer getting our way and our lives begin to depend upon it. Then we go to war. Figuratively and literally.

Pie in the sky...

#421 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader:

No we came up with religion long, long before christianity.

This is true. I see that you are focusing on the core of the main argument we are having. But here I am shifting to Christianity because of your statement which I quoted.

And as I have said and proven that morality existed before religion.

No you have not. You have theorized that it did and hoped that it did but you have not "proven" it by any means. Not to me any way. I am attempting to stay focused upon your used of "religion" as "organized religions" but it remains my position that religion defined as a supernatural understanding of the mechanics of the universe was there in the caves with our Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ancestors so there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to demonstrate that what you call morality somehow developed in a vacuum outside of their supernatural world-view (religion).

And again regarding christianity itself there are many points within christianity that are not true and have been disproven or have no proof to back up the claims.

This is not true. This is your belief (and the belief of others) but not proven true like when I say I am going to toss an apple up and I can prove it will fall back down.

I mean you disagree that religion did not come from us well then where did it come from?

If we agree for a moment to state that our earliest known ancestors viewed phenomena around them from a supernatural view of reality (religion) then I would have to say that this could have been from them (as you argue) or it could be from some core religious impulse (which would actually work for both of our positions) or it was endowed within them by their Creator.

Hardly Id say it is you who is naive or maybe simply ignorant to the fact that religion is simply becoming less and less relevant. The numbers of religious people are dropping.

Perhaps in the West and certainly in your dreams but it still remains that the majority of the world is religious (supernatural view of reality). By assuming that because it seems to be happening in the West it is therefore happening everywhere is discriminatory in my opinion.

This is really in part due to the fact we are no longer ignorant, we no longer have to make do with mythology. The more we know the less ignorant we become the more religion will dwindle. That is not naivety or even optimism but a simple fact. And we need secularism and societies that call themselves democracies will also be secular because secularism is fair since due to the fact that we live in a more enlightened times different faiths will co exist in one country but then of course non religious people will also live there. Secularism is their to keep things fair to make sure that one religion does not take province and start interfering with laws and how the country is run. Secularism is there to keep both the religious and non religious on equal ground and both parties happy.

While I share your desire for freedom from religious hegemony and therefore share your hope for secular society it is also true to say that secular societies must also bear the burden for some pretty nasty atrocities in the post-Enlightenment world. The Reign of Terror in post-Revolutionary France come to mind.

We don't need to base our morality on religion whatsoever. I find the assumption that we do both profoundly ignorant and flat out discriminatory.

Again I fear that when you hear (or read) me use the term religion what you are hearing is me saying "organized religion". And as this has once again expanded beyond my intended scope let me restate my point that it is my opinion that morality as it actually exists today in reality has been greatly influenced by religious precepts. Morality as it actually exists today does not exist in a vacuum.

God revealed himself in history? Well which god? There is no historical evidence for a supernatural being revealing himself.

New Testament scholarship. But I understand you don't argree. Although I still have not determined if this is because you have never really given it any serious effort or if you have just ruled it out de facto based upon your own biases and presuppositions. Of course you are going to say you have studied it deeply because you really couldn't admit otherwise, but it still remains that I see no evidence.

Discriminatory? Not really since there is proof that our morality does not come from religion.

In your opinion. Plenty of proof from my POV. Again I could understand if you stated that you believed it were possible to "cook up" some new morality in a vacuum, but I don't believe in all intellectual honesty that you can claim current human morality has evolved to it's current state with no influence from religion at all. And to attempt to "cook up" such a thing would indeed discriminate against those who view reality through supernatural lenses. So how do we arrive at a consensus eh?

But there does seem to be such a large insistence that you need religion to be moral, god to be good. When that is simply not the case.

Aha now you begin to reveal your wishful thinking.

We decide ourselves what is moral, what is right etc. We are social creatures so its in our nature to work around and get along in that way.

At least until we are no longer getting our way and our lives begin to depend upon it. Then we go to war. Figuratively and literally.

Pie in the sky...

We have proof. We know that our morality is something that stems from and is shaped by our biology. You may like to claim that religion came up with morality or that it was somehow divinely created by a god. But that is your belief which there is no evidence for. It is pretty obvious humans made up religion. And regarding "supernatural understanding of the mechanics of the universe" well we made up religion in a time where we had no understanding or bearing of how things are and how they actually work. We had a need to answers those burning questions so we came up with religion to answer them. Obviously now we can look back and realize how wrong we were and how far we have advanced in regards to actually finding out and proving the answers as opposed to making up myth to simply satisfy our need to answer them.

No if that were the case then religion would not be considered faith based. And again what makes your religion true over other peoples religion? Then you also have to determine why your personal sect of what you believe out of the many other hundreds of other sects and various beliefs in christianity. There is a big reason why religion is faith based.

So you admit religion comes from us then? Therefore if you accept that then religion which you hold in such high regard as being the source of our morality then you should also accept that our morality stems from us since we invented religion in part based around our morality. ?

No Id say it has to do with the fact we are becoming less ignorant as a whole and therefore less and less people are becoming religious since religion as I said was invented when we were ignorant of how the world worked and whatnot. I am not assuming it is happening in the west just in countries that are democracies and where people have the freedom to information, to think for themselves and of course in countries where a particular religion is not enforced on people. I never said that there where less religious people than non religious people just that the number of religious people has decreased and it will continue to do so.

My point was that secular societies are the best option and that it benefits the most people. The more secular a country is, the more fairer it is. Countries that are largely secular like the UK still have a way to go and countries like the US that claim to be secular have even further to go.

As have I said that morality did not and does not stem from religion. Regarding religion (organized religion) as to weather it has influenced our morality, well I did not deny that, for the most part religion has influenced our morality in a negative way. What I do disagree with and what you claimed that morality came from religion. And religious precepts in regards to what exactly?

It has more to do with the fact that there is no evidence for a god existing. And if it was historically accurate then hey it would be taught in history. But then that has more to do with your religious faith and presuppositions that it did happen.

I said that our morality did not come from religion. Which is true. Again more and more people are rejecting religion both as a belief system and as the source of their morality. But because religion is a social norm and is considered to be the root of our morality and that you need a faith to be good. People who have rejected faith have been viewed as immoral due to the assumption that our morality comes from that religion in some way. And again we decide for ourselves what is wrong what is right. I mean there are many things that we would have considered moral or right years ago that today we realize is wrong. So not its not just wishful thinking.

It comes from us and as we carry on progressing our moral views will progress and change.

#422 Edited by Fuchsia_Nightingale (10180 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe, maybe not

#423 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@fuchsia_nightingale: Sam Harris believes in reincarnation?

Also being an atheist simply means you dont believe in god or gods. Really one atheist is more than likely to have little in common with someone else who happens to not believe in god.

#424 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@oblivionknight:

True adherence must not be from the promise of salvation or fear of punishment because if so, any move a person make is purely superficial.

Imagining GOD subjecting himself to human scrutiny is funny. LOLZ

#425 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader:

Do you think that we have had a good discussion even though we will clearly not find much common ground?

#426 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader:

Do you think that we have had a good discussion even though we will clearly not find much common ground?

Certainly. Yes. I usually do have interesting discussions/ debates with you :)

#427 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

Do you think that we have had a good discussion even though we will clearly not find much common ground?

Certainly. Yes. I usually do have interesting discussions/ debates with you :)

Good. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I also appreciate your efforts, respect you and your opinions and hold no sort of animosity toward you.

#428 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18621 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@kuonphobos said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

Do you think that we have had a good discussion even though we will clearly not find much common ground?

Certainly. Yes. I usually do have interesting discussions/ debates with you :)

Good. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I also appreciate your efforts, respect you and your opinions and hold no sort of animosity toward you.

Thanks. I appreciate that. And those things are mutual :)

#429 Posted by Abocado (666 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas : If man develops an AI that can think and has consciousness or create a being artificially? Will that make us GOD?

I'm sure every religion will be in an uproar. lol

#430 Edited by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@abocado said:

@overlordarhas : If man develops an AI that can think and has consciousness or create a being artificially? Will that make us GOD?

I'm sure every religion will be in an uproar. lol

To answer your question we must first define life. That will be lengthy. Will have to get back to you on that. As for the uproar, I think the issue of cloning is the best example.

#431 Posted by Abocado (666 posts) - - Show Bio
#432 Posted by OblivionKnight (3356 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: that is certainly a fair assertion.

What you're referring to also is an ulterior motive, to which there is one to everything.

Doing good for the sake of doing good is simply (to me) impossible.

#433 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas: that is certainly a fair assertion.

What you're referring to also is an ulterior motive, to which there is one to everything.

Doing good for the sake of doing good is simply (to me) impossible.

So to say that there is no other interest but self interest. Then we can conclude that for a human being, all things revolve in one's self.

#434 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@abocado said:

@overlordarhas : If man develops an AI that can think and has consciousness or create a being artificially? Will that make us GOD?

I'm sure every religion will be in an uproar. lol

To answer your question we must first define life. That will be lengthy. Will have to get back to you on that. As for the uproar, I think the issue of cloning is the best example.

Would the thought process be that whatever a human makes, by extension it's created by a god as well? Whether it's a child/clone/robot with self determination, etc?

#435 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18355 posts) - - Show Bio

no, it does not hinder potential.

#436 Edited by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

This Video is hilarious