Theology

[maledoro]

It's usually not a good idea to try start one of these conversations with Kirkland. He makes a point of trying to stand out.

He needs to stand out in the hall.

Plus, religion didn't come up with the atomic bomb, science did.

Science was the method, but the atomic bomb wasn't made for the sake of science.

But my main point is, religion or no religion we still finds reasons to blast each other away into dust. But I see what I did wrong there, never mind.

I already addressed that in response to Eva's comment. Using that logic, you (and Eva) are saying that it's okay to keep piling on reasons to kill. A few years ago, I had a convo with a girl about legalizing marijuana. I mentioned that if it were legalized there would be less gang violence. She argued that there would be something else for gangs to fight over. Of course, she couldn't come up with something and talked over me when I mentioned that gangland violence dropped sharply when Prohibition had ended.

[Crazy Rich]

It's usually not a good idea to try start one of these conversations with Kirkland. He makes a point of trying to stand out.

He needs to stand out in the hall.

I already addressed that in response to Eva's comment. Using that logic, you (and Eva) are saying that it's okay to keep piling on reasons to kill.

I believe me (and Eva) are not saying it's okay, but the reasons exist whether we believe it to be okay or not.

[SiL]

I already addressed that in response to Eva's comment. Using that logic, you (and Eva) are saying that it's okay to keep piling on reasons to kill.

Then, using your logic, why stop at saying religion is bad because it gives people more reason to kill? We should engage in no activity, creative or scientific, social or political, which could conceivably, at a later date, be used as justification to murder someone else.

[SM]

Everybody - outta the interwebs!

[Sabby]

I already addressed that in response to Eva's comment. Using that logic, you (and Eva) are saying that it's okay to keep piling on reasons to kill.

Then, using your logic, why stop at saying religion is bad because it gives people more reason to kill? We should engage in no activity, creative or scientific, social or political, which could conceivably, at a later date, be used as justification to murder someone else.

I realize this may sound cold to people who put a lot of value in emotions, but I look at this as a cost/benefit analysis.

Yes, people can use a Government as a catalyst for atrocities. But what we gain from a well utilized Government is worth minimizing the chances of it's misuse/abuse. There is far more to gain from making a good/functional Governemt then simply removing it because there are examples of bad Governments.

And yes, people use Science as a catalyst for atrocities, or more often a tool for atrocities spawned by other things. The nuke for example was created with science, but not for the sake of discovery/knowledge. It was a tool utilized for war. White Supremacists like to use Eugenics to prove that the Caucasian race is somehow superior, or to propose methods of genetic purity control. Yet what we gain from the scientific method and it's proper applications is literally the rise of humanity out of the muck of beasthood.

What does organized, and even personal Religion do? What is the benefit that justifies the ritualistic stifling of critical thinking? Name for me a single beneficial thing that can only be provided by Religion?

Name one. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer to this.

[DoomRulz]

I'd suggest asking her but she's dead, unfortunately.

[SiL]

I realize this may sound cold to people who put a lot of value in emotions, but I look at this as a cost/benefit analysis.

Cool.

"It can be used for bad" and "it doesn't provide us with something literally nothing else can" are still vapid excuses.

[Crazy Rich]

Everybody - outta the interwebs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_szJ6M-kM#ws

[Sabby]

I realize this may sound cold to people who put a lot of value in emotions, but I look at this as a cost/benefit analysis.

Cool.

"It can be used for bad" and "it doesn't provide us with something literally nothing else can" are still vapid excuses.

Really? Asking what a damaging system provides is a vapid excuse?

Government can damage society, yet we maintain it because of it's benefits. A Government that provides no benefit to the people it Governs is something you would take issue with, I'd assume?

If so, why is Religion special? Why would you evaluate it differently?

Don't dodge the question as 'vapid', either answer it or explain why you think it's vapid.

[maledoro]

I believe me (and Eva) are not saying it's okay, but the reasons exist whether we believe it to be okay or not.

Then there's no point in mentioning it.

Then, using your logic, why stop at saying religion is bad because it gives people more reason to kill? We should engage in no activity, creative or scientific, social or political, which could conceivably, at a later date, be used as justification to murder someone else.

Uh, huh. Yeah...

I'd suggest asking her but she's dead, unfortunately.

Gone, but not forgotten.

[Eva]

I already addressed that in response to Eva's comment. Using that logic, you (and Eva) are saying that it's okay to keep piling on reasons to kill.

I believe me (and Eva) are not saying it's okay, but the reasons exist whether we believe it to be okay or not.

^^^^
This.

Maledoro, the point is that evil does not need nor require religion to prosper. Evil is the absence of empathy. This very human trait has been a part of us since the dawn of civilization and if anyone questions whether it is still an integral part of our existence, even in our modern and scientifically enlightened world, I'd just refer you to pick up a history book describing the 20th century.

Certain emotions could be done away with. I liked the world of "Equilibrium" where they took those drugs to turn off emotions. I could see an advanced atheist society having some sort of way to turn off fear, sadness, and anxiety.

I'll just leave this quote with you from the grandfather of modern science himself:

"The most important endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity for life"

- Albert Einstein

Einstein essentially acknowledges that for humanity to improve upon itself, it needs to have an authentic moral choice between good and evil. That choice is eternal for us as a species. It will always be open to us. That 'perfect Star Trek world' you describe where people no longer need to make that choice for themselves, because scientific progress somehow have made that choice irrelevant, will never happen. It's a fantasy and when giving it some thought, imo a rather disturbing one.

[maledoro]

Maledoro, the point is that evil does not need nor require religion to prosper. Evil is the absence of empathy. This very human trait has been a part of us since the dawn of civilization and if anyone questions whether it is still an integral part of our existence, even in our modern and scientifically enlightened world, I'd just refer you to pick up a history book describing the 20th century.

I'm well aware of that, but again, it's like when people scream about having their guns taken away (a sidebar: there never was a plot to do so), they say that there will be other ways to kill. Sure, but guns are more efficient than a knife or hammer. Same with religion. One could argue that someone twisted scripture to justify their warped ideas, but, nevertheless, there is a lot of instruction to do bad things in the Bible, Koran, and other "holy" books.

[KirklandSignature]

Being able to feel fear, sadness, anxiety, these things help make us human.

It can be argued that those emotions bring out the worst of us. Fear led the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq did it not. Fear and anxiety of a WMD attack, along with the oil and strategic placement in that region.

[Sabby]

Being able to feel fear, sadness, anxiety, these things help make us human.

It can be argued that those emotions bring out the worst of us. Fear led the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq did it not. Fear and anxiety of a WMD attack, along with the oil and strategic placement in that region.

I have Autism, so I have a lot of trouble understanding other peoples emotions. I can feel them, most of the time, but I often see them as disruptive and wish people could just turn them off when having a conversation that isn't specifically regarding how they feel.

Yes, I realize how hypercritical this sounds, considering how my anger can disrupt my logic at times, but I'm only describing how my brain works. I would actually really love the ability to just turn off my emotions at will.

Understanding how I view the world, for better and for worse, even I don't want an emotionless society. The very concept frightens me, much like the idea of Heaven. Yes, I'd love for individuals to have more emotional control, but ripping them out all together? No. Never.

[maledoro]

I have Autism