MetalAlien
Banned
bionic77 said:
The 10,000 year war in the middle east is entirely about religion.. (been going on long before we moved in for the oil)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What is the worst human invention?
- Thread starter akascream
- Start date
- Status
The 10,000 year war in the middle east is entirely about religion.. (been going on long before we moved in for the oil)
Cheesemeister
Member
A "jump to conclusions" mat that has different conclusions that you could jump to.
Fresh Prince
Banned
Money. Basically what the above boils down too IMO.
Littleberu
Banned
Philosophy... when people thought they knew what was good and what was bad, everything began to fall apart.
Lemurnator
Banned
KILLER FUCKING BEES FOR 500, ALEX.
Lemurnator
Banned
PhatSaqs said:
Because murder, war, genocide all didn't exist until the invention of guns.
MetalAlien said:
Good point, I just think that religion does not have the influence today that it used to over most people on the planet. You can trace a lot of harms back to religion (and some good points too as with everything), but I don't feel the major problems that we face today are in any way related to religion. It feels insane saying that with Bible Boy Bush leading his crusade of stupidity, but I feel it is true.
CrystalGemini
Member
Tom Cruise.Phoenix said:
Gorgie said:
As opposed to what? Survival of the fittest? :lol
While I personally disagree with the people stating "religion" in here, I imagine that they have what they perceive to be legitimate reasons for stating as much-- namely, that religion has been "bad" because it frequently attempts to consolidate power in the hands of religious authorities, has engendered conflict for the sake of doctrine and the expansion of its sphere of influence, and seeks to usurp power from the citizenry/government for the furtherance of its own ends. In a very real sense, this sort of behavior can be viewed as the antithesis of altruism, as altruism is defined as selfless giving, not selfish seeking.
I see no possible justification for such an attack on altruism in and of itself. Are there circumstances where altruism is misguided or counterproductive? Yes. But these situations are very few and far in between. If people were perfectly altruistic (in terms of wealth and particularly power-- after all, one cannot consolidate power, and hence subjugate others, if one is generous enough to share that power with others), the world would be a better place to live, not worse.
I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind such a statement.
Loki said:
:lol No kidding. I think one of the absolute worst movements of the last hundred and fifty years or so was social darwinism.
50+ years of fucked up interpretations of Darwin, finally culminating with Mr. Hitler's quaint little parade across Europe.
I'll stick with altruism, thanks
Megafoo Chavez
I love EGM
the baby jesus butt plug.
Jill Sandwich said:
WTF?!?! I'll fucking kill you!!!
just kidds.
Religion has done more good than harm. Most people claiming religion probably can't tell you the basic tenets of faiths such as Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, or Judaism. Maybe they are just basing it off of Bush's recent tirade, and Osama bin Laden's recent actions.
Yeah...most people saying religion probably don't think too much about it.
Religion has been used as a political tool.
Just like Nationalism, it can be used as a "common ground" to get people on your side. It's an easy "us versus them" scenario.
The same thing applies to sports teams. You have some nutcases who kill each other at soccer games. Despite living in the same country, or being the same race, and despite being the same religion, there is cause for divide.
Should we blame sports? Should we blame soccer?
It's a great analogy, since out of the millions of soccer fans around the World, there are a few nutcases who kill.
Compare that to the billions of religious people around the World, there are a few nutcases who kill. Turn that into a percentage, and it's not even 1%.
So to blame religion based on the actions of less than 1% of religious people, is unintelligent.
Loki said:As opposed to what? Survival of the fittest? :lol
While I personally disagree with the people stating "religion" in here, I imagine that they have what they perceive to be legitimate reasons for stating as much-- namely, that religion has been "bad" because it frequently attempts to consolidate power in the hands of religious authorities, has engendered conflict for the sake of doctrine and the expansion of its sphere of influence, and seeks to usurp power from the citizenry/government for the furtherance of its own ends. In a very real sense, this sort of behavior can be viewed as the antithesis of altruism, as altruism is defined as selfless giving, not selfish seeking.
I see no possible justification for such an attack on altruism in and of itself. Are there circumstances where altruism is misguided or counterproductive? Yes. But these situations are very few and far in between. If people were perfectly altruistic (in terms of wealth and particularly power-- after all, one cannot consolidate power, and hence subjugate others, if one is generous enough to share that power with others), the world would be a better place to live, not worse.
I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind such a statement.
In an ideal world, the guiding priniciple would be selfishness. The ideal person is proud of his pride, and relishes each day. The fundamental absolute of life, is to exist, or not.
The problem with altruism is that the system punishes those who abide by it, and those who abuse it most, get the most benefit. What people have been blind to centuries is the fact is that the code of altrusism is the code of death. If one follows the code of serving the public will, or the greater good, the only reward is a disliking of all humans as they are now seen as parasites, and eventually, the "greater good" consumes the true altrusistic.
The world would be a much better place that instead of doing what society tells you, what religion permits you, is to do what one wants to fully enjoy life on our short time on earth.
Of course, do not mistake this for narcisism, which actually is a position that acknowledges that atrusim is good, however doing the opposite of this is the best way to 'work the system.' Ideally, one would do whatever one wishes, as long as it does not infringe on another's right to live, and pursue their happiness.
Basically, instead of giving, as altrusim dictates, the only way to deal with other rational individuals is through trade, where both sides standard of living improves.
If one wonders how one can have moral values without religion, or altruistic values, I invite you to read the article in the link below.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?J...a&page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Lemurnator
Banned
Megafoo Chavez said:the baby jesus butt plug.
OH MY GOD.
:lol
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Jill Sandwich said:
:rock
God, nothing is more annoying.
Trial lawyers, accountants, and the fucking tax system we have.
WHY:
Because trial lawyers and accountants are a net drain on the economy. Hell most lawyers are drain for that matter. They produce nothing, and overcomplicate everything to ensure their own job security.
Besides, I'd rather contract the black plague than see another James Sokolov commercial.
WHY:
Because trial lawyers and accountants are a net drain on the economy. Hell most lawyers are drain for that matter. They produce nothing, and overcomplicate everything to ensure their own job security.
Besides, I'd rather contract the black plague than see another James Sokolov commercial.
My anti-Rand gag reflex is kicking in as we speak. :lol As for your points:
If people were all selfish, and that selfishness were carried to its logical end (i.e., you're not just speaking of being selfish in some spheres while being selfless in others), society would not be able to function.
You're absolutely correct; this does not argue for selfishness, however-- it argues for greater altruism in society, and stricter penalties for those who manipulate, exploit, and otherwise engage in unscrupulous behavior to further their own lot in life.
So all people who are altruistic become jaded, and eventually "dislike all humans"? Highly suspect reasoning. Also, please clarify what you mean when you say that the greater good "consumes the true altruistic." (sic)
And what of those instances when one's "wants" come into conflict with another's "wants"?
Ah, but see-- you're already setting limits on the level of selfishness we can exhibit. The fact of the matter is that a renunciation of certain "selfish" desires and ends is necessary for the maintenance of civilized society. Read Hobbes if you're skeptical. The constant give and take of communal life cannot be made to be all "take," lest we dissolve the bonds of society altogether.
You do realize that the concepts of altruism and "selfishness" aren't exclusive to the economic arena, right? "Selfishness," insofar as it is (lamentably) an integral part of capitalism, is all well and good in the economic sphere-- but what of other areas of life? Interpersonally (and in the context of the broader social framework), one cannot champion an ethic of selfishness and simultaneously expect others in society to eschew their own needs and desires. For instance, say you're selling a product, and I want it but do not wish to pay for it. I decide to bludgeon you to death and take your product for myself. What then?
Well, you'd quite clearly need to have codified law, and an enforcement apparatus (such as a police force) by which to dissuade people from committing crimes against you and to apprehend those who would. You'd also need an implicit understanding among the members of society that one is not entitled to another's property just because one desires it. The point to take home is that barter is not an island unto itself; it requires a vast support structure to sustain it. Since that support structure is inherently based on selfless actions/ideals, it holds that the economic sphere should neither esteem nor countenance selfish behavior, lest it be grossly incongruent with the rest of society. Certainly each man should tend to his own success, but as a society we should strive for moderation and commensuration, and responsible, ethical behavior on the part of business towards the society which has protected its interests and allowed its very existence. And "ethical behavior" cannot include espousing a doctrine of selfishness in the midst of a society which has made every accommodation for business by way of selfless actions.
Society sustains business, both explicitly (by purchasing its wares) and implicitly (by providing the support structure necessary for business to function), not vice versa. Hence, business should always work towards furthering the ends of the society which sustains it. Not necessarily overtly, of course, as each company cannot be concerned with the larger social context at all times, but in terms of the ethic it champions and the restrictions it is subject to by society/government. Laissez-faire capitalism, of the sort advocated by Rand, is bunk; I have never heard a persuasive argument as to precisely why we should champion one set of ethics, and ask all people to be temperate (to a degree) and to renounce certain of their "natural" rights in every other sphere of society for the sake of that society, and then turn around and basically give carte blanche to businesses to do as they see fit at all times. It's inconsistent, and would not lead to a functional society (of which business is but one component, however integral).
You can see this in action all around you. As deregulation has taken root, economic stratification has increased and quality of life has deteriorated. Corporations are like parasites-- they take what they want, and once they suck all the blood from one victim (host nation), they move on to another in order to exploit them. They have no loyalty to the society which houses and protects and subsidizes them; their only allegiance is to profit, and even this source of possible leverage against their machinations (e.g., we could threaten exclusion from our market unless businesses played by the rules) is rarely used by our government-- a government that is supposed to protect the interests of the people, but instead protects the interests of big business. They seek their own ends while everyone else's hands are tied in that regard by the social contract. It's bogus.
I'm well aware of how society can be moral without the input of religion. It cannot, however, function without a certain amount of altruism (i.e., selfless behavior), as has been amply demonstrated.
I'll pass on the Rand link if it's alright with you-- I've had about enough of her for one lifetime.
If people were all selfish, and that selfishness were carried to its logical end (i.e., you're not just speaking of being selfish in some spheres while being selfless in others), society would not be able to function.
You're absolutely correct; this does not argue for selfishness, however-- it argues for greater altruism in society, and stricter penalties for those who manipulate, exploit, and otherwise engage in unscrupulous behavior to further their own lot in life.
So all people who are altruistic become jaded, and eventually "dislike all humans"? Highly suspect reasoning. Also, please clarify what you mean when you say that the greater good "consumes the true altruistic." (sic)
And what of those instances when one's "wants" come into conflict with another's "wants"?
Ah, but see-- you're already setting limits on the level of selfishness we can exhibit.
The fact of the matter is that a renunciation of certain "selfish" desires and ends is necessary for the maintenance of civilized society. Read Hobbes if you're skeptical. The constant give and take of communal life cannot be made to be all "take," lest we dissolve the bonds of society altogether.You do realize that the concepts of altruism and "selfishness" aren't exclusive to the economic arena, right? "Selfishness," insofar as it is (lamentably) an integral part of capitalism, is all well and good in the economic sphere-- but what of other areas of life? Interpersonally (and in the context of the broader social framework), one cannot champion an ethic of selfishness and simultaneously expect others in society to eschew their own needs and desires. For instance, say you're selling a product, and I want it but do not wish to pay for it. I decide to bludgeon you to death and take your product for myself. What then?
Well, you'd quite clearly need to have codified law, and an enforcement apparatus (such as a police force) by which to dissuade people from committing crimes against you and to apprehend those who would. You'd also need an implicit understanding among the members of society that one is not entitled to another's property just because one desires it. The point to take home is that barter is not an island unto itself; it requires a vast support structure to sustain it. Since that support structure is inherently based on selfless actions/ideals, it holds that the economic sphere should neither esteem nor countenance selfish behavior, lest it be grossly incongruent with the rest of society. Certainly each man should tend to his own success, but as a society we should strive for moderation and commensuration, and responsible, ethical behavior on the part of business towards the society which has protected its interests and allowed its very existence. And "ethical behavior" cannot include espousing a doctrine of selfishness in the midst of a society which has made every accommodation for business by way of selfless actions.
Society sustains business, both explicitly (by purchasing its wares) and implicitly (by providing the support structure necessary for business to function), not vice versa. Hence, business should always work towards furthering the ends of the society which sustains it. Not necessarily overtly, of course, as each company cannot be concerned with the larger social context at all times, but in terms of the ethic it champions and the restrictions it is subject to by society/government. Laissez-faire capitalism, of the sort advocated by Rand, is bunk; I have never heard a persuasive argument as to precisely why we should champion one set of ethics, and ask all people to be temperate (to a degree) and to renounce certain of their "natural" rights in every other sphere of society for the sake of that society, and then turn around and basically give carte blanche to businesses to do as they see fit at all times. It's inconsistent, and would not lead to a functional society (of which business is but one component, however integral).
You can see this in action all around you. As deregulation has taken root, economic stratification has increased and quality of life has deteriorated. Corporations are like parasites-- they take what they want, and once they suck all the blood from one victim (host nation), they move on to another in order to exploit them. They have no loyalty to the society which houses and protects and subsidizes them; their only allegiance is to profit, and even this source of possible leverage against their machinations (e.g., we could threaten exclusion from our market unless businesses played by the rules) is rarely used by our government-- a government that is supposed to protect the interests of the people, but instead protects the interests of big business. They seek their own ends while everyone else's hands are tied in that regard by the social contract. It's bogus.
I'm well aware of how society can be moral without the input of religion. It cannot, however, function without a certain amount of altruism (i.e., selfless behavior), as has been amply demonstrated.
I'll pass on the Rand link if it's alright with you-- I've had about enough of her for one lifetime.
For all those saying religion: I think that's a really bad answer. For all the irrational war and persecution that's come from religion, I think psychologically and socially it works on the same level as any other Us vs. Them conflict, rooted in ethnicity, nationality, culture, etc. The tribal mentality.
I don't think you can point to a single invention or social construct that created a lot of suffering in the long run, that wasn't either inevitable, or in the place of something very much like it. Someone was going to figure out gunpowder. Someone was going to split the atom. As bad as Hitler was, I don't think Germany was on a rosy road without his particular brand of fascism.
In re: Gorgie, there are two main problems with Randroid attacks on altruism: 1) they are wrong, and 2) they are crazy. Details:
A) It pretends that its moral philosophy is "objective." No. Moral philosophy is not physics. We are not governed by objective moral truths that await our discovery.
B) If private property and contracts are enforced, but other social controls on wealth are abandoned, a tiny portion of people will become very rich, and a very large portion of people will remain very miserable.
C) The argument that altruism creates misanthropy is crazy (it's also something that, if true, would be provable by studies, rather than by mere assertion). On the other hand, reading posts like Gorgie's may create misanthropy.
D) Of course the system rewards and punishes people who don't deserve it, either going by your personal judgment of deserts, or by the people who created the system. This is true for every society that's ever existed, and I double-doggy-dare you to point me to a libertarian utopia that worked out to be within a parsec of a perfect meritocracy.
Loki, if you keep using the word "temperence" in your posts like this, I'm going to start visualizing you as a turn-of-the-century woman in a poofy dress marching for prohibition. As opposed to now, when I visualize you as sort of an Oogie-Boogie man stuffed not with insects and arachnids, but with adverbs and gerunds.
I don't think you can point to a single invention or social construct that created a lot of suffering in the long run, that wasn't either inevitable, or in the place of something very much like it. Someone was going to figure out gunpowder. Someone was going to split the atom. As bad as Hitler was, I don't think Germany was on a rosy road without his particular brand of fascism.
In re: Gorgie, there are two main problems with Randroid attacks on altruism: 1) they are wrong, and 2) they are crazy. Details:
A) It pretends that its moral philosophy is "objective." No. Moral philosophy is not physics. We are not governed by objective moral truths that await our discovery.
B) If private property and contracts are enforced, but other social controls on wealth are abandoned, a tiny portion of people will become very rich, and a very large portion of people will remain very miserable.
C) The argument that altruism creates misanthropy is crazy (it's also something that, if true, would be provable by studies, rather than by mere assertion). On the other hand, reading posts like Gorgie's may create misanthropy.
D) Of course the system rewards and punishes people who don't deserve it, either going by your personal judgment of deserts, or by the people who created the system. This is true for every society that's ever existed, and I double-doggy-dare you to point me to a libertarian utopia that worked out to be within a parsec of a perfect meritocracy.
Loki, if you keep using the word "temperence" in your posts like this, I'm going to start visualizing you as a turn-of-the-century woman in a poofy dress marching for prohibition. As opposed to now, when I visualize you as sort of an Oogie-Boogie man stuffed not with insects and arachnids, but with adverbs and gerunds.
Ihateyouchris
Member
The worst human invention is the concept of communties. Our need to be a part of a group also fuels our hatred of other groups. This creates racism, nationalism, and religious persecution on a large scale, and completely fucks us up on a small scale with peer pressure, gangs, and a host of other problems. To be together we isolate ourselves, HOORAY!!!!
Mandark said:
What can I say, Mandark-- my vocabulary is limited.
Oh, and I'm partial to gerunds, myself, though cross-dressing has always struck me as somewhat appealing. Good points, btw.
EDIT:
And I'm definitely not stuffed with insects or other chitinous creatures-- I'd sooner run for the hills than confront one of those dreaded monstrosities. Earlier, there was a ladybug in my room (God knows how it got there). Instead of just squashing it, or putting it on my finger and releasing it elsewhere (since you're not supposed to kill ladybugs), I stood there with a clump of tissues preparing myself mentally to take a swipe at it. Took me a good minute or so to muster the courage, since I was afraid it would fall off my shades and I wouldn't be able to find it before I got it. I finally summoned the will to make my move, and that was that. But it was a harrowing ordeal.
I'm 6'1"/220, for reference. :/
Nah, man. Communities are a great tool for getting people to care about each other.
I'd argue that some of the biggest humanitarian advances have come from convincing people that bigger, more inclusive groups constitute communities, rather than convincing them to drop the idea of communities.
Of course, there is something to be said for Ronald Reagan's fascination with a world-uniting alien invasion.
I'd argue that some of the biggest humanitarian advances have come from convincing people that bigger, more inclusive groups constitute communities, rather than convincing them to drop the idea of communities.
Of course, there is something to be said for Ronald Reagan's fascination with a world-uniting alien invasion.
Ihateyouchris
Member
Mandark said:
Well, its a double edged sword, communities do help *themselves*. That help can then be used universally. But yeah, alien invasion is the only way we can have world peace, then humanity could allow itself to feel whole.
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
Reality tv: This is without a doubt the worst drivel on television.
Satellite tv and internet: If it rains, it goes down. If a bird perches on the dish, it goes down. If the wind so much as blows the wrong way one day, it goes down. This always happens at the most inopportune of times as well -- aRgH!!
Satellite tv and internet: If it rains, it goes down. If a bird perches on the dish, it goes down. If the wind so much as blows the wrong way one day, it goes down. This always happens at the most inopportune of times as well -- aRgH!!
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
pseudo intellectuals who blindly blame psuedo intellectuals who blindly blame religion for the worlds problems.
Okay, i admit, i'm sick to fucking death of religion.
Scout goes missing and is found alive? God saved him
Marine goes for pudding thus avoid death, whilst all his friends die ? God saved him
Stem cell research? No, god would like that!
Teri shavio ? God eers on the side of life! She's ALIVE!
prevention of AIDS? Follow God, abstain!
The Grand Canyon? Oh, that would be god too!
Science grant? are you inline with the cristian line of the president? No? oh, then it's not on!
FUCKING CREATIONISM, yes, if that's taught in schools, then so should scientology.
etc etc...
Okay, i admit, i'm sick to fucking death of religion.
Scout goes missing and is found alive? God saved him
Marine goes for pudding thus avoid death, whilst all his friends die ? God saved him
Stem cell research? No, god would like that!
Teri shavio ? God eers on the side of life! She's ALIVE!
prevention of AIDS? Follow God, abstain!
The Grand Canyon? Oh, that would be god too!
Science grant? are you inline with the cristian line of the president? No? oh, then it's not on!
FUCKING CREATIONISM, yes, if that's taught in schools, then so should scientology.
etc etc...
MetalAlien
Banned
DCharlie said:
The biggest problem I have with Religion is that each (of the 1000s of different flavors) insist that only theirs must be true and all others must be false. What intelligent person could work like that? Science doesn't work like that, it's extremely cautious anbd relies are multiple conformations before even announcing the possiblity a theory suggests something MAY be true.... Religion says "THIS" is absolute and everyhting else is absolutely false. That's crazy, only crazy people think like that. Saying you're a profoundly relgious person is siding with insanity...
One of them may very well be true, but at least say you believe one of them is true (without knowing which one) instead of selecting the one that offends you the least.. It's the only way to have the slightest bit of sincerity..
"I believe in god but can't hope to know the path to him, I shall remain in faith of his exsistence without pursuing him as there is no way to know how to do that. Try not to be a dick to each other..."
That's the only creedo that's not hypocritical, in that it allows all beliefs to co exsit.
fortified_concept
Banned
Fight for Freeform said:
1%? You are soooo wrong.
I'll tell you why I personally despise religion.
First of all religions and in patricular the jewish-christian one have put human scientific development on hold for at least 1000-1500 years. Did you ever wonder why the Greek-Roman scientific and other advances (math, physics, philosophy, geometry etc etc) stopped just after the spread of the christian religion? Maybe it's a coincidense, maybe it's because christians were lynching anyone who dared to prove wrong their insane dogmas through his findings.
Also a couple of things that religion defines as dirty forbidden or taboo: Sex, nudity, homosexuality. What the fuck is wrong with these things and why the fuck they are immoral I will NEVER EVER understand. Seriously it's really pissing me off.
A couple of things religion helped promote: War (kill the infidels - and it's not a catch phrase only Muslims use, christians used A LOT during the past, Crusades for example), violence (slaughtering of "idolaters" during the byzantium days, heretics witches etc etc etc during the Dark ages, Midle East etc etc).
And I'm just scratching the surface because I'm really busy today...
karasu
Member
WWI, WWII, Vietnam, none of those wars were fought over religion! The A Bomb wasn't created by a bunch of religious crazies. Neither was Heroin or AIDS! We don't have wars because of religion, we have wars, and violence in general, because humans are stupid. We'll fight over any idea we think holds true. So instead of saying that religion is the worst invention, you may as well say Ideas are. All Ideas. Better yet blame culture. Blame skin color. Blame short skirts. Blame geography. People fight over spilled milk, literally. It's not religion, dweebs. Your every day religious person doesn't even have the power to start a war.
The school system. The idea of putting 20 or more children in a room with a stranger and expecting that stranger to work hard so that other people's kids become successful isn't working too well.
I'm hoping those IBM commercials become a reality. It would be nice if my kids (if I ever have any) could learn from home sweet home. Maybe in the future, kids will be able to switch teachers or texts just by clicking a button on a browser.
Then I can scare them with some good stories: "When I was your age, teachers would keep me after class even when I did nothing wrong. It was ok back then for a teacher to get her/his jollies by punishing the entire class if just one kid was misbehaving."
I'm hoping those IBM commercials become a reality. It would be nice if my kids (if I ever have any) could learn from home sweet home. Maybe in the future, kids will be able to switch teachers or texts just by clicking a button on a browser.
Then I can scare them with some good stories: "When I was your age, teachers would keep me after class even when I did nothing wrong. It was ok back then for a teacher to get her/his jollies by punishing the entire class if just one kid was misbehaving."
"When I was a kid, if you talked back to a teacher they would take a belt out of their desk and whip your ass with it, then call up your parents and watch them whip your ass in front of the class. After one of those you better believe you never talked back to a teacher again"kernel said:
Oh yeah, I forgot a few:
World Peace- world peace? Get the fuck outta' here with that silly-ass shit. Human history is the proof in the pudding that humans will NEVER be peaceful. If you don't believe me, open up a history text and take a gander.
Donald Trump- I find his hair very disturbing.
Political Correctness
the Bahai faith or anything related to all of this "one-world" bullshit that's squeezing the middle class in this country (US) into non-existance.
World Peace- world peace? Get the fuck outta' here with that silly-ass shit. Human history is the proof in the pudding that humans will NEVER be peaceful. If you don't believe me, open up a history text and take a gander.
Donald Trump- I find his hair very disturbing.
Political Correctness
the Bahai faith or anything related to all of this "one-world" bullshit that's squeezing the middle class in this country (US) into non-existance.
- Status