Support NeoGAF

[DMczaf]

:lol

But seriously, worst invention is probably Air Jordans. They make people kill!

I remember when SNL did a skit with OJ, the guy playing OJ was wearing Air Jordan XIIs :lol

 

[pollo]

did you guys see that south park where they teach officer barbrady to read?
In the end he goes back to being illiterate when he's forced to read Atlas Shrugged :lol

That was some funny shit - my girlfriend didn't find it all too amusing.

I did. :lol

 

[Deleted member 4784]

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...

IMO, people become intoxicated by their own perception of what they believe to be "absolute truth." Truth of life's meaning is a personal thing, but being that it is human nature to be egocentric, we tend to either subject or force our own personal beliefs upon each other. We also have an inclination towards finding others who do not share the same beliefs as ourselves to be of some inferiority, or worthy of pity in the form of "conversion." This is the case not only with religious groups such as Christians, but even those that adhere to non-beliefs, such as Atheists (who openly condemn most religious denominations or thought processes contrary to their own). Atheism is equally to blame for bloodshed throughout history. If we were to do away with our judgmental human nature, there would be a lot less bloodshed in the world than if we were to do away with religion alone. There are many abused causes that have taken place in history apart from religion, such as Nationalism.

 

[Boogie]

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.

Just because the past is filled with countless wars does not necessarily mean the future is bound in the same fate.

History has lessons for the future, but it does not predict it.

 

[Leon]

War, blood, death, and this guy

 

[Phoenix]

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 conforma

Have you ever done scientific research at the post graduate or professional level because what you say here is nonsense. There are scientists the world over who swear that their way is the only way something could happen, especially in the fields of theoretical physics.

 

[Phoenix]

Only to empower the ones that do with religious arguments. How fewer wars do you think there might have been if the soldiers and their supporters didn't have that little spark of inspiration that God was on their side?

Rhetorical bullshit, sorry. Most wars in recent memory have been started for socioeconomic reasons that anything else and the assholes at the top USE religion to get the people to go along with it.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

How fewer wars do you think there might have been if the soldiers and their supporters didn't have that little spark of inspiration that God was on their side?

Yeah just like if women were the dominant sex there would be NO war. :lol

 

[MetalAlien]

Have you ever done scientific research at the post graduate or professional level because what you say here is nonsense. There are scientists the world over who swear that their way is the only way something could happen, especially in the fields of theoretical physics.

Yea but most are very careful.. and then it's all theory, noone ever says it is what it is and nothing else can be true. They say all current models support "their" theory. All you need is one sound model to disagree with a theory and any reasonable scienctist goes back to the drawing board.

I'm not saying they're aren't fanatics in science. I'm saying the rules they claim to follow are designed to insure complete objectivity.

 

[HokieJoe]

Just because the past is filled with countless wars does not necessarily mean the future is bound in the same fate.

History has lessons for the future, but it does not predict it.

History is the best predictor of the future. Just like prior job performance is the best predictor of future job performance. Of course there are confounding variables; and there may be some examples of cultures who do not war; but they're few are FAR between.

You could've made the same statement 100 years ago. If you fast-forwarded 100 years to contemporary times, your argument may make logical sense; but it would have practically no bearing to reality.

 

[Lemurnator]

The liberal media.

 

[Phoenix]

Yea but most are very careful.. and then it's all theory, noone ever says it is what it is and nothing else can be true. They say all current models support "their" theory. All you need is one sound model to disagree with a theory and any reasonable scienctist goes back to the drawing board.

I'm not saying they're aren't fanatics in science. I'm saying the rules they claim to follow are designed to insure complete objectivity.

Right.

I'll just pick the most recent outlandish example. Researchers at Lawrence Livermore have stated that not only do Black Holes NOT exist, they CANNOT exist. This despite other researchers in that area suggesting that that they HAVE to exist.

I am always amazed at the people here who think that scientists just sit there stuff in an equation and then the debate is over. Ludicrous.

 

[Phoenix]

History is the best predictor of the future. Just like prior job performance is the best predictor of future job performance. Of course there are confounding variables; and there may be some examples of cultures who do not war; but they're few are FAR between.

History is not a "predictor" of anything. History is a series of events that happened due to very particular circumstances at a very particular point in time. As soon as that point in time has past, there aren't even any guarantees that history would have unfolded in the same way that it did.

If history were that good of a predictor, roughly 25% of the United States would be unemployed right now because it would be going through a Great Depression again.

 

[fortified_concept]

Have you ever done scientific research at the post graduate or professional level because what you say here is nonsense. There are scientists the world over who swear that their way is the only way something could happen, especially in the fields of theoretical physics.

At least they don't tell you that you'll burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe their theories. On the other hand religions use the element of fear to control their followers all the time.

IMO, people become intoxicated by their own perception of what they believe to be "absolute truth." Truth of life's meaning is a personal thing, but being that it is human nature to be egocentric, we tend to either subject or force our own personal beliefs upon each other. We also have an inclination towards finding others who do not share the same beliefs as ourselves to be of some inferiority, or worthy of pity in the form of "conversion." This is the case not only with religious groups such as Christians, but even those that adhere to non-beliefs, such as Atheists (who openly condemn most religious denominations or thought processes contrary to their own). Atheism is equally to blame for bloodshed throughout history. If we were to do away with our judgmental human nature, there would be a lot less bloodshed in the world than if we were to do away with religion alone. There are many abused causes that have taken place in history apart from religion, such as Nationalism.

First of all I don't recall any atheists killing religious people during the course of history. I see a lot of them considering religious people dumb and generally not respecting their opinion which is bad, but never killing them.

Second like I said, religion uses the element of fear which motivates people more than any belief in the world and that's the problem. And btw I pretty much despise Nationalism as much as religion. Watching people killing their own species because they belong in a different gang (or nation - call it whatever you want) is as ridiculous as killing them because they don't worship the same gods or goddesses as they do. Problem is, usually, religion fanaticizes people more than anything, even nationalism, and that's why nationalism uses religion to prevail while religion never used nationalism to survive.

 

[kablooey]

Adevrtisements. I'm a firm believer that unchecked mass marketing and advertisements are the tools by which culture, and by large the western world are controlled.

Look at Crazy Frog. The company responsible for that reprehensible campaign is getting sued for buying record numbers of ad slots. Instead of public outrage at being subjected to an endless stream of jingles, the public responds by making the products the ads shill so popular and profitable that any legal action brought against the company can't possibly punish them enough to hurt their revenue stream.

And that's small potatoes. Advertising (in general) has a great desensitizing effect on the masses. Being forced to look at corporate art for hours every day distances one from the human culture that needs to be reinvigorated, badly. But hey, why worry about developing a culture when we could buy it, plug it in, and replace it when the parts mysteriously break a year down the line?

I'd say that's more a result of our current "free-market" capitalism, which would be one of my top few choices for this thread.

The others, obviously, would be the atomic bomb, and religion. Along with the Segway.

 

[Phoenix]

At least they don't tell you that you'll burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe their theories. On the other hand religions use the element of fear to control their followers all the time.

Oh how the teachings of history have failed in school again Go back and read up history during the "world is flat" period.

Second, most religions don't have a concept of 'hell' so you've failed since you apparently only know about Christianity.

First of all I don't recall any atheists killing religious people during the course of history. I see a lot considering religious people dump and generally not respecting their opinion which is bad, but never killing them.

Yeah, feeding Christians to lions and stuff....


The problem is that you apparently know little about 'religion' just what you've kinda theorized about it based on your observations. Just like most people here know nothing about the 'media' but think that its their job to 'save them from the evils of government and society'.

 

[fortified_concept]

Oh how the teachings of history have failed in school again Go back and read up history during the "world is flat" period.

Second, most religions don't have a concept of 'hell' so you've failed since you apparently only know about Christianity.

All have the element of fear either it is hell for christians and muslims, purgatory, reincarnation as something awful, Tartarus etc etc.

Yeah, feeding Christians to lions and stuff....


The problem is that you apparently know little about 'religion' just what you've kinda theorized about it based on your observations. Just like most people here know nothing about the 'media' but think that its their job to 'save them from the evils of government and society'.

So you're telling me that Romans were atheists and then you call me ignorant about the subject?

PS. Romans believed in the twelve Gods of Olympus and other divinities.

 

[MetalAlien]

Right.

I'll just pick the most recent outlandish example. Researchers at Lawrence Livermore have stated that not only do Black Holes NOT exist, they CANNOT exist. This despite other researchers in that area suggesting that that they HAVE to exist.

I am always amazed at the people here who think that scientists just sit there stuff in an equation and then the debate is over. Ludicrous.

I said there are some fanatics in science.

I'm amazed at the sheer number of jackasses like yourself who prowl the web waiting for that one moment you can swoop in to try and discredit a post while adding nothing.

Remember Cold Fusion? Someones theory that could not be replicated, they couldn't create a model others could test that would replicate their work, so it was shot down.

Scientology, make up whatever we want, evidence be damned.

Science wins.

 

[MetalAlien]

History is not a "predictor" of anything. History is a series of events that happened due to very particular circumstances at a very particular point in time. As soon as that point in time has past, there aren't even any guarantees that history would have unfolded in the same way that it did.

If history were that good of a predictor, roughly 25% of the United States would be unemployed right now because it would be going through a Great Depression again.

Holy shit, that's the dumbest thing I've seen a pseudo intellectual post in a while. History is the great teacher, to ignore it is to be doomed to repeat it.

 

[Phoenix]

All have the element of fear either it is hell for christians and muslims, purgatory, reincarnation as something awful, Tartarus etc etc.

Cool - where is hell in Buddhism. Or what about the Native Americans, where is their hell - what do they scare you with?

So you're telling me that Romans were atheists and then you call me ignorant about the subject?

PS. Romans believed in the twelve Gods of Olympus and other divinities.

You're thinking perhaps of the Holy Roman Empire, go back about 250 years

 

[Phoenix]

Holy shit, that's the dumbest thing I've seen a pseudo intellectual post in a while. History is the great teacher, to ignore it is to be doomed to repeat it.

You must have been reading your post when you wrote that. History is a TEACHER, it is not a PREDICTOR. You learn lessons from history. If history was a predictor the same result would always happen for a given set of circumstances - and that's not the case.

Try again.

 

[Phoenix]

I said there are some fanatics in science.

I'm amazed at the sheer number of jackasses like yourself who prowl the web waiting for that one moment you can swoop in to try and discredit a post while adding nothing.

As opposed to jackasses like yourself who add half truths and bullshit while contributing nothing but assinine rhetoric to a thread? Whatever :rolleyes.

The point you still miss is that much of the non high school level science is science THEORY, not science LAW. There is a difference, look it up. Much of the THEORIES for advanced science are not even remotely provable right now and won't be for some time. For example, there was recently a discovery by scientists who claimed that they had found particles that travelled faster that the speed of light - but there isn't yet a capability to actually prove that what they discovered was travelling faster than or at the speed of light or whether or not it was some phenom yet discovered (because we are still discovering things).

There are things which violate our common understandings of physics so we try to make them fit and come up with explanations for them until we can 'prove' these things. These people defend their theories with vigor especially while we have no way to disprove them.

 

[fortified_concept]

Cool - where is hell in Buddhism. Or what about the Native Americans, where is their hell - what do they scare you with?

You're thinking perhaps of the Holy Roman Empire, go back about 250 years

Nope. Actually Romans treated atheism with the death penalty. As for the first part I'm not gonna analyse every religion. Just fyi native americans didn't want to make the spirits angry or something iirc as for Buddhists it's reincarnation as I previously said. And for the record Buddhism looks harmless compared to the trio hardcore: Jewism-Christianity-Islam.

 

[FightyF]

1%? You are soooo wrong.

I said LESS than one percent. For example, say Muslim radicals who are militant, who number in the hundreds of thousands at the maximum. Out of a Billion people that is less than one percent. There would have to be TEN times that amount of militants to equal 1 percent.

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.

But then the Muslims were the ones that translated them and advanced on them with thier own books, which ventured into flight and advanced dentistry back in the 1300s.

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.

Because the Abrahamic religions are based on laws that guide humankind for a better life on Earth. You don't have to agree with it, I'm just telling you so you understand their perspective. Laws mean boundaries on what a person can and can't do. The 10 Commandments are a good example. Tell me, do you think following the 10 Commandments is a good idea for a person? Whether you are agnostic or athiest, following a few of them make sense and do a lot of good.

These laws affect many facets of human life...and I think the ones in particular that you have beef with are the ones that affect social life.

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).

Just because religion was USED (in this case ABUSED) by political leaders doesn't make it bad itself. This is why I'm saying that the logic is completely wrong for those blaming religion.

As I said before, nationalism has been used for the exact same purpose. Race has been used as well. Look at the last 100 years...how many conflicts started because of religion?

Take for example, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It exists for the most part because there are Zionists (which only came about 100 years ago) who say they must have the whole area at all costs. Then there are Jews like Rabbi David Wiess who say that they shouldn't kill for it, God will give it to them. To blame the occupation of Palestine on Judaism would be 100% wrong. Radicals who are also extremely ultra-nationalistic are the ones causing the problems. The same applies to the Palestinian side, most people who don't want to see an Israel to begin with are extremely nationalistic, and try to use religion to boost their support.

There are concepts in the Abrahamic relgions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) such as "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" which speak about Justice and Patience. Now, it's really easy for someone to take "an eye for an eye" out of context and turn it into Revenge. Most violence is simply this...revenge. Terrorist say it's justice. But only when looking at the religions will you see they are wrong.

And I think blaming religion gives a whole lot of credibility to militants of any faith. They want to be seen as the religious example when they are not. This is another issue...but it blurs the line between what is religion as a practice, and what is religion being used as a political tool for support.

 

[U.2.K. Tha Greate$t]

What is the worst human invention?

Guns.

 

[puck1337]

Agriculture

 

[Phoenix]

Nope. Actually Romans treated atheism with the death penalty.

What? Perhaps towards the end of the Roman Empire when religious tolerance went out the window, but during the "First Phase"(753 BC to 500 BC) and into the "Second Phase"(500 BC to 313 AD) when Rome was pretty much inheriting Greek religion and mythology and forming its own state religion Romans did not have an issue with atheist. Hell the only reason they had a major problem with Christians was that they wouldn't acknowledge the emperor as a living god.

Just fyi native americans didn't want to make the spirits angry or something iirc.

I know for certain that for the Chocktaw and Cherokee that is false. They had no concept of 'afterlife'.

 

[fortified_concept]

What? Perhaps towards the end of the Roman Empire when religious tolerance went out the window, but during the "First Phase"(753 BC to 500 BC) and into the "Second Phase"(500 BC to 313 AD) when Rome was pretty much inheriting Greek religion and mythology and forming its own state religion Romans did not have an issue with atheist. Hell the only reason they had a major problem with Christians was that they wouldn't acknowledge the emperor as a living god.

Don't make me google it. Romans always believed in various Greek gods even before 500 BC. They were never atheists. If you insist of course I will google it.

I know for certain that for the Chocktaw and Cherokee that is false. They had no concept of 'afterlife'.

That was a trick question. There were so many tribes and religions during that time. I knew I shouldn't have answered that. Anyway as I said I'm not gonna analyze every religion. If some of them were not based on fear they would obviously be a lot less dangerous.

edit: Hell I couldn't resist. There's your link about the Romans:

http://library.thinkquest.org/26907/religion.htm

The First Phase (753 BC to 500 BC) - The first phase of Roman religion dated from the founding of the city to the early republic. This phase occurred before the Roman civilization had really adopted the Greek ways and so the religious practices of this time consisted of only three gods and these gods were known as the Archaic Triad. The gods of the archaic Triad were Jupiter (Jove) ,Mars and Quirinus. These gods had their Greek counterparts and would later be identified with them. Jupiter was the supreme master god and so he was associated with Zeus of Greek mythology. Ares was the god of power and war and so he was associated with his Greek counterpart, Ares and Quirinus was the god of the Roman people in general and he had no Greek counterpart. Mars was valued and worshipped more by the conquering and warlike Romans than Ares was to the Greeks and ,as a result, he had The Fields of Mars named after him. The Fields of Mars was located outside of Rome and it is where the soldiers would train.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

If some of them were not based on fear they would obviously be a lot less dangerous.

So by your logic all laws are dangerous.

 

[DopeyFish]

Remove religion and you remove government and laws. Religion is basically one method of control and a guide. Take it away and you have anarchy. It's one thing to hate it now, but to wish it never existing is quite narrowminded.

 

[alejob]

I think sliced bread is overated.

 

[Zaptruder]

Religion is very much a part of human nature... it's entangled into what makes us human. Like the drive for languages, more often than not, groups of men left to their own devices will eventually come up with languages, and then they'll come up with among other things religion. Repeated again and again throughout the many tribes and races of the world.

It's not so much a need for a giant space overlord, so much as it is a spiritual need, or a need to feel protection from the unknown and what not, which religion can provide. It's also in some sense a function or survivability... we feel the need to survive so much that we begin to rationalise that, yes there is an afterlife and that's where we go.

What is more difficult for people... is to reject the idea of religion, so it's arguable that as a people we've had to progress more in order to blunt the power of religion or remove it altogether... well we still have some more to progress for the latter to happen.

 

[Phoenix]

edit: Hell I couldn't resist. There's your link about the Romans:

http://library.thinkquest.org/26907/religion.htm

Where in there do they kill athiest again?

 

[fortified_concept]

Where in there do they kill athiest again?

Oh c'mon. I prooved you wrong and now you moved the subject to an entirely different direction. I'm not even gonna waste time to google it, it doesn't even matter. You claimed that Romans were atheists to prove my point (that atheists have never killed anyone to enforce their beliefs) wrong. You were incorrect. End of discussion.

 

[HokieJoe]

History is not a "predictor" of anything. History is a series of events that happened due to very particular circumstances at a very particular point in time. As soon as that point in time has past, there aren't even any guarantees that history would have unfolded in the same way that it did.

If history were that good of a predictor, roughly 25% of the United States would be unemployed right now because it would be going through a Great Depression again.

If history was a predictor the same result would always happen for a given set of circumstances - and that's not the case.

Phoenix, you and I have different scopes.

Irrespective of the condition or circumstances, history proves that humans have a predilection to war. I'm not saying that everything unfolds exactly as some prior event or time in history may once have. As well, I’m not talking about some parallel universe here; what I'm speaking to is the tendency of people to war given the many examples of it throughout human history. I’m talking about human tendencies and their relevance to predicting the future WRT war.

Our tendency to war, which is evident throughout history, IS A VERY GOOD PREDICTOR that nothing will change in the future because it has been a constant of the human condition since recorded history began. It is a constant of the human condition, and history proves as such- unequivocally.

 

[Phoenix]

Oh c'mon. I prooved you wrong and now you moved the subject to an entirely different direction. I'm not even gonna waste time to google it, it doesn't even matter. You claimed that Romans were atheists to prove my point (that atheists have never killed anyone to enforce their beliefs) wrong. You were incorrect. End of discussion.

The Romans weren't theists according to the current meaning

If anything, the Romans had a practical attitude to religion, as to most things, which perhaps explains why they themselves had difficulty in taking to the idea of a single, all-seeing, all-powerful god.
In so far as the Romans had a religion of their own, it was not based on any central belief, but on a mixture of fragmented rituals, taboos, superstitions, and traditions which they collected over the years from a number of sources.
To the Romans, religion was less a spiritual experience than a contractual relationship between mankind and the forces which were believed to control people's existence and well-being.

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html


Anyways, I was responding to your statement :

Nope. Actually Romans treated atheism with the death penalty. As for the first part I'm not gonna analyse every religion. Just fyi native americans didn't want to make the spirits angry or something iirc as for Buddhists it's reincarnation as I previously said. And for the record Buddhism looks harmless compared to the trio hardcore: Jewism-Christianity-Islam.

Which is a statement that you have not proven and which I responded

What? Perhaps towards the end of the Roman Empire when religious tolerance went out the window, but during the "First Phase"(753 BC to 500 BC) and into the "Second Phase"(500 BC to 313 AD) when Rome was pretty much inheriting Greek religion and mythology and forming its own state religion Romans did not have an issue with atheist. Hell the only reason they had a major problem with Christians was that they wouldn't acknowledge the emperor as a living god.

So lets go back to your original statement:

First of all I don't recall any atheists killing religious people during the course of history. I see a lot considering religious people dump and generally not respecting their opinion which is bad, but never killing them.

It seems you're talking about a 'godless society'. If so the soviet empire IIRC was an athiest society and they killed religious folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Prior to its collapse in late 1991, official figures on religion in the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union were not available. But according to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially atheistic state, professed religious belief.

...

Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Propagation of atheism in schools has been another consistent policy. The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests.

Check and mate? Yeah - looks that way

 

[Deleted member 4784]

At least they don't tell you that you'll burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe their theories. On the other hand religions use the element of fear to control their followers all the time.

First of all I don't recall any atheists killing religious people during the course of history. I see a lot of them considering religious people dumb and generally not respecting their opinion which is bad, but never killing them.

Second like I said, religion uses the element of fear which motivates people more than any belief in the world and that's the problem. And btw I pretty much despise Nationalism as much as religion. Watching people killing their own species because they belong in a different gang (or nation - call it whatever you want) is as ridiculous as killing them because they don't worship the same gods or goddesses as they do. Problem is, usually, religion fanaticizes people more than anything, even nationalism, and that's why nationalism uses religion to prevail while religion never used nationalism to survive.

:lol :lol :lol

"Religion is the Opiate of the People."

I can't even begin to touch upon the bloodshed that has resulted from those words, if not the prosecution that continues as a result to this very day.

China Cry, anyone?

 

[pollo]

bread is the opium of the people.

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, you and I have different scopes.

Irrespective of the condition or circumstances, history proves that humans have a predilection to war. I'm not saying that everything unfolds exactly as some prior event or time in history may once have. As well, I’m not talking about some parallel universe here; what I'm speaking to is the tendency of people to war given the many examples of it throughout human history. I’m talking about human tendencies and their relevance to predicting the future WRT war.

Our tendency to war, which is evident throughout history, IS A VERY GOOD PREDICTOR that nothing will change in the future because it has been a constant of the human condition since recorded history began. It is a constant of the human condition, and history proves as such- unequivocally.

That's where I see a problem. We have CONFLICT as a constant of the human condition. Human beings will never be able to get away from conflict. History is a good indicator that we will continue to have conflict, but that same history shows that we are maturing to the extent where 'war' is not seen as the only solution, or even the way to resolve things. Our predisposition to war over time appears be decreasing over time counter to our historical imperative.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Religion is very much a part of human nature... it's entangled into what makes us human. Like the drive for languages, more often than not, groups of men left to their own devices will eventually come up with languages, and then they'll come up with among other things religion. Repeated again and again throughout the many tribes and races of the world.

It's not so much a need for a giant space overlord, so much as it is a spiritual need, or a need to feel protection from the unknown and what not, which religion can provide. It's also in some sense a function or survivability... we feel the need to survive so much that we begin to rationalise that, yes there is an afterlife and that's where we go.

What is more difficult for people... is to reject the idea of religion, so it's arguable that as a people we've had to progress more in order to blunt the power of religion or remove it altogether... well we still have some more to progress for the latter to happen.

Indeed. Religion is a part of humanity that never will leave. Fear of the unknown means humans will always desire, require, and turn to religion. It is also that fear that will turn different religious sects against one another. People have been killing each other over petty differences for thousands of years. Remove religion, and we'll find other differences in us that in our minds justify death and destruction.

Since religion is such an integral part of what makes us human, I would never want to remove it completely, but like others have said, it should be blunted. And, as technology and knowledge expand, the number of fanaticals will receed. Understanding is achieved through education, and education is achieved through wealth, advancement in society, and the absence of violence. Once we solve those problems on a worldwide scale, religion will be blunted, controlled, and a positive more often than not.

If there was somethign I could eliminate, it would be the nuclear bomb. Widespread killing has never been easier. Get rid of it, and a lot of the tension we're currently faced with might evaporate as well.

 

[Boogie]

Phoenix, you and I have different scopes.

Irrespective of the condition or circumstances, history proves that humans have a predilection to war. I'm not saying that everything unfolds exactly as some prior event or time in history may once have. As well, I’m not talking about some parallel universe here; what I'm speaking to is the tendency of people to war given the many examples of it throughout human history. I’m talking about human tendencies and their relevance to predicting the future WRT war.

Our tendency to war, which is evident throughout history, IS A VERY GOOD PREDICTOR that nothing will change in the future because it has been a constant of the human condition since recorded history began. It is a constant of the human condition, and history proves as such- unequivocally.

And yet, it is a poor predictor, because although war is present throughout history, international cooperation through organisations, ie. League of Nations, UN, etc. is without precedent prior to the 20th Century.

So, any conclusions you make based on this monolithic "HISTORY" would be poor, because the state of international relations of the last 75-80 is largely unprecedented to earlier times.

If you simply declare "History has shown that war is a constant of human existence and is inevitable", then you miss the important changes in history which could potentially change this "unchanging" fact of human history.

I'm not saying that means that World Peace is going to happen, I'm just urging a less simplistic use of "HISTORY".

 

[fortified_concept]

Phoenix and Waychel I'm not talking about militant atheism, I'm talking about passive which is the most common of the two kinds nowadays. Big difference there.

 

[Boogie]

Phoenix and Waychel I'm not talking about militant atheism, I'm talking about passive which is the most common of the two kinds nowadays. Big difference there.

:lol

The hell? You can't do that. You can't just pretend that they don't exist, much like religious people can't pretend that their extremists don't exist.

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix and Waychel I'm not talking about militant atheism, I'm talking about passive which is the most common of the two kinds nowadays. Big difference there.

Are there ANY societies to subscribe to passive atheism?

 

[Phoenix]

:lol

The hell? You can't do that. You can't just pretend that they don't exist, much like religious people can't pretend that their extremists don't exist.

If you take out everything that makes my position wrong, then I must be right

 

[HokieJoe]

That's where I see a problem. We have CONFLICT as a constant of the human condition. Human beings will never be able to get away from conflict. History is a good indicator that we will continue to have conflict, but that same history shows that we are maturing to the extent where 'war' is not seen as the only solution, or even the way to resolve things. Our predisposition to war over time appears be decreasing over time counter to our historical imperative.

War or CONFLICT may be reducing over time. I haven't seen any studies that would either affirm or deny that as a conclusion. My assertion has no temporal stratification. I'm only looking at human history in the aggregate.

 

[HokieJoe]

And yet, it is a poor predictor, because although war is present throughout history, international cooperation through organisations, ie. League of Nations, UN, etc. is without precedent prior to the 20th Century.

So, any conclusions you make based on this monolithic "HISTORY" would be poor, because the state of international relations of the last 75-80 is largely unprecedented to earlier times.

If you simply declare "History has shown that war is a constant of human existence and is inevitable", then you miss the important changes in history which could potentially change this "unchanging" fact of human history.

I'm not saying that means that World Peace is going to happen, I'm just urging a less simplistic use of "HISTORY".

Yet, if you pre-date that 75-80 years by roughly 10 years you'd have the following wars:

WWI- resulted in the League of Nations
WWII- resulted in the UN
Korean War
Vietnam War
Russian/Afghanistan War
Gulf War 1
Gulf War 2

These are just the most notable conflicts. It doesn't even include Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, the Sudan, or one of the worst of the latter half of this century- Cambodia. Pol Pot slaughtered roughly 2 million Cambodians after the Americans left Vietnam. It wasn't a war per se- it was total genocide.

I understand what you're saying so point taken. However, I'm skeptical that international cooperation will make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I think it may help solve minor conflicts, but never wide scale conflicts.

Imagine the shit-storm that would brake loose should China ever march on Taiwan? Or even worse, what if China marched on the Middle East to feed it's ever-burgeoning need for oil?

Of course those are hypotheticals that probably will never materialize. Nevertheless, should they, world governing bodies would likely hold no sway over such powerful circumstances other than to get together and agree to kick the shit out of China.

 

[Zaptruder]

If there was somethign I could eliminate, it would be the nuclear bomb. Widespread killing has never been easier. Get rid of it, and a lot of the tension we're currently faced with might evaporate as well.

You know, despite the fear that we have of the nuclear bomb... it has been relatively effective in its task, preventing large scale, world war type wars from breaking out. Of course, if a large scale war does break out, then the nuclear bomb will be pretty apt at making sure the casualties are the best ever!

 

[Boogie]

Yet, if you pre-date that 75-80 years by roughly 10 years you'd have the following wars:

WWI- resulted in the League of Nations
WWII- resulted in the UN
Korean War
Vietnam War
Russian/Afghanistan War
Gulf War 1
Gulf War 2

These are just the most notable conflicts. It doesn't even include Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, the Sudan, or one of the worst of the latter half of this century- Cambodia. Pol Pot slaughtered roughly 2 million Cambodians after the Americans left Vietnam. It wasn't a war per se- it was total genocide.

I understand what you're saying so point taken. However, I'm skeptical that international cooperation will make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I think it may help solve minor conflicts, but never wide scale conflicts.

Imagine the shit-storm that would brake loose should China ever march on Taiwan? Or even worse, what if China marched on the Middle East to feed it's ever-burgeoning need for oil?

Of course those are hypotheticals that probably will never materialize. Nevertheless, should they, world governing bodies would likely hold no sway over such powerful circumstances other than to get together and agree to kick the shit out of China.

Good points. I don't know how I feel about that issue one way or another, I just don't like to see people wielding History like some blunt instrument, declaring that it "Proves" something without detailing why they think it proves something.

 

[HokieJoe]

Phoenix and Waychel I'm not talking about militant atheism, I'm talking about passive which is the most common of the two kinds nowadays. Big difference there.

So passive atheists outnumber agressive atheists? How does one quantify such a thing? In fact how does one even go about qualitatively defining whether one is a passive or agressive atheist?

Sorry dude, I'm just jivin' with ya' here- I know what you're trying to communicate. OTOH, I have to agree with Waychel and Phoenix on this one.