a moral arguement against theism

[Jenyar]

Godlessness.

Can you substantiate that?

What? I don't know what your're saying but the effects of god has been homo-sapiens not behaving as they naturally instinctually would be behaving if the god concept never popped up. It effected human culture, now certain behaviours are considered "wrong", when in reality they are essential to the health of the species and planet. Fighting over territory being an excellent example.

To some people, fights over territory is one of the prime arguments against God, and you say it is natural? Unless I misunderstand you.

Is peace natural or not?

There you go, you're a perfect example of a ruined human.

In that case, thank you!

Trick people like you into believing in "sin".

People aren't that stupid. Most can discern between good and evil without much help. But if I understand you correctly, your perspective is surprising. What do you think about chaos and anarchy?

Are you paying attention? Thats exactly what I'm pissed off at.
Every animal behaves the way it does for a reason, that behaviour pattern is what its environment is used to. If the behaviour is altered the environment suffers.

What weighs more in those reasons for behaviour? Life or death? Won't the environment get used to whatever nature produces?

That actually brings me to my real question: do you believe nature can produce anything that is unnatural?

If we put electrodes on all the 'bananas' in a forest inhabited by chimps we'd gradually see an environmental problem emerge. Human society was loaded with invisible electrodes due to god's threats.
Now the whole world is experiencing the hugest environmental disaster in history. And its all because of the behaviour of human beings being altered by "god".

And the last Ice Age was a walk in the park? What about the extinction of dinosaurs, before humans were even around? What God "altered" was relationships under circumstances - any circumstances. He freed us from being slaves to nature, and being dry leaves swept away by a flood of death.

All these "sins" are in your head, planted there with lies based on garbage. They aren't real. There is nothing inherently wrong with the homo-sapien, it didn't need to be told how to act and how not to act. It was tricked into believing its natural behaviours and urges were "wrong". And you are one of the tricked, so talking to you is kind of pointless. Like trying to explain a video game to a video game.

We just have to get the IP addresses configured properly. If there is nothing wrong with humanity, why not get out of the doomed religious environment and go live among the godless, where everything is as it should be?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Nah brother, I have never followed a religion

You'll find thats irrelevent. The culture that produced you was heavily influenced by religion. Religious ideals have been successfully instilled in most of humanity. Whether you actively follow a religion or not now doesn't matter. You and your morals and "empathy" are still a product of religion

Mankind has never attempted existance without some kind of religion

I suppose you think people would be holding hands and singing without religion?
There wouldn't be civilisation without religion, because no one would see a reason to be "civil" with strangers in the first place.
And they shouldn't be. Lions aren't civil with rival prides for a reason, chimps aren't civil with rival clans for a reason, humans weren't civil with rival tribes for a reason. But religion changed that. Overpopulation and all the problems associated with it(ie every problem) came as the result.
God's morals, the ones you share and believe in, were basically instructions on how to ruin a planet. Thats all they've managed to achieve... oh and people are being nicer to eachother Yippee! Thank God for that!

 

[stretched]

Yo Lou,

Quote Lou:
"You and your morals and "empathy" are still a product of religion"

S - Fair enough, but I would then put forward the paradox that Christians seem to have very little "empathy"? That is to non-believers. And to witches. And to Muslims. And to Jews. And to homosexuels. Etc.

Quote Lou:
"I suppose you think people would be holding hands and singing without religion?"

S - Nope, just shagging a lot more.

Allcare.

 

[water]

The effect "god" has had on humanity has been, well, evil. Thats what I'm saying, and thats a moral argument against theism.
I'm talking biblical god, the god that interupted man and said "stop being men". That was a disaster. It doesn't take a genius to see that now.

Let's see if I understand you: The normal, natural behaviour of men would be to kill (whomever), rape (whomever), steal (from whomever), plunder (whomever), have fun, shag a lot (with whomever), eat a lot, etc. etc. right? And religion is, according to you, evil as it has restricted those activities?

It effected human culture, now certain behaviours are considered "wrong", when in reality they are essential to the health of the species and planet. Fighting over territory being an excellent example.

One: Nowadays, people are still fighting over territory, mind you. Be it geographical territory, economical territory, resource territory.

Two: What compelling scientific statistic evidence can you produce of fights, wars, killings, rapes etc. in the times of the early homo sapiens?
Can you say, with surety, that those things were *significantly* more frequent back then than they are today?

As no religion promotes hostility, thats the homo-sapien shining through against all odds.

Ahem.
One: Matthew 12:30: "He that is not with me is against me" was popularily used to go against pagans. Need I remind of Islam?

Two: Do you think that hostility is the true state of the homo sapiens?
Hostility towards whom? One's own tribal members, or members of other tribes?

But note, if the true state of the homo sapiens would be hostility, then tribes would not be possible; and humans would be very much pre-ape, far far from homo sapiens.

And *you* would not be *here*.

They try to warp religion to justify their actions, they shouldn't need to. And religion is in the wrong for making them feel like they need to.

So you are advocating actions without justifications?

There wouldn't be civilisation without religion, because no one would see a reason to be "civil" with strangers in the first place.

Does "civilisation", to you, mean only 'being civil with strangers'?

 

[robtex]

mis t highs religion has produced legions of zealous killers in human history. Bigger questions are is it realitic to say that abstaining from religion is a valid solution and would these acts still exist in the absence of religion and if so to what degree?

It would be neat if there was an experiment of some sort....a nation of mostly athiest and how they lived in contrast to religious countries but there is not. Not even close. Every nation that I can think of has a major religion attached to it. No country has more athiest/agnostics than gnostics.

So while there is merit to what you have said and truth two things to consider:

1) our reality is that we are a world of theism and religious tolerance (certainly by reshaping the more miltant religions like your examples illustrate) is a more realistic goal than athiesm as an answer.

2) Really without religion maybe a lot of people with evil in their hearts would find a different justification less convienent than religion but still avaiable. In reality no God made them commit the acts mention. They did of their own free will. The absense in a belief in God will not change that reality.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

mis t highs religion has produced legions of zealous killers in human history. Bigger questions are is it realitic to say that abstaining from religion is a valid solution and would these acts still exist in the absence of religion and if so to what degree?

It would stupid to say, an absolute no, to this, however the percentage, would be in the 0.0000000000000 bracket.

It would be neat if there was an experiment of some sort....a nation of mostly athiest and how they lived in contrast to religious countries but there is not.

unfortunately.

Not even close. Every nation that I can think of has a major religion attached to it. No country has more athiest/agnostics than gnostics.

which is sad, one day in the future, humans may see sense.

So while there is merit to what you have said and truth.
two things to consider:

1) our reality is that we are a world of theism and religious

intolerance

(certainly by reshaping the more miltant religions like your examples illustrate) is a more realistic goal than athiesm as an answer.

why, elaborate please.

2) Really without religion maybe a lot of people with evil in their hearts

there would be a lot less people, with evil in there hearts.
it was the bible, and the wrath of there god, that put evil, there in the first place.
a reasonable man, would not think that way.

would find a different justification less convienent than religion but still avaiable. In reality no God made them commit the acts mention.

but it has not helped.

They did of their own free will.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40065 read the post and you will understand a gods version of free will.

The absense in a belief in God will not change that reality.

oh yes it truly will.

 

[mustafhakofi]

well put fahrenheit.
I look forward to the day, theres no religion any more.
I totally agree with your statements.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I was hoping someone who understood what I was saying would come in to lighten the work load, I guess thats not going to happen...

Can you substantiate that?

I was about to suggest you go back and see why this comment doesn't make sense. Then I remembered you actually believe in god and see it as something thats always been around since the beginning of time.
I see god as something that popped up about 5000 years ago, and had an effect on the natural world/universe that had previously been running smoothly for billions of years.

To some people, fights over territory is one of the prime arguments against God

They'd seriously be bonafide idiots.

and you say it is natural? Unless I misunderstand you.

Ofcourse it's natural, we didn't invent fighting over territory, microscopic organisms were doing it hundreds of millions of years ago. Fighting for territory is a necessity for any smoothly running ecosystem. So much space can only support so many organisms in a self sustaining manner. When there are too many organisms for so much space, fighting over that space is obviously the natural way to sort out who earns it and also who doesn't deserve to exist. You'll find its a perfect way for an ecosystem to stay in balance. The territory is naturally kept environmentally stable, and the neighbouring territory and so on, and the ecosystem and the biosphere/world is naturally kept in working order as a result.
Fighting for territory is more than natural, it's necessarry for nature to operate.
Whilst religious types might still fight for territory, thats just a little sceric of what they are left over that wasn't scrubbed adequately by the brainwashing cults that are religions. Fighting for territory has largely been stopped by religion. Fighting for territory sometimes isn't good enough, every square mile of land has to be fought over. The land is what needs to be governing how many organisms there are, not the organism. Because the organism in question doesn't know enough about the universe to be in control. It's still just an animal, that happens to be behaving like its something else and predictably making a complete mess of it. Like a bull that somehow became manager of a china store.

Is peace natural or not?

Well i just explained how its not but I want to address how bizarre this question is. How could it be natural if its never ever existed in the history of any living thing ever?
Even with people it's just an idea, it can't actually exist on earth. What the ideal can do is make people less combative than they need to be. Make them refrain from fighting at times when it's essential that they do. And this is very bad.
You live in africa right? You probably know about the wildebeest herds that plummet into the nile and bottleneck at the small opening on the other side, many of them being trampled and drowning.
Now, wouldn't it be "nice" to build them a bridge? So everyone of them could happily cross without dieing and everyone of them could live happily ever after? Should we do that? No, we shouldn't. As much as I hate to see wildebeest die this way it is necessarry that they do. The ecosystem relies on a few thousand bloated carcasses floating down the river at that time of year. If you take that away there will be far reaching consequences the likes of which would be difficult to predict but unquestionably disatrous. Much like the appearance of the concept of peace in human's minds has had far reaching disastrous consequences

In that case, thank you!

The very fact you think being ruined is a good thing exhibits your ruined-ness.

People aren't that stupid. Most can discern between good and evil without much help.

It has been a gradual process to make people this stupid.
First a fear of god needed to be instilled, people back then wouldn't have thought killing a stranger was actually wrong in their hearts but they didn't want to screw with this vengefull god fellow. And over time it would have started being accepted that people's own urges were evil and they were bad people for having them. Then when comfort was gained it became "obvious" that being good is "logically" correct. Its rewarding and pleasurable. God has done his job and now is unnecessary which is why religion is dieing but religious ideals remain. The sinister thing about morals is they make sense in a shortsighted selfish kind of way.

But if I understand you correctly, your perspective is surprising. What do you think about chaos and anarchy?

I don't think anarchy needs to be a word, it could be replaced with "normal". There is inherently order with anarchy, religion relies on the flawed presumption that people are incompetent animals that need to be told how to behave in order to exist on earth. There are natural "right and wrongs" inside us. Anarchy wouldn't result in people eating their children. But it would result in social groups of humans not tolerating rivals. And as I explained its of pivotal importance that we do not tolerate rivals.

What weighs more in those reasons for behaviour? Life or death? Won't the environment get used to whatever nature produces?
That actually brings me to my real question: do you believe nature can produce anything that is unnatural?

And that question is the apparent flaw with my reasoning. Everyone I've gotten into this with has brought that up, and felt damn good about themselves. But does it render everything else invalid? I don't think so.
It requires the belief that nature is masochistic, and we have to ignore the fact that nature is trying to cure the human problem with disease. Obviously our recent behaviour isn't appreciated. We are no longer on nature's team, we are opposing nature, fighting against it.
The ultimate sin.
I'm not convinced religion is of human origin. Because its in conflict with the essence of earth. It operates more like an introduced pest than a natural part of the world, and I truely think it must be. Mentioning aliens is dangerous for one's credibility, but frankly I can't see where else religion could have come from.
Whatever it is, I don't like it. There is obviously conflict between what humans have become and the planet earth and I am siding with the planet earth.

What God "altered" was relationships under circumstances - any circumstances. He freed us from being slaves to nature, and being dry leaves swept away by a flood of death.

I agree. But its dirty money he's giving us. We're living it up comfortably thanks to "god", but in doing so we're traitors to the planet earth.
God is a slimeball. Like a pimp that offers a teenager wealth and good times, making her leave her parents who were "too controlling and no fun". That story never ends happily does it?

We just have to get the IP addresses configured properly. If there is nothing wrong with humanity, why not get out of the doomed religious environment and go live among the godless, where everything is as it should be?

Because "god" has taken everything. My family, my territory, my planet.
No where on earth is as it should be.
God's stink encompasses the globe, and is permeating through the anus-like hole in the ozone layer.
A grim foreshadowing of the human turd set to spray the clean bowl known as the universe.

Ok, so my metaphors are getting a little crazy, I'm having fun at least.

You're next rosa

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Let's see if I understand you: The normal, natural behaviour of men would be to kill (whomever), rape (whomever), steal (from whomever), plunder (whomever), have fun, shag a lot (with whomever), eat a lot, etc. etc. right? And religion is, according to you, evil as it has restricted those activities?

As I said to jenyar, anarchy isn't chaotic.
There would be consequences to killing, raping, etc. IF the victim was deserving of retribution. ie Of quality stock- of a formiddable family. The rest would naturally be weeded out and only the strongest family lines would be competing with the strongest family lines over territory.
Basically its not societies responsibility, or god's business who I kill. It is that person's family's business. And it is their responsibility to stop it from happening in the first place. It is not the threat of hell's responsibility. Nor should it be the threat of prison's.
That just allows weak incompetent lazy families to be successfull.
You'd only be able to eat as much as the territory your family can hold tenure over can produce. I don't know where you got eating alot from.

One: Nowadays, people are still fighting over territory, mind you. Be it geographical territory, economical territory, resource territory.

And it's akin to a baby cow sucking on someone's dick- misplaced instinct.
Pointless and awkwardly embarrassing.
Life giving milk will not come from that penis. Your instincts tell you to suck little cow, but something has gone terribly wrong for you to end up between that old man's legs.

Two: What compelling scientific statistic evidence can you produce of fights, wars, killings, rapes etc. in the times of the early homo sapiens?
Can you say, with surety, that those things were *significantly* more frequent back then than they are today?

Scientific statistic evidence might be the fact that 100% of the animals that shared our ecological role fight over territory.
Its all about when to fight rather than frequency. You fight when a rival tribe is on your territory, or you fight to gain a territory if yours is no good.
What's important is that you never slack on this. Established territories would be able to remain peacefull for years or even generations if they were too imposing for other clans to dare to attack.
Whats important is that we as animals are living off of the land. Fighting will naturally come if we stick to this and it will naturally be sorted out. Such is the order of anarchy.
I can say with surety there used to be accurately placed conflict because we weren't born retarded as a species. Nor were we born with civilisations serving us everything on a silver platter. No speculation is required if you understand the real world.

Ahem.
One: Matthew 12:30: "He that is not with me is against me" was popularily used to go against pagans. Need I remind of Islam?

Ok, islam does promote hostility. Hopefully I've managed to make myself clearer. Islam doesn't promote hostility between islamic peoples so it doesn't help.
I concede that people are free to blame islam for certain types of hostility.

Two: Do you think that hostility is the true state of the homo sapiens?
Hostility towards whom? One's own tribal members, or members of other tribes?
But note, if the true state of the homo sapiens would be hostility, then tribes would not be possible; and humans would be very much pre-ape, far far from homo sapiens

Your understanding of this is suprisingly simple. Don't worry, I don't know a thing about cosmetics.
Is the mafia not hostile? Did al capone randomly slaughter his family members?
Chimps are very hostile, and yet clans of chimps can still be seen lazing about peacefully. It goes back to focussing hostility on what the urge exists for. Territorial disputes. Obviously I don't think inner-tribal conflict is natural
Actually a little would be, weak links within tribes would occassionally be removed.
Things sub-consciously sort themselves out. We wouldn't need to think about it to live as perfect human beings. Its what we are without trying. When the whole family is sick of cousin mike, they'd either kill him or banish him from the territory, setting him up for an inevitable death. Now the reason he would have been bothering them would have been because he was a liability to the tribe in some way. But they wouldn't necessarrily realise exactly that, they don't understand the intricacies of kin selection and the evolution of social animals. They don't need to, it comes naturally.

And *you* would not be *here*

Chances are I wouldn't be here if humans didn't fag it up and start striving to be moral. So? I'm not so self centred to think my existence is a good enough excuse to ruin the universe.

So you are advocating actions without justifications?

No, people have a perfectly good excuse to fight over territory, they don't need god. Fighting over a territory is an excuse in itself.
However, the intention behind the instincts of animals are invariably hidden to the animal's conscious mind. People fighting over territory don't understand that they need to preserve their resources for their own genetic line and protect them from rivals, nor do lions. Both just kind of feel hatred towards outsiders. Thats the message the instinct sends it's host. The host doesn't need to know everything, the job just needs to be done.
People like to think they are in control of themselves and so translate this message into their own words. Thus we get people fighting "on behalf of god's will". Truth is they don't know why they're fighting, they aren't in on the secret workings of the planet. They're chess pieces.

Does "civilisation", to you, mean only 'being civil with strangers'?

Civilisation is the result of people begrudgingly being civil with strangers.
Could any one family tree build a city?
People aren't just "super smart so they builded cities", for this to happen the oppression of their natural instincts was required. They had to work together despite being a combative species at the core.
Now they release those instinctive urges with break dancing battles, ball sports, video games, gang violence and silly little pointless wars that they are convinced they have a reason to be fighting. That said, I'm happy to see any human vs human conflict because the planet is thirsting for it.

 

[water]

I see god as something that popped up about 5000 years ago, and had an effect on the natural world/universe that had previously been running smoothly for billions of years.

This is a strange claim -- that "the natural world/universe had previously been running smoothly for billions of years". Evolution says something about the survival of the fittest and the strongest -- and we're facing the results of this process.

If you take that away there will be far reaching consequences the likes of which would be difficult to predict but unquestionably disatrous. Much like the appearance of the concept of peace in human's minds has had far reaching disastrous consequences

If people would indeed be rational and moral agents, then peace could be their natural state.
And, the truth is that people like to consider themselves rational and moral. Which doesn't mean they are. This is my problem with humans. But it doesn't really have anything to do with religion.

*Being* a rational agent and wanting to survive ends up in seeming as if the individual would not act rationally. See Game Theory.

“ In that case, thank you! ”
The very fact you think being ruined is a good thing exhibits your ruined-ness.

Lou, a little radar for sarcasm would be nice.

Anarchy wouldn't result in people eating their children. But it would result in social groups of humans not tolerating rivals. And as I explained its of pivotal importance that we do not tolerate rivals.

Eh ... You've just repeated "He that is not with me is against me". It is about not tolerating rivals ...

I'm not convinced religion is of human origin. Because its in conflict with the essence of earth. It operates more like an introduced pest than a natural part of the world, and I truely think it must be. Mentioning aliens is dangerous for one's credibility, but frankly I can't see where else religion could have come from.

Then you are no different from any other "fanatic". What you are proposing is a conspiracy theory: that religion came from some truly evil planet, to destroy the true human nature.

Whatever it is, I don't like it. There is obviously conflict between what humans have become and the planet earth and I am siding with the planet earth.

Maybe you would eventually like to infer that humans aren't really from planet Earth either?

I agree. But its dirty money he's giving us. We're living it up comfortably thanks to "god", but in doing so we're traitors to the planet earth.

Ahem. If people were living by the commandments of their religions, the planet wouldn't be nearly as damaged as it is. Most religions preach modesty, discipline and hard work.

Because "god" has taken everything. My family, my territory, my planet.

Oh. So God is everywhere? Poor you.

As I said to jenyar, anarchy isn't chaotic.

anarchy: 1. the absence of organized government, 2. disorder
chaos: the complete absence of order or shape
Oxford Student's Dictionary

You must write the dictionaries anew.

There would be consequences to killing, raping, etc. IF the victim was deserving of retribution. ie Of quality stock- of a formiddable family. The rest would naturally be weeded out and only the strongest family lines would be competing with the strongest family lines over territory.
Basically its not societies responsibility, or god's business who I kill. It is that person's family's business.

And who decides whether a person deserves retribution? By what criteria?
Those families who retribute, *have* certain criteria and standards. what are these criteria and standards? Name them.

And it is their responsibility to stop it from happening in the first place.

This is an unrealistic demand. It is the same as demanding that no comet hits the planet Earth.
You cannot really prevent from being attacked unless you kill everyone around you.

It is not the threat of hell's responsibility. Nor should it be the threat of prison's.
That just allows weak incompetent lazy families to be successfull.

If they are successful, then they by definition have traits that are better than some other traits. Their traits may not be to your taste, but they are selected for by human evolution.

You'd only be able to eat as much as the territory your family can hold tenure over can produce.

Depending on the technology, you can produce various amounts on the same territory. It all comes down to technological development and overproduction, and how the popuation could grow due to this.

And it's akin to a baby cow sucking on someone's dick- misplaced instinct.
Pointless and awkwardly embarrassing.
Life giving milk will not come from that penis. Your instincts tell you to suck little cow, but something has gone terribly wrong for you to end up between that old man's legs.

So to you, God is that old man with a beard?

“ Two: What compelling scientific statistic evidence can you produce of fights, wars, killings, rapes etc. in the times of the early homo sapiens?
Can you say, with surety, that those things were *significantly* more frequent back then than they are today? ”

Scientific statistic evidence might be the fact that 100% of the animals that shared our ecological role fight over territory.

You haven't answered my question.

Its all about when to fight rather than frequency. You fight when a rival tribe is on your territory, or you fight to gain a territory if yours is no good.
What's important is that you never slack on this. Established territories would be able to remain peacefull for years or even generations if they were too imposing for other clans to dare to attack.
Whats important is that we as animals are living off of the land. Fighting will naturally come if we stick to this and it will naturally be sorted out. Such is the order of anarchy.
I can say with surety there used to be accurately placed conflict because we weren't born retarded as a species. Nor were we born with civilisations serving us everything on a silver platter. No speculation is required if you understand the real world.

The social structure today is much different than back then. There aren't such tribes in modern nations anymore. Now, the social structure is about nations, and a nation can be hardly compared to a tribe, due to the difference in size.


But what is your point? People still don't just let strangers come and live in their houses, you know.

Don't worry, I don't know a thing about cosmetics.

?

No, people have a perfectly good excuse to fight over territory, they don't need god. Fighting over a territory is an excuse in itself.

However, the intention behind the instincts of animals are invariably hidden to the animal's conscious mind. People fighting over territory don't understand that they need to preserve their resources for their own genetic line and protect them from rivals, nor do lions. Both just kind of feel hatred towards outsiders. Thats the message the instinct sends it's host. The host doesn't need to know everything, the job just needs to be done.
People like to think they are in control of themselves and so translate this message into their own words. Thus we get people fighting "on behalf of god's will".

You've just explained how that "justification through God" takes place.

To sum up your points:
1. To fight over territory, no God is needed as justification.
2. People don't really know why they fight for territory.
3. People say that they fight on behalf of God's will.

I infer:
4. People, since the intentions behind instincs are hidden to their consciousness, feel compelled to make some sort of conscious explanation of why they fight (as they are conscious beings).
5. Belief in a God is thus a natural consequence of humans being conscious beings, to whom intentions behind instincts are hidden to their consciousness.
6. People may not need a God, but they surely need an explanation for their doings.
7. People need some explanation, and God is historically the prevalent one.

So where is the problem?
It seems to me that you have two ideas of God, and that you use them inconsistently.

Truth is they don't know why they're fighting, they aren't in on the secret workings of the planet. They're chess pieces.

Speaking like a true fatalist.
Humans are conscious beings. Reagrdless whether they are chess pieces or not: knowing that is beyond their scope. Will you now accuse them of being guilty of something that is beyond their scope anyway?

Civilisation is the result of people begrudgingly being civil with strangers.

That's a silly notion.

Could any one family tree build a city?
People aren't just "super smart so they builded cities", for this to happen the oppression of their natural instincts was required. They had to work together despite being a combative species at the core.

Building cities was the behaviour selected for as more successful.
If you don't like it -- well, that's your problem.

That said, I'm happy to see any human vs human conflict because the planet is thirsting for it.

Chances are you are the one most thirsting for it.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I'd like to say your comprehension skills are severely lacking but I think its more that you don't respect me enough to pay attention to what I'm saying. I can imagine this becoming quite frustrating if it went on for much longer.

This is a strange claim -- that "the natural world/universe had previously been running smoothly for billions of years". Evolution says something about the survival of the fittest and the strongest -- and we're facing the results of this process.

Are you trying to pass a highschool biology test? If so, good work, your answer to the question no one asked is correct.

If people would indeed be rational and moral agents, then peace could be their natural state.

So if people went against their natural instincts and did as your say peace would be the "natural" state? Ok

And, the truth is that people like to consider themselves rational and moral. Which doesn't mean they are.

Indeed.

Lou, a little radar for sarcasm would be nice.

Damn, I used up my "indeed".

Eh ... You've just repeated "He that is not with me is against me". It is about not tolerating rivals ...

No need to complicate the simple nature of social animals. I didn't invent the "zany" concept of social groups not tolerating other social groups.

Then you are no different from any other "fanatic". What you are proposing is a conspiracy theory: that religion came from some truly evil planet, to destroy the true human nature.
Maybe you would eventually like to infer that humans aren't really from planet Earth either?

Humans are obviously from planet earth.
The bottom line is religion tells people not to behave how they naturally desire to behave. I don't think even you would argue with that. So why do you think this is normal?
You're accustomed to religion controlling your life. You think enforced order is normal. If you stepped back and looked at the history of the world you would see this is a strange new alien concept. Living organisms traditionally don't need to be told what to do, their ingrained natural behaviour is perfectly suited to the survival of their species and it's meshing with the biosphere. Any deviation from this would not work, as has been proven with humans.

Ahem. If people were living by the commandments of their religions, the planet wouldn't be nearly as damaged as it is. Most religions preach modesty, discipline and hard work.

Ahh no. If people consistently lived by the commandments of their religion things would just be a little bit worse.
Religions preaching anything is bound to fuck things up, even if its just "walk with a little more weight on your left foot". Every tiny aspect of human beings evolved to be that way because it needed to. We need to walk exactly how we feel like walking for things to work out. If people didn't want to be modest, disciplined or hard working, religion was wrong to make them feel like they should try to be that way. Its like going around trying to force cheetahs to climb trees just because you think climbing trees is fun. You're going to fuck cheetahs up and after that whining about cheetahs not understanding how cool tree climbing is will seem silly. Just like whining about how people aren't "moral" enough for your tastes seems silly. Humans are the animal they are, get used to it.

Oh. So God is everywhere? Poor you.

The rammifications of the concept of god are everywhere, and yes, poor me, but especially poor non-human living organisms.
They don't even get the sugar coating we do, they just blatantly have war waged upon them.

anarchy: 1. the absence of organized government, 2. disorder
chaos: the complete absence of order or shape
Oxford Student's Dictionary

You must write the dictionaries anew.

Yes I must.
It's very sad how you think a dictionary definition somehow disproves the idea that there would be order to unregulated human behaviour.
That might be a case of education proving it can make people dumber than they need be.

And who decides whether a person deserves retribution? By what criteria?
Those families who retribute, *have* certain criteria and standards. what are these criteria and standards? Name them.

I thought I just did. I'll make it simple. They deserve it if they get it. Otherwise they don't.

This is an unrealistic demand. It is the same as demanding that no comet hits the planet Earth.
You cannot really prevent from being attacked unless you kill everyone around you.

What? Is it an unrealistic demand that a troop of baboons protect a newborn? If it was baboons would be extinct. And if it really is an unrealistic demand for humans we as a species should rightfully be extinct.
I don't know about you but my family would have no problem keeping its members safe in a natural setting.

If they are successful, then they by definition have traits that are better than some other traits. Their traits may not be to your taste, but they are selected for by human evolution.

Yeah, I know, and I've been making these posts to point out the flaws with the selection processes of homo sapiens. You really need to pay attention.

Depending on the technology, you can produce various amounts on the same territory. It all comes down to technological development and overproduction, and how the popuation could grow due to this.

Yeah, thats why the population grew. Thats my beef.
The technology came into existence due to a lapse in territorial instincts because of religion, unnatural levels of cooperation between would be rival tribes leads to technology that should never have been.

So to you, God is that old man with a beard?

Rosa the baby cow isn't sucking on god's dick, its just sucking on an old man's dick. The point was that humans who fight for economic power(or whatever) are like a baby cow that has found itself sucking on an old man's dick. The baby cow's instincts tell it to suck on a cylindrical dangly meaty thing, and the humans instincts tell him to fight for tenure. But both animals are misplaced. The baby cow should be with its mother, and the wallstreet fatcat should be with his tribe. The instincts that inspire them to do what they're doing are meant for a specific purpose and they are wasted pointlessly on any other task. You mentioned how people still do have territorial disputes only its over new different things, I'm pointing out how its irrelevent. Its just sad and embarrassing for the simple humans displaying their cute little instincts in the wrong place, they are like a cock sucking calf.

You haven't answered my question.

Ha!

The social structure today is much different than back then.

Yes, thank you for finally understanding what I'm... oh wait... you continue...

There aren't such tribes in modern nations anymore. Now, the social structure is about nations, and a nation can be hardly compared to a tribe, due to the difference in size.

Yep, that definately is the problem I'm pointing out... thanks???

But what is your point? People still don't just let strangers come and live in their houses, you know.

...and calves will suck cocks.
Not letting people into your house isn't anywhere near good enough. Living on and off of a self sustaining hunk of property with your relatives and not letting anyone else in to get your stuff is closer to the idea, but just about every single person would need to be involved in such a system for it to work.
There would be rogue gangs and outcasts waiting to die in no man's land, but generally human society and human evolution would need to revolve around this kind of competition for territory between family strains.
We don't have that now, and its a problem, just like it would be a problem if lions or hyenas or chimps weren't living like this. But they are. It's just us, we are the weak link in the web of life.

You've just explained how that "justification through God" takes place.

Thank you.

... " " "
So where is the problem?
It seems to me that you have two ideas of God, and that you use them inconsistently.

The problem is that we aren't all consistently fighting over territory for our family to live off of. Many people live in small territories that can't possibly support them and then allow society to rape the rest of the planet to support them, competing with every living thing except for the other humans who we are supposed to be competing with. Hence the unsightly overpopulation of humans and the extinction of many other species.The 2 percieved ideas of god can probably be attributed to the fact that I don't litterally believe in god and am merely using his name as a metaphor for the ideals the concept of him has produced and to personify the effect the belief in him has had on the world.

Speaking like a true fatalist.
Humans are conscious beings. Reagrdless whether they are chess pieces or not: knowing that is beyond their scope. Will you now accuse them of being guilty of something that is beyond their scope anyway?

They're guilty of being tricked, you are guilty of being tricked. You're not to blame, which is why I'm not angry.

That's a silly notion.

Is it? So single tribes over generations could produce civilisations?

Building cities was the behaviour selected for as more successful.
If you don't like it -- well, that's your problem.

I specifically explained how that isn't the case. Dismiss it if you want.
You and I know you wouldn't be able to actually say how I'm wrong

 

[water]

I'd like to say your comprehension skills are severely lacking but I think its more that you don't respect me enough to pay attention to what I'm saying. I can imagine this becoming quite frustrating if it went on for much longer.

It is easy to bitch and rant. But try to find a doable solution.

“ If people would indeed be rational and moral agents, then peace could be their natural state. ”

So if people went against their natural instincts and did as your say peace would be the "natural" state? Ok

Look at my sentence: it begins with an "if".

The bottom line is religion tells people not to behave how they naturally desire to behave.

In all social animals, there are rules as to how to behave. In a pack of chimps, they will not just stand there, looking how another chimp hurts a baby chimp.
It is the social order that prevents members to "behave how they naturally would".
In humans, this social order can be called religion sometimes.

I don't think even you would argue with that. So why do you think this is normal?

Social groups seek to survive, thus we can observe a striving for a certain social balance. In regards to this, it is normal to inhibit some behaviours and support some others.

You're accustomed to religion controlling your life.

You ain't got a clue about my life.

You think enforced order is normal.

What? Any order can be, from a certain perspective, seen as enforced.

If you stepped back and looked at the history of the world you would see this is a strange new alien concept. Living organisms traditionally don't need to be told what to do, their ingrained natural behaviour is perfectly suited to the survival of their species and it's meshing with the biosphere. Any deviation from this would not work, as has been proven with humans.

Have you ever thought about that religious commandments (and think broader: any religion, from Christianity to the belief of some indigenous tribes in Papua) may simply be a verbalization of this natural order?

Ahh no. If people consistently lived by the commandments of their religion things would just be a little bit worse.

You don't know that. Do you know of any religious people who consistently live by the commandments of their religion (apart from some indigenous tribes)?

Christians, for example, *try* to live by the commandments, but eventually they themselves say that they cannot do it fully.

Religions preaching anything is bound to fuck things up, even if its just "walk with a little more weight on your left foot". Every tiny aspect of human beings evolved to be that way because it needed to.

I think that what you really are against is ANY form of *social control*, be it religion, politics, maybe even the military.

We need to walk exactly how we feel like walking for things to work out.

And how do you how is that? How do you know what your natural stride is? How can you be sure that what you think that your natural stride is is not tainted by your upbringing and culture?

If people didn't want to be modest, disciplined or hard working, religion was wrong to make them feel like they should try to be that way.

I would love to see how many people back then would survive without being modest, disciplined and hard working. Wheat won't sow itself alone, and make bread out of it.

Its like going around trying to force cheetahs to climb trees just because you think climbing trees is fun. You're going to fuck cheetahs up and after that whining about cheetahs not understanding how cool tree climbing is will seem silly.

While I understand how you came to this comparison, I do not think that this comparison is in place.
Indeed, if you are exposed to religious fanatics (and I have made some indeep experiences with Mormons, so I know what I'm talking about), then yes, it feels like a cheetah being forced to climb a tree. But one can overcome that.

Just like whining about how people aren't "moral" enough for your tastes seems silly. Humans are the animal they are, get used to it.

Hm? The only "problem" I have with modern western humans is that they like to be something else than that animal.

The rammifications of the concept of god are everywhere, and yes, poor me, but especially poor non-human living organisms.
They don't even get the sugar coating we do, they just blatantly have war waged upon them.

It is humans who are doing harm to nature. Blaming "religion" is a cheap cop-out. Religion as we know it, is a human product, the same as technology and others.

The cruel thing is that many humans do not care about the planet, and are even proud of this insensitivity.

Yes I must.
It's very sad how you think a dictionary definition somehow disproves the idea that there would be order to unregulated human behaviour.

No. It is just hard to understand eachother when you use a word in a way known only to you.

I thought I just did. I'll make it simple. They deserve it if they get it. Otherwise they don't.

If someone would shoot your dog, would you think that your dog deserved it? Or if someone would hurt you, would you think that you deserved it? If yes, why so? If no, why so?

What? Is it an unrealistic demand that a troop of baboons protect a newborn? If it was baboons would be extinct. And if it really is an unrealistic demand for humans we as a species should rightfully be extinct.

You said:

And it is their responsibility to stop it from happening in the first place.

To which I replied:

This is an unrealistic demand. It is the same as demanding that no comet hits the planet Earth.
You cannot really prevent from being attacked unless you kill everyone around you.

What is unrealistic is to think that it can be prevented that a newborn is attacked. Sooner or later, the baby may wander off, or some intruder can come with the intention to harm the baby -- this cannot be prevented unless you kill everyone else.

I don't know about you but my family would have no problem keeping its members safe in a natural setting.

Have you tried?

Yeah, I know, and I've been making these posts to point out the flaws with the selection processes of homo sapiens. You really need to pay attention.

Why flaws?
That's how the story went, and you cannot know what it would be like if it would be otherwise.

Yeah, thats why the population grew. Thats my beef.
The technology came into existence due to a lapse in territorial instincts because of religion, unnatural levels of cooperation between would be rival tribes leads to technology that should never have been.

One: These relations are hard to prove.
Two: Who are you to say what should have been and what should never have been?

If you say that it shouldn't have happened, then you are unable to accept that it did happen.

Its just sad and embarrassing for the simple humans displaying their cute little instincts in the wrong place /.../.

Have you ever been beaten up, badly, with broken ribs and such?
Robbed? Raped? Killed someone?

Not letting people into your house isn't anywhere near good enough. Living on and off of a self sustaining hunk of property with your relatives and not letting anyone else in to get your stuff is closer to the idea, but just about every single person would need to be involved in such a system for it to work.

But there are too many people now on Earth to be able to go to that life.
You are building castles in the clouds.

The problem is that we aren't all consistently fighting over territory for our family to live off of.

Well, we can't do that now. There are too many people.

They're guilty of being tricked, you are guilty of being tricked. You're not to blame, which is why I'm not angry.

If I am guilty, then I am to be blamed.
Either I am not guilty and not to be blamed; or I am guilty and to be blamed.

However, I can accept something as my responsibility, even though it is not due my fault. How many peole do that?

You and I know you wouldn't be able to actually say how I'm wrong

You are making an emotional argument about how humans are hurting the planet and their true human nature. This emotional argument can hardly be rationally refuted, if at all. And I am not opposing the idea that humans are often a stain on the face of life.

However, this line of argument leads nowhere. Like I said in the beginning, it is easy to bitch and rant, but try to find doable solutions.

 

[Jenyar]

There's something. To Lou Natic, peace isn't natural. Love is inferior to competition, useful only to provide enough coherence to overwhelm a rival. If peace isn't natural, it is not to be desired, according to him. He's not looking for solutions, because there shouldn't be any!

Isn't he desiring the world exactly as it is? Whether America is being invaded or Iraq, as long as natural culling is taking place among humans as it does among animals, he must be happy. Yet he isn't. "We are the weak link in the web of life."

Personally, I think it's more than coincidence that religion got dragged into the argument from both sides. On the one hand, humanity is a fragile species, according to Lou, should tolerate wiping itself out for the good of the planet. On the other hand, humans are sinful (morally weak), and should not tolerate causing their own destruction or that of other living things wilfully. The juxtaposition of these two sides sheds an interesting light on the subject of morality. The pendulum swings between life and death, but where does it wind down to?

 

[Tiassa]

And religion is in the wrong for making them feel like they need to.

Religion itself, in general, has not yet lost sight of its real reason for existence. People will find any reason to make themselves feel guilty.

In Capitalism, sin is anything that fails to optimize profit. Internalized, sin is anything that fails to please the self for the remainder of one's existence. "God" and "sin" are just easy targets for demonizing as a projection of our own inner guilt. Put on a capitalist veneer and "God" becomes "The Economy". Wear a psychologist's hat and God becomes the interdependent triune of happiness, comfort, and security.

Somewhere along the line, though, humanity by diverse processes made a transition from wide-eyed wonder to "knowing" cynicism. That transition in the West seems to have occurred with, or in response to, Darwin. Not only did Darwinism undermine the most basic interpretations of biblical creation, the idea of a species adapting in response to nature also stabbed after a certain trust in God by suggesting through a quiet transformation of device the notion that the living have a certain say in how things go down. "Failure to adapt" is the sin of any remotely Spencerist socialization: a person has control of their destiny.

Propriety is a necessary aspect of socialization, and humans are definitively social creatures. The difference between ethics and morals often seems a question of myopia versus deafness. One cannot see beyond a situational ethic, as such, nor (stand to) hear the truth on certain matters.

Any moral argument necessarily appeals to some degree of authority; attempts to invest morals in "human reality" only put off the question for a mere moment. What constitutes morality? Where ethical decisions are not obliged to be contiguous, consistent, or related, moral decisions are thematic, interdependent, and anchored against a fixed idea. As religious folk sometimes show, however, this only puts off the question one step in the other direction. In either case, one must assert a basis for right versus wrong, but the necessary consistency and interrelationships of moral decisions highlights that assertion starkly by comparison.

A moral assertion is susceptible to attack because its basic assertion is visible. Where a situational ethic can hide its basis and thereby transform itself as circumstances describe, the basic assertion is not so apparent.

In the end, any standard of socialization--moral or ethical--appeals to an abstract higher purpose for validity; to do away with God merely slices away with one word for that abstract anchor. Whether we say it life or the way of the Universe, it is still mysterious, still unspoken, yet eternally apparent around us, and just as with God we still must learn to see it for what it is.

Nothing short of an actual expression of ultimate truth will, in the end, suffice. While time and evolution could lead humanity to that faculty eventually, there are no guarantees. In the meantime, the problem is no more God than money, but rather people. Religion is not unique in obliging its believers: baseball, Star Trek, capitalism--the true believers might as well be worshipping God, fearing condemnation for their sins.

And certain brands of apostasy become the way of life and enlightenment. So it will always be. I believe Sisyphus must necessarily be happy, and it might as well be a religion.

Truly, the corruption is human; God and religion are just easy, and in the end superficial targets.

 

[audible]

I thought the original post was apt for another thread, so I put it there as a link, but I dont think enton even bothered to look so I thought I'd do an enton and resurrect it.