Is Hate Delusional Thinking?

[hay_you]

Nationalism can promote hate or fear, I feel its an outdated concept used to divide humanity as a whole.

Yes that is true also.
But governments use this all the time.
Here is an example.
Most people think killing some one is wrong. But yet when your country goes to war, for what ever reason. Then people think that killing some one is a good thing. To the point that even in the country that is a war, the citizens in that country that don't want to go, are considered traitors. And maybe imprisoned.
So people will hate even ones from their own country because of their stand.
Then governments also will make hero's out of ones that have done a good job of killing others. This is a total lack of getting the world together.
So it is not just religion, there are many other situations also. For some it is just the want of power. For others it maybe a lure of natural resources of another country. Sometime is just because of pride.

 

[hay_you]

It is just plain delusional to think that the world works in such absolutes.

With our imperfections, nothing man tries to do will succeed, to that extent. Because we don't work with or have such absolutes. That is exactly the point, man is unable to do this.

 

[hay_you]

Yes they can contribute to hate and wars, but ultimately its the human beings who decide who and what to hate.

And this is exactly, what makes the world the way it is.
There are some men with good intentions but what can they do?

 

[Dywyddyr]

If it were just up to man, that would be the case.

Unfortunately it is up to mankind. There is nobody else.

For some it is religion, there are so many types of religions, that they will defend to the death. Even isolated tribes have some kind of religion. For some it is money, that will save them. For others it is other teachings , like science or atheism, something else.

Science and atheism aren't religions.

The dictionary says a religion is:

Hmm slightly disingenuous of you to omit the critical parts.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
There is no set of beliefs for atheists, no observance, no rituals, and no "atheist moral code". (Which is NOT the same thing as saying atheists don't have morals).

 

[(Q)]

You are talking about the Bibles statements on creation , there are other creation accounts also.

Yes, here's a Hindu account, equally mythical, magical and as unbelievable as any other:

"Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'

A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.

The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation."

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm

But from the bibles point of view, days can refer to periods of time. ( not necessarily 24 hour days, like we have on earth)

Yes, that must make it very confusing to anyone reading biblical accounts, wouldn't you say?

Of course, time factors aren't necessarily an important piece to the creationism puzzle. What is far more interesting are the explanations of supernatural intervention and the denial of evolution and abiogenesis in the face of facts.

Will you be filling threads with such enlightenment?

 

[(Q)]

Most people think killing some one is wrong.

I'm sure that if I had been around in the late 30's in Europe and I killed Hitler just before he became Chancellor, it would have been wrong, especially if we never became privy to his later deeds. I probably would have been entered into history as a monster. Yet, give almost anyone a time machine and that would be one of the top ten things to do on most peoples list.

This is a total lack of getting the world together.
So it is not just religion, there are many other situations also.

But, would you agree that religion does in fact divide mankind?

 

[hay_you]

“
The dictionary says a religion is:
”
Hmm slightly disingenuous of you to omit the critical parts.
“
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
”

There is no set of beliefs for atheists, no observance, no rituals, and no "atheist moral code". (Which is NOT the same thing as saying atheists don't have morals).

Actually there were a few more examples, but really they all encompass what religion means. It is the understanding of how we got here and what's it all about. Science does this by holding up all the scientific knowledge, they have learned , and they put their trust in that. Others through their study and research and writings, say there is a creator. There is really no difference. There are many religions that use a carving of some object and call that God. Others use knowledge as well and don't have a deity to follow but they follow the teachings of men. This is no different than science. It is really what you put your trust in.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually there were a few more examples, but really they all encompass what religion means. Science does this by holding up all the scientific knowledge, they have learned , and they put their trust in that. Others through their study and research and writings, say there is a creator. There is really no difference. There are many religions that use a carving of some object and call that God. Others use knowledge as well and don't have a deity to follow but they follow the teachings of men. This is no different than science. It is really what you put your trust in.

Oh, still wrong.
Quite wrong.

It is the understanding of how we got here and what's it all about.

That would be philosophy, which is also NOT a religion.

 

[hay_you]

Yes, that must make it very confusing to anyone reading biblical accounts, wouldn't you say?

Of course, time factors aren't necessarily an important piece to the creationism puzzle. What is far more interesting are the explanations of supernatural intervention and the denial of evolution and abiogenesis in the face of facts.

Will you be filling threads with such enlightenment?

There are many religions and many ideas in science. Some of these idea of science don't last, there have been many missing links and frauds, that later research has found as not factual.
Here is a dictionary quote on abiogenesis:

a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis
  /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
See web results for abiogenesis
See images of abiogenesis
–noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

this is really off topic, I should not there here!

 

[(Q)]

There are many religions

That sure makes it difficult to acknowledge the concept of one god, don't ya think?

many ideas in science.

Yes, useful ideas, such as the internet connection and computer you now use.

Some of these idea of science don't last, there have been many missing links and frauds, that later research has found as not factual.

Such as what? Please explain these missing links and frauds? They must be very important if they discredit science.

Here is a dictionary quote on abiogenesis:

And, here is a link explaining what you have disingenuously bolded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Abiogenesis

 

[hay_you]

Oh, still wrong.
Quite wrong.

“
It is the understanding of how we got here and what's it all about.
”
That would be philosophy, which is also NOT a religion.

Philosophy, is the interpretation you put on the evidence or knowledge you have. And it is this thinking that guides your life. This goes for religion and science, and atheists, for example.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Philosophy, is the interpretation you put on the evidence or knowledge you have.

Philosophy investigates...
Keep trying.

And it is this thinking that guides your life. This goes for religion and science, and atheists, for example.

Atheism does not "guide" your.
Nor, generally, does science.
But c- for effort.

 

[hay_you]

That sure makes it difficult to acknowledge the concept of one god, don't ya think?

Because there are many different ideas, or religions, doesn't make the existence of God wrong. It does make it confusing.

 

[hay_you]

Philosophy investigates...
Keep trying.


Atheism does not "guide" your.
Not, generally, does science.
But c- for effort.

Actually it does. If you learn that a creator expects certain conduct, from a person that follows him. Say a moral conduct. A person that says he doesn't believe in a creator, he may be either an atheist or one who believes in sciences answers, or something else, then you are free to do what you want. You may think it foolish to follow some moral code. Your philosophy of life is totally different than some one of a different philosophy from yours.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually it does.

No it doesn't.

If you learn that a creator expects certain conduct, from a person that follows him. Say a moral conduct. A person that says he doesn't believe in a creator, he may be either an atheist or one who believes in sciences answers, or something else, then you are free to do what you want.

Also wrong.
Morals have a biological basis.
And are reinforced by society.
NOT by some mythical "god".

You may think it foolish to follow some moral code.

So you're claiming that everyone who believes in god acts morally?

 

[hay_you]

Also wrong.
Morals have a biological basis.
And are reinforced by society.
NOT by some mythical "god".

Then why do so many break them. You have to check every one now for STD's .
Morality comes from creation not evolution. Why is it wrong for athletes to take drugs that enhance their performance. Evolution says do the best you can at any cost. Mortality says play fair, even though it may hurt your performance.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then why do so many break them.

Why do so many believers break them?
Because morality is NOT a fixed unbreakable thing.
Ever heard of "free will" for one?

You have to check every one now for STD's .

Wrong.

Morality comes from creation not evolution.

Wrong.

Why is it wrong for athletes to take drugs that enhance their performance.

Because it's against the rules.

Evolution says do the best you can at any cost.

Wrong.

Mortality says play fair, even though it may hurt your performance.

Presumably you mean "morality"?
So you're contending that atheists never play fair? Don't have any morality?
Interesting...

 

[NMSquirrel]

Why do so many believers break them?

because we are just as messed up as the rest of the world......

Because morality is NOT a fixed unbreakable thing.
Ever heard of "free will" for one?

free will without moderation is a dangerous thing..

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

do you really have to be so judgemental??

Because it's against the rules.

so you think more rules will make things better?

Presumably you mean "morality"?
So you're contending that atheists never play fair? Don't have any morality?
Interesting...

only the atheist that show no moderation in their dis-belief's..

 

[Dywyddyr]

because we are just as messed up as the rest of the world......
free will without moderation is a dangerous thing..

In other words it's nothing to do with believing or not.

do you really have to be so judgemental??

As previously explained: when someone makes flat (incorrect) statements based nothing what's the point in saying more?
It's judgemental?
I suppose it is: at least I know a ridiculous comment when I see one.

so you think more rules will make things better?

I answered a question. I didn't make a general statement.

only the atheist that show no moderation in their dis-belief's..

Immoderation of disbelief means you have no morals?
Equally interesting.
How so?

 

[NMSquirrel]

In other words it's nothing to do with believing or not.

true.

As previously explained: when someone makes flat (incorrect) statements based nothing what's the point in saying more?
It's judgemental?
I suppose it is: at least I know a ridiculous comment when I see one.

these don't help;

Keep trying.
But c- for effort.

I answered a question. I didn't make a general statement.

nice try..but a D for effort..

Immoderation of disbelief means you have no morals?
Equally interesting.
How so?

huh?