[quote]Massif wrote:
I think saying it is the root of all evil is a little harsh. I think mankind is the root all evil, and trying to blame anything else sort let’s us off the hook.[/quote]
I`ll second that.
I think the point that could be made is that what religious doctrines allow are rights and wrongs…if you do this, you are bad…if you do x then you are good (i.e obedience/abstinance/want to covert etc.) Of coure, as we all are well too aware, life is shades of grey, infinately variable and complex, and that doctrines and dogma could lead to horific outcomes as they only see things in simple outlines.
As to what religions are for, i dont know. Probably for understanding the complexities of a world that until recently beggered belief for its inhabitants. as for evil…we would still have it in the world. We would have bad people doing bad things, but maybe the basis of this is what we have seen in scuicide bombings around the world, and here in the UK. We have had otherwise good people doing the most heinous things.
As far as religion in keeping control, English Politics, until about 80 years ago was founded on this premis. It was challanged by a few politicians, and now this has lead us to a more secular and i guess balanced political landscape than in many countries.
Many religions have come, boomed and died. No one i know hold faith in Ra or thor. Most of us are atheists of a sort, just not complete ones (i.e. we reserve a place for 1 god or deity). The passage of time cements ideas and ideologies, like a local myth, of stratospheric proportions. Now that will certainly not happen within most of our lifetimes, ut is it inevitable, well maybe. I dont know. As far as harmless, i again, am not convinced. More wars seem to be about religion than anything what so ever.
As a good irish friend who is found of baiting just about anyone he can lay his eyes on said to me about a philosophical problem he posed to a jehovas witness…
“if God is all powerful, and can do absolutely anything, can he make a stone so heavy that he could not pick it up?”
Quite an interesting one
[quote]magnetnerd wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
It’s in the rule book of all those who seek to do evil, to disguise themselves as “religious”, history is full of this.
I’d be interested in hearing any specific examples you may care to cite.[/quote]
Hitler, Castro, Kings of Europe through history, the Vatican.
that’s funny.
[quote]der Koning wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
From my Christian perspective, anyone who believes on faith that the universe is 10,000 years old is not using the gift of logic that the early Christian fathers felt was a valid way of coming to know God’s plan.
I think “Young earth” science is an unfortunate aspect of Creationism. For the record the Bible does NOT state the actual age of the earth. IIRC, the 6000 year thing was derived from tracing the geneology of the characters from the bible.
I think the problems are twofold:
-
I believe there is a substantial gap between the original characters and ones that appeared in future books/chapters.
-
The most significant (and disturbing) is the insistence on comparing the “days” that God created the earth to “human” days. The bible clearly states a day to God is no comparision to a day to humans. Those “days” could have lasted a billion years for all I know. I’m a recalcitrant creationist but I have no problem believing that the earth could be billions of years old.
I think “young earth” creationist is a direct result of overzealousness.
[/quote]
Who cares, I don’t think it matters. Evolutionists do care since millions/billions of years are needed for their theory to work.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
miniross wrote:
all you are doing is playing with words.[/quote]
Isn’t this what this thread is about - playing with words?
Afterall, nothing is going to be solved in this debate and its likely that no one is going to be pursuaded to change their own opinions based on this thread. Therefore, isn’t this all just textual mass-debation? That is why I loathed the Philosophy 101 class I had to take in undergrad. Each class was a pointless circle of jabber that always ended with me frustrated at not jumping up and screaming at everyone to just go out and actually accomplish something worthwhile.
DB
Isn’t religion, which is essentially a sub-variant of philosophy, just a bunch of jibber-jabber thats been written down, so you have to jabber the jibber if you want to talk about the jibber-jabber.
I think I just accomplished something very worthwhile, either that or its indigestion.
Religion is very powerful. It has been used for very evil and very good things. If anything, people are the source of evil and religion is just a tool some of these people use. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and forget all of the hospitals, universities, orphanages, and modern science that religion has helped bring us.
And besides, if there is no god, there is no “good” or “evil” besides our arbitrary and differing hypotheses. There is only what there is, which has no value outside of itself. Someone choosing to murder millions of people is no more wrong than a bird taking a shit or a black hole forming; it’s just something that happens and the universe moves on.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
miniross wrote:
all you are doing is playing with words.
Isn’t this what this thread is about - playing with words?
Afterall, nothing is going to be solved in this debate and its likely that no one is going to be pursuaded to change their own opinions based on this thread. Therefore, isn’t this all just textual mass-debation? That is why I loathed the Philosophy 101 class I had to take in undergrad. Each class was a pointless circle of jabber that always ended with me frustrated at not jumping up and screaming at everyone to just go out and actually accomplish something worthwhile.
DB[/quote]
Herin lies the problem.
If we stick our heads in the sand, dont talk, discuss, persuade then whilst the problems of the world would never be sorted by waffling on a forum, it allows a share of ideas, and who knows, a few people may cange their mind. I doubt it, but it doesn’t mean it wont happen, cause a pause for thought and even plant a seed. Imagine if this was my only access to real american ideas (it is, apart from media), then i can learn, and correspondingly, the other way may be true.
It is after all, a discussion forum. Sorry you hated philosophy. In retrospect, i think that studying some of those that posed questions would give an insight to the answers that we now are in the process of uncovering.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Isn’t religion, which is essentially a sub-variant of philosophy, just a bunch of jibber-jabber thats been written down, so you have to jabber the jibber if you want to talk about the jibber-jabber.
[/quote]
So let me see if I’ve got this straight, if religion is the root of all evil, and religion is just jibber-jabber, then isn’t jibber-jabber the root of all evil? That’s a postulation I can get my arms around even though it is contrary to my learning experience that girls are the root of all evil.
DB
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Isn’t religion, which is essentially a sub-variant of philosophy, just a bunch of jibber-jabber thats been written down[/quote]
no…
religion is not a sub-varient of philosophy…
[quote]DPH wrote:
no…
religion is not a sub-varient of philosophy…
Philosophy - Wikipedia [/quote]
Huge mental error on my part…totally forgot my Philosophy 101 class, English 101 for that matter. As the link points out and I failed to recall ‘Philosophy’ is derrived from the Greek words philios and sophia, meaning love and knowledge respectively. And god knows there are plenty of religious people who hate knowledge and the persuit thereof.
On a more serious note though, I see your point. Religion is driven by the same questions that drive philosophers. However, religions ‘answer’ those questions, write them down, and quit wrestling with them, whereas philosophers/philosophy keeps wrestling with them.
going back to the programme that prompted this thread - I thought there was some irony in the confrontational & uncompromising approach Dawkins took with the various religious zealouts he interviewed. Surely it is not religion that is the root of all evil, but rather the inability or unwillingness to allow others to hold different views that is. At times he came accross as an Atheist fundamentalist - a bizarre concept if ever there was one.
That said, at least he didn’t appear quite so utterly ridiculous and abhorrent as the deep southern christian evangelist or the born again Muslim fundamentalist who accused him of dressing his women like whores. The utter shite that spewed from their mouths made my blood boil…
[quote]miniross wrote:
As a good irish friend who is found of baiting just about anyone he can lay his eyes on said to me about a philosophical problem he posed to a jehovas witness…
“if God is all powerful, and can do absolutely anything, can he make a stone so heavy that he could not pick it up?”
Quite an interesting one
[/quote]
This reminds me of a tv show where the Devil told a little girl he could do anything, and he challenged her to find something he could not do.
Her answer: “Get lost.”
[quote]juninho wrote:
going back to the programme that prompted this thread - I thought there was some irony in the confrontational & uncompromising approach Dawkins took with the various religious zealouts he interviewed. Surely it is not religion that is the root of all evil, but rather the inability or unwillingness to allow others to hold different views that is. At times he came accross as an Atheist fundamentalist - a bizarre concept if ever there was one.
That said, at least he didn’t appear quite so utterly ridiculous and abhorrent as the deep southern christian evangelist or the born again Muslim fundamentalist who accused him of dressing his women like whores. The utter shite that spewed from their mouths made my blood boil… [/quote]
I can see why you would say that but it must be increadibly frustrating. At least there is smeone who is bold enough to approach such thinkers and outright challange. I guess it can come accross as arrogance, but as he said “if you are Napolean…”.
He has written heavily on this subject which has gien rise to this TV programme, one which i was suprised to see, if i am honest. I thought there would be an outcry of PC and be pulled. I hope not, as this is a real tonic to Sir Robert Winston confusing human behaviour and theology.
I like the devil quote too.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
miniross wrote:
I have just watched a programme with Richard Dawkins. It was posing the questio that all religions were the root of all evil. The premise was that if you take away reason, and have a faith that is not questioned then terrible things can be performed by those who would otherwise be placid and good. In dressing up an afterlife as a desirable outcome to blowing yourself up, or to go to war are then acts that seem ridiculous to contemplate now become considered.
Is it true that many Americans believe that the Universe is less than 10000 years old?
If so, i am actually very scared as scientific endeavour seems to be becoming increasing margionalised in preference to faith, as the 2 are wholly incompatible.
Now i know it is the same old chestnut again and again, but in seeing some preachers/clerics discussing their POV, i actually had a fear response for my Children and Nieces. If this was a world that they will be growing up in then what will they have to look forward to other than that of hate and fear and irrational ideals, where not only individuals but whole socioties will live by rules that prediacte behaviours where thay have nothing to loose.
The root of ALL evil? You don’t think that’s a little bit of an exaggeration? Going by our current definition of evil, I think great evil can be done in the name of rationality as well; for example sweatshops, child labor, indifference, etc. The idea that rationality leads to moral actions is absolute bullshit.
BigPaul wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Evil is just a term man uses to describe bad things.
…
It is merely a tool that has been used for many purposes.
As you said evil is simply a term used to descibe actions that we collectively or individually deem to be bad. I suppose that would make the individuals way back in pre history who first developed the concept of evil the root of all evil, before then evil did not exist as it could not be defined and instances thereof pointed out.
This was not the point of the question, all you are doing is playing with words.[/quote]
Resource stress (ie money) can also make people do exploititive actions (or “evil” which is not a great term for this really), but i certainly wouldn’t set up a sweat shop. Maybe it takes a certain calousness in a person to do those types of things.
The rational world would certainly be no closer to solving those problems. life is way too compliated for that. It does allow for discourse, problem solving and thought change (if it is done correctly, that is, without ego).
[quote]miniross wrote:
I can see why you would say that but it must be increadibly frustrating. At least there is smeone who is bold enough to approach such thinkers and outright challange. I guess it can come accross as arrogance, but as he said “if you are Napolean…”.
He has written heavily on this subject which has gien rise to this TV programme, one which i was suprised to see, if i am honest. I thought there would be an outcry of PC and be pulled. I hope not, as this is a real tonic to Sir Robert Winston confusing human behaviour and theology.
I like the devil quote too. [/quote]
Yeah I was surprised his views were allowed to be expressed so frankly in the programme, although channel 4 is more enlightened generally than the others.
What else has he written on the subject btw? I’ve read the blind watchmaker years ago, and dipped into the selfish gene but that’s about it.
Money is the root of all evil, religion is the root of all evil, comic books, music, women…
Except for the last one, this is all crap. (And the last one only 1 week each month.)
I am not sure how we can argue evil without a real definition of what evil is. I hope anyone who is here believes the 911 attacks were evil acts. Yet does anyone think the terrorists who did that think they were doing evil? In fact they believed they were acting against evil.
People too often say that religion has killed more people then anything else, yet that is not true. They also say it has caused more wars, and again that is not true. Religion is the excuse, not the cause when it happens, and wars are mostly about land more then anything.
Go into prisons and you find a lot of people who are incapable of controlling themselves, and are selfish. Many know what they did was wrong, and many don’t, thinking that is the way to live, to get ahead.
If a person mugs another, they are putting their wants above the other person. That could be said to be evil, putting your wants above others, yet is buying a watch evil since you did not use that money to feed the poor?
Is laying off people from their jobs evil? What if those layoffs keep the company in business, and by not laying off those people the company goes out of business, and everyone looses their jobs? Do they have a right to expect jobs in the first place? Or is that evil to expect somebody else to take care of you?
I think we are dealing with a complex issue here.
I once read an interpretation of an eastern belief that made a lot of sense to me. (Forgive me but I don’t know where this definition originated, or what eastern philosophy.) My understanding is that there was no definition of evil in this cultures language, at least not originally, and what we would call evil they would call unhealthy. The belief being that a person would not act in an evil way if they were healthy, and by acting evil, it is a sign of being sick.
Since then my opinions have evolved. Many people do bad things because they are selfish, and want benefits. They do not have the empathy to see what their actions do to others, and weigh those actions. (Empathy is learned, and can be taught.)
Then there are just plain stupid people. They do not think about their actions, or they assume their actions are just normal, or assume everyone does it, so they should be able to do it, or should do it too. These are people who do not think about their actions, they just do it. If they thought about it they might not do what they do.
Then there are people who think they are doing good. People in the bigger arena who are trying to benefit the world, or their people, and yet they end up doing terrible things. Hitler was twisted, and hade a very distorted view of the world. But it looks like what he did was because he thought it benefited his “race”. He believed that races could only fight, and only one could survive. A belief that was derived from eugenics, which was in itself derived from theories of evolution.
So you could almost say that the theory of evolution killed 6 million Jews in the holocaust. But that would be a twisting of facts, just like saying religion has killed more people then anything else, or that religion is evil.
Most evolutionists, even in the time of eugenics, did not support this belief. Most religious leaders and religious people do not support the actions of those who use religion for evil actions.
Now being an atheist myself, I still see the benefits of religion. Almost all religions share common beliefs and rules for life that truly benefit us. Religion does put these rules for living into some sort of order and logic, and that must not be discounted. Religion is not just worshiping a god, but sets of rules that have been created over thousands of years.
If you are going to throw out those rules, you had better have a good reason why. I am not saying there are no reasons not to follow certain rules, but the whole idea of rejecting anything connected to religion is not only ridiculous, but quite moronic too.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Money is the root of all evil, religion is the root of all evil, comic books, music, women…
Except for the last one, this is all crap. (And the last one only 1 week each month.)
I am not sure how we can argue evil without a real definition of what evil is. I hope anyone who is here believes the 911 attacks were evil acts. Yet does anyone think the terrorists who did that think they were doing evil? In fact they believed they were acting against evil.[/quote]
Absolutely the point. No one in their right mind would ever think of such or similar acts as virtuous. We dont need to e told what is evil, we generally know (unless you are a bad person, that is)
What would be the real reason then. religous hatred in the gaza strip has caused more deaths in the last 10 years in a fatwah than died on 9 11
And this is why they are in prison. Socioties appear to be bad at controlling such deviants, but they are actually suprisingly good at it.
[quote]
If a person mugs another, they are putting their wants above the other person. That could be said to be evil, putting your wants above others, yet is buying a watch evil since you did not use that money to feed the poor? [/quote]
Absolutely not. Evil is a poor word to use in these senses. maybe he stole the watch to feed his kids, or to feed his drug habit. The detail is the devil, so to speak. This is the case of over simplification (i wish things were that simple)
Work is trade. trade is good, as it ensure mutual reliance, and everyone has something to loose. I guess in this sense, it is a matter of priority…i.e. if it was my company, it is me and my kids first and hell to the rest of you. When things were going well, though, i employed 20 people and gave them fat bonuses.
[quote]I think we are dealing with a complex issue here.
I once read an interpretation of an eastern belief that made a lot of sense to me. (Forgive me but I don’t know where this definition originated, or what eastern philosophy.) My understanding is that there was no definition of evil in this cultures language, at least not originally, and what we would call evil they would call unhealthy. The belief being that a person would not act in an evil way if they were healthy, and by acting evil, it is a sign of being sick.[/quote]
I guess that isn’t such a bad way of putting it. In social groups, those that act in a perverse or corupt manner would always tend to be removed from groups, driven out by the mass to fend for themselves, and not many people do well in isolation.
When we talk about selfishness, we only see one piece. humans can in one sense be selfish, but correspondingly be virtuous. an example. If i go and buy a big present for all of my collegues at work, they will see me as kind and loving and will look on me more favourably. I would rise in their estimation and they would say “that miniross is all right”, and help me get bonus. Now i have been virtuous, but also selfish in the same act. the 2 aren’t mutally exclusive. To help onself can help others.
Well, i would agree that there are som mind bendingly stupid people, but i am not so sure they dont think about their actions, just that they have a poor concept of how it affects those around them, or are socially inept
The belief is that, a belief. not founded in reason, discussion, evidence. Founded on authoritarianism, And whilst it can be derived form the theory of evolution (i.e. selection) it was by no means evolution. The tool of eugenics is not unlike selective breeding for animals, which we merrily indulge in with our pets. However, for the most the idea is abohrrent.
[quote]
So you could almost say that the theory of evolution killed 6 million Jews in the holocaust. But that would be a twisting of facts, just like saying religion has killed more people then anything else, or that religion is evil.[/quote]
That is not twisting facts as such but making on hell of a leap in logic. The haulocaust, if i am correct was not strictly a matter of eugenics, but more out and out genocide based on hate. we practice eugenics of a sort today, by contraception, by not having children with close relatives(!). It is the selection of hereditry traint to improve intelligence etc by social intervention…i.e. state sponsored. The idea of eugenics was taken by the nazis and used in its bare faced raw efficiency. If that had not happened, it would not be difficult to imagine a world where it was accepted practice.
[quote]
Most evolutionists, even in the time of eugenics, did not support this belief. Most religious leaders and religious people do not support the actions of those who use religion for evil actions.[/quote]
No, but those who are at the top did, and as we all know thats all that seems to matter (ala GW Bush)
Why moronic. The rules that you say all cults/religions, what ever you will, need not come from a religion. what did people do before our latest batch of religions come around, they had another version. And there is a self evidence around most sins. In a small pleistocine group it would have been bad to be greedy as it disrupts the group, and lesses cooperation etc. It would affect team work, affecting everyones chances of survival.
So as for binning the “rules” then i doubt that would ever happen. I doubt that there will be an end of religion per se, but maybe just the ones we see around today. A lot happens in 2 thousand years
Sorry for the cut and paste, but i thought it worthy of placment. For those who would like to know, it is about 9 !!.
Religion’s Misguided Missiles
Article in The Guardian
Published Saturday September 15, 2001
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane’s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston
That is precisely what a modern “smart missile” can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today’s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner’s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until… oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there’s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That’s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker’s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man’s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn’t mind being blown up. He’d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it’s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn’t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don’t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn’t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there’s a special martyr’s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It’s a tall story, but worth a try. You’d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don’t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one’s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr’s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. “Mindless” may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.