View Full Version : Dear atheists: cure cancer or cure religion?
hmkpoker
10-26-2005, 02:40 PM
Sorry, I know I've been posting a lot lately, but I really want to know how people feel about this.
This poll is for NON-BELIEVERS ONLY. Christians, Jews, Muslims, or members of eastern religions are kindly asked not to participate, so as not to tamper with the results. Atheists, or atheistic agnostics only, please.
You have a choice. You can create one of the two following "cures." Whichever one you choose will be widespread, well-marketed, but you will not gain any prestige, fame, money, power or recognition of any kind for it. You can only choose one.
CURE CANCER AND AIDS: You approve the existence of a vaccine that, upon administration, completely eliminates cancer and AIDS in the patient with no side effects. It is cheap to produce. It has no other medical uses or potential.
CURE RELIGION: You approve the existence of a philosophical argument that has yet been undiscovered by human beings. The argument has shown to satisfactorily disprove the existence of God and the need for religion to 99.99% of the people that hear it or read it. It proves capable of debunking all three Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism)
What's it gonna be?
again, ATHEISTS ONLY, PLEASE! (I'm especially interested in Mr. Sklansky's answer /images/graemlins/grin.gif)
Easy! Cure cancer and AIDS. I may suffer from one or the other one day. I am already vaccinated for western religion.
hmkpoker
10-26-2005, 02:45 PM
Yes, but you'll still have to live in a world full of Christians /images/graemlins/grin.gif
DougShrapnel
10-26-2005, 02:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Easy! Cure cancer and AIDS. I may suffer from one or the other one day. I am already vaccinated for western religion.
[/ QUOTE ]Is understanding memes less important than finding a cure for cancer or AIDS?
purnell
10-26-2005, 02:53 PM
Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.
Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.
Easy choice.
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[ QUOTE ]
Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.
Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.
Easy choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice.
There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.
purnell
10-26-2005, 02:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curing cancer and AIDS would delay the deaths of some individuals.
Curing religion would delay the death of the human species.
Easy choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice.
There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.
[/ QUOTE ]
We are entitled to our own values. No problem.
hmkpoker
10-26-2005, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing funny about cancer or AIDS, while the religious provide me endless supply of humor.
[/ QUOTE ]
...and unnecessary "moral" values and laws, a stupid population, terrorism, war, and horrendous political decisions. (Bush NEVER would have gotten in if he declared himself an atheist, but had all the same policies)
And secondly, AIDS is finally funny! It's been >22.4 years (south park did an episode about it) I know a lot of AIDS jokes, and this is 2+2 so I'll make a poker joke:
My friend and I call pocket Jacks "AIDS"...they're fun to get, but they'll end up killin' ya ^_^
JackWhite
10-26-2005, 03:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?
hmkpoker
10-26-2005, 03:04 PM
Well said.
I should say to kidluckee that my argument is just meant to be a joke, not taken seriously.
Piers
10-26-2005, 03:18 PM
If nothing else happens I am expecting to die form cancer in a few decades. So a cure for that would be great.
I cannot imagine myself ever catching religion; I don’t believe it is necessarily fatal either.
So I am a selfish [censored].
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.
And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.
And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.
I think you're right, to a certain extent. I basically lump religion, jingoism, etc. into the same category of 'brainwashed.' If people were able to unshackle themselves from religion them maybe they could do the same for other things. I said it would be a major leap towards world peace, and that is specifically because many problems (and most of the major ones) are religion-based, dating back many years. I'll never know if religion would be replaced by something equally as brainwashing, but I'd rather it be gone nonetheless and take my chances.
I also think that religion is a more powerful drive than pretty much anything else. Someone that's just really nationalistic and not religious may realize that this is the only life we have and not be willing to risk their life smashing a plane into a building or willing to nuke a populated city.
My opinion anyways. I can see why someone would disagree.
David Sklansky
10-26-2005, 04:28 PM
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion. On the other hand eliminationg religion would increase the chances of curing cancer and AIDs. But not by much because the vast majority of people who are intellectually capable of finding such a cure are already not deeply religious.
hmkpoker
10-26-2005, 07:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why?
Aytumious
10-26-2005, 07:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion. On the other hand eliminationg religion would increase the chances of curing cancer and AIDs. But not by much because the vast majority of people who are intellectually capable of finding such a cure are already not deeply religious.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking along the same lines. I think enough brilliant minds who have been infected by religion exist for the the answer to be to cure people of religion.
Religious people don't want to cure Aids or Cancer?
I will assume you are talking about embryonic stem-cell research because nothing else would support such a claim.
There are other reasons that some people don't support embryonic stem cell research.
Adult stem cells have shown traits of plasticity which allows them to change into the three main cell types that are the reason embryonic stem cells have value.
Nature magazine also has two studies done by scientists that use embryonic stem cells without the ethical dilemmas in the latest issue.
Will that be a bad thing? Is it so important to use embryos even if it is unneccesary just to prove a point?
I see that there exists an immense hostility towards Religious people as well as contempt regarding their intellectual capacity.
I certainly don't mind. Just calling them like I see them.
evil_twin
10-26-2005, 08:07 PM
Post deleted by evil_twin
evil_twin
10-26-2005, 08:09 PM
You were too quick for me. Sorry, I misunderstood slightly and deleted my post.
purnell
10-26-2005, 08:22 PM
Some of you make a good case for curing cancer and AIDS first. I can certainly see value in the reduction of suffering. I think I equated "curing religion" with eliminating fanaticism, and it is fanaticism, not religion per se, that has the potential to bring about our extinction.
I voted for curing religion. If this cure was only going to last for the next 10 to 20 years, then I'd cure cancer. In the long run though, curing religion will save many more lives and free people to pursue happiness in moral ways that many religions currently severely hinder and are likely to continue hindering in the future. Also, cancer will probably be cured eventually while curing religion seems much more difficult.
The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally kid, you and I agree on something. Your last sentence, especially, has done a great service to the atheist postion in my view.
Aytumious
10-26-2005, 10:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do believers have a monopoly on horrible acts of murder or terrorism? Have non-believers ever killed large amounts of people?
[/ QUOTE ]
'Believers' (certain ones, anyway) have a monopoly on wanting to kill everyone that disagrees with them. They also have a monopoly on the desire to get nukes in order to kill people that disagree with them. Acts of murder will happen in either case. I argue that acts of killing/murder will decrease by a large margin if there is no religion.
And no, believers don't have a monopoly on acts of terror (as defined by the US), but they're pretty goddamn close to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but that logic is awfully flawed. First, you obviously believe that religion is bunk (as do I). Many have done awful things in the name of religion. But do you think that the removal of the crutch of religion will stop people from doing awful things? Obviously, if religion is bunk, these conflicts of ideas are purely man made. If Isamlic terrorists weren't using religion to whoop up the masses, they could just as easily whoop them up with economic, political, racial, or a host of other propaganda means. Their issues with the U.S. are far more political than religious anyway (they aren't flying planes into cities in Hindu or Buddhist nations). People will continue to find reasons and means to try and power over each other, regardless of whether religion is used to fan the flames or not. Quite frankly, posts like yours do a great disservice to atheist positions.
[/ QUOTE ]
For the most part I agree with you, kid. The main thing that is different about pitching religion is that the afterlife is a big draw. Many of the drones that are sucked in by the propaganda of religion would most likely get sucked into other causes as well, but I think the unique characteristics of religion do make it an easier sell.
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest reason why I voted to get rid of religion is that cancer will probably never wipe humanity off the planet. Religion very well may, especially in the future when WMDs will be very readily available to large numbers of people.
[/ QUOTE ]
If we are to include this line of thinking, then we must assume this is how most Atheists think and we really need to add a cure to “Atheism” to the OP.
cf kidluckee's post above.
This makes no sense to me. Let’s take Christianity who’s 2 main Commandments are love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Everything else is superfluous. Now how does one get from this anything that one needs to fear? Anything that one fears is a complete manipulation of the Religion and should not be equated with the Religion. To paraphrase chez, to say one is a Christian is not believing - it does not make one a Xn. Period.
As far as Muslims - I don’t know much about the Koran. Either show that the terrorist are following the Koran or lets get off this kick that since they say they are Muslims then that is what Islam. I really can’t believe some can’t make this distinction.
Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Get it? Does that mean Atheism is bad? Come on now. This isn’t rocket science.
[ QUOTE ]
Hitler and Stalin were atheists.
[/ QUOTE ]
not Hitler (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html)
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 12:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense to me. Let’s take Christianity who’s 2 main Commandments are love God and love your neighbor. That’s it. Everything else is superfluous. Now how does one get from this anything that one needs to fear? Anything that one fears is a complete manipulation of the Religion and should not be equated with the Religion. To paraphrase chez, to say one is a Christian is not believing - it does not make one a Xn. Period.
As far as Muslims - I don’t know much about the Koran. Either show that the terrorist are following the Koran or lets get off this kick that since they say they are Muslims then that is what Islam. I really can’t believe some can’t make this distinction.
Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Get it? Does that mean Atheism is bad? Come on now. This isn’t rocket science.
[/ QUOTE ]
My main point was that intelligent people would stop wasting time arguing about or practicing religion, with the net effect being that many of those people would devote more time to science.
I also think that a secular society would put a much greater emphasis on scientific achievment than a religious one, especially in regard to things like medicine.
[ QUOTE ]
My main point was that intelligent people would stop wasting time arguing about or practicing religion, with the net effect being that many of those people would devote more time to science.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess our disagreement comes in words like “intelligent people”. To me even if it were Einstein who flew one of the planes into the WTC, I wouldn’t refer to him as intelligent. A genius by definition probably. Intelligent I think is more of a subjective word.
I don’t want to assume things of you and a few others who have these ideas, but you seem to really have a problem with the stereotypical TV evangelist type of folk and perhaps even the current Administration - so do I. I simply don’t equate them with always getting their Religion right. To fault the Religion is an error, I think. Basically, it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
[ QUOTE ]
I also think that a secular society would put a much greater emphasis on scientific achievement than a religious one, especially in regard to things like medicine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, that is all great. Especially if that is what you deem “important”. I simply don’t find the goal in and of itself to be so important. I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)
lastchance
10-27-2005, 01:37 AM
While I don't believe in religion, being able to prove religion is wrong would give little satisfaction. I don't know why I would want to cure religion, as it certainly gives people something to think and talk about. Since I don't know what the net effect of religion is, I really can't pick it.
Curing Cancer + AIDS means I don't get it, and it means huge amounts of brownie points. It also means more sex, and SS will really have to be cut, by a lot, too. Definite upside here, I think.
Cure Cancer and AIDS, and this is an easy one.
Tough decision. I voted for 'cure cancer/aids' because religion is just a symptom of deeper problems. Curing religion would just kill a symptom and allow something else to take its place. It's like racism. Racism is a symptom of deeper-rooted problems with humanity. You rid the planet of racism, you end up with people hating gays.
[ QUOTE ]
...because religion is just a symptom of deeper problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, and what problem are those kbfc?
David Sklansky
10-27-2005, 02:58 AM
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"
Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?
[ QUOTE ]
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"
Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was trying to make two points. Ozone and ecology and stuff like that, that “scientist” spend so much time on - I assume to benefit the longevity of the human race. If we are merely animals why all the “guilt trips” you guys lay on us? And you guys think Religion fs us up? Human become extinct like the dinosaurs -big deal - what am I missing?
Of course, I value science and medicine. My mom’s breast cancer was completely removed this year, thanks to good science and medicine. “God bless” science. But, the suggestion that it is the be all and end all and that Religion is a distraction to the real goods is what puzzles me. Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time…
purnell
10-27-2005, 03:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)
[/ QUOTE ]
In the absense of supernaturally dictated values, I choose life (mine, and by extension human life in general) as my highest value.
[ QUOTE ]
This is tough because most people would suffer if they had no religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
If religion were proven conclusively false, I think most people would be able to cope. In my experience the most stressed atheists are the unsure ones.
Cure religion. The cure for cancer/AIDS is probably coming in the next 50-150 years anyway; a cure for religion will probably not arise for another 1000-10,000, if ever. Thus, the cure for religion would be an astonishingly monumental achievement, far beyond curing cancer/AIDS, which would also be monumental.
Even if both would be cured in the same time frame, I would go with curing religion. It would save almost as many lives, and the lives that would be saved would be richer, because they will be more likely to be focused on endeavors devoted to worthy causes (since I consider religion unworthy, and a waste of valuable human energy).
I don't believe that all human conflict is caused by religious differences; not even close. But some are, and eliminating those is a step in the right direction. The unique thing about religious conflicts is that they CANNOT be resolved without the elimination of one of the religions (often accomplished or attempted through war). This, because their arguments are based on "faith," that is, things for which there is no evidence. So one side can never convince the other of its truth, and thus unavoidable conflicts arise. Thus, religion (ie "faith") leads to inevitable conflict.
durron597
10-27-2005, 07:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No religion = no religious fanatics = no planes fly into my building and no fundamentalists with nukes.
To tell you the truth I think no religions would be a major leap towards world peace, if there ever can be such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
If there was no Islam, the terrorists' real motives would finally be exposed. That doesn't mean they would stop being terrorists, though.
SNOWBALL138
10-27-2005, 07:17 AM
I thought about it for a microsecond that maybe if people weren't religious that that wouldn't kill eachother, but then I remembered that religion is usually just an excuse to steal stuff from people. And you don't really need to use religion to do that. You can make like Clinton and pretend that Sudanese aspirin factories are producing chemical weapons or make like Bush and pretend that Iraq has WMDs.
So, yeah, I say cure cancer and aids.
SNOWBALL138
10-27-2005, 07:33 AM
Religion has about as much to do with war as Osama Bin Laden had to do with the war in iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
If we are immortal and have eternal life through faith in God, why should we care about it? It would seem if our life on earth is our only life (at least that we know of), we could conceivably care more not less about it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)
[/ QUOTE ]
In the absense of supernaturally dictated values, I choose life (mine, and by extension human life in general) as my highest value.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cool, I like a person with goals.
purnell
10-27-2005, 10:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)
[/ QUOTE ]
In the absense of supernaturally dictated values, I choose life (mine, and by extension human life in general) as my highest value.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cool, I like a person with goals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do I need a sense of humor transfusion? 'Cause I don't get it.
Perhaps you misread?
If I may ask, what is your highest value?
Purnell,
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool, I like a person with goals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do I need a sense of humor transfusion? 'Cause I don't get it.
Perhaps you misread?
If I may ask, what is your highest value?
[/ QUOTE ]
I mean I like that you state what is important to you - of the utmost importance. Now you have something that your life, decisions, goals and the like can have a perspective. You have a point of view from which to live your life. Not that all must have this. Just that you have decided what works for you. So, I was serious when I said I like a person with goals. Goals probably wasn’t the best word to have used, but that is how I meant it.
My highest value? – hard to describe. Basically, finding some meaning to life – the meaning to life, if it exists. And then trying to live my life according to the meaning that I find (have found). For me it is pretty much based on Christ – if Christ is actually not it, then I haven’t found anything so far other than fluff. (Btw, I am not a very devote Christian per se, holy roller type – just trying to live life according to what I think is that highest value. Also, btw, my Religion has nothing against enjoying life, case you don’t know – some might not realize this.) Absent something like this everything else becomes just fluff to me. Not that there is anything wrong with fluff.* Fluff is fun.
I, also, think the value of life (your highest value) fits in quite well with my highest value. Really, I don’t think there is much of a difference between yours and mine – just different methodologies, maybe (and of course after-life stuff).
RJT
P.S. I probably should have explained my post a bit more than I did. It is a bit sarcastic. I think I meant to hint at sarcasm in this sense: to also illustrate that anyone’s (including my own) highest value is subjective. Subjective that is if no God or if a God who has no interest in us. With a God who has an interest in us, then I think the highest value is objective (finding what He wants/expects or perhaps better still offers is the hard part.)
* (Can you tell I am a Seinfeld fan?)
purnell
10-27-2005, 12:25 PM
Thanks for the explanation. Having been raised Catholic myself, I pretty much understand where you're coming from when you say it's not against enjoying life, though alot of people think otherwise. And I agree we're not that that far apart in terms of what we think is important.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 01:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race? (And of course even if there is more to it than that, why so important to live longer?)
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I can't tell you exactly why there is a very strong drive for not only survival, but longevity and population growth. This is just another thing that science can work towards explaining.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 01:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"
Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was trying to make two points. Ozone and ecology and stuff like that, that “scientist” spend so much time on - I assume to benefit the longevity of the human race. If we are merely animals why all the “guilt trips” you guys lay on us? And you guys think Religion fs us up? Human become extinct like the dinosaurs -big deal - what am I missing?
Of course, I value science and medicine. My mom’s breast cancer was completely removed this year, thanks to good science and medicine. “God bless” science. But, the suggestion that it is the be all and end all and that Religion is a distraction to the real goods is what puzzles me. Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time…
[/ QUOTE ]
You are arguing with people that believe this firmly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"
Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was trying to make two points. Ozone and ecology and stuff like that, that “scientist” spend so much time on - I assume to benefit the longevity of the human race. If we are merely animals why all the “guilt trips” you guys lay on us? And you guys think Religion fs us up? Human become extinct like the dinosaurs -big deal - what am I missing?
Of course, I value science and medicine. My mom’s breast cancer was completely removed this year, thanks to good science and medicine. “God bless” science. But, the suggestion that it is the be all and end all and that Religion is a distraction to the real goods is what puzzles me. Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time…
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I can't tell you exactly why there is a very strong drive for not only survival, but longevity and population growth. This is just another thing that science can work towards explaining.
You are arguing with people that believe this firmly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, doesn’t seem anyone has a good answer to it. I simply find it odd that those who seem to feel this way – that spending time and energy trying to save the ozone without a reason why it matters is not considered a waste of time – yet, find Religion such a horrible waste of time.
I wouldn’t call it arguing. In fact, I see no argument at all. It is a matter of opinion – what constitutes time wasted. And like they say: opinions are like a..holes, we all got 'em.
DougShrapnel
10-27-2005, 02:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time
[/ QUOTE ] RJT religion is a huge time saver. One could debate the existance of God or non existance sd infinitum, Or one could just assume God exists. One could think criticaly about morals and ethics, or one could just believe in God. One Could spend all his time devoting to the things he doesn't know and doesn't have the ability to figure out, or one could just ascribe those to god. One could ponder all day long about how the fates and chance will affect him today, or one could just believe in a good God. Prayer takes less time and helps other issues than worry. If you could put all the important knowledge of the world in one authoratative book, you would save time. When chosen mates for the raising of children, if one has to ask about each individual belief or instead ask about a belief that encompases them all, one saves alot more time. If you could designate 1 person with the task of leader or a couple and spend an hour or 2 once a week listening to them, instead of everyone thinking about the same probelms all week one of these options is more effiecent. Religion saves a shitload of time for most people. Of course when all the important knowledge no longer fits in one book, and when the knowledge changes rapidly, it becomes a time waster.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 02:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I’ll ask again, if we are merely animals, why is everyone so worried about the longevity of the human race?"
Not the human race. Individual humans. Don't you want your dog to live longer and not suffer?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was trying to make two points. Ozone and ecology and stuff like that, that “scientist” spend so much time on - I assume to benefit the longevity of the human race. If we are merely animals why all the “guilt trips” you guys lay on us? And you guys think Religion fs us up? Human become extinct like the dinosaurs -big deal - what am I missing?
Of course, I value science and medicine. My mom’s breast cancer was completely removed this year, thanks to good science and medicine. “God bless” science. But, the suggestion that it is the be all and end all and that Religion is a distraction to the real goods is what puzzles me. Sure if Religion is bogus then it is a waste of time…
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I can't tell you exactly why there is a very strong drive for not only survival, but longevity and population growth. This is just another thing that science can work towards explaining.
You are arguing with people that believe this firmly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, doesn’t seem anyone has a good answer to it. I simply find it odd that those who seem to feel this way – that spending time and energy trying to save the ozone without a reason why it matters is not considered a waste of time – yet, find Religion such a horrible waste of time.
I wouldn’t call it arguing. In fact, I see no argument at all. It is a matter of opinion – what constitutes time wasted. And like they say: opinions are like a..holes, we all got 'em.
[/ QUOTE ]
I meant "good question" slightly in jest. If you don't think it is blatantly clear that individuals and groups strive for their survival, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact that I can't tell you specifically why indeed this drive exists really has no bearing on its massive impact for life on this planet.
hmkpoker
10-27-2005, 02:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Good question. I can't tell you exactly why there is a very strong drive for not only survival, but longevity and population growth. This is just another thing that science can work towards explaining.
[/ QUOTE ]
To whom does this apply? I personally am in favor of decreasing the population (I did not say genocide), and even in favor of producing entities superior to humans through science which might, one day, replace us.
Progress should not necessitate human population growth.
[ QUOTE ]
I meant "good question" slightly in jest. If you don't think it is blatantly clear that individuals and groups strive for their survival, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact that I can't tell you specifically why indeed this drive exists really has no bearing on its massive impact for life on this planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
If evolution is true and is true only as we understand it now, then there is no reason other than survival. It is clear that we strive for survival. And it seems the answer is merely that.
I am saying that simply because evolution dictates such is no reason for our species who have free will to choose survival as the ultimate value (or however we can describe it).
It appears to me that many here seem to think that evolution since it dictates must dictate. It’s almost that Evolution is God to Atheists.
I suggest we break from our bondage. We must unite against this tyrannical thing we call Evolution. Choose our own destiny. Damn the ozone – “live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse”.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 02:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant "good question" slightly in jest. If you don't think it is blatantly clear that individuals and groups strive for their survival, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact that I can't tell you specifically why indeed this drive exists really has no bearing on its massive impact for life on this planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
If evolution is true and is true only as we understand it now, then there is no reason other than survival. It is clear that we strive for survival. And it seems the answer is merely that.
I am saying that simply because evolution dictates such is no reason for our species who have free will to choose survival as the ultimate value (or however we can describe it).
It appears to me that many here seem to think that evolution since it dictates must dictate. It’s almost that Evolution is God to Atheists.
I suggest we break from our bondage. We must unite against this tyrannical thing we call Evolution. Choose our own destiny. Damn the ozone – “live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse”.
[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution isn't god for atheists. It is one of the most remarkable explanational tools man has realized.
Plus, your view of complete free will, unfettered by unconscious drives, is not one I share. Man certainly has free will, though I think it is much more limited than he lets himself believe.
If you want to get into a debate -- or sharing of opinions -- with someone on freewill, you'll have to find someone else.
DougShrapnel
10-27-2005, 02:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant "good question" slightly in jest. If you don't think it is blatantly clear that individuals and groups strive for their survival, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact that I can't tell you specifically why indeed this drive exists really has no bearing on its massive impact for life on this planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
If evolution is true and is true only as we understand it now, then there is no reason other than survival. It is clear that we strive for survival. And it seems the answer is merely that.
I am saying that simply because evolution dictates such is no reason for our species who have free will to choose survival as the ultimate value (or however we can describe it).
It appears to me that many here seem to think that evolution since it dictates must dictate. It’s almost that Evolution is God to Atheists.
I suggest we break from our bondage. We must unite against this tyrannical thing we call Evolution. Choose our own destiny. Damn the ozone – “live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse”.
[/ QUOTE ]I agree with you. The consequence of evolution is that we have all these things left over from the effort to survive. This things are not true in and of themselves but merely that they made the believer more likely to survive. So at this juncture where are we to go next?
[ QUOTE ]
religion is a huge time saver. One could debate the existance of God or non existance sd infinitum, Or one could just assume God exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or not.
DougShrapnel
10-27-2005, 03:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
religion is a huge time saver. One could debate the existance of God or non existance sd infinitum, Or one could just assume God exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or not.
[/ QUOTE ]Haven't felt the wrath of kid in awhile, You a doctor now?
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 03:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since you aren't a christian, life is ultimately meaningless and getting your degree was a massive waste of time.
P.S. Congrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
I said this:
[ QUOTE ]
It’s almost that Evolution is God to Atheists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not this:
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution [is] god for atheists.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get into a debate -- or sharing of opinions -- with someone on freewill, you'll have to find someone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me, not interested in the free will subject.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since you aren't a christian, life is ultimately meaningless and getting your degree was a massive waste of time.
P.S. Congrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it wopuld be even more meaningless if I was a Christian, since anything achieved (beyond salvation) in this world is useless.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif but thanks!
[ QUOTE ]
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
[/ QUOTE ]
I’d say “What a nice Christmas present”, but I don’t think that would go over too well with you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Instead I’ll say, Congratulations.
DougShrapnel
10-27-2005, 03:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since you aren't a christian, life is ultimately meaningless and getting your degree was a massive waste of time.
P.S. Congrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it wopuld be even more meaningless if I was a Christian, since anything achieved (beyond salvation) in this world is useless.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif but thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]It's always good to see your unabashed posts on the board. Even when they are at my expense.
Aytumious
10-27-2005, 03:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Successfully defended, not official until Dec ceremony.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since you aren't a christian, life is ultimately meaningless and getting your degree was a massive waste of time.
P.S. Congrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it wopuld be even more meaningless if I was a Christian, since anything achieved (beyond salvation) in this world is useless.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif but thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope it was clear I was doing my best NotReady impersonation.
[ QUOTE ]
I hope it was clear I was doing my best NotReady impersonation.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was.
My NotReady reflex mechanism is too ingrained.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...because religion is just a symptom of deeper problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, and what problem are those kbfc?
[/ QUOTE ]
Religious belief requires the abandonment of rationality and reason (or misapplication at best). That said, I can't make any absolute case for why one should hold rationality in high esteem, but I take it axiomatically in my life that one should. Therefore, I find it to be a problem when it doesn't happen.
The next point is the crux of my response, and has to do with some misguided atheist arguments as well:
It's a red herring to state that religion is the cause of all war and suffering, etc. It is most certainly NOT. It is humankind's overwhelming ignorance, along with selfishness, greed, and basic disregard or outright contempt for anyone different that fuels wars (note: I'm not making any particular moral judgement about any of those causes). This is not exclusive to the religious. Religion just happens to be a pretty convenient tool in the hands of a small number of people to influence a large number of people to go along with their plans.
History is littered with examples, but I'll take the easy path and look to the present: GWB. This is an administration that basically duped millions of americans into following its lead based on some bullshit notions of religious piety and christian 'values.' Given this support, they are able to go along their warmongering ways, kicking back all the profits to their buddies, and fueling the terrorist danger that they claim to be fighting. And yet: no anti-gay-marriage amendment; no overturn of roe/wade; not much of anything of any value to a sincere christian voter (not to mention a sincere economic conservative).
So you see, the problem at root isn't religion. Religion is just a symptom or a tool for the masses and the few, respectively. Remember, I voted for the cure cancer option, for this very reason. I have no reason to believe that, in the absence of religion, something else won't spring up that simply takes its place, maybe even worse.
[ QUOTE ]
So you see, the problem at root isn't religion. Religion is just a symptom or a tool for the masses and the few, respectively. Remember, I voted for the cure cancer option, for this very reason. I have no reason to believe that, in the absence of religion, something else won't spring up that simply takes its place, maybe even worse.
[/ QUOTE ]
This clarifies what you meant I think. If you take the word symptom out completely (or say sometimes is a symptom) and using the word tool and add the words “can be” or “sometimes is used” then I cannot disagree with you. So we have Religion can be a tool… and/or Religion sometimes is used as a tool…
Btw, I can’t agree with you more about the red herring paragraph.
David Sklansky
10-27-2005, 06:32 PM
"Religious belief requires the abandonment of rationality and reason (or misapplication at best). That said, I can't make any absolute case for why one should hold rationality in high esteem, but I take it axiomatically in my life that one should. Therefore, I find it to be a problem when it doesn't happen.
The next point is the crux of my response, and has to do with some misguided atheist arguments as well:
It's a red herring to state that religion is the cause of all war and suffering, etc. It is most certainly NOT. It is humankind's overwhelming ignorance, along with selfishness, greed, and basic disregard or outright contempt for anyone different that fuels wars (note: I'm not making any particular moral judgement about any of those causes). This is not exclusive to the religious. Religion just happens to be a pretty convenient tool in the hands of a small number of people to influence a large number of people to go along with their plans.
History is littered with examples, but I'll take the easy path and look to the present: GWB. This is an administration that basically duped millions of americans into following its lead based on some bullshit notions of religious piety and christian 'values.' Given this support, they are able to go along their warmongering ways, kicking back all the profits to their buddies, and fueling the terrorist danger that they claim to be fighting. And yet: no anti-gay-marriage amendment; no overturn of roe/wade; not much of anything of any value to a sincere christian voter (not to mention a sincere economic conservative).
So you see, the problem at root isn't religion. Religion is just a symptom or a tool for the masses and the few, respectively. Remember, I voted for the cure cancer option, for this very reason. I have no reason to believe that, in the absence of religion, something else won't spring up that simply takes its place, maybe even worse."
Can you explain to me why everyone above the age of eight doesn't already realize everything youm said?
[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain to me why everyone above the age of eight doesn't already realize everything youm said?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll get back to you with this answer once this board goes a full week without a mention of Pascal's Wager. Until then, I can't be of any help....
[ QUOTE ]
This clarifies what you meant I think. If you take the word symptom out completely (or say sometimes is a symptom) and using the word tool and add the words “can be” or “sometimes is used” then I cannot disagree with you. So we have Religion can be a tool… and/or Religion sometimes is used as a tool…
[/ QUOTE ]
"sometimes is used," re: 'tool', is sorta redundant.
"sometimes is," re: 'symptom', is not what i meant. i definitely meant "is".
Evolution isn't a 'thing' in the sense that it acts as a driving force or does anything at all. It is an observation and explanatory model for the way things are.
An analogy: water waves.
A 'wave' is not really a thing, it is a description and model of some other behavior. The water wave propogates due to force imbalances in the water, not because it is driven by some mathematical function. The mathematical function (aka 'wave') just happens to describe the results of the true forces.
Same thing with evolution. Evolution doesn't 'strive' to do anything. It just happense to describe the results of actual forces in nature. There is a whole scientific field that studies these actual forces.
So equating (even 'almost') evolution to a "God to Atheists" is completely baseless.
Then what does Religion as a tool mean in the context of those who believe who are not fanatics or by those of us who do not use it as a tool for things that you and I agree on. i.e your examples? A tool for what problem are you suggesting?
[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain to me why everyone above the age of eight doesn't already realize everything you said?
[/ QUOTE ]
David,
You obviously don’t read all the posts on this forum.
RJT
My language might have been unclear a few posts back but the point I was trying to get across was this:
For a very small, select group of people, religion is a tool. They wield it to influence populations and further their own goals.
For a very large group of people, religion is a symptom of (as I discussed earlier) problems with logic, psychology, etc..
It is not a symptom for the first group (not necessarily, at least). And it is not a tool for the second group.
[ QUOTE ]
So equating (even 'almost') evolution to a "God to Atheists" is completely baseless.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was a metaphor. It wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
Well, if it was a metaphor, it must have had some informational value? What was it? What is the connection between evolution and God that gave rise to the metaphor?
[ QUOTE ]
My language might have been unclear a few posts back but the point I was trying to get across was this:
For a very small, select group of people, religion is a tool. They wield it to influence populations and further their own goals.
For a very large group of people, religion is a symptom of (as I discussed earlier) problems with logic, psychology, etc..
It is not a symptom for the first group (not necessarily, at least). And it is not a tool for the second group.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this as written now. Since it is no longer a blanket statement.
Some believers live their lives on how they understand God.
Some atheists live their lives on how they understand evolution.
Ok, fair enough. Reading back through the thread, I can see how this interpretation is consistent and makes sense. I'm so used to seeing evolution strawmanned into some ridiculous argument about atheistic faith that I just assumed that was the case again.
I guess my only reply after that would be, "so what?" People make misinformed judgements all the time about a number of things.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My language might have been unclear a few posts back but the point I was trying to get across was this:
For a very small, select group of people, religion is a tool. They wield it to influence populations and further their own goals.
For a very large group of people, religion is a symptom of (as I discussed earlier) problems with logic, psychology, etc..
It is not a symptom for the first group (not necessarily, at least). And it is not a tool for the second group.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this as written now. Since it is no longer a blanket statement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you might have a problem with it if I offer this clarification /images/graemlins/smile.gif :
That 'very large' group of people encompasses ALL religious people.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My language might have been unclear a few posts back but the point I was trying to get across was this:
For a very small, select group of people, religion is a tool. They wield it to influence populations and further their own goals.
For a very large group of people, religion is a symptom of (as I discussed earlier) problems with logic, psychology, etc..
It is not a symptom for the first group (not necessarily, at least). And it is not a tool for the second group.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this as written now. Since it is no longer a blanket statement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you might have a problem with it if I offer this clarification /images/graemlins/smile.gif :
That 'very large' group of people encompasses ALL religious people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just so you realize the same can be said of Atheists. In other words, we all have some psychological problems.
Ergo, “baseless“?
[ QUOTE ]
Just so you realize the same can be said of Atheists. In other words, we all have some psychological problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
The same cannot be said of ALL atheists. I'm not talking about psychological problems in general; I'm referring to specific issues at the root of religious belief combined with logical failings, and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of right now.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so you realize the same can be said of Atheists. In other words, we all have some psychological problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
The same cannot be said of ALL atheists. I'm not talking about psychological problems in general; I'm referring to specific issues at the root of religious belief combined with logical failings, and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Logic, sure. All Religions fall short of logical conclusions.
Just so you aren't saying all religious folk have pyschological problems unless you make the same statement of atheists.
I'm not saying that Atheists are free from psychological problems. I'm saying that they are, at least to some greater-than-zero degree, free from specific psychological problems that give rise to religious beliefs. Atheists can still be, and are, headcases over a number of other things.
I would expect some sort of challenge here, but it's not relevant to the thread. It's enough for the purposes of the OP that I make it clear that I'm assuming religious belief to be a byproduct of psychological deficiency (among other contributing factors). Given that assumption, I made my argument as to which poll choice I voted for. Now, it is true that I wasn't just making an arbitrary assumption; that is my actual position on the matter. I'm not particularly interested in debating it here, though - especially in this thread.
David Sklansky
10-27-2005, 10:25 PM
"I would expect some sort of challenge here, but it's not relevant to the thread. It's enough for the purposes of the OP that I make it clear that I'm assuming religious belief to be a byproduct of psychological deficiency"
That is only likely in the case of scientifically literate people born in the last 100 years with IQs above 130 or so. Surely you realize that.
[ QUOTE ]
"I would expect some sort of challenge here, but it's not relevant to the thread. It's enough for the purposes of the OP that I make it clear that I'm assuming religious belief to be a byproduct of psychological deficiency"
That is only likely in the case of scientifically literate people born in the last 100 years with IQs above 130 or so. Surely you realize that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely.
I picked cure for religion. Cancer and AIDs will be cured sometime in the near future, where as religion will probally always exist.
One man's terroist is another's freedom fighter. They might not be 'evil' at all. Their perspective might be so warped that they think they're doing the right thing.
Ack, I think in my attempt at clever brevity, I missed something here. I can agree with your post, and revised criteria, only because you cut out the parenthetical in mine. The parenthetical, which accounted for other contributing factors to religious belief - such as, but not limited to: ignorance, irrationality, etc - helps account for the rest of the population of believers. That is not to discount the psychological component for them. It is likely a huge factor as well, but perhaps only one of many factors rather than an overriding one.
IronUnkind
10-28-2005, 03:12 AM
Likely?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.