No challenge in religion

[r3vbr]

There's no fun in debunking religion, it's just so easy cause of the grossly disproportionaly large flaws in logic/reasoning.

Puzzling how there's still so many people here at this forum who believe/discuss the matter...

Why not make posts about other thing wich are more complex and debatable such as ethic/moral issues.

Only because lots of people believe in something doesnt make it worthy of a debate.. lots of people believe in santa claus, the easter bunny, goblins and fairies. Why are you guys still discussing angels/demons (religion) and not these other subjects :P

Amen.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no fun in debunking religion, it's just so easy cause of the grossly disproportionaly large flaws in logic/reasoning.

Puzzling how there's still so many people here at this forum who believe/discuss the matter...

Why not make posts about other thing wich are more complex and debatable such as ethic/moral issues.

Only because lots of people believe in something doesnt make it worthy of a debate.. lots of people believe in santa claus, the easter bunny, goblins and fairies. Why are you guys still discussing angels/demons (religion) and not these other subjects :P

[/ QUOTE ]
For some its why supposedly rational people can believe something so irrational.

For me its mainly why some supposedly decent people believe in such an unpleasant god.

As for ethics, we've had some cracking threads.

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not make posts about other thing wich are more complex and debatable such as ethic/moral issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause ethics and moral issues stem from what religion points to.

[r3vbr]

If in the near future, a drug was invented that stimulated brain activity in animals, and a monkey could think equally to a human in every aspect, should they have rights the same as us? Should killing a cow (smart one) be considered murder? If so, would the death penalty be aplied? (is the death penalty even correct to apply in human->human murders?) What about artificial inteligente in robots, some day they may grow a conscience (plausable theory, and not so far off into the future as people might think).. what whould THEIR rights me?

more interesting questions than regligion

I just wrote out a whole response and lost it. Ugh that's frustrating. Damn poker screens.

Anyhoo, to sum up my point:

I took a class called "philosophy of animals" which addressed many issues you mentioned. It forced us to think about the ethical consideration animals deserve. I came to the following conclusions:

1) Animals are not totally in our moral sphere, because they are incapable of reciprocity, but

2) they are deserving of due consideration and should not be harmed, unless harming them fulfills a basic human need.

Some of the things we do to our fellow inhabitants on this planet are truly disturbing, and I wish more people would be exposed to some of these realities.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If in the near future, a drug was invented that stimulated brain activity in animals, and a monkey could think equally to a human in every aspect, should they have rights the same as us? Should killing a cow (smart one) be considered murder? If so, would the death penalty be aplied? (is the death penalty even correct to apply in human->human murders?) What about artificial inteligente in robots, some day they may grow a conscience (plausable theory, and not so far off into the future as people might think).. what whould THEIR rights me?

more interesting questions than regligion

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, interesting question, but not as intersting as the thing religion points to because the thing religion points to already contains everything. Anyways, what would their rights be? They would have to challenge our authority as humans at the top of tha mutha effin food chain before they got a say. Now if we are good humans and we appreciate all the goods the Universe supplies, we won't take more than we need. But we are scheming, deceptive, power hungry humans so we will not give anything rights that can't kick our ass. So what if a cow can talk, it can't kick my ass. That type of thinking will happen until humans realize that we're all made out of the same stuff and see that there is One, which all relates back to the thing religion points to anyways.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no fun in debunking religion, it's just so easy cause of the grossly disproportionaly large flaws in logic/reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you enjoyed the smug pat on the back you just gave yourself.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no fun in debunking religion, it's just so easy cause of the grossly disproportionaly large flaws in logic/reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you enjoyed the smug pat on the back you just gave yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the euphemisms you Catholic folk come up with for masturbation

[hmkpoker]

For me, debunking religion is like a quixotic game...trying to force a logical paradox from the information my opponents provide.

I'll be honest, I'm not proud of the fact that I spend so much time on this forum attacking Christianity since there are many better things I could be doing...I guess...but meh. I enjoy debate, and it gives me something to do while playing poker /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Double Down]

If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
more interesting questions than regligion

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly. How are we going to get NotReady pissed off with questions like this?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. This brings me to something I have been thinking about for a while. I am a special olympics volunteer and have been for years so I have had opportunity to deal with all sorts of retarded and disabled people. A small number of them are high functioning and can live pretty normal day to day lives. A greater number have been and will be a burden to society until they die.

Why do we insist on slapping evolution in the face? We divert resources from bettering society to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. I feel that ultimately this holds the human race back.

[Double Down]

"Why do we insist on slapping evolution in the face? We divert resources from bettering society to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. I feel that ultimately this holds the human race back."

It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species. If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

One final thought. It is incorrect to say that they can't give back. I mean, I know a certain wheelchair bound astrophysicist to whom we owe credit for much of what we currently know about our universe.
And of course, that's an extreme example, but...
there is also something that those less capable than us can offer. And I'm sure, Blackize, that you are aware of it. You benefit greatly from working with the Special Olympics. It's because it raises your level of compassion, sympathy, and understanding of those different from you. It has made you a more caring person, more tolerant and patient with people in your life, and more appreciative for what you have. These are qualities that in my opinion are greatly lacking right now in our species as a whole, and in my opinion are what is TRULY holding us back from evolving, not physically but spiritually, which I believe will be the next step of evolution for our species.


Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here. After all, we're all here for a quick blink anyhow.

(And I know you weren't suggesting in any way something so terrible as a mass suicide of retarded people. I was saying it to make a point)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Plus there's food chain arguments. Eating vegetarians would be better.

chez

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this just because they look human? If they are completely incapable of doing for themselves then all they have in common with a human is their looks.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[ QUOTE ]
If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wouldn't advocate that we ever do this, but clearly IQ isn't the deciding factor. I have met many people with very low IQs who are capable of functioning in society, and many others who are not.

[ QUOTE ]
It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ridiculous. It doesn't follow any sort of logic and is just your opinion. People you find annoying are probably still adding much more to society than those who are just a burden.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this statement is that the people that I am talking about are not pursuing anything. They are having to be taken care of by volunteers, family, and the government.

Stephen Hawking is not mentally handicapped. I am speaking of those handicapped to the point that they can't function to take care of themselves.

While I have learned a lot from working with Special Olympics and have benefitted from it, I still believe that we as a society would be better off without those who cannot care for themselves.

Your thoughts on evolving spiritually are ridiculous. Unless you believe that we will become one with God or something along those lines this is impossible. And even if that is what you are talking about it is completely absurd and there is no evidence to even support that possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[RJT]

blackize,

[ QUOTE ]
Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution is (like what some consider) God?

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
blackize,

[ QUOTE ]
Valuing human lives is slapping evolution in the face. It implies that our lives are more valuable than any other creature. Evolution dictates that the strong and those best able to adapt to change survive. By allowing the weak to survive we are diverting resources away from the strong and thus decreasing their chance of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Diverting resources to the weakest in a species invariably detracts from those available to the strong. While it may not be a "waste" it is certainly not good for the species as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

So evolution is (like what some consider) God?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

[/ QUOTE ]


chez

And if blackize is indeed correct then as we used to say at university: **** if they (our genes) can’t take a joke.

RJT

p.s. I am happy to see that Soren (his vocabulary - despair) is sinking into your subconscious.
Btw, I just picked up Barry Greenstein’s book and was immediately impressed when I saw that he quotes Kierkegaard as the first words of chapter one. I hope I don’t assume too much when I say that I don’t think David will mind that I just added Barry to David on my list of those who I enjoy listening to their thoughts.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RJT, I have to join you in your despair at some athiest. Evolution has no face and if it did then there's no reason at all why we shouldn't give it a good slap.

Evolution more or less means we are but hosts for our genes. **** em I say.

[/ QUOTE ]


chez

And if blackize is indeed correct then as we used to say at university: **** if they (our genes) can’t take a joke.

RJT

p.s. I am happy to see that Soren (his vocabulary - despair) is sinking into your subconscious.
Btw, I just picked up Barry Greenstein’s book and was immediately impressed when I saw that he quotes Kierkegaard as the first words of chapter one. I hope I don’t assume too much when I say that I don’t think David will mind that I just added Barry to David on my list of those who I enjoy listening to their thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I looking forward to angst. I'm assuming that is coming up, its the only thing I know of KS.

So far I like 'fear and trembling' thought I think a better title for me would be 'kicking and screaming'

Barry seems top-notch.

chez

[NobodysFreak]

I have to agree with the OPs original statement. I like the idea of this forum, but its mainly just a pissing contest between believers and non-believers. More to the point, it's mainly just a christianity versus atheism pissing contest.

What I don't understand is why the people who claim to dislike religion only choose christianity as their target. Perhaps its a function of living in the Wester world, but there are organized religions out there committing far more horrendous acts in the name of God.

Personally, I don't care much for organized religion in any form. Note that I have said nothing about the existence of God. Just religion. For those like myself who dislike the idea of organized religion, I think this forum might benefit from a more broad discussion on the topic. While I'm primarily accustomed to christianity as being the primary religion around me, I know there are those in this forum who have studied other relgions more in depth. I think we could all benefit from more discussion on them.

[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]


Google Peter Singer. I do appreciate his honesty in admitting that if we as a society permit abortion than we should permit infanticide as well.

Hiya bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not as bad as the dude that condemns an entire species for the mistake of one couple. Or the one that promises torture of hell eternally for a simple mistake. I am talking abot the absolute love dude, by the way, as he is often characterised.

When will you guys at least admit the you hold totally contradictory beliefs. I won't hold it against you, won't ask you to change them, or not comply with them. I am only pre-empting what seems to be the norm, when you suddenly want everyone else to behave based on the same idiocy.

I use "idiocy" here not in a mocking way, by the way. First of there is nothing to mock. It does not exist. Secondly on another thread someone said that "intelligence is the ability to hold contracdictory thought simultaneously". I am not sure if that's intelligence but I am certain that the ability to hold two opposing thought simultaneously and NOT knowing to be doing so, can be characterised a lot more strongly and negatively than mere idiocy suggests.

Was a student of his many years ago. A great mind - very challenging. Ultimately he's very concerned with the relief of suffering.

From memory the time frame is a bit longer. Googling will probably earn you a large amount of alarmist clap-trap and quotes out of context. Better to read one of his books.

[r3vbr]

What I meant to say by "inteligence" was that the being would have a conscience.

I think it's the conscience (knowing you are alive) that gives value to a life (anything with a conscience should have same rights as humans imo).

Do you mean consciousness? This is one issue. Another is sentience. Whether animals are conscious (and to what degree if they are) is a debatable issue, but it's pretty clear that they feel pain. This is the main reason, imo, that they deserve consideration.