next »

[ChevyRay]

No doubt the black eye is the result of a very gentlemanly bout of fisticuffs.

[Matthew Rundle]

I do not believe that, as tocky put it, "religion is harmful to society". Religion is not harmful to society. People are harmful to society.

I said organised religion is harmful to society. I draw a distinction there, not wholly unlike the one you're drawing between religion and people. That is, I don't care at all what people base their values on. People should be allowed to live however they want to live, so long as that's legal and practical. I don't like faith-based institutions that sway public opinion and legislature. I'm claiming that those are harmful, because you can't argue with reason against people who argue with faith. Those people are playing a whole different game.

[Pacian]

I do not believe that, as tocky put it, "religion is harmful to society". Religion is not harmful to society. People are harmful to society. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. In a similar vein, video games don't cause violence, but can inspire violence; however, I doubt that most people here would label videogames as "harmful to society".

I'd argue that's three different kettles of fish.  There's a distinction between things people do (eg. force their views on one another), and technological and social apparatus that enhances their ability to do those things (eg. by creating a wide-ranging network of peer-pressure).

A video game may inspire you to do harm (as may a novel or a painting or a sudden rainstorm) but it won't discharge a .45 slug at lethal velocity, nor is it likely to be a large organisation, probably including your friends and family, that's dedicated to making you suspend your critical thinking while lobbying for the political relevance of thousand year old ways of life.

Well, I guess World of Warcraft might fall into that last category.

[Squirrelsquid]

some days ago, when I posted this here, I was clearly right into this conspiracy stuff. Given the fact that my life is/was hard at this moment, I emediatly jumped at it... now some days later, I see it a bit different, still the general uncomfort remains...

Being a German, knowing what manipulation can bring, looking at the (our) horrid history of the first half of the 20th century, I just feel very alarmed.

Patriotism - fighting for the beliefes of the country - might be good if the intention behind it is right - but just face it: the stuff the American Goverment did, and is still doing, is just not right... I mean, Bush and his followers _allways_ talk about war here, war there... war EVERYWHERE.

I don't want to attack anyone personaly, especialy not the american people; I only think that it is so not good to only believe what the mass media says.

Sure Zeitgeist and many other conspiracys might be completely over the top - but realy, isn't "Al Quaida and it's holy war" not just another conspiracy?

Regarding the Church: I think, the message behind christian religion is good - but look at it: In germany there is a Church-tax! it's one of the only countries that get taxed to worship a god... Do I _realy_ need to pay money to get the message of love?

I don't even want to mention some of the Church followers in the US...

I've visited the US 4 times in my life - and I realy liked it - Friendly people, beautiful country, great cities...
I intended to visit the GDC next year - I'm not to sure anymore..._why_ do I realy need to leave my fingerprints when I enter US territory?

[Paul Eres]

"Sure Zeitgeist and many other conspiracys might be completely over the top - but realy, isn't "Al Quaida and it's holy war" not just another conspiracy?"

Yes. I don't believe 9/11 was done by remote control from a secret Pentagon lair, but I also don't believe that terrorism is as big a threat as governments wish us to believe. More people die falling out of their bathtubs each year than die of terrorism.

Governments rely on scared populaces who respect their authority, and use every trick in the book to get us more obedient and subservient, including police, schools, and the media. But they aren't lizard people and they aren't using mind control rays. There's a middle ground between blind patriotism and blind gullibility.

[Shoot-em-upper]

I said organised religion is harmful to society. I draw a distinction there, not wholly unlike the one you're drawing between religion and people. That is, I don't care at all what people base their values on. People should be allowed to live however they want to live, so long as that's legal and practical.

And you're saying that organized religion is the great enemy of human rights?  Based on what?

I'm claiming that those are harmful, because you can't argue with reason against people who argue with faith. Those people are playing a whole different game.

But, suppose that somebody bases their faith on reason?  Suppose that they feel that evidence that there is no God or that macroevolution actually happened is inadequate?  Suppose that they actually have evidence of their own to back up their arguments?  What then?

[Eric McQuiggan]

But, suppose that somebody bases their faith on reason?

Faith, itself defies reason. If there was solid proof, you wouldn't need faith, it would just be true.

Suppose that they feel that evidence that there is no God or that macroevolution actually happened is inadequate?

"You haven't proved god doesn't exist, therefore god exists!" Isn't a scientific argument, it's fallacy. Saying someone else is wrong doesn't automatically make you right, also there is no such thing as "marcoevolution", its a BS claim that creationists tote to create a rift between evolution that happens on a short scale, versus something that takes a long time. Also there have been successful experements that have created populations of fruit flies, from the same core stock. That after several generations of a lack of interbreeding, were unable to breed with the other half of the stock.

Suppose that they actually have evidence of their own to back up their arguments?  What then?

I have evidence that I have super powers, but it hasn't passed rigorous double blind peer reviewed testing, does that mean my super powers exist?

[Paul Eres]

"But, suppose that somebody bases their faith on reason?  Suppose that they feel that evidence that there is no God or that macroevolution actually happened is inadequate?  Suppose that they actually have evidence of their own to back up their arguments?  What then?"

One can still use reason and be ludicrously wrong. Reason isn't totally destroyed by religions and cults, just distorted. For instance, a lot of people in the past believed the sun went around the earth. Of course they had some "evidence" for that -- it looked like the sun rose and set each day and moved across the sky, circling the earth. But that evidence was still wrong.

[Shoot-em-upper]

I was just raising the question.  Besides, to believe in anything beyond personal experience requires at least some faith.

[Eric McQuiggan]

I was just raising the question.  Besides, to believe in anything beyond personal experience requires at least some faith.

Its very hard to live without accepting at least some of what people say to be true. You could believe the information provided by people in double-blind rigorous peer reviewed testing, or people who's proofs come from ancient books written by people who may or may not have been high, about people who they've never met or hadn't even existed.

Also, personal experience isn't a good gauge to whats real and what isn't. China doesn't exist, I haven't been there and anyone who tells me it does are a bunch of lairs.

[Paul Eres]

I think sensory experience can include "evidence for China" even if you've never been there. For instance, you've physically seen objects that say "made in China" on them, and you've probably seen Chinese people and pictures and videos of China -- all of those are sensory evidence that China exists.

[Alec]

and you've probably seen Chinese people

probably...   

[Paul Eres]

Well, there are some isolated places where they only have one or two ethnicities around, rural areas etc.

[Gnarf]

Suppose that they feel that evidence that there is no God or that macroevolution actually happened is inadequate?  Suppose that they actually have evidence of their own to back up their arguments?  What then?

Atheists and their dogmas. They're so unopen to being proven wrong and unwilling to change their minds.

I was just raising the question.  Besides, to believe in anything beyond personal experience requires at least some faith.

Why only anything beyond personal experience? If you really wanna go there, can't you as well say that believing anything at all takes faith?

[Chizzer]

More people die falling out of their bathtubs each year than die of terrorism.

"Terrorist Bath Escape: The Game"