rachel on 4/8/2009 at 20:18
Well, maybe it's so that they don't end up in the same place as their victims? This goes way back to the Greeks and probably beyond, with a separate place in the Underworld reserved for child molesters and people who speak in the theater.
The idea of paying your debt to society and then go free is relatively recent after all.
OT the tags on this thread are hilarious :laff:
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/8/2009 at 20:18
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Why does this need to be about Dawkins? Do people practice anti-dawkins arguments or something?
I had to deal with this guy et alii for half a year at the university. In fact I'm fed up with all the stupidity in these discussions but it helped me quite a bit with analyzing carefully and thinking in abstract ways etc.. But this denial of a scientist is a sort of archetype and a lot of his "arguments" can be found in different places. And insulting him is better for a discussion than insulting people using them. :p
Quote:
Can you tell me, refering to physiology, why you get hungry? Trust me, I can have a pretty good stab at telling you why I am here. It will involve my Mommy and Daddy, a game of consequences, exploring their motivations for forming and acting on an intimate relationship and a bit of biology. Science is very good at helping us answer 'why' questions.
If you want to ask "for what 'higher purpose' am I here?" then yes, I get stuck. That might actually be because I'm not here for a higher purpose and the question is faulty for assuming such a purpose in the first place. Why would I presume I'm here for a higher purpose?
Surely it is a very personal thing if you ever come to ask these questions or if the sheer impression of all the world makes you believe in some higher cause or not. And if you think there's a point in asking these questions or not.
Quote:
Also, what qualities do you think religions have that make them adept for reliably arriving at answers to why questions? [...] Between you and me, I actually think people are naturally very socially aware and will generally want to act in a way that is socially beneficial, even if it is against there own interest (I'm sure I can find links if you're interested) - but that they are sensitive to anxiety about 'fitting in' and are thus easily exploited if you tell them they'll fail socially if they don't behave in certain ways - buy the right cloathes, look a certain way, behave a certain way. Things start to unravel when you create or have conditions where people feel the need to behave selfishly because they are, at heart, social creatures.
The German pendant of Dawkins, Michael Schmidt-Salomon (a philosopher... which makes some of his arguments worse.... with Dawkins you could always say a natural scientist doesn't need to know about methods of the humanities), said himself that evolution cannot be a source for an ethical system. It would have only elements like the individual, the survival of the group etc. as points of reference and that wouldn't be enough to protect human life down to the last. (like that phrase, by the way, learned it today) I've heard that even Greek philosophers start(ed) using some sort of higher power to justify their ethics, so it roughly boils down to having some sort of "religion" in a way that it encompasses an untouchable authority as reference for ethical systems. And just in case it's your personal opinion that people should love each other, this religion could answer the why-question of why you do this. Together with some general master plan you'd have creation and thus some first cause for all the things which can be discovered with science.
Anyway, I'm tired already. Oh no, more posts ahead. Man, this is exhausting... no, see you tomorrow.
Renzatic on 4/8/2009 at 20:52
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Trust me, I can have a pretty good stab at telling you why I am here. It will involve my Mommy and Daddy, a game of consequences...
...a six pack of Schlitz, and some Dexys Midnight Runners on the hi-fi! YEAHHH!
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA
Like we've ever expected much of our politicians.
Turtle on 4/8/2009 at 20:57
Quote Posted by Renzatic
...a six pack of Schlitz, and some Dexys Midnight Runners on the hi-fi! YEAHHH!
Is your mom's name Eileen?
Renzatic on 4/8/2009 at 21:02
No, but my middle name is Too-Rye-Ay
Chimpy Chompy on 4/8/2009 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Anyyyway, to better construct your argument, whether or not you believe in God depends on whether, when confronted with an empty room, you wonder:
a)Where did the room come from. Has it always been here?
etc
Pretty much why i think belief in god = belief in pixies is a rather lame, cheapshot argument for people patting each other on the back on atheist blogs.
rachel on 4/8/2009 at 21:20
Well, pixies were part of a larger ecosystem, right? It would be fairer to compare them to angels I guess.
Iroquois on 4/8/2009 at 21:30
I started feeling a bit iffy about Christianity (and, in consequence, religion in general), when I realized that someone who, when disappointed with his people, turns the world into his backyard pool isn't a king to be praised; he's criminally insane.
And then I started worshipping Emperor Nero.
Vasquez on 4/8/2009 at 21:47
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
And just in case it's your personal opinion that people should love each other, this religion could answer the why-question of why you do this.
I still like my answer better: Because the whole community is better off and people are generally happier (and thus less likely to, for example, attack and kill each other) if everyone is nice to each other.
But I've always been naive that way :(
(And don't worry about your English, mine is way worse.)
jay pettitt on 4/8/2009 at 21:52
Quote:
I started feeling a bit iffy about Christianity...
The thing that did it for me I think was going to a Catholic school, despite having been bought up Anglican. There are a few significant differences between the way Anglicans and Catholics do things. Anglicans, for example, don't believe that wine and biscuits literally become the body and blood of Christ, while Catholics back then were pretty sure they did.
In order to prime me for this culture shock I was told something along the lines that while Catholics believe that they're right - we know they're just a bit superstitious and silly like that - but it's best not bring it up because they'll struggle and it's not nice to challenge peoples' firmly held religious beliefs.
It was only a matter of time (years mind, it wasn't quick) after that before the whole thing unravelled.
