

What will it take to fix the Islamic world's mess?
#41
Posted 21 November 2003 - 10:42 PM
I'm talking about a world in which no one has any reason that is grounded in any religion to hurt or kill another human.
#42
Posted 21 November 2003 - 10:55 PM
Cressid, on Nov 21 2003, 09:42 PM, said:
#43
Posted 21 November 2003 - 11:09 PM
[Take away my faith and I have no reason not to hurt another person.
I find that strange and rather sad. I have no faith and I have no reason to hurt another person.
#44
Posted 22 November 2003 - 12:03 AM
Quote
On the contrary, Communism itself was invented in order to help out people. Even though I oppose it in practice, and in theory, I have little doubt that the intent was to create a better system. It just happened to be a poor solution, precisely because it lent itself to dictatorship and, one might argue, a soulless state and people.
The fact is that religion is so pervasive today, and although I'd hardly point to any one religion as being paramount in terms of influence, the fact is that it's so much a part of what we know as even the most primitive of cultures that it's incredibly difficult to postulate society without it. Yes, there may be individuals out there that can be completely atheistic and have no inclination to hurt, attack or otherwise be generally destructive. You'd include yourself in that category. On the other hand, there have very definitely been people who are atheistic who have most definitely done a great deal of harm as well. Essentially, then, an atheistic world seems little better than a world where there is religion. Without a means by which to really compare the two, however, all that can be said is that a world without religions is by no means the yellow brick road to world peace. There's been no evidence to show that if the atheists took over and (de)converted everyone that the world would be any better off than it is right now.
Indeed, it's difficult to imagine that religions that work for peace are going to be any more or less successful than a non religious group working for same. The fact is that right now, without ability to postulate an afterlife, it really makes no sense for me to bother doing anything that has a future impact beyond my time, or perhaps, my childrens' time. Why would it matter what I do? I'm dead, and the future is someone else's problem. Does that seem incredibly selfish? Certainly, but then what is selfishness? What do you care what happens later on? In an atheistic world, you are the very apex of human evolution, because any evolution afterwards makes absolutely no difference to you whatsoever. Why shouldn't you, then, get everything that is within your power to get? Because you're a nice person? Who cares about being nice? In an atheistic world, nice people are exploited and the winners write history. The only way that that changes is if there is really an evolutionary advantage to altruism, but even then, that just means that niceness survives, not necessarily that it triumphs in the end. Certainly selfish people who produce children will be just as much, if not more successful in breeding as well. Indeed, ant colonies work very well with tons of drones, but it doesn't mean that the queens are going away any time soon.
In the end, then, religion may be completely fake and be the worship of tiki gods carved out of palm trees, but it's not the problem. People will kill each other for much more fundemental reasons than religion. Groups like al-Queda aren't killing people to get in Allah's good graces, they are killing people to get into Allah's good graces so that material wealth and power is returned to the Arabs. In other words, they're trying to get material wealth and power, which is about the same thing that any atheistic person could also desire. There's nothing inherently religious about that.
#45
Posted 22 November 2003 - 03:07 AM
Cressid, on Nov 21 2003, 05:49 PM, said:
#46
Posted 22 November 2003 - 01:50 PM
Cressid, on Nov 21 2003, 10:09 PM, said:
#47
Posted 22 November 2003 - 03:19 PM
I think I'm just like other people - I don't want to be deliberately harmed by anyone so I choose not to harm. Since I believe I have some type of value simply by virtue of my existence I assume other do as well.
As to whether my life or actions have meaning - given that I don't believe in a God - I say yes, and while I mean nothing to the universe I do mean something to myself. No one can ever relieve me of the responsibility I bear for my own actions. No God can forgive me and take away the burden of "sin" if I harm another person. And yes, I have hurt people during my life, sometimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently. I can't deny it or change it. The only thing I can do is learn from it and try not to do it again. I don't try to change my ways because I've been taught the Golden Rule or because I fear the wrath of a God who may send me to eternal hell, I do it because I simply believe the highest law of mankind should be that we do each other no harm.
#48
Posted 22 November 2003 - 03:29 PM
Cressid, on Nov 22 2003, 02:19 PM, said:
Quote
But what makes it true? (I'm not disagreeing, I'm just examining this philosophically.)
#49
Posted 22 November 2003 - 03:52 PM
Cardie
#50
Posted 22 November 2003 - 04:21 PM
Personal experience, I guess.
Haven't you ever been hurt by someone's actions? When you're in pain are you thinking that suffering builds character or just thinking that "wow, this sucks" and you wish it would end? Why would anyone want to spread that around? Knowing how bad I feel when it happens to me is enough incentive for me to make sure I try not to cause others the same kind of grief.
I don't always succeed , of course, but I'm aware that I make conscious choices about how I treat people and that the consequences are mine alone to bear.
#51
Posted 22 November 2003 - 04:38 PM
My two dinars.
Lil

#52
Posted 22 November 2003 - 06:22 PM
Cardie, on Nov 22 2003, 02:52 PM, said:
#53
Posted 22 November 2003 - 06:51 PM
Now I agree with Zack to a large degree on alternative sources and having to wean away from it. Where I disagree with Zack is that I think it would be far harder to switch us off our reliance on petroleum products. Even the best alternative energy sources that exist today are in their infancy and new technology. It will take probably a decade even at a full effort to start shifting ourselves to alternative sources. Fuel cells are still are fairly new technology that comes with their own problems that need to be worked out before they can become any sort of practical widely applicable technology. Nuclear power really had it’s own problems that go with it and I really don’t see widespread adoption until fusion becomes a reality. So while I think a search for alternative sources of power is needed we have to realize it will take decades before we can really bear the full fruit of any such quest. In the meantime I would suggest switching over greater reliance on Russian oil sources and other sources of oil in the world. As we do that plus with greater reliance on alternative sources as they become available it would have more impact than alternative sources alone.
Quote
Well Rainbow* really isn’t a surgical assault team to hunt terrorists down. They spend most of their time responding to terrorist’s threats that have developed. So most of their missions consist of things like hostage rescue. Rainbow is really an elite team made up of the best hostage negotiators, operations, and intelligence gathering experts along with an organic airwing. Rainbow would only very rarely be used in offensive strikes against terrorist threats. They are more of a FBI HRT on steroids.
*Rainbow Six is the codename for Mr. Clark.
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE
#54
Posted 26 November 2003 - 12:38 AM
Delvo, on Nov 21 2003, 06:37 AM, said:
To solve the problem - three things are needed. Education - with a favoritism toward girls and women (O.k. that's a Baha'i idea, but it goes a LONG way toward solving ills in the Islamic world), civil democratic government with laws based on the Qur'an, and the abolishment of the authoritative usage of hadith for ANY purpose but history. (I believe that if God intended hadith to be authoritative - He would have put them in the Qur'an!).
Een Draght Mackt Maght
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Islam, Evolution of Religions
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Religion and AI'sStarted by Guest-Cait-Guest , 11 Jan 2014 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
York mosque counters EDL protest with tea, biscuits and footballStarted by Guest-SparkyCola-Guest , 01 Jun 2013 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Report: NYPD's Surveillance of Muslims 'Harmful'Started by Guest-scherzo-Guest , 19 Apr 2013 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
NC proposes bill to establish a state religionStarted by Guest-Cait-Guest , 03 Apr 2013 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
||
Discuss →
Orbis Terrarum →
Religion/Spirituality & ComfortStarted by Guest-sierraleone-Guest , 10 Dec 2012 ![]() |
|
![]()
|
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users