Quote :

"Faith has done far greater damage than good to humanity. Yes, it has done and continues to do good. But it's not enough to make up for the bad. Also, humanity would continue to do good (and bad) without it, but at least the good and bad would have a rational basis and not be at the whim of fantasy."

You don't really know how most humans would act/react without faith in some higher being. Just saying; just because you act decently without the crutch of religion, I'm not sure many people would be able to handle the psychological pressures of living without it. There's a reason it exists in the first place, you know. I find it a bit strange and troubling that you haven't considered religion may be hardwired into many peoples' psychology.

This, of course, has nothing to do with saying religion is "true" or not (I happen to believe god doesn't exist). You are pretending (quite unscientifically, I might add) that religion did not occur "naturally" in human populations (it did). It's quite possible that most people need this in their life in the same way that we "need" to be freed from it (and have no use for it). Psychological needs are quite powerful motivators and just because you don't think the beliefs involved are rational (they're not, I agree) doesn't mean it's rational to discard those beliefs for society as a whole. Again, people might need it. I'm not really out to judge them if they do; we're wired how we're wired (I blame religious people who genuinely NEED religion to get by about as much as I "blame" people for their sexual orientation; that being not at all).

That being said, people control others with religion quite easily. But that's not all humans are manipulable by, and also, nothing about religion mandates bigotry (it's just that a lot of bigotry has been passed down from generation to generation and is justified religiously). Claiming that we should scrap all religion (fuck the people who need it is the solution to this, I guess) is tantamount to saying we should scrap all government just because some (or even most) of it is run poorly. You can always improve how an organization runs; sometimes social momentum behind this is too hard to overcome at the time, but it doesn't mean that the two options are "keep" and "discard". There's also "improve", just like we do with most of our social endeavors.

Note: I'm not claiming we're genetically determined to believe in various religions. We MIGHT be genetically determined to feel a need for religion, though (at least, some of us).

8/30/2010 4:53:52 PM

Quote :

"Note: I'm not claiming we're genetically determined to believe in various religions. We MIGHT be genetically determined to feel a need for religion, though (at least, some of us)."

I think it's more simple (or maybe less simple...) than this.

Our brain is constantly filling in gaps in our perception with what it expects to be there... a large portion of what we think we see/hear/taste is derived from our brain using context to guess what something is supposed to be. I'd argue that this mechanism is inherent to all intelligences that aren't omniscient (meaning that since an non-omniscient intelligence can't perceive everything all the time, it must have a guessing mechanism to fill in the gaps), and the idea of gods is just a function of this guessing engine that our brains use to prevent us from dwelling too much on things we can never know (so that we can actually feed ourselves, and function in society, etc.).

I hope this thread doesn't get derailed though, and we can keep pointing out the people who don't value what America stands for.

8/30/2010 5:17:56 PM

the argument that religion is a necessity for humanity's moral center is specious.

8/30/2010 5:18:36 PM

^ it's not specious, it's outright wrong.

But no one is making that argument...

8/30/2010 5:21:32 PM

i believe McD is.

Quote :

"You don't really know how most humans would act/react without faith in some higher being. Just saying; just because you act decently without the crutch of religion, I'm not sure many people would be able to handle the psychological pressures of living without it. There's a reason it exists in the first place, you know. I find it a bit strange and troubling that you haven't considered religion may be hardwired into many peoples' psychology."

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2010 5:26:41 PM

He's not saying it's a necessity.

I THINK he's saying that the supernatural is a natural product of the brain (evidenced by practically all cultures around the world believing in gods/luck/ghosts/rituals/etc), and because humans naturally organize ourselves into groups, we naturally form organized religions, and political leaders in an attempt to manipulate/placate people use these natural beliefs for social engineering.

But because we're humans and we are for the most part just dumb animals, we may not realize where the lines for morality/religion are drawn internally.

He's saying there that some people are incapable of acting morally without someone explicitly telling them what's right/wrong. I personally know people this applies to. Religion in a general sense has a decent set of morals to follow.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2010 5:31:15 PM

He's also not saying its moral guidance is necessary for all of humanity, just that it may be necessary for some/many people.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 5:35 PM. Reason : well, moron's edit covered this post anyway, so... yay, repetition!]

Quote :

"But as we've seen from past posts, Christianity and Judaism have not enjoyed the same support."

Show me a poll which shows 25+% of Americans being in favor of barring the entirely legal and first-amendment-protected construction of a church on private property, and I'll gladly stick up for their rights.

As others have pointed out, you keep trying to shift the focus of the conversation away from the topic of the thread to keep yourself/those you agree with from looking bad. There's a reason we're not all up in arms about the rights of Christians being violated, and you could easily figure that out by re-reading the thread title.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2010 5:35:21 PM

Continuing from that last post, since the edit time window has past...:

Also, please, hooksaw, learn the distinction between "I think x is bad" and "I think x should be banned". Your use of McDanger's past anti-Christian posts to imply that he wants to ban Christianity (which, for the record, you have been doing) makes no more sense than people using your disagreements with this mosque to imply that you want the government to ban said mosque. It's a fallacy, it's idiotic, it's mildly annoying, and you keep trying to derail the thread with it. Please stop.

Since I expect some sort of rebuttal involving the term "hooksaw derangement syndrome", I'll just preemptively address that concern:
If you're wondering why people tend to focus on your points in topics (you call it "hooksaw derangement syndrome"), it's not because you're some special little flower with the superpower to make "liberals" go crazy... It's because you're usually repeatedly spewing fallacies or posting irrelevant article titles in bold-face and using them to misdirect or derail an entire thread, and you're often the only one doing things this stupid or out of place, thus causing everyone to turn against you. It's not because you're that powerful a conservative, it's because you're terrible at posting on message boards. Get over yourself.

Quote :

"Oh, and they'll probably attempt to shift the focus to me."

You shift the focus to yourself when you post stupid shit. Especially when that stupid shit is an attempted response to a point someone else has made. That's how forums work. And it's not an ad hom fallacy if a person addresses both your argument and your bad posting style.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2010 6:08:52 PM

I've never said nor indicated that I ever thought that the development of religion in our society was un-natural. Quite the contrary, every human behavior and societal construct (which religion is) is a product of millions of years of human evolution.

Credit goes to Dawkins on this one, but I think it's a very revealing point. Take the moth and many other insects' propensity to fly directly into flames. Obviously this is not a beneficial trait, and certainly would not be carried down generationally through reproductive-ability driven natural selection alone. The explanation for this is that the visual system of these insects developed in a time before humanity flooded to world with fires and torches. They use the static position of a light source assumed to be effectively infinite distance away for navigation. When the dominant light source suddenly is not infinitely far away but is treated as such, the inevitable path is a spiral into the light.

They developed this trait quite naturally over millions and millions of years, but it is especially self-defeating. It is a by-product of evolution, just like religion is for us. Of course the evolution of something like religion is not fully understood, but it's not difficult to imagine the traits the lend us toward spiritual belief. Duality, the idea that we have some sort of being that is separate from our physical self. The need for explanations, and the general dissatisfaction with not having an answer. The unquestioning trust of our parents and village elders. Each of these traits have plausible explanations of why our ancestors would have found them useful and in recent millennium have had the wonderful byproduct of spiritual belief and organized religion.

But absolutely none of this speaks of the truth value of religion, which tromboner rightly mentions. There are mountains of evidence to suggest that any given religion is but one of the thousands of religions made up by mankind over the tens of thousands of years of our recent development. There is not currently not enough evidence to support the truth of any religion. Atheism is the logical answer as no religion stands up to skepticism, currently.

8/30/2010 6:52:07 PM

^^ I disagree with just about all of that baloney. Fool yourself if you must, but many here often get mad at me simply because they can't refute many of the points that I make. Oh, sure, they try to and they attack me in the process--but it doesn't change the fact that I have proved to be right most of the time. If you don't believe me, check the record. Maybe we can find some of those folks still waving around the 2007 NIE.

McDanger, for example, has alleged that all who oppose the mosque are bigots (some others appear to have joined him). Yet, he offers no proof of this. Furthermore, he and others continue to use ad hom fallacies directly attacking me and others with no proof whatsoever of their allegations--and some of you just gobble it up. Well, no thanks--I'm not buying that brand of baloney.

Oh, BTW, McDanger, master of all knowledge, "people". . .

Quote :

"peoples' psychology"

. . .is already plural. You just add an apostrophe then an s.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : And, tromboner950, you've posted only two threads in about three years. CHECK ALIASES!]

8/30/2010 7:53:49 PM

Quote :

"And, tromboner950, you've posted only two threads in about three years. CHECK ALIASES!"

What the fuck are you on about? I'm not going to pay the internet $5 just to post under a different name. And in what distorted universe is number of threads posted a point of pride for anyone? Why would that matter? What does it possibly have to do with anything besides another attempt at misdirection and derailing? Hell, even if I had aliases, does that somehow invalidate everything I said? I mentioned ad hom arguments in that last post, and you come back with one of the best examples I've ever seen.


Also, more to the point, I love the way you posted virtually nothing addressing my actual argument and instead started talking about my thread history... In a way, it really helps validate the points I made when you know don't have anything to say in response.

Quote :

" Furthermore, he and others continue to use ad hom fallacies directly attacking me and others with no proof whatsoever of their allegations"

Again, "it's not an ad hom fallacy if a person addresses both your argument and your bad posting style."

Quote :

"If you don't believe me, check the record."

What a joke. Do you really have such poor self-awareness, or do you just put up a stubborn front to try and avoid looking bad?

"Public Transportation Riddled With Crime" is on the record, and you thoroughly make an absolute fool of yourself in front of everyone. It must be fun living in the dream world where all the "liberals" and "left-wingers" run around with their aliases just waiting for you to drop the righteous word of truth down upon them to the amazement of all onlookers... because that's the opposite of what is happening here on earth. Get a grip on reality and get over your own ego.

Quote :

"many here often get mad at me simply because they can't refute many of the points that I make."

I really can't tell whether you're just a persona or whether you're genuinely deluding yourself. You usually don't make points; people refuse to address you because you often frame situations using a flawed either-or choice with no correct answer, and that sort of bullshit simply does not merit a response (or you use some other fallacy... or you don't even make an argument and instead just post bolded news titles). You might believe that situations really are that black and white, and if you do, I'm sorry you've grown up to be as ignorant as you are.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2010 8:18:06 PM

for page 21:

Are you prepared to allow the terrorists to win by becoming more like them? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: Yes.

2. TreeTwista: Yes.

3. bigun20: Yes.

4. Kris: No.

5. theDuke866: No.

6. BridgetSPK: No.

7. indy: No.

8. Imam Feisal: No.

9. Miss USA: No.

10. McDanger: No.

8/30/2010 8:25:18 PM

nope

8/30/2010 10:02:27 PM

Are you prepared to allow the terrorists to win by becoming more like them? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: Yes.

2. TreeTwista: Yes.

3. bigun20: Yes.

4. Kris: No.

5. theDuke866: No.

6. BridgetSPK: No.

7. indy: No.

8. Imam Feisal: No.

9. Miss USA: No.

10. McDanger: No.

11. phried: No.

12. lewisje: No.

8/30/2010 10:24:20 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: McDanger, for example, has alleged that all who oppose the mosque are bigots (some others appear to have joined him). Yet, he offers no proof of this. Furthermore, he and others continue to use ad hom fallacies directly attacking me and others with no proof whatsoever of their allegations--and some of you just gobble it up. Well, no thanks--I'm not buying that brand of baloney."

?

Dude, it's like three hundred people that have tried to explain it to you. I thought Lumex did an extra good job on page 18. To be clear:

It is evident that the people building this mosque are not responsible for 9/11. The vast majority of Muslims in the US and abroad are not responsible for 9/11--they had nothing to do with the events of that day. In that way, there is ultimately nothing insensitive about their decision to construct a mosque there. We have no real reason to object to the construction. Of course, we all could just remain obstinately and intolerantly devoted to our opinions and prejudices that this mosque and what it represents make it insensitive, but that would make us bigots.

Lumex did post some non-bigoted reasons for opposing the mosque--noise and traffic concerns, for example. And if your concerns fall in that realm, then you can rest easy knowing you're just the kind of the guy who takes smart growth and development very seriously. But if you have any ideas in your head that this mosque is somehow insensitive or inappropriate, then what all these folks are telling you is right: You're a bigot. You're obstinately/intolerantly clinging to the prejudiced notion that these mosque builders are associated with 9/11 when, in fact, they are not. And there's a small chance that you may just be some sort of bigot sympathizer.

Remember, some people who are pointing this out to you are, according to you, fairly quick to bash the fuck out of some religious shit. So that should tell you something, and by "something," I don't mean that we're Christophobes. I mean, a lot of folks here are some of the most intolerant people when it comes to religion, and when even those people don't oppose the mosque...then you must consider that you have wandered down a fairly intolerant road to end up in opposition.


Now you've used the word "baloney" three times in this thread, which has gotta be some kinda record. Why don't you go ahead and make it four?

8/30/2010 10:49:03 PM

Quote :

"Oh, BTW, McDanger, master of all knowledge, "people". . . Quote : "peoples' psychology" . . .is already plural. You just add an apostrophe then an s."

give it a rest already. stick to the issue, and fuck your grammar lessons. its the sign of a broken argument when you resort to pedantic tangents about punctuation.

for christsfuckingsake.





[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 1:17 AM. Reason : ]

8/31/2010 1:12:03 AM

This is kind of cute:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

8/31/2010 1:36:08 AM

Quote :

" hooksaw -- My reasons for opposing the mosque near Ground Zero? 1. I think it's insensitive to the feelings of many New Yorkers and even other Americans. And we've debated "why" ad nauseum--don't ask me this again. "

insensitive? why?

because the mosque is ... Muslim?

right.... because the entire Muslim religion grabbed boxcutters and drove planes into the WTC towers that day.

Okay you're saying a few bad apples might just spoil the bunch... Sure. I'll grant you that, if you grant me that it's just as insensitive to build a Christian church anywhere near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Because that would offend all the people who were killed by fanatical Christian bombers that day.

Hey. Do you see what i did there?

Quote :

" 2. The building itself was a point of attack. It should be preserved as part of/related to the Ground Zero site. "

Really, the building was attacked?

The Burlington Coat Factory building?

those Muslims ... they attacked .... our coats??

Wow. They really don't want us to look good. Do they?

Quote :

" 3. I have concerns about funding of the mosque/center and about some involved. "

i have concerns about Fox News Corporation and their funding and their people involved. With all their distortions and incitements to violence, it's likely to be a hotbed of anti-American terrorist activity. And didn't Rupert Murdoch flee to Australia to avoid paying US income taxes?

Murdoch and his front organization needs to be thoroughly investigated and account for all their finances and their potentially shady associations. And this must be done before they can be allowed to continue broadcasting on our federally regulated airwaves

Oh, wow. Do you see what i did? I just did it again! How cool is that?






[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

8/31/2010 1:36:42 AM

The largest share of News Corp not owned by a Murdoch is owned by the same "radical" Saudi prince that is funding the mosque. True story, bro.

8/31/2010 7:39:38 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6jpzGTLl0

Quote :

"By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor. It's providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support."

--Taliban operative Zabihullah

8/31/2010 2:19:30 PM

Not to derail this thread, but to clarify my previous point:

I didn't mean to suggest that religion is logically or contingently necessary for morality or anything like that. I meant to suggest that it may be psychologically necessary for some peoples' happiness. This is a big deal.

8/31/2010 2:26:55 PM

Once they've been indoctrinated, yeah, maybe. Sort of like people that get addicted to meth can't ever be as happy as they once were unless they do meth again. The idea that death isn't the end of the line can be a comforting thought. The fact that it makes some people happy isn't a reason to preserve it, though.

8/31/2010 3:25:16 PM

Quote :

"But if you have any ideas in your head that this mosque is somehow insensitive or inappropriate, then what all these folks are telling you is right: You're a bigot."

this

Quote :

"Okay you're saying a few bad apples might just spoil the bunch... Sure. I'll grant you that, if you grant me that it's just as insensitive to build a Christian church anywhere near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Because that would offend all the people who were killed by fanatical Christian bombers that day. Hey. Do you see what i did there?"

That's what I was sayin.....

Quote :

"Should we not build any Christian churches two blocks from Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta? I mean, to do that would send the message that Christian terrorists win, right?"

8/31/2010 3:48:58 PM

Quote :

"Once they've been indoctrinated, yeah, maybe. Sort of like people that get addicted to meth can't ever be as happy as they once were unless they do meth again. The idea that death isn't the end of the line can be a comforting thought. The fact that it makes some people happy isn't a reason to preserve it, though."

Again, there's evidence that some people are "wired" for theism. I don't believe either, man. I'd rather nobody did. But I understand that some people feel the need for that sort of glue and perceived "objective" meaning in the world. It fulfills a very real psychological need in some people.

Quote :

"The fact that it makes some people happy isn't a reason to preserve it, though."

If it's integral to some people's happiness then it's a reason not to exterminate it, though.

[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2010 4:53:08 PM

Quote :

""But if you have any ideas in your head that this mosque is somehow insensitive or inappropriate, then what all these folks are telling you is right: You're a bigot." this"

This isn't necessarily true. Now, off the bat, I should mention I've only been following this very loosely so I'm speaking more on what I understand the situation to be rather than what it is and am therefore open to being corrected.

That said, my understanding is that the specific site and opening/groundbreaking day was chosen specifically because of its connections with the attacks on the WTC. If that is indeed the case, then regardless of the message intended (ostensibly a message of communication and solidarity), it is easy to see where a different and more offensive message can be interpreted. After discovering such an alternate interpretation is being understood, a failure to adjust the message (such as altering the opening date if possible) is an insensitive act.

That said, the appropriate response to someone who is offensive or insensitive is to call them out for their insensitivity and then ignore them, not hold rallies, demonstrations and near riots. The idiots stirring this up into a furor (and they are idiots) had best be careful about how much and what they say. I have a very real fear that we will see violence come Sept 11 this year, and the idiots whipping everyone into a frenzy over this are morally if not legally responsible for such violence.

One has to hope that on Sept 12, we can still say "The terrorists hate us for our freedom", but if this opening gets canceled or people are hurt because of this stupid building, I think we will instead be asking "What freedom?".

Two final notes:

1) Financial ties and opening of financial records. Unless anyone can demonstrate evidence of illegal activity, these people have no more reason to open their financial records than you would if I accused you of laundering money.

2) That this building was hit with debris from the WTC does not make it a target of attack, a site of attack or in any other way a piece of WTC "history". The WTC attacks were a tragedy, lets not turn the memory into a farce.

8/31/2010 7:00:33 PM

http://tinyurl.com/26bgdqc

Quote :

" Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world. Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was "perfectly happy" to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world's second-largest religion. "I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11," Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam's approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. "What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?" "And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero," continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. "No, I won't examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people's universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell." "Even though I am not one of those people," he added. When told that the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, "I know all I'm going to let myself know.” […] "

8/31/2010 8:03:05 PM

Quote :

"Again, there's evidence that some people are "wired" for theism. I don't believe either, man. I'd rather nobody did. But I understand that some people feel the need for that sort of glue and perceived "objective" meaning in the world. It fulfills a very real psychological need in some people. "

Moth flame, again. I also believe that we're "wired" to believe in the metaphysical. We are especially wired to believe what our parents and elders tell us unquestioningly.

Quote :

"If it's integral to some people's happiness then it's a reason not to exterminate it, though."

I submit that they could actually be more happy with a more realistic outlook on life and death. I don't believe that it is actually integral and could easily be replaced by realism.

8/31/2010 8:19:01 PM

Quote :

"Moth flame, again. I also believe that we're "wired" to believe in the metaphysical. We are especially wired to believe what our parents and elders tell us unquestioningly."

There are some benefits to religious beliefs. I believe atheism is ultimately right, but I think I'm honest enough to believe it has both pros and cons (and conversely, religious belief). There are issues you have to grapple with on your own if you discard the whole God framework. It's uncomfortable and can cause a lot of personal turmoil and negativity.

Quote :

"I submit that they could actually be more happy with a more realistic outlook on life and death. I don't believe that it is actually integral and could easily be replaced by realism."

It's possible, but I doubt it's true for all people. We don't need to derail this thread into this discussion, but I don't see any reason to believe that your psychological needs are the best or most justified, or even well suited to the majority of people on this planet. You may want to think that over some. People are mentally different.

[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2010 10:11:54 PM

Ok, so some people are mentally different and for them heroin use is what will make them truly happy.

All you're saying is that some people value truth less than others. That's all. Some people are happy not giving a damn whether their beliefs are true, denying all evidence, and fucking the world up for the rest of us. What is your point? They're happy, but they're wrong, and acting on wrong beliefs with no justification is wrong and morally reprehensible.

You're right. A majority of the planet is content in not scrutinizing their beliefs in mysticism. Again, what is your point? That people can't change? That we should not try to show others the error of their ways? Religion used to make me happy. The idea that I was going to see all my loved ones again and live eternally in Heaven was a very comforting thought. It just makes absolutely no sense, and instead of keeping the drugs flowing, I found that a better understanding of reality is immensely more fulfilling.

9/1/2010 12:59:09 AM

FTR, some of the distortions, omissions, and outright lies in this thread need to be addressed. I just have to decide if it's worth it to expend the effort to address them. We'll see.

9/1/2010 3:42:28 AM

Sweet, I've got the exact right subject to make an argument I've wanted to make for a while. I agree with the atheists here as the overwellming scientific evidence is behind it and to think otherwise is denial. I find it very similar to another common "happy delusion" among people: free will. The overwellming scientific evidence is against it (save one missing link), yet people still want to believe in it so badly. It's extremely comforting to think that people are responsible for thier own actions and that you are some sort of unique entity out in your own little playground. Its difficult to face the cold reality that you are the same dull automaton as everything else in the world just much more complex. It brings up questions like: "then what's the point of life?" or "what does anything even matter?", and these are difficult questions that really have no answer, so people choose to believe in the delusion that at least lies to them that there is one.

9/1/2010 10:37:24 AM

Quote :

"FTR, some of the distortions, omissions, and outright lies in this thread need to be addressed. I just have to decide if it's worth it to expend the effort to address them. We'll see."

Hahahah, I think we'd all get a kick out of that. Go for it, bro!

[Edited on September 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2010 10:38:01 AM

Quote :

"I find it very similar to another common "happy delusion" among people: free will. The overwellming scientific evidence is against it (save one missing link), yet people still want to believe in it so badly. It's extremely comforting to think that people are responsible for thier own actions and that you are some sort of unique entity out in your own little playground."

So then people who believe in free will are no less delusional than a Jehovah's Witness. I'm fine with that.

9/1/2010 10:48:13 AM

Quote :

"Sweet, I've got the exact right subject to make an argument I've wanted to make for a while. I agree with the atheists here as the overwellming scientific evidence is behind it and to think otherwise is denial. I find it very similar to another common "happy delusion" among people: free will. The overwellming scientific evidence is against it (save one missing link), yet people still want to believe in it so badly. It's extremely comforting to think that people are responsible for thier own actions and that you are some sort of unique entity out in your own little playground. Its difficult to face the cold reality that you are the same dull automaton as everything else in the world just much more complex. It brings up questions like: "then what's the point of life?" or "what does anything even matter?", and these are difficult questions that really have no answer, so people choose to believe in the delusion that at least lies to them that there is one."

It's all about context. In the context of reality in which we exist, in which we operate, in which we interact with other entities it is useful to consider people responsible for their actions. I am of the opinion that we are simply the summation of our atoms, and given the exact same internal and external stimuli for a given situation I would always make the exact same choice, thereby not really making any choice at all.

Whether that is objectively true is actually irrelevant in the context I've described above because in this context, from our perspective, it is entirely indistinguishable from free will. The stimuli are sufficiently complex.

And again, that's the context that we're in so there you have it. It's exactly like "You can't prove this isn't the Matrix." Sure you're right, but does that question really matter?

Regarding the existential dilemma, I really don't know what to say about it. I've never had a crisis of being. Simply existing seems like reason enough.

9/1/2010 10:54:42 AM

We're not a slave to our biochemicals. We ARE chemicals.

And these chemicals are telling me to lynch some muslims. Or eat lunch. Been wanting to try that new Almadina Bakery.

9/1/2010 10:56:47 AM

Quote :

"the context of reality in which we exist, in which we operate, in which we interact with other entities it is useful to consider people responsible for their actions."

I disagree, we should judge situations rationally based on outcomes. Not doing so leads to things like valuing liberty over progress or punishment over reform.

9/1/2010 12:39:49 PM

Not that this has anything to do with the thread, but...

I don't think it's impossible for human society to exist in a way that facilitates both liberty and consequentialism. I think liberty should be valued as highly as progress, and punishment as highly as reform. Punishment has its purpose, as does liberty. None of the above is mutually exclusive.

9/1/2010 12:48:43 PM

Liberty and punishment are both concepts that require the belief in free will. There's no point to punish someone just to punish them, decisions must be based on outcomes. If you just punish them because they are a "bad person", you accomplish nothing.

9/1/2010 12:52:49 PM

And? I've already reconciled how what you are calling "free will" exists if you accept the entirely plausible premise that we are totally natural beings. If you don't accept that premise then free will is entirely possible through some external force like a soul or a god.

So I'm not sure where your hang up is. People *should* be held accountable for their actions. "Free will" does exist from our perspective. Whether our world is really being held up by 4 giant turtles is totally irrelevant. We exist in a world where I can actively choose to murder you and should be punished if I make that choice and act on that choice. Now whether I am objectively "choosing" may be up for philosophical debate, but functionally it is choice.

Ergo, liberty and punishment are valid. You don't punish for the sake of punishment. Punishment has many purposes, from retribution to deterrence. Liberty is useful as it acknowledges the importance of an individual.

9/1/2010 1:03:58 PM

GrumpyGOP posts like hooksaw

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

Quote :

""If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps.""

9/1/2010 2:18:00 PM

^ You're doing it wrong.

9/1/2010 3:25:01 PM

I thought I had all the key components: the bold headline, link to article, quote with bolded section taken out of context.

9/1/2010 3:28:11 PM

^ 4/10

No date in headline, link comes after quoted text, and no rolly.

One point added for bolded text in quotation.

Overall, a poor effort. Needs improvement.

9/1/2010 3:32:19 PM

Oh wow, the date thing is one of those details that only truly master forgers would notice.

9/1/2010 4:07:00 PM

damn, beat me to it Grumpy

that article is too fucking perfect

9/1/2010 4:17:22 PM

^ I posted that 14 posts above Grumpy, but i used poorer marketing. I’m like the MSNBC of this thread...

9/2/2010 2:21:27 AM

In that you posted it about 10 posts after Bridget did?

9/2/2010 2:57:39 AM

I WIN THE INTERNET!

FINALLY!

9/2/2010 12:12:40 PM

even the most inexperienced hooksaw-forger knows to include a terminating :rolly:

9/2/2010 7:06:30 PM

prep

9/8/2010 1:08:07 PM