Fitna

[Kuya]

You can still help people and it be acceptable wether it is because a god told you too, or because its the right thing to do. You cannot however murder someone, or spread ignorance and fear, and have it be acceptable in any sense.

And you're actually wrong on the second part. The only mistake in your reasoning is assuming that all human beings are naturally benevolent, when in reality they will only be so towards those they have personal connections to, where they placed in a position where the most benefit would be reaped without any punishment, some would choose to kill another human being. Humans don't have some composition that makes them do good or bad things, they either learn these things or act purely on what benefits them. By the way, murdering someone is acceptable as long as the other person is an enemy in a war, and or if they are threatening you, and or if they have commited such a heinous act agaisnt you, that your raged filled self with possibly murder that person. And spreading ignorance and fear is a-ok if you want to maintain power over others, this is especially true if you want to scare people into supporting whatever cause you have planed.

And when i say acceptable, i mean many would consider it acceptable regardless of any religious or spiritual intervention.

[Neosutra]

You can still help people and it be acceptable wether it is because a god told you too, or because its the right thing to do. You cannot however murder someone, or spread ignorance and fear, and have it be acceptable in any sense.

And you're actually wrong on the second part. The only mistake in your reasoning is assuming that all human beings are naturally benevolent, when in reality they will only be so towards those they have personal connections to, where they placed in a position where the most benefit would be reaped without any punishment, some would choose to kill another human being. Humans don't have some composition that makes them do good or bad things, they either learn these things or act purely on what benefits them. By the way, murdering someone is acceptable as long as the other person is an enemy in a war, and or if they are threatening you, and or if they have commited such a heinous act agaisnt you, that your raged filled self with possibly murder that person. And spreading ignorance and fear is a-ok if you want to maintain power over others, this is especially true if you want to scare people into supporting whatever cause you have planed.

And when i say acceptable, i mean many would consider it acceptable regardless of any religious or spiritual intervention.

1. Its not murder in war, hence why i didnt say "its wrong to kill", i said "its wrong to murder".

2. Human babies are not born with the desire to kill/hurt others, that is taught to them. Empathy however is inherent in just about all species.

3. Your correct, spreading igorance is great if you want to use it to control people. Q.Q

[Kuya]

1. Its not murder in war, hence why i didnt say "its wrong to kill", i said "its wrong to murder".

Explain yourself.

2. Human babies are not born with the desire to kill/hurt others, that is taught to them. Empathy however is inherent in just about all species.

Human babies have no empathy, they are purely egotistical beings until they learn cause and effect and other mental constructions. Human babies are not bad because they are selfish, they simply are to survive.

[Neosutra]

1. Its not murder in war, hence why i didnt say "its wrong to kill", i said "its wrong to murder".

Explain yourself.
[quote:1323hgkk]2. Human babies are not born with the desire to kill/hurt others, that is taught to them. Empathy however is inherent in just about all species.

Human babies have no empathy, they are purely egotistical beings until they learn cause and effect and other mental constructions. Human babies are not bad because they are selfish, they simply are to survive.[/quote:1323hgkk]


1. You want me to explain the differences between killing in war and murdering in cold blood?

2. When I said babies, was more referring to the fact that humans are inherently empathic creatures (from the earliest point they can be), where as prejudice is a learned trait.

[Kuya]

1. You want me to explain the differences between killing in war and murdering in cold blood?

Yes, please do. I especially want you to compare someone who kills in a war that was declared in retaliation to an attack on the homeland, to someone who killed the murderer of his daughter, and why the father would get charged for manslaughter/murder when the soldier wouldn't. I know the answer, but since you seem to think that there is an innate difference between murder and killing beyond legality and name, i want to see you rationalize it, because beyond that, your argument is essentialy rhetoric.

2. When I said babies, was more referring to the fact that humans are inherently empathic creatures (from the earliest point they can be), where as prejudice is a learned trait.

A human child must learn empathy by being able to associate itself with the subject at hand, not to mention they must pass by the stage where they can comprehend the permanent existence of others, their individuality in the face of what surrounds them, and the late necessity of avoiding punitive responses. A feral child is not capable of empathy without proper socialization (read, contact with other human beings for a sufficient amount of time). Ergo, your argument that empathy is natural, is actually wrong.

[Neosutra]

1. You want me to explain the differences between killing in war and murdering in cold blood?

Yes, please do. I especially want you to compare someone who kills in a war that was declared in retaliation to an attack on the homeland, to someone who killed the murderer of his daughter, and why the father would get charged for manslaughter/murder when the soldier wouldn't. I know the answer, but since you seem to think that there is an innate difference between murder and killing beyond legality and name, i want to see you rationalize it, because beyond that, your argument is essentialy rhetoric.
[quote:18zbal77]2. When I said babies, was more referring to the fact that humans are inherently empathic creatures (from the earliest point they can be), where as prejudice is a learned trait.

A human child must learn empathy by being able to associate itself with the subject at hand, not to mention they must pass by the stage where they can comprehend the permanent existence of others, their individuality in the face of what surrounds them, and the late necessity of avoiding punitive responses. A feral child is not capable of empathy without proper socialization (read, contact with other human beings for a sufficient amount of time). Ergo, your argument that empathy is natural, is actually wrong.[/quote:18zbal77]


1. Soldiers do not attack/kill out of vengence for an attack, they do so during combat attempts to seize control of economic/combat assets vital for the greater good of their society.

2. Im not going to argue with you about empathy being inherent, take a look at any set of social species and it is very clear your wrong. We can continue to tell each other that the other is incorrect on this notion, until someone posts some evidence.

[Kuya]

1. Soldiers do not attack/kill out of vengence for an attack, they do so during combat attempts to seize control of economic/combat assets vital for the greater good of their society.

What was the motivation of many soldiers after Pearl Harbor and 911? And you think killing in the name of economic assets for a specific society is perfectly "right"? Does it not cross your mind how arbitraryly you are using the label murder and killing/good and bad, yet argue that human beings aren't capable of murdering without some sort of religion controlling them? For some reason you said you cannot murder someone and have it be legally or morally acceptable in some way, when this is in fact, untrue. Also to you it is human nature to be compasionate to people, because i presume you think it makes them feel good, but you don't seem to believe that murdering others can make you feel good to, especially in the name of vengence and what some would call a power rush.

2. Im not going to argue with you about empathy being inherent, your wrong. We can continue to tell each other that the other is incorrect on this notion, until someone posts some evidence.

Strange behaviour for someone who is glorifying logic and reason in this thread. You say i'm wrong yet you've not explained why. I've given you an explination as to why humans aren't naturally empathetic, yet you've posted no explination of your own as to why humans are empathetic beyond, what exactly? By sheer logic and reason i'm right because i actually have a logical and reasonable explination for my theory, while you have not. I will try to cite the sources of my theory, but it would require me to search quite vigorously, so i can't make any promises, but having others who have studied in psychology agree with me might help convince you.

[Neosutra]

Arguing with kuya is like running in quick sand, both are pointless and equally retarded. You never argue the points actually made in the thread and always go off on some tanget completely irrelevant to the current convo. I am not going to attempt to justify death in war versus cold blooded murder, thats retarded. And Im not going to waste my time pulling up psych papers on human development and social patterns.

The focus of this convo was the effects of religion, wether good or bad. Get back on topic and stop wasting time with your self indulgent bullshit.

[Kuya]

The difference comes in the fact that humanitarianism is a socially acceptable and encouraged action while mass murder is not. It is human nature to be compasionate and help others, it is not however human nature to murder people because a god told you too.

Its about seperating the good and bad, and the plain truth is:

You can still help people and it be acceptable wether it is because a god told you too, or because its the right thing to do. You cannot however murder someone, or spread ignorance and fear, and have it be acceptable in any sense.

Basicaly, your argument was that you don't need religion to do "good", but you need religion to do "evil". My argument was that, you don't need religion to do "evil" based on the fact that humans are not naturally compasionate, empathetic, or agaisnt killing or murder if you're so inclined to use rhetoric, hence religion is just a justification for some occurences rather than the drive behind it. You did not prove or much less win the argument with the 3 points you brought up, and now you seem quite angry, i can conclude alot of things here, but i'll leave it at that.

[Neosutra]

Did you know you were gay when you started to argue in logical circles like a woman? Or was there another sign?

(j/k feminazies)

No one said you "need" religion to do evil, it was said that religion itself is 'evil' and counterproductive. That the benifits you get from it do not any in way require religion to achieve, yet the motivations for the spreading of violence and ignorance are heavily prevailant in such dogma. (note i said heavily prevalant and not required).

[Kuya]

it was said that religion itself is 'evil'

How intellectual.

That the benifits you get from it do not any in way require religion to achieve, yet the motivations for the spreading of violence and ignorance are heavily prevailant in such dogma.

Your counterargument to the idea that religion does not provoke these effects has been that humans are naturally agaisnt murder and naturally empathetic therefore religion forces people to comit these acts, when i've already argued agaisnt these points. You however do not want to continue arguing agaisnt my points, therefore my stand that many humans who wholy behave ignorantly, violently, and even murder do so without religion even being the catalyst and hence your points are based on pure wishfull thinking.

Your arguments are not based on the logic you allege to defend, they're based on optimism. You persist on attacking religion as a producer of violence and ignorance when realisticly these things have and will always exist with or without a religion behind the curtains. You seem to ignore religion was created by people for people, and therefore it's going to represent their views, whether they be really true or not. People who made these religions did not make them out of the hope that they would cause mayham, others have simply twisted it this way to fit their goals, once again, the cause is human nature, not some idea that is subservant to humans. However i don't even know what the point is, since i've already attacked your points and you seem to be running away from that with the facade that they're retarded. However for some reason you did not even argue how my points were retarded, you just decided to refute everything i said with: "You're wrong".

[Neosutra]

Religion isnt a producer for ignorance and violence, its another word for them.

And where is your evidence that humans are equally likely to lean towards violence w/o being pushed to it.

[Kuya]

Have you noticed that you're ignoring what i'm saying? And you might want to rephrase that second sentence, because you're going to need something to make you act.

[Neosutra]

Have you noticed that you're ignoring what i'm saying? And you might want to rephrase that second sentence, because you're going to need something to make you act.

Oh, I thought ignoring the point of everyone's post and responding with retarded rhetoric was the way to go?

[Kuya]

Have you noticed that you're ignoring what i'm saying? And you might want to rephrase that second sentence, because you're going to need something to make you act.

Oh, I thought ignoring the point of everyone's post and responding with retarded rhetoric was the way to go?

Humor me, explain how i ignored the point of your post.

[Neosutra]

The point was the the beleif in god requires a few other inherent self defeating tradeoffs (i.e. giving an answer to the begining of the universe and influencing social decisions based on dogma rather than logic.). While the psychological benefits (comfort in death and a feeling of support) can be achieved through other methods.

No doubt people disagree with religion being "bad" for a person, but there are inherent ideas people agree to when accepting the idea of an omnipotent god that created everything. As a physicist, placing an answer for the unknown in an attempt to justify human curiosity is debasing to the very glories that make us a unique species.

Or instead we could argue about death in war and post links to child psychology Q.Q.

[Kuya]

The point was the the beleif in god requires a few other inherent self defeating tradeoffs (i.e. giving an answer to the begining of the universe and influencing social decisions based on dogma rather than logic.). While the psychological benefits (comfort in death and a feeling of support) can be achieved through other methods.

No doubt people disagree with religion being "bad" for a person, but there are inherent ideas people agree to when accepting the idea of an omnipotent god that created everything. As a physicist, placing an answer for the unknown in an attempt to justify human curiosity is debasing to the very glories that make us a unique species.

Or instead we could argue about death in war and post links to child psychology Q.Q.

But that is not the only thing you said:

Ofcourse not:

I see what your saying, that these people are motivated to kill via their religion and we blame religion. And they are motivated to help people via their religion and we dont credit the religion. The difference comes in the fact that humanitarianism is a socially acceptable and encouraged action while mass murder is not. It is human nature to be compasionate and help others, it is not however human nature to murder people because a god told you too.

Its about seperating the good and bad, and the plain truth is:

You can still help people and it be acceptable wether it is because a god told you too, or because its the right thing to do. You cannot however murder someone, or spread ignorance and fear, and have it be acceptable in any sense.

And when i responded to this, you brought up 3 points that you used to help your main argument, points that i therefore attacked to devalue your main argument. You are accusing me of missing the point of your post and "derailing" when you are the one who brought up those points in the first place, points which i naturally argued agaisnt.

You not only posted that religion breeds ignorance, which it potentially can, but you also argued that it breeds violence and it is counterproductive to the "natural" faculties of humankind, which i conttend do nto exist, and that religion is manipulated to breed this violence. But once again, nice job of accusing me of missing the point when it was you who brought in those points to support yourself, and then, instead of debating agaisnt them, you brush them off as my own concoctions when the origin of our disagreement is very evident.

[Blarg]

Talking about the 'good' religion does.. I'm not really sure just how much more generous those who are religious actually are. Their charities may appear more numerous because they attach the term Christian to themselves so they appear to be a part of a big group. A non religious charity wouldn't have the term secular before it so they don't appear to be a part of their own group so they wouldn't seem as common.

Also afaik some of the biggest contributers by huge margins, warren buffet and bill gates, aren't religious at all.

[Neosutra]

The point was the the beleif in god requires a few other inherent self defeating tradeoffs (i.e. giving an answer to the begining of the universe and influencing social decisions based on dogma rather than logic.). While the psychological benefits (comfort in death and a feeling of support) can be achieved through other methods.

No doubt people disagree with religion being "bad" for a person, but there are inherent ideas people agree to when accepting the idea of an omnipotent god that created everything. As a physicist, placing an answer for the unknown in an attempt to justify human curiosity is debasing to the very glories that make us a unique species.

Or instead we could argue about death in war and post links to child psychology Q.Q.

But that is not the only thing you said:

Ofcourse not:

I see what your saying, that these people are motivated to kill via their religion and we blame religion. And they are motivated to help people via their religion and we dont credit the religion. The difference comes in the fact that humanitarianism is a socially acceptable and encouraged action while mass murder is not. It is human nature to be compasionate and help others, it is not however human nature to murder people because a god told you too.

Its about seperating the good and bad, and the plain truth is:

You can still help people and it be acceptable wether it is because a god told you too, or because its the right thing to do. You cannot however murder someone, or spread ignorance and fear, and have it be acceptable in any sense.

And when i responded to this, you brought up 3 points that you used to help your main argument, points that i therefore attacked to devalue your main argument. You are accusing me of missing the point of your post and "derailing" when you are the one who brought up those points in the first place, points which i naturally argued agaisnt.

You not only posted that religion breeds ignorance, which it potentially can, but you also argued that it breeds violence and it is counterproductive to the "natural" faculties of humankind, which i conttend do nto exist, and that religion is manipulated to breed this violence. But once again, nice job of accusing me of missing the point when it was you who brought in those points to support yourself, and then, instead of debating agaisnt them, you brush them off as my own concoctions when the origin of our disagreement is very evident.

Where as I stated that even the basic tenants of religion was harmful, and not just the added motivation for the spreading of ignorance and violence. To me religion is ignorance and thus the spreading of religion = spreading of ignorance. And ignorance spreads violence. The fact that I pointed out the inherent flaws and justification for calling all religion "bad" was to validate the above conclusion.

1. You are contending that curiosity is not natural to humans?

2. You are contending that violence is, however empathy is not?

3. You contend that killing in war = murder.

I contend that the very core of religious belief requires a tradeoff that I believe to be counterproductive (i.e. placing a reason for the origins of the universe w/o evidence)and thus harmful. The rest of the topic, of religion being used as a motivation to kill and oppress, only strengthens that stance.

edit: Going out to play some pool, gl with the argument.

[Kuya]

Do not disassociate those points from your main argument. The fact that you keep calling it murder only denotes your lack of differenting between the perception of deviant killings and justified killings. The point in the murder/killing section was that humans only require emotion and or necessity to kill others, religion need not exist for this to happen, and reasons will be made up along the way to justify them. Same as killing is killing, you just call one murder and the other by a different name, i'm not saying it's inherently bad, but the difference is what's legal and what isn't.

Empathy you brought up because i said there is no natural desire to be good or bad, because both of these terms are social constructions, they hold no real weight, and i brought up that humans have no natural inclination towards good or evil, because you were implying that you don't need religion to be good, because you argue it is natural, but you say it is not natural for humans to be evil, because it is religion that creates this. Which once again, barring the fact that those terms are merely used for polarizing issues, is untrue because the things you consider evil, such as killing, which you classify as murder as if there was some essential difference, happen because of the need of preservation and emotional outbursts, people don't really know what killing is until you teach them or they learn it themselves, evidently, same as they learn empathy through experience with others, it does not develop by itself if there are no people to have constant exchanges with. Ergo, the empathy you associate with good, and the murder you associate with bad, are not natural, and because neither is natural, religion is irrelevant in the case of people committing the acts you denote as good or bad.

I do not know whether humans are naturally curious or not, some seem to be, some don't, however it may be that some are simply raised to be more curious than others, or at least allowed to be. So yes, i will agree that religion can stieffle curiosity, but that need not always be the case, as there are many exceptions.

Also, when you speak of religion, you speak in such an all encompassing way that i'm not quite sure if you're aware of all of the religions that exist and that some of them may not be used for violence as others are, or that they do not oppose scientific ideals. You assume that to be true for all religions, or all future religions.

Murder happens with or without religion, empathy happens with or without religion, fear and ignorance happens with or without religion. Yet they can all be acceptable under certain circumstances without religion ever playing a role in any of them.

edit: If we allow ourselves to use nature as an example, we could conclude that violence is in fact natural to humans, as much as it is to other animals, however, just because other animals present violence, does not necessarily mean that humans are in fact naturally violent. Also, if you haven't noticed, reason and logic aren't exactly the staples of society for most people now a days, and incidently, religion has very little to do with it.