| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
   |
Posted - 2007.12.01 17:44:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Keorythe
Religion will never disappear.
You dont have to believe in a temporal god to be religious. Atheists have their own religions whether they believe it or not and that doesn't make them any less fanatical or faction based than anyone else.
The problems of the world have more to do with human nature than any christian/buddist/islam religion. But they make great scapegoats. 
You have a funny understanding of the word "religion"... that, and/or you're just trying to play semantic games.
Taking the generally accepted definition of the word "religion", a dogmatic belief in the supernatural, if you claim "atheism" (a rejection of beliefs not backed up by reason and evidence, ie: the supernatural) is also some sort of "religion", I'm going to tell you to look up the word "oxymoron" after you're done with the "religion" entry.
But you do have a point about blaming religions for the world's problems - it's a bit like declaring Wars on Nouns. Ultimately it all comes down to humanity being too inherently stupid, greedy, selfish, manipulative, corrupt, diverse, abusive, etcetera, etcetera... as well as our built-in need to "belong" or being part of something larger than ourselves.
Ironically, I do think that if humans evolved into being more self-sufficient (in the psychological sense) individualists, we would have far less conflicts. Be it organized religions, political parties, nationalisms, social classes, football teams, ideologies of any sort whatsoever, humans will try to cling to some of these to the death in their peculiar need to fill their lives with some sort of sense, purpose and place.
And these poisonous mechanisms, no matter if it is Jesus or Muhammad, Socialism or Capitalism, Real Madrid or Barcelona FC, the Stars and Stripes or the Hammer and Sickle, will always impose an "us-versus-them" perspective and righteous mentality that quickly leads to aggression. No one holds the "Absolute Truth" to anything at all, but humans show a remarkable penchant for hypnotizing themselves beyond reason with ideas institutionalized into rigid ideologies, that twist their perception of other people with a different set of ideas into "adversaries".
|
SurfinSeaOtter Remade
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 17:49:00 -
[62]
HA! Let's get peace in Eve first then we can start thinking globally 
Surfin's Plunderbunny's alt... remake of 1st char that lost his life to drunken rage |
Xonkra
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 18:43:00 -
[63]
when BoB conquors the asian regions .
after that you can put BoB on a single planet, that planet would be a second most largest planet in our solarsystem , right after earth
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
No matter how you want to say it.. it always sounds like
*frog clearing throat* "Ve zurrendur, dunt schuut"
|
Fink Angel
Caldari
The Merry Men
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 18:48:00 -
[64]
Originally by: The Anointed
Dude, there could be 2 people left on the planet and I guarantee issues would still arise.
Its the nature of the beast.
WHS. However small the amount of people, the issues that subdivide them may get smaller and smaller, but those issues will still be enough to disagree on and fight over.
|
Ilvan
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 19:25:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Multras
No, because forms like that do not work for a society. Try living in reality.
If you really think mankind's ultimate destiny is that of a slightly more cunning pack animal then I really have nothing more to say. Enjoy your world... but don't start screaming when the rest of us decide it's time for some change.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 19:30:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Frank Horrigan
Humans, when in groups of over 100 or more, automatically fracture into smaller groups.. its something built into our dna.. you will never keep us in one group.. drifference is the key to our species.
150.
dunbars number.
google it.
now.
|
Multras
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 20:58:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Ilvan
Originally by: Multras
No, because forms like that do not work for a society. Try living in reality.
If you really think mankind's ultimate destiny is that of a slightly more cunning pack animal then I really have nothing more to say. Enjoy your world... but don't start screaming when the rest of us decide it's time for some change.
Well that will never happen unless there is some heavy genetic mutation. Then we wouldnt be human would we?
Thanks to EVE Art Store for the sig. |
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 21:00:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Isiskhan
You have a funny understanding of the word "religion"... that, and/or you're just trying to play semantic games.
Taking the generally accepted definition of the word "religion", a dogmatic belief in the supernatural, if you claim "atheism" (a rejection of beliefs not backed up by reason and evidence, ie: the supernatural) is also some sort of "religion", I'm going to tell you to look up the word "oxymoron" after you're done with the "religion" entry.
Actually you might want to re-read my post. Atheism isn't a religion, its an anti-supernatural religion. Reasons for atheism aren't unified and sometimes even irrational. Nowhere near the number you think are scientific skeptics (although is makes for a good excuse). But I digress...
When we say the word religion, we automatically think "god", "devil", or something to do with the supernatural. Religion in fact is any system that codifies its rules, uses rituals, and practices forms of worship to forward this movement. It doesn't have to be supernatural. Humanism, environmentalism, and other secular philosophies are all forms of a religion with the followers and worship (prayer is supernatural based and not needed for religion).
And as to your individualistic theory you're actually moving backwards. Individualism is one of the largest reasons why societies fail and chaos ensues. Your own wants and beliefs do not coincide with many other's wants and beliefs. Compromise is not looked upon favorable in individualism except when other methods fail. The Us vs. Them theory is really derived from Me vs. everyone else. One society/group/team/clique/nation vs. another is just an extension of individualism with its members making up a unified body.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 22:02:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Keorythe
Actually you might want to re-read my post. Atheism isn't a religion, its an anti-supernatural religion. Reasons for atheism aren't unified and sometimes even irrational. Nowhere near the number you think are scientific skeptics (although is makes for a good excuse). But I digress...
When we say the word religion, we automatically think "god", "devil", or something to do with the supernatural. Religion in fact is any system that codifies its rules, uses rituals, and practices forms of worship to forward this movement. It doesn't have to be supernatural. Humanism, environmentalism, and other secular philosophies are all forms of a religion with the followers and worship (prayer is supernatural based and not needed for religion).
If you want to redefine the commonly accepted meaning (as you even acknowledge)
of certain words to something else that fits some sort of point you want to make, go ahead and do it, just as if you decide to start posting in Mandarin. Your words will come out as noise to everyone else though.
And I'm quite curious to know what sort of "rules", "rituals", "practices", "forms of worship" you reckon so-called "atheists" have. If you think that atheism is anything more than refusing to blindly believe the superstitions someone pulled out of their nether regions at some point in history and for which there has never ever been a single shred evidence, well, you are either badly misinformed or projecting your own conceptual structures onto others.
Originally by: Keorythe
And as to your individualistic theory you're actually moving backwards. Individualism is one of the largest reasons why societies fail and chaos ensues. Your own wants and beliefs do not coincide with many other's wants and beliefs. Compromise is not looked upon favorable in individualism except when other methods fail. The Us vs. Them theory is really derived from Me vs. everyone else. One society/group/team/clique/nation vs. another is just an extension of individualism with its members making up a unified body.
You also seem to speak of "Individualism" as if it were some sort of antagonistic philosophy or ideology or movement... Thinking for yourself, staying away from all the trappings inherent in any sort of organized ideological movement, and not letting yourself being swayed by herd-mentality in any of its forms, is certainly not about being against others or at odds with working along with them for the common benefit.
On the other hand, history and the news are choke-full of wars and conflicts being motivated by people fighting and killing for their ideology / religion / nationalism / whatever other sort mass-hypnosis phenomenon, aside from plain old human greed, of course. Just the country I'm from, Spain, nearly ripped itself apart some decades ago in a devastating civil war motivated by ideological antagonism (conservatives versus progressives, Christians versus non-believers).
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 22:47:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 01/12/2007 22:47:52
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 01/12/2007 22:47:36
Conflict is what drives evolution. It's what drove us to where we are, and that's why it's still in our genes to fight each other - because non-human animals aren't enough of a challenge anymore to practice selective survival. It's only the weak who know they can't survive a conflict that complain about conflicts.
A wise man once said, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." it's how humanity works.
I find it ironic that the nuts who want all people to unite and live in a hippy utopia themselves are causing further subdivision and conflict.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 22:51:00 -
[71]
our nation is spelt "hippie utopia" ffs !
and its actually a nice place.
we weave baskets every thursday from three to five.
youre welcome to join us, whenever you like, but please, if you wouldnt mind, take off your shoes before you come in.
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 22:55:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
our nation is spelt "hippie utopia" ffs !
and its actually a nice place.
we weave baskets every thursday from three to five.
youre welcome to join us, whenever you like, but please, if you wouldnt mind, take off your shoes before you come in.
How many strategic bomber wings, SLBM-capable subs and carrier groups does your nation have?
|
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:43:00 -
[73]
Only ever when presented with an external threat, aliens.
These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade! |
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:47:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
How many strategic bomber wings, SLBM-capable subs and carrier groups does your nation have?
i dont know... we might have some mixed pickles and a bottle of ketchup (its probably empty tho) in the fridge..
will that do?
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:53:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
How many strategic bomber wings, SLBM-capable subs and carrier groups does your nation have?
i dont know... we might have some mixed pickles and a bottle of ketchup (its probably empty tho) in the fridge..
will that do?
Sure, if you're planning on winning a collective Darwin award for your nation.
"A nation is a genotype with an army."
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:55:00 -
[76]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 02/12/2007 00:57:32
Uhh... actually you don't really get anywhere without some trust and reciprocity norms.
If conflict really did drive evolution, the Mogadishu Space Agency would have landed a manned mission on Mars already and Lebanon would be cloning humans.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:58:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Avery Fatwallet on 02/12/2007 01:01:06
Edited by: Avery Fatwallet on 02/12/2007 01:00:24
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Sure, if you're planning on winning a collective Darwin award for your nation.
"A nation is a genotype with an army."
we can resort to some very harsh language and denial of intercourse if we have to.
edit: yes, im an utopist hippie, but i seriously think its high times we move on. conflict shouldnt be a driving factor for manking anymore.
we crossed the line, its hurting us a lot more than its helping. imho.
of course, this would require mankind, to "grow up", therefor the "utopist" part.
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 00:59:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 02/12/2007 01:00:47
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Uhh... actually you don't really get anywhere without some trust and reciprocity norms.
If conflict really did drive evolution, the Mogadishu Space Agency would have landed a manned mission on Mars already and Lebanon would be running sailships to and from Pluto.
Evolution can't work miracles in a couple generations.
And besides, why are you assuming evolution will lead us to space travel?
If selective survival is practiced through warfare, it's natural that those that get to survive and reproduce are the subjects more adopted to warfare - aggressive, obedient, strong, courageous etc. I fail to see the connection between this and spaceflight.
It's still a better option than not practicing selective survival at all, which the majority of mankind stopped some 5000 years ago.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:03:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
And besides, why are you assuming evolution will lead us to space travel?
well this is simple:
if evolutions goal is to produce a lifeform that survives, said lifeform NEEDS to learn spacetravel (after it solves myriads of other problems) OR solar rejuvenation.
i know, big timeframes, but basically its true, i think.
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:05:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 02/12/2007 01:06:28
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
And besides, why are you assuming evolution will lead us to space travel?
well this is simple:
if evolutions goal is to produce a lifeform that survives, said lifeform NEEDS to learn spacetravel (after it solves myriads of other problems) OR solar rejuvenation.
i know, big timeframes, but basically its true, i think.
High-school biology:
In order for a species to adopt to a condition (in our case, the sun blowing up), one or more of it's subjects must first be exposed to it, survive it and reproduce.
Of course, there's also the "fight or flight" point of view. In this case, "flight" is the only option, but I don't see the need to flee 5 billion years in advance.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:08:00 -
[81]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 02/12/2007 01:09:32
From the CIA world factbook -
Somalia. Lots of conflict there. Surely by now they should have bred themselves as keen as a razor's edge, yes?
Quote:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 48.84 years
male: 47.06 years
female: 50.69 years (2007 est.)
Sweden. Stinking social democratic hippiesville. They're fat and lazy from all that state provision of services and lack of burly men with AKs culling the weak.
Quote:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 80.63 years
male: 78.39 years
female: 83 years (2007 est.)
Oh my. I must have got the figures mixed up. Er...
If I didn't know better I'd almost think that conflict wasn't much good for anything.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:09:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Avery Fatwallet on 02/12/2007 01:10:00
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Of course, there's also the "fight or flight" point of view. In this case, "flight" is the only option, but I don't see the need to flee 5 billion years in advance.
it still is a viable argument ;)
oh and i played master of orion, so i can tell you this:
fight=solar rejuvenation
flight=space travel
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:09:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 02/12/2007 01:10:10
Originally by: SoftRevolution
From the CIA world factbook -
Somalia. Lots of conflict there. Surely by now they should have bred themselves as keen as a razor's edge, yes?
Quote:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 48.84 years
male: 47.06 years
female: 50.69 years (2007 est.)
Sweden. Stinking social democratic hippiesville. They're fat and lazy from all that state provision of services and lack of burly men with AKs culling the weak.
Quote:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 80.63 years
male: 78.39 years
female: 83 years (2007 est.)
Oh my. I must have got the figures mixed up. Er...
Shorter lifespan means faster reproduction and consequentially faster evolution.
Did I mention I hate it when people defend evolution against religious nuts, but start speaking against evolution the moment it's applied to mankind? We're nothing but animals, and anyone who says otherwise is no better than the intelligent design crowd.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:12:00 -
[84]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
From the CIA world factbook -
Sweden. Stinking social democratic hippiesville. They're fat and lazy from all that state provision of services and lack of burly men with AKs culling the weak.
they wrote THAT about sweden? 
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:17:00 -
[85]
More or less:
Quote:
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force.
I paraphrased a bit.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Frygok
Minmatar
Malicious Intentions
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:19:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
Originally by: SoftRevolution
From the CIA world factbook -
Sweden. Stinking social democratic hippiesville. They're fat and lazy from all that state provision of services and lack of burly men with AKs culling the weak.
they wrote THAT about sweden?
They were never known for their sublety!  Crown Jewels, anyone?
Regarding the whole evolution debate, I disagree that it is human nature to wage war. We are seeing alot of the "strong" fighting for the "weak" causes, and trying to help the weak. However, there are some very strong political and ideaological hurdles that needs to be conquered, but that would pass over into a political debate I'd reckon, and swiftly end this thread.
Let's just say the US needs to wake the **** up and stop thinking about personal short-term gains, and Europe needs to take some responsibility in the world outside our little cozy happy-place.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:24:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Frygok
Crown Jewels, anyone?
i dont wanna derail the thread, evolution debate is nice, but id like to read up on the matter.
i only assume that "crown jewels" means "private parts".
At least it does in my language, which isnt even english
but id like some background?
linkeh, anybody?
quick google wasnt helpful.
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:27:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Frygok
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
and Europe needs to take some responsibility in the world outside our little cozy happy-place.
We've tried to do that, but the natives "outside our little cozy happy-place" didn't agree with us "taking responsibility" and called it colonialism instead.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:43:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Avery Fatwallet on 02/12/2007 01:43:51
Originally by: Star Gazer07
When people learn that harming the other side will only hurt yourselves is when we'll be "united".
ey, thats nearly a koan, imho
once you live with the thought you=me you can only hurt yourself. (when it comes to hurting, that is. sheesh that nearly sounded as if unity is painful)
call it utopian hippie delusions, but the rasta got it right.
I and I.
|
Thorliaron
|
Posted - 2007.12.02 01:45:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Frygok
Edited by: Frygok on 02/12/2007 01:36:15
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: Frygok
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
and Europe needs to take some responsibility in the world outside our little cozy happy-place.
We've tried to do that, but the natives "outside our little cozy happy-place" didn't agree with us "taking responsibility" and called it colonialism instead.
I can't help but wonder how today's passive stance towards hunger and genocide in for instance Darfur or Rwanda is morally any more right than the colonial slavery. Also, if it wasn't for US intervention, we would probably still have genocide going on in Kosovo, with european countries deciding on whether or not we should do something about it.
The fact is that the world has never been as interdependant as it is today, and we are foolish if we think we can just close our eyes and ignore the problem in the world. And yes, sometimes soldiers are needed to be put in place, to prevent civilians from being raped, murdered and driven away. That is not the same as what happened during the colonial period, not even by a far margin.
And no, this does not mean I endorse the unilateralism policy that the US is performing in these years.
Didn't a British PM have to basically force the US President's hand to send troops there?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |