Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	ALChemy 71.68.4.11	25-Jan-08/2:12 PM
Excuse the gramatical errors. I've been living far too long down south.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	ALChemy 71.68.4.11	25-Jan-08/2:08 PM
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is as verifiable as any statement you've made thus far about religion. The objective of each Jew is to survive. So say you tell a computer to calculate the most probable action to take to ensure the most survivors. The computer will calculate that the highest chance to maximize the survivor count will be to smother the baby. Certainly you could tell the computer to calculate how all could survive but it is obvious that percentage of success would by far less. Have one of your nerdy tech buddies test it out if you need verification. I'm simply saying that religion is what keeps the group from killing the baby. Religion is a moral rule agreed upon by a group. Certainly the mother and maybe a few other jews might decide to spare the child based on their emotional response and sense of what is right but in order to unite the group in their decision you need a collective moral agreement that is been most effectively done through religion. Sometimes the scientific method is so inhuman that we chose an alternative. At least you show you're humanity through your Grinch-like actions. Most athiest i've met are about as fun as living under a rock.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	25-Jan-08/6:49 AM
Unfortunately for you, there is nothing scientific about the proposition that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It's not even a statement that science can have an opinion on, because it is totally unverifiable (whereof we cannot speak, theoreof we must hang our heads in shame.) But let me tell you another story: Once upon a time, I thought Morals were Magical Wisdoms Floating Around In The Clouds. I thought they were self-evident, timeless truths that were totally disconnected from the petty dealings of Man. That was when I was 6. And amusingly, it isn't far off the religious model for morality, in which The Wond'rous Mysteries of Right and Wrong are REVEALED to the faithful, usually through a text written by a complete prat. But Scripture and Holy Revelation are not good bases for morality, and they lead to dumplings like this: "Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: ... the bat." -- Deut. 14:11-18 A better basis is to simply ask yourself: what do I value? If I said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!" I would really be saying that I value human life, and that I would do whatever I could to minimize the net loss of human life. After a good deal of soul-searching (and several unfortunate soilings) I have discovered that I value human life, I value private property, I value personal freedom (provided that freedom does not lead to anyone being gay), and so on. I can't say WHY I value those things -- most are just innate impulses I have -- but the point is I would rather live in a world where people did value such things, so I do what I can to encourage it. The WHY is secondary. I may as well ask myself why I like chocolate. I JUST DO, OK!? In conclusion: you may eat bats if you wish.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	ALChemy 71.68.4.11	24-Jan-08/8:13 PM
Here's one way to look at it: A group of Jews are hiding from Nazi troops just yards away. One of the Jews is a mother holding her newborn child. The child begins to cry loudly. What should the group do? The true scientist will say smother the child as the needs of many outway the needs of one. The average non-religious person would be conflicted. The true theologist would say nobody has the right to smother the child. Once you realize doing what's logical isn't always the same as doing what is right then you'll understand why religion is still around.
Re: Him by hobojo	Dovina 75.82.69.253	23-Jan-08/2:03 PM
Can you introduce us? I want to meet him.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Dovina 75.82.69.253	23-Jan-08/1:33 PM
Yes, these are some very “un-Dark Angel-like” things you are saying: “The normal, healthy human being has empathy for other human beings.” Have your prior statements on the subject been abnormal or unhealthy? I will take this as if it were your first muttering about empathy and say that I agree. Regarding my infidel point, what do I think about the afterlife of non-believers? Do I think they deserve eternal damnation? David Wilkerson appears to think so. I am not convinced. For example, if I knew my parents were burning in hell, I might strive to go there just be with them, rather than sit in heaven’s luxury. And wouldn’t they be glad to see me in spite of the flames? Furthermore, at what age would they see me, and I them? With these confusions, I prefer to ignore any possible afterlife. Religion for me is here and now. Regarding religion and morality, I think we agree. Religion is relationship with God; morality is relationship with people.
Re: Him by hobojo	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	23-Jan-08/11:15 AM
An aged wipe is but a paltry thing, A tattered rag upon a stick, unless Buttocks sally forth and cling, and bravely cling To every blemmish on its scrunched up mess, Nor is there parping school but studying Monuments of its own brownificence; And therefore I have sailed the seas and come To the holy city of Brownium. From "Sailing to Brownium" by William Butler Yeats
Re: a comment on Post-mortem by jen	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	23-Jan-08/5:09 AM
Too late.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	23-Jan-08/2:52 AM
I don't know his killers, but if they show no remorse then they're probably sociopaths. And sociopaths are sociopaths, irrespective of their religious identity. The normal, healthy human being has empathy for other human beings. I'm prepared to accept that empathy can be encouraged by upbringing, but it's also an innate capacity in the vast majority of people. This shouldn't come as a surprise because it's an advantage to our species that we co-operate with each other, and don't kick each other to death outside our homes. When it does happen, you're going to hear about it, because it's a newsworthy event and will be reported in a News which you will no doubt observe.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	23-Jan-08/2:29 AM
Even if the religious tendency was inevitable, you could still argue whether or not it was a good thing. Obviously. But the main point is that it's not inevitable in most people. With very few exceptions, people adopt the religion of those around them (their family, their madrasa, their badmington club), which makes it OBVIOUS that it's their environment that has led them to that particular belief system, rather than any hard-coded voices in their head. Just suppose the clamour they were subjected to everyday came from secularists, rather than from people exalting faith in The Local Religion as the highest virtue. In my view, religion is a throwback to our infancy as a species; to a time before we all became McEnlightened and had to worship shoehorns. Science has been enormously successful at explaining phenomena that were previously attributed to God. A powerful example (not to mention Darwinism) is the germ theory of disease: before that, the causes of infection were frequently attributed to punishments from God. When people see science contradicting their religion, they might initially reject it as heretical, but eventually the truth becomes Obvious Beyond Thunderdome, so they either water down their religion, or throw it in the nearest spastics home. That is why atheism is the fastest growing 'religious identity' in America. USA! USA! USA! Regarding your infidel point, what *do* you think about the afterlife of non-believers? Do you think they deserve eternal damnation? Finally, the link between religion and morality is not weaker than *I* think. It's weaker than religious people think. I already think it's weak, and where it does influence morality it's usually in a poisonous way (making good people do bad things). It's the Religious who argue that Religion is the only basis for morality.
Re: Post-mortem by jen	Ranger 81.152.176.86	23-Jan-08/2:20 AM
I don't like cummings so a comment would be unfair.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Ranger 81.152.176.86	23-Jan-08/2:16 AM
You're saying some most un-Dark Angel-like things. Or at least you're implying some such things. Do people need fear to keep them in check? Yes, actually. It doesn't have to be fear of eternal violence. It's usually just fear of immediate violence, such a clip round the ear for being a little rascal. But when that fear disappears, what substitute is there to maintain some sort of pleasant social behaviour? Here's an example: it makes no sense for a ten-year-old midget to hurl abuse at a six foot four inch 21-year-old. All logic says that it's a terrible idea from the 10-year-old's point of view. So why does he do it? I'm not a particularly religious person. I had all my real hope bludgeoned out of me by your chums in the scientific world. I don't particularly want to murder someone, but then I'm a nice, boring person. And yes, I was brought up with mild religious undertones. Weren't you? Can I give in to the popular media for a moment and ask you about Mr. Newlove's killers? Why don't they seem to have any remorse? I think I've spent the last ten minutes just waffling around your original question. This is why I only got a 2:1.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Dovina 75.82.69.253	22-Jan-08/2:02 PM
Religious tendency is not negotiable. It’s what almost all of us are born with. Otherwise we would not see nearly every tribe and culture steeped in some kind of religion. So let’s not debate whether it’s good or bad, and just accept it. Like our tendency for sex, it leads to comforting and harmless activities if not perverted. What I think about the afterlife destination of unbelievers has little affect on how I treat them, or how Jesus treated them. He said “Love your Enemy” (infidels included). How is that a perversion of religion? Some religions say that murder is not naughty. They are perversions. I think it is naughty, not because of my religion, but because its naughtiness is obvious. The link between morality and religion may be weaker than you think.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	22-Jan-08/3:42 AM
Is that what I said? No. I said the world would be better. The "religious tendency" is the tendency to hold beliefs based on insufficient evidence. That is what "faith" means. That this tendency is somehow A Good Idea, is beyond me. Not only is it A Bad Idea, it's a dangerous one, particularly when the faith is induced by the threat of Eternal Violence. Consider your own position. Does religion make you a better person? I for one do not need divine inspiration to know that murder is naughty. Perhaps you do?
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Ranger 86.131.46.28	22-Jan-08/2:12 AM
So if we got rid of every religious tendency then the whole world would suddenly become all happy joyful?
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	21-Jan-08/5:46 AM
Because it's the sects that preach "Love thy infidel" that are the perversions. That's just not what the Bible says. Jesu doesn't love infidels. If he did, he wouldn't condemn them to eternity in Hell. Obviously. http://tinyurl.com/2kertn
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Dovina 208.127.216.123	19-Jan-08/11:16 AM
I said no because most Muslims are good people. Their religion helps them be decent citizens, and it gives them comfort. Some of their beliefs are weird, but so are some of yours. My beliefs are normal. Most people seem born with a god-shaped hole in their brains that is only satisfied by religion. So the completion begins; pundits of the gods run for election, some preaching “an eternity of sparklings” for unbelievers. But not all. Some preach love and tolerance, and they are the ones who better the world. Violent sects are perversions of religion. Why are they inevitable?
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 86.156.215.130	19-Jan-08/2:35 AM
Yes, damn those sects. But as a gentleman, I would rather be done with the whole shebang. Many religions include some form of punishment for the infidel. Christianity (the religion that normals have) requires its followers to accept Jesu as their Saviour, else suffer an eternity of spanklings. Muslim is similarly punitive. Coincidence? Or is Punishment Of Infidels just a good survival mechanism for religion? It frightens people into blind faith. And violent sects are an inevitable corollary.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	Dovina 208.127.216.57	18-Jan-08/10:45 AM
No, but I'd be happier without the sects of that religion that want to kill infidels.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	18-Jan-08/8:20 AM
Would you rather live in a world without the Muslim religion?