Why should the world not unite? Your arguments

#15

Postby Hamming » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:45 pm

Not necessarily. You need to trust yourself, first and foremost, and ask yourself questions. I would propose: Am I happier believing in god, or happier not?


It is probably equal. I am unhappy when I make wrong decition and burn in hell. If I choose to believe - I am unhappy if I try hard to live by God rules and making my life worse and it turns out was for nothing.

I don't think fear of a theoretical god is a good reason for ignoring your own stats., ie 99 per cent certainty that there isn't one and one per cent not only that there is, but that it's ready to burn you for eternity. If you must have a god, surely it's better to pick a god you can trust to have your welfare at heart?


The god is only one real or there is no at all. So I have nothing to pick from :) I dont believe in other gods.

Do you want to base your life on the authority of people who didn't know dinosaurs had ever existed, or who believed the Earth was flat?


if they really saw the god, saw the miracles he is doing and it was not psychological problems causing them to see this, then maybe I want to base. But sadly no way to prove. Ok, probably many people claim seen Jesus flying to heaven after he resurected? if many did this, then probalby many did not have psychological problems. But no way to prove now.

Killing someone as punishment is surely more intentional than killing any other way, and I don't see how it can possibly lead to heaven on earth. If we kill all the bad people, we'll ultimately be left with a world of deliberate killers.

Not many of those were existing, just few who did the job. No problem.

Surely you must know all religions claim that?

I do not know all religions.


Quite. And when weighing up any religion, it's worth asking yourself who benefits from having religious adherents? I would have thought the answer was obvious in the case of the Catholic church.


Oh, yea, answer is obvious. But maybe benefit is a side effect. But I dont see priests being rich in my counry villages. Dont know about all, there are on internet super rich priests, yea, not even sure how it is possible.

If there was a god, surely She would expect us to trust the feelings She gave us.


I only heard that god is woman on this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp53irFjzYg "Groove Coverage - God is a Girl" , but nowhere else :)

Having so little faith in your own judgment suggests the ability to acknowledge your own feelings has been hammered out of you. It might take a while for you even to know what you're feeling at any given time, which explains why you have trouble intuiting your friends' feelings.


This does not make sense to me that my own feelings has been hammered out of me.

Are they happer days? That's the question.

I guess there are various days, happy and unhappy. Nowadays more happy but not because I think or not think about God but because I spend time with less annoying people, job goes well, have enough money to live good lifestyle and save for the future.
Hamming
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:29 am
Likes Received: 2


#16

Postby Candid » Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:18 pm

Okay, seems like you'll have to believe in God, as insurance that you won't burn in hell. Makes sense.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, UK #MeToo
Likes Received: 358

#17

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:27 pm

Candid wrote:
Richard@DecisionSkills wrote: People wearing white coats have done some pretty evil, wankerish things since the rise of that ideology. And like any ideology you get some that are dogmatic or even cultish.


I have no knowledge of this, unless you mean people carrying out Hitler's 'experiments'. The scientific community at large doesn't approve of that kind of thing, even when done under duress.


You have no knowledge of scientists making absurd claims? You are not familiar with the science of homosexuality, the science of racial superiority, the science of climatic doom?

You have no knowledge of chemical castrations, lobotomies, electric shock therapies, and the proliferation of a pill for every ill because well...science?

I guess I am not willing to call our ancestors ignorant for being less than perfect in their understanding of how the cosmos works. We might have made great progress in physics, but we are not much better off than our ancestors in metaphysical concepts.

It is actually a brilliant feat brought to us by our ancestors to communicate shared values across tribes through narrative, artifacts, and symbols. They were not ignorant. They were innovative.

If you and I have never met I don’t know if you are a threat. I don’t know what you believe. I don’t know your values. But, if I see that you wear a symbol of what you believe, then that is an amazing innovation. It doesn’t matter the extent to which the belief is true.

Science can’t answer whether cannibalism, polygamy, theft, slavery, etc. are ethical or moral ways to interact, i.e. to not be a w****r. Living amongst hundreds of tribes having a way to quickly and efficiently communicate shared beliefs has immense value.

In the end I do not see malevolent intent in our ancestors explaining the cosmos in ways that today we know are not true. I do not see evil or ignorance in believing that a chariot pulls the sun across the sky. They didn’t have the telescope. They didn’t have 7.7 billion minds Interconnected globally working on the problems of the day.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10579
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1083

#18

Postby Candid » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:50 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:You have no knowledge of scientists making absurd claims? You are not familiar with the science of homosexuality, the science of racial superiority, the science of climatic doom?


The first two, no. I don't consider the third absurd, given the evidence.

You have no knowledge of chemical castrations, lobotomies, electric shock therapies, and the proliferation of a pill for every ill because well...science?


The first two, no. ECT and the pill for every ill are still in use. It's what people want.

we are not much better off than our ancestors in metaphysical concepts.


Funny, I would have had you down as "metaphysical doesn't exist". Good to know I'm wrong about that!

But, if I see that you wear a symbol of what you believe, then that is an amazing innovation. It doesn’t matter the extent to which the belief is true.


Not sure I understand you, here. When I see someone with a representation of an instrument of torture round her neck, or in his cuffs, I don't know whether it's someone who's just buggered a little boy, someone who's about to throw the Good Book at me, or someone who may have something interesting or useful to say.

I'll see if I can come up with a symbol of what I believe, especially as you say it doesn't matter whether I believe it with all my heart or only on some days.

In the end I do not see malevolent intent in our ancestors explaining the cosmos in ways that today we know are not true. I do not see evil or ignorance in believing that a chariot pulls the sun across the sky.


Nor do I.

I do, however, take issue with people currently alive scaring the bejeezus out of people like Hamming, when they're still too young to reason for themselves.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, UK #MeToo
Likes Received: 358

#19

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:38 pm

You have been around long enough Candid. What stopped you from believing each of the previous cases of scientific doom? What makes this time different than all the other previous predictions?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... redictions

I remember several of the above. As a young teen I debated in school over acid rain and ozone depletion....”Stop using aerosol cans or doomsday was inevitable.”

Greta Thunberg is a sad example of a young child scared to death by scientists bought and paid for by government funded grants.

The world is ending as a tool to instill fear, gain power, and control others is not a new trick. It has been used throughout the ages and is both pathetic and sad in my opinion.

These days I’m old enough to realize that predictions of some sudden apocalyptic doom to instill fear is just a self serving means to claim the moral high ground and elevate one’s status within the community by claiming certain knowledge. It is wankerish crap that is on the same level of saying you need to sacrifice X number of virgins to appease the rain spirits.

Candid wrote:Not sure I understand you, here. When I see someone with a representation of an instrument of torture round her neck, or in his cuffs, I don't know whether it's someone who's just buggered a little boy, someone who's about to throw the Good Book at me, or someone who may have something interesting or useful to say.


You mean some people that wear symbols and are in positions of authority might abuse that authority? That is true of any position of power. Regardless if someone is wearing a particular symbol, people in power have been buggering little boys.

What makes this one political system so much different in your eyes?

Why do the political elite or those in positions of authority not draw your disdain the same as men in white robes? Men in white coats have buggered their fair share of little boys. People in power abuse that power. How they go about manipulating, scaring, and abusing people might differ but the outcomes are similar.

In my experience most people have things to say that are interesting are useful. Those in positions of power buggering little boys are the exception rather than the rule.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10579
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1083

#20

Postby MarcosUve » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:09 pm

Nice answers!
MarcosUve
New Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:34 pm
Likes Received: 0

#21

Postby Candid » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:42 am

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:You have been around long enough Candid. What stopped you from believing each of the previous cases of scientific doom?


They didn't come to my attention. Heard of them and shrugged them off.

What makes this time different than all the other previous predictions?


Having moved about the world a bit -- and yes, having been around long enough -- I can see the effects of overpopulation https://www.census.gov/popclock/. It confounds me that people think we can go on increasing our number indefinitely. Global warming is a direct result, and I've seen the changes during my lifetime.

Every species goes extinct eventually. Before that happens, the competition for scarce resources gets ugly. To me it's unacceptable that one-third of the world's people are starving or can't access clean water while another one-third expect the best of everything. But even in the lucky first world I've seen the average person's standard of living decline.

Makes me laugh when concerned people write about saving the planet "for our children and grandchildren". I'm an anti-natalist myself, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-born. I don't think it's about reducing our individual carbon footprints. I can refuse to use my recycling bin and I still won't have done as much harm as anyone who insists on their right to make even one new person.

These days I’m old enough to realize that predictions of some sudden apocalyptic doom to instill fear is just a self serving means to claim the moral high ground and elevate one’s status within the community


And I'm old enough not to worry about it. The only trouble I have is feeling obliged to congratulate someone who's adding another person to the tally, but I can live with that. I definitely don't foresee "some sudden apocalyptic doom"; I see something more like the frog in the pot: so gradual that intending parents don't have to acknowledge it.

You mean some people that wear symbols and are in positions of authority might abuse that authority?


No. That's a given. You wrote that the wearing of a symbol lets other people know you, your philosophy and intentions. I think it's meaningless.

Why do the political elite or those in positions of authority not draw your disdain the same as men in white robes?


If you met me you'd know in five minutes that I'm apolitical, nor do I have disdain for people in white robes. I can't categorise people by what clothes or symbols they wear, but give me five minutes in conversation and like anyone else I'll have formed an impression of this individual. Children such as Hamming once was have no say as to whether the person charged with their spiritual care has good or bad intentions.

Small children aren't taught science or encouraged to do their own research. They do, however, grow up in a culture with specific religious beliefs and mythology. Teach them right from wrong, great. Scare them with concepts of sin and punishment, not so much. Hamming plans to struggle to live the godly life -- whatever that is -- because he's been taught he'll burn for all eternity if he gets it wrong. To me, that's a poor substitute for doing what we know is the right thing, simply because it feels better. Love of God (or good) for its own sake I can just about grasp; fear of God because he's a sadistic control freak I have to reject.

My problem isn't with God (or good), it's with the white-robed people who terrify children before they're old enough to question authority.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, UK #MeToo
Likes Received: 358

#22

Postby Candid » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:52 am

Hamming wrote:I am unhappy when I make wrong decition and burn in hell. If I choose to believe - I am unhappy if I try hard to live by God rules and making my life worse and it turns out was for nothing.


This is sad, don't you think?
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, UK #MeToo
Likes Received: 358

#23

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:23 pm

@Candid

In 1798 the planet had approximately 1 billion people. Economist Thomas Malthus was a fear monger that predicted overpopulation would be the doom of humanity.

http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf

We are at 7x the population of fear monger Thomas wearing his white coat and still nowhere close to running out of resources.

Certainly there was a Candid back in 1798 that read what Thomas wrote and felt adding another child to the planet was a horrible idea. And there were plenty of people back in 1798 that probably wanted to use the population control measures Thomas espoused.

Starvation and clean water are not because of scarcity of resources. There is plenty of food and water available.

The question is why is the abundance of resources not distributed or provided? Why is there lack of access to the abundant supply?

Children were dying of starvation in Africa when I was a child and they are still dying today. I see the same commercials redone in digital. I hear the same pleas for help.

It isn’t as if the farmers can’t grow the food required. It isn’t as if the factories that bottle water couldn’t provide every person on the planet a life time supply of crisp refreshing water.

The average western person uses 100 gallons of fresh water each day. That is 100 gallons! They shower, they swim in a pool of it, they go golfing on grass soaked in it. Water is abundant. We are not even close to water being a scarce resource. That is a myth.

95% of the global population lives on only 10% of the land.

I absolutely agree with you that there must be an upper limit to how many people the earth can sustain. But, I’m not buying the fear mongering nonsense that we are anywhere close to full capacity.

If scarcity was an issue it would be reflected in the free markets. Hell, we throw away more food than could be consumed by those starving. We pour more potable water on the ground than those without clean water could possibly drink.

What is the upper limit? 14 billion people, 21 billion, 28 billion? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Thomas Malthus, a respected man in a white coat sure as hell didn’t know what the f@#$% he was talking about and I suspect many of modern day fear mongers don’t either.

Like Thomas, the fear mongers want you to believe the upper limit has already been surpassed. The fear mongers predictions might vary, but they all have something in common, the end is near. The reality is they don’t know, but believing that they know gives them power, it gives them purpose, it gives them a sense of authority.

It is true that eventually the sky will fall. But anyone that claims they know when or how is promoting wankerish fear mongering crap in my opinion.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10579
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1083

#24

Postby Candid » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:28 am

Hey, don't knock Malthus! His contribution was a major factor in Darwin's understanding of evolution. Nature is wasteful in terms of proliferation, but only the best-adapted will survive to reproduce.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote: The question is why is the abundance of resources not distributed or provided? Why is there lack of access to the abundant supply?


How would you propose to move huge quantities of water around the world? Only a child being forced to eat her dinner thinks it might conceivably be sent to a child in India -- and then only because her parents deplore waste, and say so.

Those who've actually been out of this world (via space programs) have realised how ludicrous it is to have national divisions.

A united world is good in theory, but I don't think anyone presently alive will see it.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, UK #MeToo
Likes Received: 358

#25

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:00 pm

Candid wrote:Hey, don't knock Malthus! His contribution was a major factor in Darwin's understanding of evolution.


Malthus definitely believed in survival of the fittest. He recommended programs to eradicate poverty by exposing those less fortunate to conditions that might help kill them off.

And Malthus believed he was right. He was a respected gentleman wearing a white coat. He was a person in a position of power promoting his beliefs based on his scientific, rational calculations.

Whether he used his position of authority to bugger little boys I don’t know, but he certainly was spreading fear and proposing radical solutions driven by fear.

Today is no different. We have people in white coats proposing radical solutions driven by fear. Again, look at that poor child Greta Thunberg. She is scared out of her wits and has been made the poster child for the U.N.

I guess it is the use of fear that tends to irritate me. To me it doesn’t matter if it is a person in a white robe or a white coat. Both are equally wankerish a$$hats in my opinion.

I don’t know...I guess using stories to generate fear as a form of power is very human.

How would you propose to move huge quantities of water around the world?


I don’t propose moving the water. People, to the extent that they can, will migrate to the food/water. That is the way it has always been for hominids until the recent advent of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago. Agriculture led to settlements which led to borders.

Those who've actually been out of this world (via space programs) have realised how ludicrous it is to have national divisions.


Label it a border, a division, a territory, etc. Call it a home, city, region, state, or nation...there is nothing ludicrous about having boundaries.

See my previous point of migration “to the extent they can”. On a global scale I think we do a pretty crappy job of managing the ability of people to migrate and/or live wherever they wish in the world. This includes allowing them to migrate to where food/water is abundant.

Note, that in many cases people choose to live in places that are harsh or lacking in resources. This includes after a disaster or during a long drought, etc. The decision whether to migrate is not always clear. We assume people would all wish to migrate away from an area with limited resources/opportunities, but this is not accurate. People can’t predict the future and people believe they can build a good future right where they are. “Next year the rains will come and the harvest will be bountiful,” they think.

In some utopian fantasy there are no doors, no locks, and everyone just goes wherever they wish whenever. In utopia the people are omniscient and know peace will be negotiated or the drought will be over next month. In this utopian fantasy it also must include no disease, no war, no natural disasters, no violence. In utopia if 7.7 billion people wish to watch the coronation of Prince Edward, then by gosh the UK should be able to easily welcome all these people and then let them leave over the weekend. No limits, no restrictions, no borders!

The “no borders” ideology (in the strictest sense) is hogwash in my opinion. Of course there must be borders/divisions/boundaries, etc. It isn’t a question of whether borders or divisions should exist, but rather in what form.

It would be nice if divisions allowed for migration without limits, but that is fantasy. There will be natural disasters, drought, disease, and war. There will be the need to handle mass migration and this requires divisions and some form of governance of those divisions.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10579
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1083


Previous

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Psychology