Originally Posted by
coqauvin
You still don't understand. This isn't a proclaimation of our dominance in the hopes of becoming so, or an example of a false belief - it is a statement of fact. By the mere fact that we no longer rely on changing to suit our environments, but instead can either choose the evironment we wish to live in, or alter our current one to suit our needs makes us dominant. You say it's dangerous because of how we place ourselves - well of course it is - life is not namby pamby, wishy-washy dream of how everyone and everything is equal.
I'm not going to get into the concept of ownership, but needless to say it's not a matter of who owns what, it's a matter of what has the power, and we have the fucking power.
it's not about what they are like today. That is what we call a 'red herring', because culture has changed so much and so rapidly in the past 200 years that nearly every culture today would be alien to the same one it was even 100 years ago. What matters is what they were like in that time, and my description was pretty accurate. The brutal and the strong survived, because nature is not friendly.
yes, but people just as easily put blind faith into their leaders, be they municipal, provincial or federal. There are plenty of people who will back up the main leader of the time simply because of their political affiliation - that is the problem.
Also, it is easy to see bad things outweighing the good when you look at how the media operates in our culture. The news that sells is the terrible news - floods, wars, droughts, famines, accidents, murders, kidnappings, etc. All of this gets sensationalized and played up to arouse our fears, so is it any wonder we tend to focus on the bad rather than see the good in this? You have to look at every facet of these things before you make a judgement, and you haven't looked into religion enough - I can tell this simply because every time you make a comment about 'religion' what you mean is 'christianity' and do not take into account any other faith, or the effects they have.
When did I ever question the necessity of biodiversity? If you want to look at it from another perspective, then the world is a food pyramid, and we are on top, everywhere.
Well yes, but the nature of science is constant experimentation until you get it right, or at least bring it to a point where the researcher (or the funder) is satisfied with the results. We don't have that complete mastery now, but we are certainly working on it.
Understand, too, that the reason mastery is eluding our grasps is because we have a tendency to oversimplify problems; the world is a truly complex place, and reducing things too far means we get a false understanding of the issue - for example, your views on religion. Until you accept the complexity of the situation and ensure you have a proper comprehension of the issues, any claims you make, any statements about that subject are completely invalidated.
Do some serious research (for religion it is quite easy - read their holy books in order to understand what they are talking about, otherwise you are getting biased views of their writings) on the subject, and then you are free to denounce it. Otherwise, you are just spewing whatever hot topic lines for whatever subculture of pseudo-scientific intellectuals, and there are too many people who think they know too much about things they have little understanding.
ok and i will start presenting cool theories as facts in an argument too - god is a dinosaur witch and is only waiting until we are fat enough to throw us in an oven and have a seriously good dinner with any all the other deities we know nothing about.
man what a great idea why didnt i do this earlier
It's not a question of who belongs to what. This implies ownership, which is a complete falsehood anyways. A more accurate view of this 'belonging' is who possess the power at any given point in time, but ownership has implications that go further than that, muddying the issue. Don't speak of ownership.
Do you understand the nature of politics, at all? It is quite apparent you don't. Every time those in charge make a public proclaimation, they have an image they need to maintain, so they use filler titles and material to keep up that image. Some buy into it, but generally speaking, most don't. There are also conventions of speech that are used based on the culture at the time - for example the use of Anno Domini (year of our lord) after naming a year. It sounds religious, and uses religious words, but it is more a convention of speech.
Also, don't lecture me on Common Era bullshit, because that's not the point here. The point here is keeping up a certain facade, and common culture conventions of speech.
You are applying modern day morality to the actions of our ancestors? What are you, stupid? Morality is so fluid and changes from day to day, especially overall cultural morality. What we decry now was once accepted, and this is a pattern that has and will repeat for millennia. Also, don't be stupid and romanticize that Native American tribes - they did what was necessary for survival. When you study and understand them, then you can start making this kind of specious claims about them.
You want to know about natural laws? Survival of the fittest - those who have an advantage and use it, win. The Europeans and their conquest of the New World follows this natural law. Either be completely objective and rational about the situation that occurred, or don't talk about it at all. This is how false information gets passed around as fact - pseudo-intellectual circle jerks about history.
Of course the leaders used that to gain what they wanted. They also used nationalism in the past, fear and respect to get their subjects to bend to their will. The nature of the powerful properly exercising power is much like a fluid running through an ant farm - it will eventually reach the heart of the farm, and it doesn't matter which route it takes as long as it gets there. Religion was a convenvient vehicle, but don't be naive enough for a second to believe that had something else fulfilled the requirements that that wouldn't have been used. Removing religion in this regard would not solve the problem.
Ok, I have an idea - why don't you actively go out and get people to start thinking for themselves. I guarantee you that most won't, because for them (and sometimes for us), it is far, far simpler for them to follow orders. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because there is a place for everyone in the world. Look at the idea in Brave New World. What you're talking about is, in this analogy, turning everyone into an Alpha, but look at what happened to the island run entirely by Alphas in the book. Do you think that this would not happen here? You seem to have little grasp of humanity and how it functions, but you make some pretty grand, and clearly misguidedly idealistic, claims.
One, I don't understand what your problem would be with this - it is religion being ground down and away, and by religion at that. Any tactician would jump at the chance for his enemy to fight himself.
You can blame religion for blind faith, but I guarantee you that that aspect is human in nature and not tied to any religion.
Why yes, the majority of them were religious, because religion took the remenants of a shattered empire and began giving it identity and a sense of community and cohesion. A common goal and unity. Are you surprised they were religious? They also had a surplus of angry young men who were quite good at killing people, and those aren't the kind of people you want loitering around your villages. You round them up and set them to work at something they are good at, and if it follows something that will further you or your kingdom politically, it is called a win-win situation for you.
You say they were religious like it was a bad thing, but I don't think you see that it was what in fact unified and gave these people identity. Those things are completely necessary, and, please, tell me something else that is both a)feasible and b)would do the job better.
Did I talk about shamans at all? Shamans have nothing to do with this. Cite some sources about what the fuck you're talking about, because all I see is some hazy idea of what you think people were like back in the day, and making supposedly scientific judgements based on that.
Make a concrete point here because you are rambling and make no sense.
But you still don't understand why, and without understanding why, you cannot possibly hope to recreate a synthetic version of it that adheres to your set of principles and has the same effect on and for people. You have no idea how people work, yet easily make claims about how they should.
Umm did you read Guns, Germs and Steel? Remember the part about the Spaniards taking over the Incas with less than 150 men, and suffering a dozen or so losses? Literally, against millions? In spite of this information, you are missing the overarching point that the only real law of nature is what you are capable of doing to the world around you, and that history plays out because of the factors that led up to that point.
You also don't understand strategy, cultural differences, the real effect of new technologies, but are willing to substitute a half-baked ideal and pop-culture morality and argue with that instead. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you anymore.
You want an example of blind faith? Look at the faith we put in the quality of the food you buy at the supermarket. You put complete faith in the person who raised the animal to do so correctly, the person who inspected the food to make sure it was safe for consumption and sale, the FDA for allowing 'safe' growth hormones to be used in meats and 'safe' pesticides to be used on vegetation, the packaging company to properly deal with the product and the store to accurately label the end result for you to buy and consume it. This is blind faith in science, and there are so many ways for that chain to so easily be broken.
I am not even trying to say that science or religion is better than the other - I am pointing out to you that the thing you hate most about one also applies to the other, but you choose to overlook that situation. Be real and objective, for the love of God.
Churches, for all you hate them, are generally pretty beautiful. I have never been Christian, but I love the colour and character that a church building adds to the streets it's on. Religious buildings always look nice, and I enjoy interesting architecture. Also, the vast majority of churches are built and maintained by the people who go to them, so it's not even your money or resources being spent on their construction or maintenance. But you will claim the moral authority to say that they shouldn't be there, in spite of the fact that it is other people spending their own money how they choose to do so.
You are a self-righteous asshole.
Which is why the true onus is on you to thoroughly research these things before condemning them. The fact that there are divisions in these religions is more a matter of human fallibility than anything else. You also very quickly gloss over the fact that these religions, one and all, galvanized and unified the places where they started. They gave identity and unity, and were indeed the only real vehicle in those times to do so, and you are surprised that they are venerated? You say the books are silly to look at, but I doubt you've read anything except the Bible, and even in reading the Bible I suspect that your read was coloured by your confirmational bias that everything in the book is foolish.
I refuse to look at that website under the grounds that I judge religions by reading their holy books in whatever translations I can get my hands on, then objectively judging the overall themes and wisdom contained within. I cannot and will not substitute someone else's views on holy books and trumpet that as truth. Anyone who does so has no right to speak about that subject at all.
Also don't group scientology in as a religion, because it is a money-grabbing joke.
Relgious beliefs are old, but they are far from dated. Everyone now claims that because we can get to the morality through secular means that we should do so only through that means, but that is the same intransigent, closeminded viewpoint that religious fanatics use when they say "My God is better than your God!" and this is exactly what you have just said.
So why should I take you any more seriously than I take them?
Every public school tends not to teach any kind of religious course until midway through High School, when students are capable of researching and understanding the many religions that are in the world. The cases were Intelligent Design are being pushed are aberrations, and should certainly be fought, but that comes entirely from the fact that it is poorly executed logic and not because the source is religious.
Can you read that again and tell it to me with a straight face please?
You make some pretty big claims for someone who I have already shown has no real understanding of the issues we're talking about. I never once said Atheism and/or Agnosticism was something to be feared, and your dislike of blind faith is far smaller in terms of religion when you compare it to society, government and culture. Hate on blind faith, by all means - I am in complete agreement with you that misplaced faith is a horrible thing. But also be realistic about it's applications, and stop being what you claim to hate.
I don't care what you like or dislike, and neither does the world.
I don't like the colour red, because seeing it makes me angry and I don't like being angry.
that previous line has all the validity of the line i am responding to, except that last line is a lie and i just made it up. Doesn't change the level of validity, though, imagine that.
Remember what I said about the concept of ownership being flawed? Keep that in mind, sweetie.
Ok,list the rules of the world for me, 'natural' and otherwise. I think you are in over your head and have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and I really, honestly want to see what you come up with for this one. Let me say again that the notion of ownership is flawed and inaccurate, based in a sense of superiority, but not in reality. If you want me to define it again for you later, I will.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You again prove that you do not understand the issues in play at all, nor the effects they have. My own understanding is pretty limited, but I can tell already that your pathetic idealism, lacklustre romanticism of what you term 'natural laws' and complete lack of understanding of the background issues involved make you unfit to make any claims. You don't understand what you're saying at all.
Umm, what?
I'll say it again, this time in some sexy bold font: What natural laws are you talking about? List them.
Early stages of agriculture is what led us to the point where we are today. Remember what Atmosfear said about our ancestors doing so so that you have the downtime to think about shit like this? He was right, and if you read further in Guns, Germs and Steel, you'll see the point of it. I'll summarize for you:
If we are hunter-gatherers, we have to spend 90% of our time ensuring our basic survival needs are met. Because agriculture requires less people to provide more food for everyone, it allowed specialization in tasks to occur - impossible before because of how much time everyone in the tribes needed to spend. Also, the ability to stay in one spot improved the quality of agriculture and allowed specialists, who in hunter-gatherer tribes would be considered parasites because they did not contribute to survival, to continue and refine their tasks.
Now you are telling me that this agriculture, the keystone event in human development that allowed you to waste time on the internet, spewing half-baked notions, was a terrible thing and we should all live in nomadic tribes, because then we are "in touch with nature, abiding by natural laws."
That is not how the world works; those who believe it is are foolish and misguided
Oh, yes, instead we should rely on many books to provide our answers, ignoring the fact that now, any jackass can write and publish his own book, and simply because something is a) secular and b) written in a book, that the knowledge is somehow actually valuable to us. Do you know what else you shouldn't be allowed to do? Make faulty claims based on poorly understood concepts. That is more criminal than being a quiet, pious person who lives their life contributing to the betterment of their society while holding the possibly false view of a personal God.
Like you just said, ignorance is no excuse, but you fail to see the irony in you saying that.
By this anecdote, I am just forced to believe that you are, in fact, an insensitive twat who doesn't understand the difficulties some people face in their search for the truth around them. I think that you need to improve your ability to empathize and understand people in general before you cast aspersions on them for having illusions shattered and needing time and personal help accepting that. You, sir, are a jerk with a misplaced sense of self-superiority.
I do see your point of view, and it is poorly researched and retarded. The mere fact that you have an opinion and a different perspective does not give any credibility to your statements. There is little logic linking your notions together, notions that are seemingly derived from faulty sources.
It is also quite clear that you do not understand my point of view. You were raised with neither the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith or the sense of Native spirituality that I was, but you still claim to have intimate knowledge of it
The fact that you have a different perspective is not why I have a problem with you and what you have to say, it is the apalling lack of effort and research you have put into your beliefs, most of which I suspect are simply parroted notions found either in a book you thought wise (like some view a Bible) and an unquestioned, unexamined system of morality that was developed more by society than anything you actually sat down and thought out.
in conclusion, you and pvam are idiots
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks