I understand that the idea of Heaven gives People Comfort ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I understand that the idea of Heaven gives People Comfort but what about the fear of Hell what if you are the wrong Religion ? What if God only lets Atheists into Heaven after all it is possible right ? I just think no Afterlife gives me more Comfort than a Afterlife since Hell is a part of the Jewish Christian and Muslim Afterlives. Did Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels ever talk about Hell ? Religion may gives People some Comfort but do you really want to believe in a God who told the Israelites to enslave other nations and wipe them out and rape ? Religion in my view is Hell on Earth and is a form of Slavery. God is a Dictator in the Sky.


Q: Aren't you afraid that you'll go to hell? A: Not really. Since we don't believe that hell exists, we're not expecting to go there. What if we're wrong, is this a big gamble? That's essentially a simple formulation of Pascal's Wager. See that question below. (http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#pascals_wager)


Q: How can anyone possibly be moral without believing in God?
A: Pretty much the same way that anyone else can be moral: by considering their actions, weighing the consequences, and deciding whether they are doing more harm than good to themselves and other people.
Despite what evangelists tell you, the threat of hell is not what stops most people from, say, going on a mass-murdering spree. Even if there was no hell, there are still bad consequences for bad behavior. Our society has laws that threaten criminals with fines, imprisonment and sometimes death. And even if those laws didn't exist, there would still be the threat of punishment from other sources. For instance, if you commit a murder, the victim's family and friends might come looking for revenge. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. The justice system just makes the whole process a little more orderly, which is a good thing.
However, it seems like the threat of punishment and the promise of rewards is not really the only thing that keeps people from being bad. With or without religion, people don't like to be hurt, and they usually recognize that other people getting hurt is a similarly undesirable thing. Jesus didn't invent the principle of treating others the way you would like to be treated; it was around for centuries before. When people are in danger of being mistreated, they seek out protection through cooperation and relationships. Society is simply a much larger extension of those relationships.
With rare exceptions, people (atheists included) don't really have the urge or desire to run out and kill or steal or otherwise harm other people. And honestly, when people say "If it weren't for God holding me back, there would be nothing to stop me from being a criminal", we worry about them. If your grasp of right and wrong is so shaky that you can't stop yourself from doing bad things, and you need someone threatening you with eternal punishment to keep you in line, then we wonder how safe you really are to be near.

Further reading:
The Human Basis Of Laws And Ethics (http://www.atheist-community.org/offsite.php?u=http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morality.html)


Q: What is Pascal's Wager?
A: It's a well-known logical argument why you should believe in God, even if there's a strong chance that it might not be true. Simply put, the argument is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to heaven and avoid hell.
Blaise Pascal, a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century, first formally put the argument forth. He is considered the founder of probability and he made other significant contributions. There's also a programming language named after him.
Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.
He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity: eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity: eternal suffering in hell.
Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.
Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.
Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Reason 3: If you can accept Pascal's wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Maybe if you don't own a complete library of Seinfeld episodes, you'll go to hell! Why not? You don't know. Maybe you have to send $10 a week to the Atheist Community of Austin for life. Hey, what's a measly ten bucks if it will save you from eternal hellfire? Or maybe God really likes nude mud wrestling and he will punish those who do not partake of His gift.
Does all this sound utterly silly to you? Good! That's probably because you know that you should only believe things that have some sort of clear evidence favoring them. You don't believe just any old preposterous claim about UFO's, pyramid shaped get-rich-quick schemes, or magic pixies just because somebody tells you they're true and because there's a chance you might be wrong. You have a brain—use it!
Further reading: "Pascal's Sucker Bet" (http://www.atheist-community.org/offsite.php?u=http://jhuger.com/pascal) by "Reverend" Jim Huger

http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/

[The Jay]

I think that you need a christian side hug.

[Revolution starts with U]

All I was thinking was that someone should be an epicly awesome magician performing "miracles" and act like God is talking to him telling people to stop believing. Spreading the word that as of ca. 1900 ad only atheists can pass thru the gates :lol:

I like South Park's take. God is a buddhist duck-billed platypus which only lets mormons into heaven :tt1:

[Yuppie Grinder]

People long for something larger than them to give into. A god, a nation, a master. A new womb. The sooner someone realizes that there is no dualist order behind their existance, their is no purpose or drive behind their existance, their is no mastermind behind their existance, the sooner they will be free. Purpose is subjected onto the things by ourselves. Not only are their no gods but their is no objective purpose, we are free to decide our purpose for ourselves. I empathize with religous and spiritual people and understand why they believe what they believe, but their beliefs are detached from reality.
And now I'm done preaching to the choir.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Hell is part of this imagined order people feel a need to give into. Why everyone has a part of them that feels a need for authority and punishment I don't know, but I know it's unhealthy.

[hatzel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...


Hell is a part of the Jewish [...] Afterli[fe]

No.

[ComradeMan]

The OP is very long and covers some different subjects, I think the one I have quoted is the most important one, so I'll try to explore this one. I am not saying my answers are correct, but let's try to thinki about things.


Q: How can anyone possibly be moral without believing in G-d?
The first problem here is the issue of what "believing in G-d" means to the individual. Is there any consensus on this? Do all believers, even of the same religion and denomination, believe in exactly the same thing, as say they know that water boils at 100c at sea-level? Anyway, leaving that aside and for the sake of the argument we'll presume we have a basic axiom of "belief in G-d".

The next problem is with the term moral. What does moral mean? To a Roman of the 1st century CE there was nothing immoral in slavery- absurd idea. To an ancient Hellene, a young girl serving as a temple prostitute was not immoral, to an Aztec human sacrifice was not seen as immoral and so on. What do we define as moral and how do we arrive at that conclusion in an objective way?

A: Pretty much the same way that anyone else can be moral: by considering their actions, weighing the consequences, and deciding whether they are doing more harm than good to themselves and other people.
Okay, fair enough. But in considering actions and weighing consequences in order to decide the harm and good balance a person is applying some kind of set of rules, moral or ethics. On what basis is that ethical code formed?

Despite what evangelists tell you, the threat of hell is not what stops most people from, say, going on a mass-murdering spree.
I am not sure about what evangelists say. But I am not sure that the correct interpretation of Judaeo-Christian ethics is merely a cynical self-preservation attempt. To think that the only reason why people do not kill and so on is because a threat of hell does paint humans in a bad light. It sort of presumes that people would do this if there were not the threat- I believe most people are not instinctively demoniacal killers to start with- even if they are by no means, ourselves included, saints. In my opinion the Judaeo-Christian philosophies of punishment or a "karmic payback" do not presume the former but rather warn against the "consequences" of such action. When I was a child and my mother told me not to put my fingers in the electricity socket it wasn't because the electricity was going to punish me but rather to warn me about the dangers of such risky behaviour.

Of course this also ignores the fact, at least from what I understand of it, that in Judaeo-Christian philosophy, Vedic philosophy and many others there is also a sense of wonder and joy at the creation in which we find ourselves and a positive inclination not to ruin it.

Even if there was no hell, there are still bad consequences for bad behavior. Our society has laws that threaten criminals with fines, imprisonment and sometimes death. And even if those laws didn't exist, there would still be the threat of punishment from other sources.
This seems to be a bit of a contradiction. What we are saying is that an idea of punishment is acceptable, such as fines, prisons and even death and yet the idea of a spiritual punishment, purgatory or "karmic payback" is not. Now, from an atheistic point of view- surely the former is far crueller than the latter. It also fails to address the problem that despite the fact that people have been being fined, whipped, imprisoned and punished with death for as long as anyone can remember- bad behaviour and crimes have not stopped whatsoever and studies suggest that our solutions don't actually prevent any of this. This would bring me back to the idea of why it's important, in my view at least, to talk of a spiritual level of moral and ethics seeing as it's blatantly obvious that the materialist and "physical" world has not yet come up with a solution in spite of its progress.

Jesus didn't invent the principle of treating others the way you would like to be treated; it was around for centuries before. When people are in danger of being mistreated, they seek out protection through cooperation and relationships. Society is simply a much larger extension of those relationships.
I don't recall Jesus ever saying "Hey, I have got this great new idea..."- what Jesus appears to have preached was consistant in his interpretation of Torah righteousness- perhaps following in the traditions of Rabbi Hillel. Unfortunately for the atheist camp, if you look at the history of the "Golden Rule"- a quick glance at the wiki page will give a rudimentary idea, the "Golden Rule" flowers in religious and/or spiritual tradition in each case, whether this be the Egyptian goddess Ma'at or the Greek philosopher Thales. There is no real objective and materialist basis for the origins of this philosophy.

With rare exceptions, people (atheists included) don't really have the urge or desire to run out and kill or steal or otherwise harm other people. And honestly, when people say "If it weren't for God holding me back, there would be nothing to stop me from being a criminal", we worry about them.
I'd worry about them too, so would most normal religious/spiritual people. "If it weren't for God holding me back, there would be nothing to stop me from being a criminal"- Does anyone actually say that? Perhaps they do but I have never met anyone who does.

If your grasp of right and wrong is so shaky that you can't stop yourself from doing bad things, and you need someone threatening you with eternal punishment to keep you in line, then we wonder how safe you really are to be near.
But his skips over the first part of what defines a person's grasp of right and wrong in the first place and it seems to contradict the argument that most people aren't intrinsically bad anyway.

In addition to these points- it could, perhaps be argued that a person who is "good" does not need a "G-d" or spiritual philosophy in order to conduct a moral life, but what about the person who has fallen by the wayside? What about the murderer sitting on a life sentence? What redemption does an atheistic moral code offer for that person? What reason would there be for that person to try and redeem their life? Atheists don't seem to be able to answer that one.

[00000000000]

I have never believed in anything approaching God or an afterlife, yet I'm still, I think, a very moral person. I'm sure this is influenced by the idea of The Law (punishments for committing crimes) which may in turn be influenced by however many degress by religious laws / commandments. My sense what I should or should not do has always stemmed from how I would want to be treated by others and a little of 'what can I get away with? / Is anyone getting hurt?' reasoning

[Revolution starts with U]

The next problem is with the term moral. What does moral mean? To a Roman of the 1st century CE there was nothing immoral in slavery- absurd idea. To an ancient Hellene, a young girl serving as a temple prostitute was not immoral, to an Aztec human sacrifice was not seen as immoral and so on. What do we define as moral and how do we arrive at that conclusion in an objective way?

My position is that we Define (D) it individually and Arrive (A) at the conclusion inter-subectively. Sort of like an infinite loop, chicken/egg, kinda thing; > A > B > A >



This seems to be a bit of a contradiction. What we are saying is that an idea of punishment is acceptable, such as fines, prisons and even death and yet the idea of a spiritual punishment, purgatory or "karmic payback" is not. Now, from an atheistic point of view- surely the former is far crueller than the latter.
It depends on how you define it. Yes, physical real world torture is worse, because it exists. But hell is supposed to be eternal (for the most part), and infintely agonizing. The threat of hell also sometimes causes a panicy tendency to forsake evidence in place of faith.


It also fails to address the problem that despite the fact that people have been being fined, whipped, imprisoned and punished with death for as long as anyone can remember- bad behaviour and crimes have not stopped whatsoever and studies suggest that our solutions don't actually prevent any of this. This would bring me back to the idea of why it's important, in my view at least, to talk of a spiritual level of moral and ethics seeing as it's blatantly obvious that the materialist and "physical" world has not yet come up with a solution in spite of its progress.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph I don't even know where to begin...
Suffice it to say, the secular age has proved to be far more tolerant than before.


I don't recall Jesus ever saying "Hey, I have got this great new idea..."- what Jesus appears to have preached was consistant in his interpretation of Torah righteousness- perhaps following in the traditions of Rabbi Hillel. Unfortunately for the atheist camp, if you look at the history of the "Golden Rule"- a quick glance at the wiki page will give a rudimentary idea, the "Golden Rule" flowers in religious and/or spiritual tradition in each case, whether this be the Egyptian goddess Ma'at or the Greek philosopher Thales. There is no real objective and materialist basis for the origins of this philosophy.

Our species' social nature proved evolutionarily successful and language allows us to express and debate what is good and bad for society... plausible answer?


In addition to these points- it could, perhaps be argued that a person who is "good" does not need a "G-d" or spiritual philosophy in order to conduct a moral life, but what about the person who has fallen by the wayside? What about the murderer sitting on a life sentence? What redemption does an atheistic moral code offer for that person? What reason would there be for that person to try and redeem their life? Atheists don't seem to be able to answer that one.
They can redeem their lives for the betterment of themselves, their friends and loved ones, and their communities. They can find a sense of purpose in "salvation through works" for the greater good of humanity. From an atheist stance (rather than just a secular/materialist stance) they can ponder the nothing that will become them at death for a while and realize just how important it is to promote the existence of anything.

[ComradeMan]

My position is that we Define (D) it individually and Arrive (A) at the conclusion inter-subectively. Sort of like an infinite loop, chicken/egg, kinda thing; > A > B > A >

You're not really doing a good job of defining it here are you....


There is so much wrong with this paragraph I don't even know where to begin... Suffice it to say, the secular age has proved to be far more tolerant than before.

The secular age? The 20th century was one of the bloodiest centuries in history.... I don't know where to begin with the examples, but if we take the Holocaust we could start. The Holocaust was not done in the name of religion, it was done in the name of "racial hygiene" based on "science", even if we now say that science was bs, it was done in the name of economic needs- all materiaist to a degree.


Our species' social nature proved evolutionarily successful and language allows us to express and debate what is good and bad for society... plausible answer?

No, it explains the mechanism, not the source of this "inspiration".


They can redeem their lives for the betterment of themselves, their friends and loved ones, and their communities. They can find a sense of purpose in "salvation through works" for the greater good of humanity. From an atheist stance (rather than just a secular/materialist stance) they can ponder the nothing that will become them at death for a while and realize just how important it is to promote the existence of anything.

Sure, a guy sitting on death row, or a life sentence who is never going to walk free is going to do that? What would be the material reasons for him to do so? It's not likely to change his situation is it? Salvation is only salvation if you are "saved".

I would like to add that from a Christian perspective a lot of "popular" ideas about Heaven and Hell etc don't seem to have much basis in actual scripture. What you find in the NT is more similar to Judaism's concepts than many might expect at first.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're not really doing a good job of defining it here are you....

Do you have any specific criticism, or just not like it because you disagree with me?




The secular age? The 20th century was one of the bloodiest centuries in history.... I don't where to begin with the examples, but if we take the Holocaust we could start. The Holocaust was not done in the name of religion, it was done in the name of "racial hygiene" based on "science", even if we now say that science was bs, it was done in the name of economic needs- all materiaist to a degree.

Let us not get into a pissing contest between "science" and religion. Both were bloody, and that is all that matters.
But suffice it to say, the 20th century has not been bloodier than previous eras per capita. That is the important caveat. There is a TED talk on this. The secular age has seen a drastic decrease in the amount of violence per capita than any age before it, save perhaps the primitive age (which we don't really know as we don't have the data).




No, it explains the mechanism, not the source of this "inspiration".

What? Who cares? The source of the inspiration is most likely "I don't want to die" as it is the source for most things in life.
What "source of this inspiration" are you even talking about? What does that mean? It seems like you are intrinsically assuming god's existence to think it needed a "source of inspiration" at all.

... what kind of sophistry....




Sure, a guy sitting on death row, or a life sentence who is never going to walk free is going to do that? What would be the material reasons for him to do so? It's not likely to change his situation is it? Salvation is only salvation if you are "saved".

Maybe the concept of a life sentence, or the death penalty, is a flawed concept to begin with? Are you sure those punishments themselves do not stem from a "let god judge him" mentality?
Are you saying anyone who gets saved by christianity becomes a good person? WHo cares if they are saved or not? Saying you are saved and acting on good intention, as we all know, are two totally different things.
And if a murderer on death row announces he is saved before he is put to death... what does that matter? He still did no good works, nor provided anything beneficial for society.
Being saved is worthless. I only used salvation as a metaphor to tie it into religous thinking. And remember your charge was that atheists don't want to answer that question, and tho I am not an atheist per se, I attempted to answer it. So, your hypothesis about atheists was wrong.

I would like to add that from a Christian perspective a lot of "popular" ideas about Heaven and Hell etc don't seem to have much basis in actual scripture. What you find in the NT is more similar to Judaism's concepts than many might expect at first.
I personally am far more interested in popular beliefs than scriptured beliefs.

[ComradeMan]

Do you have any specific criticism, or just not like it because you disagree with me?

It's not clear what you are trying to define....


But suffice it to say, the 20th century has not been bloodier than previous eras per capita. That is the important caveat. There is a TED talk on this. The secular age has seen a drastic decrease in the amount of violence per capita than any age before it, save perhaps the primitive age (which we don't really know as we don't have the data).

Source.... stats please- because it generally widely acknowledged that 20th century is by far the most violent in recorded history.


What? Who cares? The source of the inspiration is most likely "I don't want to die" as it is the source for most things in life.

No it isn't. Is it the source for painting a picture? Playing football? Watching your favourite TV programme?


What "source of this inspiration" are you even talking about? What does that mean? It seems like you are intrinsically assuming god's existence to think it needed a "source of inspiration" at all.

No it doesn't. Okay, the original idea, where the "spark came from" if you prefer those terms.


Maybe the concept of a life sentence, or the death penalty, is a flawed concept to begin with? Are you sure those punishments themselves do not stem from a "let god judge him" mentality?

It could be so, but that's not the issue.


Are you saying anyone who gets saved by christianity becomes a good person?

So you don't care about the spiritual well-being of people?


WHo cares if they are saved or not?

See point above.


Saying you are saved and acting on good intention, as we all know, are two totally different things. And if a murderer on death row announces he is saved before he is put to death... what does that matter? He still did no good works, nor provided anything beneficial for society.

He is still a human being.

But let's take a less extreme example, what about the person who does perhaps have a chance of parole but cannot live with the torment of what they have done?


Being saved is worthless. I only used salvation as a metaphor to tie it into religous thinking. And remember your charge was that atheists don't want to answer that question, and tho I am not an atheist per se, I attempted to answer it. So, your hypothesis about atheists was wrong.

So I said that atheists can't answer the question, and you who are not an atheist per se (by your own words) attempt to answer it and therefore I am wrong? Note I said "be able to answer" the question, so it remains to be seen whether the question has been answered. ;)

I wasn't answering this from a specifially Judaeo-Christian viewpoint either- most religions and belief systems have the concept of "karma" , "forgiveness" and "redemption" in one or another.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's not clear what you are trying to define....

I am saying that ethics is intrinsically personal. Even if God-given, I still have to, in this current universe, choose to follow it.
But we are shaped by our social structure, it helps to define us, and gives us platform we often are not even aware they exist.
So where does ethics come from? My argument is that it is a self-reinforcing process. As soon as the first ameoba didn't have to destroy his ancestor to create himself, it all snowballed from there.
Why do animals not eat (all of) their children? Why do monkeys in the jungle join up and announce the presence of a big cat to scare him away, rather than individuall running and hiding?
Its not as if ethics started with human. Our only differences are our complexity and our ability to express thoughts in language.
Human, as social creatures, take this individual inspiration for ethics and express it inter-subjectively in society; usually, in modern societies, through the law, wherein it becomes objective.
> A > B > A > B > A >
The reason I don't start with an A or B is because of that whole chicken/egg dilemna. It technically starts with the individual, just like it technically had to start with the egg (as whatever laid the egg could not have been a chicken, but what was in the egg had to be a chicken); but its just a technicality and not really important to the large point that it is a dynamic self-reinforcing system.

Just a hypothesis, so don't take it too seriously. :lol:

Source.... stats please- because it generally widely acknowledged that 20th century is by far the most violent in recorded history.
But not per capita.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
I personally think his use of contemporary hunter-gatherers to reflect upon ancient hunter-gatherers is flawed; HG society hemmed in all sides by propertied society is bound to be vastly different, one would assume, than HG w more free movement.
But the larger point is in comparing early civilization to modern civilizatoin, the latter being vastly more peaceful.



No it isn't. Is it the source for painting a picture? Playing football? Watching your favourite TV programme?

Well, I don't want to die, and being a human I (basically) must be accepted by society to not. So I will engage in things that people find liesurely or entertaining.
Its largely semantics, and the larger point was that the idea that there must have been some "isnpiration," especially that of an outside body (G-D) is in no way necessary.



No it doesn't. Okay, the original idea, where the "spark came from" if you prefer those terms.

Why did the spark have to come from anywhere but natural process? Why must there be a spark/inspiration at all?
Again, it seems like an implicit assumption of inspiration that there "must have been" one in the first place.



So you don't care about the spiritual well-being of people?

I don't even know what that means. I want them to be happy and fulfilled. Do I care if they believe in God or go to church, or anything like that? Not really, no.




See point above.

And what point is that?




He is still a human being.

But let's take a less extreme example, what about the person who does perhaps have a chance of parole but cannot live with the torment of what they have done?

What about them? Are you saying that if they accept JC, Buddha, Krishna, Karma, or whatever, they will automatically become a better person? Seriously, you don't know anybody who is saved thru Christ, or any religion and still continues to be a straight up ass?
What is your point with all of this? It is quite obvious that religion or religiosity/spirituality does not inherently make one a better person... so what exactly is your point?




So I said that atheists can't answer the question, and you who are not an atheist per se (by your own words) attempt to answer it and therefore I am wrong? Note I said "be able to answer" the question, so it remains to be seen whether the question has been answered. ;)

Well, in that case, the religious have not been able to answer that question either... so, again, what is your point?

[ComradeMan]

I am saying that ethics is intrinsically personal. Even if G-d-given, I still have to, in this current universe, choose to follow it. But we are shaped by our social structure, it helps to define us, and gives us platform we often are not even aware they exist.
Okay, I for one am not arguing against that other than the problem of the entirely personal argument.

So where does ethics come from? My argument is that it is a self-reinforcing process. As soon as the first ameoba didn't have to destroy his ancestor to create himself, it all snowballed from there. Why do animals not eat (all of) their children? Why do monkeys in the jungle join up and announce the presence of a big cat to scare him away, rather than individuall running and hiding?
When did an animal lay it's life down to save another? Or die for a principle? The trouble with bringing animals into the argument is that they do a lot of other stuff that we would consider unethical but is perfectly explainable through evolutionary biology and so on. Let's leave the animals out of the argument for now... for the sake of the thread!!! Remember the mathematical ants? ;) :lol:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
I watched the talk and made some notes as I watched so if I am guilty of missings something don't jump on me. I was also eating leftover pizza! :lol:

It was interesting and he did make some valid points but unfortunately I have some issues/problems. We must also take into account that is an atheist and "ally" theoretically on some issues of Richard Dawkins. This is not an ad hominem and not intended to cast aspersions on his knowledge but he is only human and confirmational bias etc should always be considered.... weep at the Devil's Advocate!!! Mwahahaha! :cool:

<humour inserted because it's Sunday and I hate it if threads become nasty.... oh the humanitas!!!>

Firstly, I agree with you (OM-, OM-) that his use of contemporary hunter gatherer societies in comparison to presumably neolithic pre-agricultural societies is flawed too, especially seeing as contemporary hunter-gatherer societies have been pushed to the limits of survival by violence and loss of traditional habitat areas (if that's the correct term, no disrespect intended).

Moreover he only seems to speak of male deaths due to warfare in terms of likelihood and not actual stats, presumably the likelihood was based on stats and also what was the decision process in choosing the core sample? Without seeing the numbers I can't say, but it could be flawed in terms of small populations that have tribal wars would indeed have a higher likelihood of death to due warfare even though the actual numbers involved are insignificant in comparison to industrial mechanised warfare.

If there are an average of 20 male adults in a tribe and every two years there is a war with another tribe then the chances of being killed are 1/20, or 5%; if the population of the tribe is 60 then that's 1.66% yet it's basically one death, sad as it is. To give you an idea I made a crude calculation that the IDF casualty rate in the 2006 Lebanon War was 0.40% (IDF)- 121 killed- but that's 0.00155% of Israel's poplation. Which is more brutal in your opinion? The tribal war in somewhere like New Guinea or the war I used as an example? You see the problem and why we have to be careful accepting statistics? I repeat I don't know the research or the stats so I don't want to cast premature aspersions. Remember that there are also three kinds of "lies, damned lies, and statistics"! ;)

Moving on, of course violence does not just include death in warfare? Is there any information on violent crime within these societies? Usually within these societies, that we should not idealise I admit, we find many of our social evils are absent. More stats... more stats....

As Pinker moves on to talk about the Bible, he focuses on what the punishments were but does not provide any statistical arguments on what the actual amounts of violent death in the period were. Yet again moving on into the later periods, failing to mention things like Roman slavery and so on (strange :confused:) he talks about socially sanctioned violence- but what about socially unsactioned violence? That also seems to be missing from the analysis. The animal examples are pretty sick I admit but I don't think they are relevant in this thread really. I also think he misses another point of how many people can now be saved by medicine that could not in earlier periods and for that reason he should perhaps not have focused on deaths alone. Many attempted murders today (victim survives) would have been murders in earlier periods due to the simple fact of medicine. This is also something that could be taken into account when dealing with modern versus historical death rates in general. We know that in WWI for example many may have survived if they had had relatively simple anti-biotics. In the post-1945 period this could add a variable to our casualty/death figures that makes them worse if balanced to earlier stats.

It's disappointing Pinker doesn't seem to give any clear stats for the post- 1945 section. It seems he concentrates on the number of wars and genocides instead of what they actually involved. In historical terms the total number of deaths in the Vietnam war between approx 2-4 million, let's say 3 million for arguments sake is more than the estimated totals for French casualties of all the Napoleonic Wars (<- plural) (approx 2 million I believe) and so on. In addition to this many 18th and 19th centuries wars would be considered skirmishes or very small battles by 20th century standards- so I think just a "war count" is not reliable. There are some other issues like perceptions and philosophies not really being concrete facts and also that he seems to concentrate too much on sets rather than the elements of the sets- in my opinion at least.

Also, just because Pinker puts forward the theory does not make it conclusive. I found an interesting site that estimates the unnatural deaths of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as best it can in an honest seeming way- although I can't vouch for the stats they seem to be fairly well-sourced and reasoned.

http://necrometrics.com/index.htm

The figures for the 18th century come to approximately 18 million deaths or 0.6% of 3.2 billion deaths in the century. The 19th century stands at 45 million or 1% of 4.3 billion deaths- this rises to 3.7% in the 20th century.

Speaking of crime rates is also problematic. I didn't find the decrease at all. Looking at homicide rates in the US between 1950-2007 there is a rise of 1.3% from 4.6% to 5.9% however the peak was in 1980 at 10.2%(i), then dropping to 4.8% in 2010- a rise of 0.2% (ii)
(i) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
(ii) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Total violent crime in the US in the period 1960-2010 showed an incease according to (ii). It's still pretty shocking that in one of the richest nations there is such a high rate of homicide compared to other significantly poorer nations. But I suppose that's the subject of a different thread. If you look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate it shows that a lot of places are increasing- but even the some of the decreases are not that great anyway.


Well, I don't want to die, and being a human I (basically) must be accepted by society to not. So I will engage in things that people find liesurely or entertaining. Its largely semantics, and the larger point was that the idea that there must have been some "isnpiration," especially that of an outside body (G-D) is in no way necessary.
Well I don't think most people do want to die- but I don't think it's our obsession 24/7 governing every last thing we do either. Does it affect your choice of toilet paper colour? :lol:

Why did the spark have to come from anywhere but natural process? Why must there be a spark/inspiration at all? Again, it seems like an implicit assumption of inspiration that there "must have been" one in the first place.
I'm not saying it did, I neither assert nor deny- I am asking where and why? What's the cause? I think you have described, well, a possible mechanism but not the origin.

I don't even know what that means. I want them to be happy and fulfilled. Do I care if they believe in G-d or go to church, or anything like that? Not really, no.
That's up to you, but it's not what you care about that we are discussing- rather the spiritual well-being of people. I never said that this de facto meant going to Church either.

What about them? Are you saying that if they accept JC, Buddha, Krishna, Karma, or whatever, they will automatically become a better person? Seriously, you don't know anybody who is saved thru Christ, or any religion and still continues to be a straight up ass?
You missed the last thing I wrote in the post- see below
Sure I do- they say they are saved- doesn't mean they are. If they continue to be nasty, selfish, arrogant, and mean etc it kind of shows that perhaps they haven't really got the idea of Jesus, Buddha, Torah or whatever else...;)

I wasn't answering this from a specifially Judaeo-Christian viewpoint either- most religions and belief systems have the concept of "karma" , "forgiveness" and "redemption" in one or another.
---

Well, in that case, the religious have not been able to answer that question either... so, again, what is your point?
But most religions would argue that they do provide spiritual comfort to people. There is some evidence to suggest that spiritual comfort is important and can help people- even if a materialist might argue it's only a placebo, placebos work. There is also some evidence that suggests that atheists may have higher rates of depression leading to suicide too- whether that's causative or not is another argument.

I can't vouch for it but here's a source:
http://www.iasp.info/pdf/papers/Bertolote.pdf


What is your point with all of this? It is quite obvious that religion or religiosity/spirituality does not inherently make one a better person... so what exactly is your point?
See the point above and... It is not quite obvious at all and can we define a better person? It is also quite well-attested that a lot of people who may be considered "bad" from either a societal, religious or materialist view or any combination have become reformed and better people through exposure to sincere religious spirituality (and I don't mean fundies and jihadists etc before anyone starts :tt2:)

[Revolution starts with U]

Okay, I for one am not arguing against that other than the problem of the entirely personal argument.

Okay, but I did not say it was entirely personal. I said it was inherintly personal, because the individual, no matter the circumstance, has to choose to follow an ethical code (at least in this universe).


When did an animal lay it's life down to save another?
I have seen dogs get in the middle of fights on behalf of their "master" (help me find a better word for that. I dont consider myself master of my pets :lol:).

Or die for a principle?
Well, since they cannot talk, meaning they cannot define what a principle is, it would be hard to tell.
But lions will die to protect their children's food from hyenas, and vice versa.


The trouble with bringing animals into the argument is that they do a lot of other stuff that we would consider unethical but is perfectly explainable through evolutionary biology and so on. Let's leave the animals out of the argument for now... for the sake of the thread!!! Remember the mathematical ants? ;) :lol:

Humans are animals. THats just semantics tho, I agree with the point you are trying to make :thumbup:



<humour inserted because it's Sunday and I hate it if threads become nasty.... oh the humanitas!!!>

The sabbath is saturday :lol:



Firstly, I agree with you (OM-, OM-) that his use of contemporary hunter gatherer societies in comparison to presumably neolithic pre-agricultural societies is flawed too, especially seeing as contemporary hunter-gatherer societies have been pushed to the limits of survival by violence and loss of traditional habitat areas (if that's the correct term, no disrespect intended).

I see no reason that wouldn't be an acceptable term :)


Moreover he only seems to speak of male deaths due to warfare in terms of likelihood and not actual stats, presumably the likelihood was based on stats and also what was the decision process in choosing the core sample? Without seeing the numbers I can't say, but it could be flawed in terms of small populations that have tribal wars would indeed have a higher likelihood of death to due warfare even though the actual numbers involved are insignificant in comparison to industrial mechanised warfare.

If there are an average of 20 male adults in a tribe and every two years there is a war with another tribe then the chances of being killed are 1/20, or 5%; if the population of the tribe is 60 then that's 1.66% yet it's basically one death, sad as it is. To give you an idea I made a crude calculation that the IDF casualty rate in the 2006 Lebanon War was 0.40% (IDF)- 121 killed- but that's 0.00155% of Israel's poplation. Which is more brutal in your opinion? The tribal war in somewhere like New Guinea or the war I used as an example? You see the problem and why we have to be careful accepting statistics? I repeat I don't know the research or the stats so I don't want to cast premature aspersions. Remember that there are also three kinds of "lies, damned lies, and statistics"! ;)

Yes, so would you not conclude that per capita rate of death is higher in a small tribe than a large one? Would you not conclude that per capita, it is safer to be be an Isreali than to be Lebanese during the wars?


Moving on, of course violence does not just include death in warfare? Is there any information on violent crime within these societies? Usually within these societies, that we should not idealise I admit, we find many of our social evils are absent. More stats... more stats....

As Pinker moves on to talk about the Bible, he focuses on what the punishments were but does not provide any statistical arguments on what the actual amounts of violent death in the period were.

I think he was only reading Bible quotes to clarify the view that the ancients had on the sanctity of life.



It's disappointing Pinker doesn't seem to give any clear stats for the post- 1945 section. It seems he concentrates on the number of wars and genocides instead of what they actually involved. In historical terms the total number of deaths in the Vietnam war between approx 2-4 million, let's say 3 million for arguments sake is more than the estimated totals for French casualties of all the Napoleonic Wars (<- plural) (approx 2 million I believe) and so on. In addition to this many 18th and 19th centuries wars would be considered skirmishes or very small battles by 20th century standards- so I think just a "war count" is not reliable. There are some other issues like perceptions and philosophies not really being concrete facts and also that he seems to concentrate too much on sets rather than the elements of the sets- in my opinion at least.

Fair enough


Also, just because Pinker puts forward the theory does not make it conclusive. I found an interesting site that estimates the unnatural deaths of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as best it can in an honest seeming way- although I can't vouch for the stats they seem to be fairly well-sourced and reasoned.

http://necrometrics.com/index.htm

The figures for the 18th century come to approximately 18 million deaths or 0.6% of 3.2 billion deaths in the century. The 19th century stands at 45 million or 1% of 4.3 billion deaths- this rises to 3.7% in the 20th century.

But how does this work out per capita? You have to remember that over the last 300 years population rates have exploded. I think I remember hearing in class once that there are now more living people on earth than all the dead homo sapiens combined. That doesn't sound right, so Im probably remembering it wrong. But the point was something like that :lol:



Well I don't think most people do want to die- but I don't think it's our obsession 24/7 governing every last thing we do either. Does it affect your choice of toilet paper colour? :lol:

It remains inconclusive what the motives and intentions of the pre-conscious mind are ;)


I'm not saying it did, I neither assert nor deny- I am asking where and why? What's the cause? I think you have described, well, a possible mechanism but not the origin.

Im just saying, I dont think there needed to be an origin, other than natural process.



That's up to you, but it's not what you care about that we are discussing- rather the spiritual well-being of people. I never said that this de facto meant going to Church either.

You asked me if I care about people's spiritual well being. I said, "I don't know what that means. I want them to be happy. But believe in G-D? Not really important to me."
So, basically what I was asking was, what do you mean by spiritual well bieng?



But most religions would argue that they do provide spiritual comfort to people. There is some evidence to suggest that spiritual comfort is important and can help people- even if a materialist might argue it's only a placebo, placebos work. There is also some evidence that suggests that atheists may have higher rates of depression leading to suicide too- whether that's causative or not is another argument.

I can't vouch for it but here's a source:
http://www.iasp.info/pdf/papers/Bertolote.pdf

And by those standards, materialism has provided me with spiritual comfort. Im not depressed or suicidal. I feel happy about my existence. I work for the greater good of myself and humanity. Why do I need "spirituality" to do that?
I don't come from the position that religion is inherently bad. I think it is unnecessary, and sometimes turns out bad.



See the point above and... It is not quite obvious at all and can we define a better person? It is also quite well-attested that a lot of people who may be considered "bad" from either a societal, religious or materialist view or any combination have become reformed and better people through exposure to sincere religious spirituality (and I don't mean fundies and jihadists etc before anyone starts :tt2:)
Fair enough. But many of them have become fundies and jihadists through exposure to sincere religious spirituality.

[ComradeMan]

Okay, but I did not say it was entirely personal. I said it was inherintly personal, because the individual, no matter the circumstance, has to choose to follow an ethical code (at least in this universe).
I still don't find this clear. Have you got a hypothetical example-- RSWU's ethics for dummies? :lol:

I have seen dogs get in the middle of fights on behalf of their "master" (help me find a better word for that. I dont consider myself master of my pets :lol:).
Yeah... but how much is that down to the "this guy feeds me" instinct and the natural wolf pack mentality? But sure... I do think some animals may have a sense of consciousness and perhaps empathy but we can't really prove or disprove it- on the other hand a lot of animals don't.

Well, since they cannot talk, meaning they cannot define what a principle is, it would be hard to tell.
But lions will die to protect their children's food from hyenas, and vice versa.
Lion's will also kill the cubs of other male lions when they take over the group- adoption isn't really big with lions, or gorillas.

Humans are animals. THats just semantics tho, I agree with the point you are trying to make :thumbup:
Smart ass :lol:

The sabbath is saturday :lol:
Smart ass x2 :lol: Actually it's just before Friday sunset to Saturday first three stars in the sky. ;)

I see no reason that wouldn't be an acceptable term :)
I was concerned that "habitat" which we might use for animals might seem demeaning... but anyway..

Yes, so would you not conclude that per capita rate of death is higher in a small tribe than a large one? Would you not conclude that per capita, it is safer to be be an Isreali than to be Lebanese during the wars?
Yeah sure, but it seems to be a "clever" way to use statistics to present your argument, not use statistics to support your argument. One person dying in a petty tribal conflict, sad as it is, is nowhere near as brutal as hundreds, being killed in modern mechanised warfare. Tribal societies very often limit warfare, almost ritualised, to male adults and would be appalled by our "civilised" world's cowardly warfare- think carpet bombing.

I think he was only reading Bible quotes to clarify the view that the ancients had on the sanctity of life.
Do we have such a universal view on the sanctity of life? Hmmm...:unsure: He was a little selective too with what he quoted.

But how does this work out per capita? You have to remember that over the last 300 years population rates have exploded. I think I remember hearing in class once that there are now more living people on earth than all the dead homo sapiens combined. That doesn't sound right, so Im probably remembering it wrong. But the point was something like that :lol:
Well he calculated the population, the total number of deaths with mortality rates and then did the maths with the casualty/victim counts in the historical conflicts.

It remains inconclusive what the motives and intentions of the pre-conscious mind are ;)
....ah.... white with butterflies on it then? ;)

Im just saying, I dont think there needed to be an origin, other than natural process.
Okay--- so what's your theory of this natural process from the onset.

So, basically what I was asking was, what do you mean by spiritual well bieng?
Being well with themselves. You could call it psychological well-being, or health or just simply "happiness".

And by those standards, materialism has provided me with spiritual comfort. Im not depressed or suicidal. I feel happy about my existence. I work for the greater good of myself and humanity. Why do I need "spirituality" to do that?
How has materialism done this though?
Secondly, because you may be happy, does not mean another might be.
Like I think I said before, the arguments might be fine with people who don't have problems etc but what about the ones that do and might genuinely seek some kind of comfort?

[Revolution starts with U]

I still don't find this clear. Have you got a hypothetical example-- RSWU's ethics for dummies? :lol:

Sure.
(A) Before I was born my father was an apolitical union worker, and my mother the daughter of a union worker and democrat. So, even before I was born, it was pretty clear just about where my politics would fall.
(B)But I still had to choose that. Other people were/are in the same situation, and chose it too.
(A) We all express our personal ethics, and this changes or maintains the law which we are all subject to. This social manifestation of individual ethics provides a new foundation for the next generation to grow up in.
(B) The next generation still must choose to follow the ethics they were born under.
(A) This will change or maintain the existing legal structure.

> A > B > A > B >


Yeah... but how much is that down to the "this guy feeds me" instinct and the natural wolf pack mentality?
What, besides degree, is the difference?


But sure... I do think some animals may have a sense of consciousness and perhaps empathy but we can't really prove or disprove it- on the other hand a lot of animals don't.

A lot of people don't either :lol: ... actually that should be more of a :crying:
(Get it? :lol:)



Smart ass :lol:

Smart ass x2 :lol: Actually it's just before Friday sunset to Saturday first three stars in the sky. ;)

Momma always said; you can't be a smart-ass without being smart :thumbup:
(actually she didn't. I've always said that. But momma adds more dramatic effect :p)


I was concerned that "habitat" which we might use for animals might seem demeaning... but anyway..

Well, like I said, we are animals. So, at least to me, there is nothing wrong with the use of the term :thumbup:

... I use a lot of commas :confused:


Yeah sure, but it seems to be a "clever" way to use statistics to present your argument, not use statistics to support your argument. One person dying in a petty tribal conflict, sad as it is, is nowhere near as brutal as hundreds, being killed in modern mechanised warfare.
Why?


Tribal societies very often limit warfare, almost ritualised, to male adults and would be appalled by our "civilised" world's cowardly warfare- think carpet bombing.

I think we should leave tribal society out of it, as we both agree that modern tribal groups are not necessarily accurate reflections of pre-propertied tribal society.


Do we have such a universal view on the sanctity of life? Hmmm...:unsure: He was a little selective too with what he quoted.

Not at all. But more people do now than did in ancient Rome... I can guarantee that :)



....ah.... white with butterflies on it then? ;)

:laugh: what? (Im not being facetious. That was just a funny sentence, especially since Im not exactly sure what you were saying :lol:)



Okay--- so what's your theory of this natural process from the onset.

> A > B > A > B >



Being well with themselves. You could call it psychological well-being, or health or just simply "happiness".

Okay. So like I said, I want them to be happy. But I don't care if they believe in god/spirit or not.
Do you think spirituality is necessary for "happiness?"



How has materialism done this though?

The real physical world, the fact that it even exists is amazing! Think about nothing for a while. How terrible is that?! I am more than glad to have this oppurtunity, and want to do whatever I can to maintain it, and make it better for me and future generations.
Sometimes I just want to stop people on the streets and say:
"Did you see that? There was a building on a road and a car drove past it... that's astounding!" :laugh:


Secondly, because you may be happy, does not mean another might be.

I realize :crying:


Like I think I said before, the arguments might be fine with people who don't have problems etc but what about the ones that do and might genuinely seek some kind of comfort?
Are you saying I am not genuinely trying to provide them with any?

What about them? Its not like joining a religion means you will suddenly feel better. Some do, some don't. Some are so utterly disgusted with the world, they join a religion and become violent fundamentalists.

If you want to be religious.. whatever. More power to you! But it is not neccessary to human happines, carries with it extensive dangers, and generally misleads people about what true happiness is (my grandma once literally said "I can do anything I want during the week as long as I go to church on sunday").

(I have an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about chi. He thinks its a real thing we have yet to discover. I think it is an ancient descriptive term for an ammalgamation of things which are better defined through modern biology; our electromagnetic radiation, adrenaline, and clear consciousness, stuff like that.
I bring this up because it hits on your point about "spiritual well being." What you meant was happiness. But, I assume, you think spirit exists as a real thing in and of itself. I think it is an ancient descriptive term for things that are better defined by modern terminology; happiness, confidence, solidarity, passion, etc)

[Troopa]

The Jewish religion has no hell. Just saying.

Anyways, I certainly do not believe that our current definition of afterlife is necessary. I suppose the better question to ask ask exactly would be what exactly is our mind!? The human mind is a very mystical thing, comparable to nothing else on this planet. Almost supernatural, if we think about it.

What are the physics behind the human mind? Humans throughout generations have had all sorts of different theories behind the human mind, ranging from the soul in the past, to Psychoenergetics today.

If we can figure out the physics behind the human mind, we could perhaps figure out what happens to us when we die.

It is almost like the fourth dimension in that we cannot imagine it, even though we can think about it.

Until then, I think Heaven gives us a temporary answer to a difficult question we cannot imagine the true answer to even if we wanted to.

[Revolution starts with U]

The answer to the question is most likely "nothing."

... but for some reason people fear that answer, and so most don't even consider it a possibility... do you?

[ComradeMan]

The Jewish religion has no hell. Just saying.

There is no real consensus in either Judaism or Christianity on the afterlife for the good or bad. A lot of "ideas" are non-scriptural/biblical.

Strictly speaking souls do not survive after death but are resurrected in the world to come if they deserve. Other ideas include a kind of purgatory, or karmic purification in "Gehenna". There's no sitting on clouds with harps to be found in the Bible.

A lot of the Christian "cultural ideas" about hell derive from analogies with Greek paganism because of the language of the New Testament and the Greek words they chose to translate terms such as sheol and gehenna etc. In some streams of Judaism ideas about the afterlife are derived from later Medieval mysticism and kabbalistic ideas.