The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Illysia]

Whooo... *cracks knuckles* heavy topic late at night. I apologize for missed typos. I'm just cutting the rest of my post and will only leave this part. It would take too long to finish talking about everything brought up so I'll just focus on this part.

The value of survival and reproduction is subjective. You might feel the need to live, but what if you are only a danger to everyone and everything around you? For everyone else to continue, your survival not only becomes subjectively worthless, but it becomes more valuable to eliminate you; however, you might feel that your survival is paramount. Who is right? Who sets the standard? Why? There is no set scale, on human terms at least, about what or who is valuable. There is nothing inherent about one's survival being important; it is a viewpoint issue that is shaped by how you define "important". Someone can set arbitrary ideals and standards, but, honestly, not a one of us actually has true authority to enforce it universally. Once again, it is subjective.

I might also add that, theoretically, survival of the species could depend eliminating individuals based on traits other than physical capabilities. Many people who believe in "survival of the fittest" would not submit to elimination if it was found that they were deficient in another critical area. There is often a bias there that should be noted. It has been my casual observation that proponents of that view are often people who think themselves qualified to be exempted from the "purge." Thus, change the terms of viability and you'd also find opinions change at exactly the same time meaning there was once again nothing inherent about it.

However, what is necessary isn't always a matter of what will keep you from dying on the spot. I would argue comfort is necessary. The human body is not supposed to undergo constant stress over long periods of time. Can it do so? Yes. But the strain on the body is significant, and can, in fact, cause health problems that lead to earlier than necessary death and decreases in ability to function and reproduce. Adrenaline and cortisol are meant to spur you to action in the heat of a moment to save your life but existing long term in that state has the opposite affect.The body tries it's best to compensate and work under long term stress anyway, but that is not the same thing as  saying constant stress is not killing the body; it just dies over a long enough stretch of time that you might not realize that stress was the underlying cause. Further, in the end, does it matter if it was a lion or a heart attack that killed you? Dead is dead and comfort can help the body better maintain it's functions.

Now about a single human surviving on his own, it is unsustainable. Even if he does have children and then they part company some time later, it is more likely the children will die without the support of a group as children are fragile, require a lot of resources, and the mother can only be in one place at one time. He will not likely be successful in continuing his line for very long as each surviving generation would have to beat the odds with the odds increasingly stacking against them. On the other hand, if a person does not have children, he will not only lack a generation behind him to keep going, but he will also grow old and vulnerable with no one to protect him. Groupings of people are necessary to survival, "society" is necessary to manage groups of people however big or small. Even in a small group, there will always be conventions that govern the interactions to some extent, that is the basic foundation of society.

A stable group is also a foundation for society. People need to come back to a more stable group as haphazardly bumping into others is not reliable. Those that manage being on their own now are rare and are often supported indirectly by "societies". For instance, there are religious hermits on their own but more than likely they are not meditating and farming the land in their minds to stay alive. Food, clothing, and other necessities are coming from some grouping of people. If they were to rely on whoever stumbles by, they would probably starve. What if the next person to stumbles by has no food and no access to food? You need people with known skills or resources, so that you can adjust how you function thus the need for returning to people you are familiar with thus needing a group thus needing a society.

[Rigwyn]

The value of survival and reproduction is subjective. You might feel the need to live, but what if you are only a danger to everyone and everything around you? For everyone else to continue, your survival not only becomes subjectively worthless, but it becomes more valuable to eliminate you; however, you might feel that your survival is paramount. Who is right? Who sets the standard? Why? There is no set scale, on human terms at least, about what or who is valuable. There is nothing inherent about one's survival being important; it is a viewpoint issue that is shaped by how you define "important". Someone can set arbitrary ideals and standards, but, honestly, not a one of us actually has true authority to enforce it universally. Once again, it is subjective.

The survival of a single being, yes. You could say the same thing about an entire species ( some might argue that the world would be better off without humans ), but the point of my argument is that all that matters (for the species in question) is survival and reproduction.

Discussing the value of human life, how to asses it, and what to do about it could take up an entire discussion in itself. We should bookmark this section for later.

I might also add that, theoretically, survival of the species could depend eliminating individuals based on traits other than physical capabilities. Many people who believe in "survival of the fittest" would not submit to elimination if it was found that they were deficient in another critical area. There is often a bias there that should be noted. It has been my casual observation that proponents of that view are often people who think themselves qualified to be exempted from the "purge." Thus, change the terms of viability and you'd also find opinions change at exactly the same time meaning there was once again nothing inherent about it.

I was thinking, people who are not fit to survive might come in handy for some other purpose, so it might be better to feed and keep them healthy... ( that sounds horrible, I know. )

However, what is necessary isn't always a matter of what will keep you from dying on the spot. I would argue comfort is necessary. The human body is not supposed to undergo constant stress over long periods of time. Can it do so? Yes. But the strain on the body is significant, and can, in fact, cause health problems that lead to earlier than necessary death and decreases in ability to function and reproduce.

Once the male has fertilized the female, he has little purpose in life. Likewise, once the offspring can survive on it's own, the mother is dead weight for the most part.

Now about a single human surviving on his own, it is unsustainable. Even if he does have children and then they part company some time later, it is more likely the children will die without the support of a group as children are fragile, require a lot of resources, and the mother can only be in one place at one time.

Having a community or tribe increases one's chances of survival and reproduction, but it is not an absolute necessity. There is a different here between a need and a very-good-to-have.  Yes, without tribes and communication, people would probably die much earlier and be less likely to successfully rear offspring.


As I think about this more, my original argument could be reduced to something like "All we as a species need, are the things required for our survival. " as reproduction is implied when you think of "survival" as "surviving as a species."

I think most of us are well beyond this most basic need. Once that need is met, we forget about it and focus on the next rung - which is not so much need, but perhaps improvement or comfort.

[Illysia]

The survival of a single being, yes. You could say the same thing about an entire species ( some might argue that the world would be better off without humans ), but the point of my argument is that all that matters (for the species in question) is survival and reproduction.

See that's the problem with it being subjective. Since there is no inherent value you can use any arbitrary standard as "needed". What makes survival so important that it supersedes all other standards, the fact that some people put a value to it. But for what it is worth, the only value most things have is what someone is willing to give for it. I personally would say sacrificing noble actions, culture, and art in general for survival is too high a price.

I was thinking, people who are not fit to survive might come in handy for some other purpose, so it might be better to feed and keep them healthy... ( that sounds horrible, I know. )

They may not be fit to survive individually but they may be perfectly fit to survive in a group. This is where the arbitrary promoting of self over group is most notable. Technically speaking, whether or not they can run on their own is irrelevant if the group has enough resources to compensate. If they are bringing something beneficial to the whole then physical ability is just one trait out of many for consideration.

Once the male has fertilized the female, he has little purpose in life. Likewise, once the offspring can survive on it's own, the mother is dead weight for the most part.

In some cases yes, but that is not universal. The male serves as a protector for the family in many species thus providing a resource to the family. Even in a system that doesn't use a nuclear family structure, the males often contribute to the functioning of the ecosystem as predators or something they construct contributes to it. Children's bodily function may be mostly autonomous, but they are still often not fully developed, the child is  vulnerable and unable to care for themselves fully. The parent or parents are necessary because the child must be given the things need to live long enough to learn, the time needed for their bodily functions to fully develop, and the time to build enough strength to compete with adults or other species for resources. Animals rarely fall out of the womb fully equipped to survive and even in those species where the offspring are along from the beginning often see heavy losses.

However, here is where we have to make a distinction between thinking creatures and animals. Animals often do come far better equipped to just function than humans do. However, humans have other considerations as well. Being able to neglect our mind is not the same as saying it is not necessary to cultivate it, being able to ignore our inner sense of justice is not the same is saying it is not really there, ignoring that we have a need to connect to things larger than our individual selves is not the same as saying we don't need to connect, and so on. Animals may not need things things to function but humans do, that is why we recreate these things whenever we get the chance and that's why people who are deprived of these things often suffer for it. Humans are complex creatures no matter how hard some might try to simplify us for convenience or categorization. That in turn means that our "needs" are complex as well. We have many functions that must be preserved for us to function, not just bodily functions.

Having a community or tribe increases one's chances of survival and reproduction, but it is not an absolute necessity. There is a different here between a need and a very-good-to-have.  Yes, without tribes and communication, people would probably die much earlier and be less likely to successfully rear offspring.

This assumes that you could sustain a species without some such grouping. It is not "good to have" it is necessary. Maybe Bacteria could function this way, but you will eventually wipe out a species of complex creatures  if they do not band together at some point for mutual benefit. Humans in particular are simply not equipped to function that separately. You will maybe have a few generations but the line *will* die out as no human is that self sufficient and they cannot reproduce on their own with sufficient resources.

As I think about this more, my original argument could be reduced to something like "All we as a species need, are the things required for our survival. " as reproduction is implied when you think of "survival" as "surviving as a species."

I think most of us are well beyond this most basic need. Once that need is met, we forget about it and focus on the next rung - which is not so much need, but perhaps improvement or comfort.

I will agree that it is in the mix of things we feel we need to do but that is not the same as saying that if we only meet that need that we can get by without the others.

[Eonwind]

See that's the problem with it being subjective. Since there is no inherent value you can use any arbitrary standard as "needed". What makes survival so important that it supersedes all other standards, the fact that some people put a value to it. But for what it is worth, the only value most things have is what someone is willing to give for it. I personally would say sacrificing noble actions, culture, and art in general for survival is too high a price.

noble actions, culture, and art in general are great results humankind and every single human being was able to and is able to achieve only after having satisfied the primary survival needs. History has already shown no human group develops a high culture when he's still locked in a struggle for his own survival. When environmental conditions make it uncertain the survival even for a highly civilized culture it happens the culture regress.

Even a single human being when faced with the need to defend its life most of the time forsake cultural restrain and fight for its life. Like every other lifeform does. The only exception can be fighting for the offspring. Fighting for the future life sometimes at the expenses of own life is something which seems to be inherently coded inside every living being.

[Illysia]

Painting masterpieces and creating symphonies might not be possible but art has a broader definition than a canvas. Even decorating a pot slightly can be that culture's art if it is decoration for decoration's sake. But I don't think it is inevitable that noble actions will always be sacrificed. I think it is just simple to devalue character in favor of selfishness, and if one does not develop strong enough character before getting into a survival position, they won't necessarily have the strength at that point to suddenly develop it.

Strong character and strong principles are a very persistent traits once established and they are not easily turned off. However, it is easy to appear to have those traits but lack the substance of it, so it will appear a person's principles are much more flimsy than they are since the person "turned" on them. In reality, that was probably just not something they had truly internalized; it just wasn't that important to that individual. However, there are people who will sacrifice themselves for their principles, whatever those happen to be, no matter the circumstance because deep in their souls this ideal, whatever it may be, becomes far more important than surviving without it. Truthfully, I think this is one of the things that differentiates humans from animals. Principles are not an instinct because they must be learned and developed, but if done right they can be equally as strong.

Also, we would have never gotten to the point of civilization if someone didn't strike out and try to break the cycle before it broke on its own. Civilization doesn't just happen when the conditions are right, it has to be worked for. Even now we have food shortages, sicknesses, resource shortages, people die and so on. It's not like those went away, but when you work against the survival situation to try to set yourself up to one day thrive, you end up doing the things that are the foundations of civilization. I think to often people think necessary systems just appear in ideal conditions or at least in non crisis conditions. Many systems appear right in the middle of the least ideal of circumstances because that is when they were needed and that is when they had to be implemented.

And regarding protecting young, it isn't hard coded into everything. Some species just have their offspring and then once born the kiddies are on their own. Some species eat their young. Others might have individuals that simply abandon them. I think that varies greatly.

[Rigwyn]

History has already shown no human group develops a high culture when he's still locked in a struggle for his own survival. When environmental conditions make it uncertain the survival even for a highly civilized culture it happens the culture regress.

I think statements like this apply more to the population as a whole than to each individual. Yes, among the panicking sick and starving who are trying to scrape up something to eat ( more to prevent death via starvation than to feel sated ) while fighting off hordes of starving wolves, there will likely be some jackass who instead of helping this fellow cavemen survive, decides to soothe his soul by singing songs about the festering dead while finger painting pictures of their demise into the cave walls with tar and blood.

Strong character and strong principles are a very persistent traits once established and they are not easily turned off. However, it is easy to appear to have those traits but lack the substance of it, so it will appear a person's principles are much more flimsy than they are since the person "turned" on them. In reality, that was probably just not something they had truly internalized; it just wasn't that important to that individual. However, there are people who will sacrifice themselves for their principles, whatever those happen to be, no matter the circumstance because deep in their souls this ideal, whatever it may be, becomes far more important than surviving without it. Truthfully, I think this is one of the things that differentiates humans from animals. Principles are not an instinct because they must be learned and developed, but if done right they can be equally as strong.

When faced with survival, I think many folks would do things to survive that would otherwise violate their principals. Not all, but many.  Putting lofty principals before death looks great in the movies, but I think when a person is actually subjected to a life or death situation, their survival instincts will be more likely to win. That's not to say that an individual *cannot* put principals first but rather, its more likely that they will do what they need to do in order to survive.

example:

Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, also known as the Andes flight disaster and, in South America, as the Miracle of the Andes (El Milagro de los Andes) was a chartered flight carrying 45 people, including a rugby union team, their friends, family and associates that crashed in the Andes on 13 October 1972. More than a quarter of the passengers died in the crash and several others quickly succumbed to cold and injury. Of the 27 who were alive a few days after the accident, another eight were killed by an avalanche that swept over their shelter in the wreckage. The last 16 survivors were rescued on 23 December 1972, more than two months after the crash.

The survivors had little food and no source of heat in the harsh conditions at over 3,600 metres (11,800 ft) altitude. Faced with starvation and radio news reports that the search for them had been abandoned, the survivors fed on the dead passengers who had been preserved in the snow.

Also... while a crude design on a jar or stick may be considered art, its a lot different from the sort of art that comes about when a person or society has enough spare time to actually devote a huge portion of their life to the practice and study of art. ( Assuming that they have been practicing for long enough to actually document or hand down their progress and thus advance in the arts at an accelerated rate. ) Compare simple craft/art left by tribal folks versus art from more advanced cultures where people actually make art their profession.

[Illysia]

Many will not struggle that hard, but I still think it depends on the internal values system you set for yourself. If you want to be the kind of person who would resist, you can work towards becoming that kind of person. Unlike instincts, values can be chosen. If you place your own survival as paramount placing it even over not eating another human being, in a situation were you have have to make the choice to eat the other person that choice didn't generate in a vacuum at that point in time. That choice was colored by a value that was held before that point. To someone who that is truly objectionable to, down to their core, they will die before going there because living with that kind of violation of your being is more objectionable than dying. In the end, you can choose to be a more noble person, but it's not the kind of thing you can just fake, and you can't develop that on the spot. It takes a lot of effort, hard work, and time to be able to transform yourself into that kind of person.

However, I suspect most people just have whatever values they have, they don't necessarily think about them extensively and turn them around in their heads as much, unless they happen to be writers or something. I think that is one of the reasons that RPGs are popular with some people. In ones where your actions have consequence and you have morality choices, you can, if you bother to, analyze your internal values system and see what your feelings are on various points with low consequence in real life. However games aren't the only thing that makes you analyze your values system. Ideally that is what religion does, although I concede that there is nothing inherent that says every religion is going to produce people with good values.

However, this is what makes faith both powerful and potentially dangerous. Belief in deities and or higher forces will convince those who actually believe to adopt particularly strong principles or values, for good or bad, that they will not simply swerve from even in the face of consequence. It's the foundation for making a martyr. But even without appealing to higher powers, I think it is possible for any organization that can move its members enough to generate strong views can create in people values that cannot simply be "turned off". I believe that is what lets soldiers march into a warzone knowing they could die and yet they still head in. Not every soldier has a family or child in particular who they have to protect, and not every conflict affects the homefront. But, strong values on what should and should not be the case can spur a person into danger because their internal motivational value is stronger than the desire to live.

I think all humans are capable of that kind of conviction for something if they choose to tap into it, but most simply don't. Most things probably aren't critical enough for people to form strong values around them.

[Rigwyn]

That choice was colored by a value that was held before that point.

Perhaps. Although this is an extreme example, try to imagine literally starving to death while there is *food* no matter how off putting, right next to you. I don't know much about physiology ( and I won't pretend to ), but I think once a certain degree of hunger kicks in, your body is going to chemically urge you to eat that frozen meat. 

However games aren't the only thing that makes you analyze your values system. Ideally that is what religion does, although I concede that there is nothing inherent that says every religion is going to produce people with good values.

Jeez... I was doing so good at avoiding the religion argument.... V_V

However, this is what makes faith both powerful and potentially dangerous.

To have faith is to believe without knowing. That's ok when education is not available and blindly believing the town "smart person" is better than living in complete darkness. We no longer live in such darkness. Today, it's better to be educated if you are capable of it. If you are mentally retarded or incapable of being educated, then its better to just be obedient to some smart person and benefit from their brilliance.

Belief in deities and or higher forces will convince those who actually believe to adopt particularly strong principles or values, for good or bad, that they will not simply swerve from even in the face of consequence.

First, morality is not dependent on belief in fictional gods and perceived "higher forces". While some folks "do good" because their mythological god is said to approve of such behavior and punish the opposite, others "do good" because they have empathy or are decent people.

I think religion can be an effective tool for modeling the mind so long as the indoctrinated material is superior to what is in the supplicant's head. We are at a point in time however, where religious believe is not always as effective as a good education.

It's the foundation for making a martyr.

      or Kamakazi, Branch Davidian, or Heavan's Gate member...

But even without appealing to higher powers, I think it is possible for any organization that can move its members enough to generate strong views can create in people values that cannot simply be "turned off".

This scares me to be quite Frank. Frank, as in Anne.  There's a good side to herding people into holding certain views I suppose, but again, if those views are skewed or deliberately crafted to support further manipulation ( think hitler or george bush and the gulf war ), then those harmless views can become tools to support someone's war machine. It's better to think critically and question the answers than to just make like cattle and follow the herd.   ( sorry.. unavoidable pun )

: bush probably wasn't the best example here, but I think you get the point.

[Illysia]

Perhaps. Although this is an extreme example, try to imagine literally starving to death while there is *food* no matter how off putting, right next to you. I don't know much about physiology ( and I won't pretend to ), but I think once a certain degree of hunger kicks in, your body is going to chemically urge you to eat that frozen meat. 

Your body will force you to take in air if you are suffocating, but it will not force you to eat another human being any more than it will force you to try to eat an airplane for sustenance. You can try to eat anything, but you do have to make a choice to try to eat your fellow person no matter how much you justify it later. That is where your values system kicks in. If you devalue your fellow human enough you will be able to just see them as a piece of meat, but if you value your fellow human enough you will not. It is just that simple. But I think just enough people offend us in life that it gives us a way to justify devaluing our fellow person in certain circumstances if we wish to.

Jeez... I was doing so good at avoiding the religion argument.... V_V

You can't really take up a discussion about such things without it coming up.

To have faith is to believe without knowing. That's ok when education is not available and blindly believing the town "smart person" is better than living in complete darkness. We no longer live in such darkness. Today, it's better to be educated if you are capable of it. If you are mentally retarded or incapable of being educated, then its better to just be obedient to some smart person and benefit from their brilliance.

You have to be careful about letting your bias against religion lead to broad statements that apply beyond religion. How do you know anything about Pluto or Mercury? Did you go there yourself? Did you hand check the photos? Did you personally inspect the instrumentation that was used to observe them? Did you personally question the scientists working on those projects? More than likely no. You believed someone else when they told you about these things. You believed without knowing personally and you had faith that the information came from a credible source. One can think what they will of people who belong to religions and the credibility involved, but people who have beliefs in God are using a similar method.

Besides, you can not paint any group with one broad brush and be completely accurate. Not everyone who believes in a deity or higher force denies all science or is guaranteed to be some backwards lunatic. To assume that is to be bigoted and closed minded, and those traits are far more dangerous to society than someone having a different set of beliefs. People vary, so do religions, so do stances on religion so on and so forth. While there is need to reject beliefs that bring people harm, that should not lead to a thought police like attitude towards things you don't agree with. Learning to tolerate different beliefs does not mean, "you have to learn to tolerate only the beliefs that fall within the spectrum I approve of." It means learning to get along with others without creating needless conflict by seeking to other them on the basis of what is "superior" and what is "inferior." It really doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on, if people automatically other people who believe differently and completely shut out their point of view in favor of hanging on to sterotypes everyone is more likely to lose due to the tension and conflict that creates.

First, morality is not dependent on belief in fictional gods and perceived "higher forces". While some folks "do good" because their mythological god is said to approve of such behavior and punish the opposite, others "do good" because they have empathy or are decent people.

I think religion can be an effective tool for modeling the mind so long as the indoctrinated material is superior to what is in the supplicant's head. We are at a point in time however, where religious believe is not always as effective as a good education.

That may be but you missed the actual point I was making. Whatever the means of forming the strong values are, once they are established you cannot just make a person fold over on them. The issue is not morality it is values systems and how they form. Not all values systems are good but they are chosen at least to some extent. If we can choose to do good or do bad then just saying we are biologically forced to do something like eat our fellow human is inaccurate. It depends on the values we hold and cultivate. If you don't actively work with your values system you will still develop one. You will gravitate toward some values or others. However, you may find that that method gets a lot less noble values in the bunch as noble values do not simply crop up on their own. They have to be developed and maintained.

or Kamakazi, Branch Davidian, or Heavan's Gate member...

Exactly, those people had a choice between life or their values system. Which did they choose? Did the need to survive mindlessly and physiologically override the decisions those people made based on their values? No. So, if values can override something as basic as the need to survive, how much more important is it that we active engage ourselves in managing and analyzing our values system? Values systems can be a force for good or bad; the deciding factor on which ours will be is us. If people can do much with bad values systems, how much more can be done with more noble ones?

This scares me to be quite Frank. Frank, as in Anne.  There's a good side to herding people into holding certain views I suppose, but again, if those views are skewed or deliberately crafted to support further manipulation ( think hitler or george bush and the gulf war ), then those harmless views can become tools to support someone's war machine. It's better to think critically and question the answers than to just make like cattle and follow the herd.   ( sorry.. unavoidable pun )

Thinking critically is not enough, in the end you have to hope what you thought was right. The people in Nazi Germany were not all uniformly dumb. I am not trying to excuse what happened, but there were people who thought long and hard before supporting the Nazis. Yet, they were still wrong were they not? That is why you must analyze a values system, periodically check it to see if it is still what you want, then in the end be willing to take the consequences for what you chose. Being able to explain it is not enough. If people who supported the Nazis had had in their values system a value concerning the equal treatment of people, then red flags would have been raised once the Jews started to be relocated. No one can know everything, but if you have more noble values, you can sense dangerous patterns a lot sooner.

This is why one needs to rely less on manipulation and herding and why people need to be more involved in the development of their own values system and engage with others. Actively look for values that you might need to incorporate. If you see the need to protect the vulnerable and I see the need and someone else does as well, there is no need for herding, manipulation, or anything like that. In the end we'll take care of those vulnerable and the world will be better for it was we will lessen the amount of people suffering. In the end, what you need is for people to make up their minds. Either they wish to hide behind bringing themselves down to the level of an unthinking animal and attempt to remove the responsibility of shaping their Values system to be more noble minded, OR they can go out there and look for values that will build up the world around them and engage with others to find values they may not have even known where out there but would make good additions to their own values system.

[Zalya]

I once ate a whole lemon. Peel and all. Like an apple. If you think I did that for reproduction purposes you would be wrong. Lemon eating will NOT get me a date. And as for survival I did not need to eat that lemon. In fact, it made me really sick afterwards. But I did it anyways. Of course I made ten bucks off of it, so I guess that is a motivation. I guess we have to factor in greed.   

[Illysia]

I suppose so. Greed is another motivation that will override survival instinct and supersede a person wanting to reproduce. I wouldn't call it necessary but a person can choose to value it over the above issues.

[Rigwyn]

I once ate a whole lemon. Peel and all. Like an apple. If you think I did that for reproduction purposes you would be wrong. Lemon eating will NOT get me a date. And as for survival I did not need to eat that lemon. In fact, it made me really sick afterwards. But I did it anyways. Of course I made ten bucks off of it, so I guess that is a motivation. I guess we have to factor in greed.

Yeah, this goes back to Roled's question about what I meant by "Matters".

Your body will force you to take in air if you are suffocating, but it will not force you to eat another human being any more than it will force you to try to eat an airplane for sustenance. You can try to eat anything, but you do have to make a choice to try to eat your fellow person no matter how much you justify it later. That is where your values system kicks in. If you devalue your fellow human enough you will be able to just see them as a piece of meat, but if you value your fellow human enough you will not. It is just that simple. But I think just enough people offend us in life that it gives us a way to justify devaluing our fellow person in certain circumstances if we wish to.

I don't think its fair to say that than in a case like this, ALL the survivors on the plane ate the dead passengers because their values were poor. No, hunger won't force you to do anything, I agree with that, but the urge to eat and fight death will have a very large impact on your decision making. Your need for survival will likely become more of an issue than your need to avoid cultural taboos.

One can think what they will of people who belong to religions and the credibility involved, but people who have beliefs in God are using a similar method.

A necklace and a noose are similar too. 

What's important here is not the similarities, but the stark differences. To say that education and indoctrination are similar is a great mistake.

No, I have not verified on my own that Pluto exists, but many folks have. It's not spoken of in science text books because someone with a fancy hat had a dream about it or because the lord just told them so in casual conversation. It's in text books because it was discovered and confirmed by other people first. I can purchase or borrow a 16 inch telescope and verify this on my own if I really want to. It's something that can be seen, detected, proven and verified. Like christ, the flying spaghetti monster cannot be detected, proven or verified, so it is not in your science text book.

Try and show a christian religious leader that the whole concept of god is not provable and therefore, his bible is just the creative words of mere man hence lacks any divine authority. Depending on who you go to, you'll likely be met with ridicule, brow beating, indoctrination, manipulation, or you'll just be ignored and dismissed... possible labeled as unenlightened, or heathen. Your criticism will not be taken seriously no matter how logical it is.

Besides, you can not paint any group with one broad brush and be completely accurate. Not everyone who believes in a deity or higher force denies all science or is guaranteed to be some backwards lunatic.

To assume that is to be bigoted and closed minded, and those traits are far more dangerous to society than someone having a different set of beliefs.

Well, its hard to discuss the validity of religion without painting all religions with the same brush. You could argue about the validity of a specific religion, I suppose, but then people are going to get offended. I'm not sure how to approach this. Another way would be to break the discussion down into smaller pieces such as arguing the existence of god, or whether a god is needed for morality....

This is starting to drift...


-- Late note --

The public education system does employ indoctrination. You are correct about that.  There is still a difference between learning established facts and solid theory versus religious myth disguised as fact.

[Illysia]

I don't think its fair to say that than in a case like this, ALL the survivors on the plane ate the dead passengers because their values were poor. No, hunger won't force you to do anything, I agree with that, but the urge to eat and fight death will have a very large impact on your decision making. Your need for survival will likely become more of an issue than your need to avoid cultural taboos.

In this case it is more likely a matter of not having weighted this part of their values system before and they were not in a position to reweigh something that heavy by the time the issue came up. While the urge to eat and fight death are strong you aren't quite seeing what I am getting at. I'm not talking cultural taboos which you may or may not ever give a fig about. I'm talking about internal values, the things that you stick to within yourself, the stuff that makes you tick as a person. That is harder to observe in a person from a distance, but to each individual, their values are in fact a very real, concrete, and powerful thing. I'm not trying to pass judgement here so much as raise awareness. What is necessary, what is good, what is bad, what is advantageous and so forth is subjective. The way any given person is going to weigh these things personally is by their values system. The values system are the parts of you that will be driving you long after any external forces acting on you have faded or ceased acting on you.

What's important here is not the similarities, but the stark differences. To say that education and indoctrination are similar is a great mistake.

Again a broad stroke. Not every religion is brainwashing. Some even advocate turning within yourself to find answers. I can't vouch for the validity of every religion, and I wouldn't hazard to try, but stereotyping all religions as indoctrination is no more helpful than a religion stereotyping all fields of science as blasphemy.

...
Like christ, the flying spaghetti monster cannot be detected, proven or verified, so it is not in your science text book.

It has not been disproven either. Science not being able to quantify or test for God is a valid issue, but don't extend it past what it actually mean. It means with all the information and techniques we have now, it is still inconclusive as far as science goes. Quantum mechanics couldn't be proven until very recently. That doesn't mean it simply popped into existed the moment it hit textbooks. It is fine to say there is not enough evidence for you personally to believe in God, and it is good to question things to see if they really hold up, but whatever standard you use, apply it even to that which you believe to see if it still holds up. We have by no means unraveled the whole universe. Who knows what scientists will say or be able to prove in the future. For now, science mostly ignores such things in favor of what can be quantified now.

Depending on who you go to, you'll likely be met with ridicule, brow beating, indoctrination, manipulation, or you'll just be ignored and dismissed... possible labeled as unenlightened, or heathen. Your criticism will not be taken seriously no matter how logical it is.

Techincally speaking you are doing some of the the same in reverse, so if that kind of response is the problem then it should be a problem no matter who uses it.




Since Religion is such a sensitive topic for you, let's just get back to the original points.

The only things that matter to living beings in general ( or as we know them ) are survival and reproduction. Any matters that are completely unrelated to these are insignificant.

Roled and Zalya have made the point that "matters" here is subjective and that a wide variety of things matter to people. Zalya also points out about greed which is often a much stronger drive than survival or reproduction. I stick out that survival and reproduction can be trumped, in terms of importance, by anything else a person may rank higher in their personal values system.

[Rigwyn]

It has not been disproven either. Science not being able to quantify or test for God is a valid issue

I strongly disagree. Inability to disprove something that was never proven to exist in the first place is not a valid issue.  When you claim that something is real or factual, the onus is on you to back up your claim. The onus is not on the rest of the world to disprove your claim.

If you believe that the inability to disprove something that has not been proven to exist is a real problem, then please back up that statement.

Quantum mechanics couldn't be proven until very recently. That doesn't mean it simply popped into existed the moment it hit textbooks.

I'm not sure why you would make such an excessively obvious point.

Prior to QM being accepted as fact (1920's), QM was a theory. QM is an explanation for how things work - it is not the very process itself, but a man made description of the process. Since then, the theory was revised.

When an apple falls from a tree, it doesn't flip open a book on physics and look for instructions on how to fall. It moves as a result of the forces acting on it. The book is just our description of what is happening.

I hope you don't think that I'm confused about this or something?  o.O

It is fine to say there is not enough evidence for you personally to believe in God, and it is good to question things to see if they really hold up, but whatever standard you use, apply it even to that which you believe to see if it still holds up.

Ok. I am holding  pen in my hand.  As far as I can tell, it is real. I can touch it, tap it, write with it, taste the ink... Just for shits and giggles, I asked my co-worker a minute ago to verify for me that the pen was real and she did. I asked her to prove to me that it was real, so she threw it at me. It kind of hurt, but make me laugh for whatever that is worth.. I could go around the office and seek further confirmation I suppose, but I have no good reason at the moment to doubt this. If someone gave me a somewhat plausible reason to doubt this, then I suppose I could perform some more tests and seek more people confirm the findings. We could dissect the word "real" and turn this into semantics game, but that would kind of stupid.

It would be MUCH harder for me to prove the Pluto is real since it would require more equipment and knowledge, but it CAN be done, and it does not matter who does it, what their religion is, or what kind of panties they are wearing at the moment. The test of the existence of pluto is also falsifiable. If I carefully point the telescope to where it should be, fuss with it, kick it, or whatever, and there is no pluto, then I get a negative result --- which others will be interested in trying to reproduce or disprove.

We do not make up silly excuses like , "Oh, Pluto decided not to reveal itself to you today because you are Asian." Either the planet is not there, or the test was somehow flawed.

We have by no means unraveled the whole universe. Who knows what scientists will say or be able to prove in the future. For now, science mostly ignores such things in favor of what can be quantified now.

Things that are accepted as fact are not necessarily final.

Do you know why science ignores things that cannot be proven to exist? It's because these supposed things are of no use to us. We cannot use them, measure them, verify them. Even if they did secretly exist up some hidden orifice outside of space-time, they have no bearing on us. They might as well not exist at all. To pursue such things is unproductive. Now, if it could be proven that a god or ghost or the glorious FSM existed then that would be wonderful and worthy of some time.

Techincally speaking you are doing some of the the same in reverse, so if that kind of response is the problem then it should be a problem no matter who uses it.

My apologies if I've been abrasive.

Since Religion is such a sensitive topic for you, let's just get back to the original points.

Agree.

I stick out that survival and reproduction can be trumped, in terms of importance, by anything else a person may rank higher in their personal values system.

I agree. I think history would agree too.

[Illysia]

Ok, I had a whole post in response, but posting it kinda defeats the purpose of saying, "let's get back to the original points." Not to mention I am tired and have to be up early and I should have gone to bed hours ago. So, maybe tomorrow I will post the response, or I might just let it go since we might not actually make any more progress if we don't let the religion thing go. I'll decide tomo...er... later today I guess.