ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Do you not think it is possible that an aversion to such things might be ingrained by society and/or (and I hesitate to take the discussion in this direction) evolution?

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

[BigDaddy]

Zen said:

Of course, the other side is amusing. That a faithful devotee of religion could also successfully "defend" his theory that religion is good.

Awfully high on that pedestal.

I assumed I wouldn't have to discuss religions positive effect on society.

You have colored that particular arguement with the spirit of another one. Except for the second to last comment, the entire arguement is one you will find in any philosphy class. That is why it was finished with the portion you quoted.

quantum_mechani said:

Do you not think it is possible that an aversion to such things might be ingrained by society and/or (and I hesitate to take the discussion in this direction) evolution?

Of course. I knew that that possibility would be mentioned. I would suggest asking thugs in prison if they where wrong to kill, but I have no idea what they would say. I'm sure, though, that many would say they were sorry that they got caught.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

Actually, IF when he is talking society he is talking about family then the practices of successful societies will likely be the same ones that allow people to live, have sex, and not be killed.

And I'm not sure I'd agree with you on evolution either. Analogy: It guessed that we lost our hair, because it was attractive to our mates and allowed us to run faster.
So, if girls thought it was cool that we didn't kill anything with a schlong, that would allow us to have more children. Also, many primate females will push out violent males and defend virile but less agressive ones.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.

[Zen]

BigDaddy said:
I assumed I wouldn't have to discuss religions positive effect on society.

I'd actually rather you discuss the positive effect of mass murder on society. As it's incredibly prevalent in and outside of religion.

Just because something has a positive effect (purely perspective) doesn't mean it's overall impact is equated one way or another.

Even if you could possibly understand the scope of the entirety of something like "Religion" or "Murder".

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.

Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

[BigDaddy]

Zen said:

I'd actually rather you discuss the positive effect of mass murder on society. As it's incredibly prevalent in and outside of religion.

Just because something has a positive effect (purely perspective) doesn't mean it's overall impact is equated one way or another.

Even if you could possibly understand the scope of the entirety of something like "Religion" or "Murder".

This sounds like more fun, huh? Well:

Mass murder helps society:
-weak and diseased individuals are often easy targets leading to a better gene pool
-stolen/looted money is a great influx to the economy, especially when the murder is of someone who is rich
-stupid or easily misled people can be encouraged to kill themselves in group "suicides"
-murdering people can benefit murderers that derive pleasure from knowing they are personally powerful
-women are often killed by mass murderer, which helps to restrain population growth

I don't think mass murder is commonplace today, however, it does still exist. Although I might be inclined to agree that it is SURPRISINGLY commonplace.

Negative aspects of religion:
-religion is often used to control people
-religion is often used as an excuse to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing
-religion is used to emasculate, without surgery, many otherwise strong men
-religion is often used as a cover for cowardice
-religion is often used to exclude perfectly fine individual (self-rightousness)
-religion is often a source of unhealthy pride

As for understanding the scope these practices, I think that it is important to try, but impossible to succeed.

ahh, why'd you skip me Arryn.

[Arryn]

BigDaddy said:
This sounds like more fun, huh? Well:

It's about time we had some fun in the discussion.

BigDaddy said:
I don't think mass murder is commonplace today, however, it does still exist. Although I might be inclined to agree that it is SURPRISINGLY commonplace.

It's going on *right now* in the Darfur region of Sudan. As it is in the Congo -- by the same people who commited the atrocities in Rwanda. And on a smaller scale in many other countries.

BigDaddy said:
Negative aspects of religion:
-religion is often used to control people
-religion is often used as an excuse to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing
-religion is used to emasculate, without surgery, many otherwise strong men
-religion is often used as a cover for cowardice
-religion is often used to exclude perfectly fine individual (self-rightousness)
-religion is often a source of unhealthy pride

If religion was a drug in pill form (it's a drug, but of a different sort), the FDA would ban it because of its dangerous side effects.

BigDaddy said:
ahh, why'd you skip me Arryn.

Feel better now?

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better. And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

It's going on *right now* in the Darfur region of Sudan. As it is in the Congo -- by the same people who commited the atrocities in Rwanda. And on a smaller scale in many other countries.

I don't thingk this is a disagreement. Widespread would seem to be more like in my neighborhood or town. . . Surprisingly commonplace would be like Darfur, Peoria(IL), etc. To me anyway.

Arryn said:

Feel better now?

Actually, I meant you should attack my society and evolution arguements (thats right I'm callin you out).


As for religion as a drug:
Nah, the FDA would make it prescription only, and charge the drug companies millions of dollars for testing and review.