Will mankind wipe itself out?

[Patrick Vykkers]

I was parodying leftists, Fortesque13. I was also parodying the fact that environmentalists nowadays sound very similar to Christian fundamentalists and tend to use ad hominem against their political opponents.
EDIT: What do you mean? (To above post)

[Fortesque13]

I mean EVIL! Great evil that shall come to me anytime soon... Too many bad things have started happening to me since I opened the topic.

[Havoc]

What?! The current trends towards atheism and heresy? Just because some European countries have an increasing muslim population and the US has a very vocal fundamentalist Christian minority, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same.

And if people keep spamming this place up I will be forced to close threads and hand out warnings. Even to mods.

No the current trends of idiocy which christianity specifically has been displaying more and more these days. Not just on one continent, but globally. Putting god in science books, adjusting society to fit the bible and important leaders making decisions based on what the bible's influence on the matter is. You add a couple of hundred years to that and I hope you can see where it's going.

Havoc

[Nate]

Name five Christian leaders who have let their faith control (rather than inspire) their actions.

Name five places where religion has been placed in science curriculums (and I mean five places where courts did not take it back out again).

If you can do that, I will not only concede that you are right but I'll also change my CT to 'Havoc's Bitch'.

[skillyaslig]

? Anyway we will all die cause we are too lazy, greedy and stupid to understand we are killing our world. Its not like we can go to another planet and screw it up as well.

[snuzi]

Yeah, this is the third time you've restated your point. We get it.

But you're wrong. We're not too stupid to realize we're destroying our world. We're just too apathetic when it comes to the situation. And I don't understand how laziness comes into the equation.

[Havoc]

Name five Christian leaders who have let their faith control (rather than inspire) their actions.

Name five places where religion has been placed in science curriculums (and I mean five places where courts did not take it back out again).

If you can do that, I will not only concede that you are right but I'll also change my CT to 'Havoc's Bitch'.

Control rather than inspire? It's the same damn thing... And anyone who has a religion in turn lets it control their actions. So out of the few billion people who follow Christian beliefs, I'll let you pick the 4 you like best, and I'll pick the pope to be on number 1.

As for the science thing, it's the sheer idea that they are stupid enough to think about putting it in a science book thats the point. There have been well over 5 places where it's been put into effect and then out of effect. That's not the point. They wanted to do it, that's bad enough as it is. The fact that other smarter people stood up now and slapped them in the face does not mean that the same will happen in 10 years.

In any case you keep constantly missing my point. I'm saying that the idiocy is slowly growing and that, when given enough time, it can become a very serious threat if it isn't already. The fact that the pope has preached against condoms for decades and in turn let an extremely deadly decease spread freely should already be an indicator of what religious influence can be capable off. Religion has already killed millions of people, anyone saying it's not a threat is seriously retarded. That's like saying "Oh... Hitler may have killed a few million jews but I'm sure he meant well..."

Havoc

[Nate]

By "control (rather than inspire)" I was drawing a contrast between, say, George Bush (or Tony Abbot for the Australians out there) who would ban abortion and gay marriage and whatnot and other politicians who follow a religion and let it inform but not control their political beliefs. For instance: Christian politicians in Australia who are pro-abortion and pro-stem cell research.

In any case you keep constantly missing my point. I'm saying that the idiocy is slowly growing and that, when given enough time, it can become a very serious threat if it isn't already.

I'm not missing your point. I'm hearing it loud and clear and I'm disagreeing with it loud and clear. You're saying that religious orthodoxy is on the rise and I'm saying that atheism is on the rise. You're saying that in 100 years religious fundamentalism will dominate and I'm saying that in 100 years religious people will have to fight for their rights to practise religion.

[Havoc]

If I'd have to choose between being forced to believe in something that isn't there or to be prohibited to have any religion, for the sake of argument, the latter would in fact be better. However, there will always be a balance between the two and that's good. And for what it's worth, I hope you're right. The more people seeing religion is total bullshit the better. Then we can get on with evolution...

Havoc

[skillyaslig]

Yeah, this is the third time you've restated your point. We get it.

But you're wrong. We're not too stupid to realize we're destroying our world. We're just too apathetic when it comes to the situation. And I don't understand how laziness comes into the equation.

You really dont understand huh? I though it would be painfully obvious ahh well think about; you should get it after thinking over it.

[snuzi]

Jesus Christ. Explain your point instead of being so vague.

If you're suggesting that we're being "lazy" by not doing anything about all the problems in the world, then you're once again incorrect. It's our apathy that's preventing us from doing anything, not lethargy.

[skillyaslig]

Im not gonna get into a mudslinging match with you (you'll probably kick my a**) * Apathy 1. lack of enthusiasm or energy: lack of interest in anything, or the absence of any wish to do anything.* That is like lazyness is it not? (not meaning to sound rude, as I hold good manners high on my list)

[snuzi]

Apathy and laziness are two different things. Apathy entails lacking the motivation to do something, while laziness entails not wanting to do something altogether, despite motivation.

And how exactly were we going to get into a mud-slinging match?

[Kimon]

If I'd have to choose between being forced to believe in something that isn't there or to be prohibited to have any religion, for the sake of argument, the latter would in fact be better. However, there will always be a balance between the two and that's good. And for what it's worth, I hope you're right. The more people seeing religion is total bullshit the better. Then we can get on with evolution...

Havoc

Being forced to believe and being prohibited to believe are equally as bad. I think by dismissing religion (essentially a vessel that channels spirituality), you are neglecting something very important, and something that makes us distinctly human. Without any spirit, there's no meaning to life other than to procreate and evolve. I mean, beauty isn't logical. Neither is inspiration. Not everything can be interpreted through science, and the things that can't be I think are instead interpreted by an unseen force, like a soul... religion exists to explain, personify, or embrace that soul.

Sounds corny, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.


Anyways, no. I don't think humanity will wipe itself out.

[skillyaslig]

So Apathy means lacking the energy to do something, and lazyness means just cant be bothered? (sorry Im a bit dense) Ah well we are a bit of both...that doesnt mean everyone, just the majority of people. As humans know we are killing the earth but we are not doing much about it.

[Kimon]

Apathy = Not caring.

Lazyness = Not willing to put the forth the effort.

[Havoc]

Being forced to believe and being prohibited to believe are equally as bad. I think by dismissing religion (essentially a vessel that channels spirituality), you are neglecting something very important, and something that makes us distinctly human. Without any spirit, there's no meaning to life other than to procreate and evolve. I mean, beauty isn't logical. Neither is inspiration. Not everything can be interpreted through science, and the things that can't be I think are instead interpreted by an unseen force, like a soul... religion exists to explain, personify, or embrace that soul.

Sounds corny, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.


Anyways, no. I don't think humanity will wipe itself out.

I didn't say religion by itself is a bad thing, it's a good thing for the exact reason you just mentioned. What I said was that, between the two mentioned extremes, not being allowed to believe is better for this simple reason:

If christianity would one day take over and people would be insane enough to pass a world wide law saying everyone should bow down to god, then the entire world would have to live their life's based on something that can't possibly ever be proven to exist. So in the end, there's one person controlling the entire world and that would be the pope, since he is the christian prime and thus ruler of the world if the entire world is now christian. Would you really want condoms to be banned? Nate would you really want to be crucified and thrown rocks at because of your sexual orientation? I know I wouldn't want that. Would you really want to be burned to death because you refuse to believe in god? Cuz that would happen, we'd go back to the mid 1800's or whatever year it was where people who don't believe get burned up.

Now look at the flip side where open religion is not allowed. We would not have 1 single man in charge, condoms would not be banned, gay people wouldn't be killed and since we do have the ability to follow basic logic instead of thinking satan has infected a non believer, people who refused to follow the no open religion law would simply be thrown in jail and treated like a human being, instead of an animal.

Out of those two extremes, which do YOU like better? And to be quite honest, I can't even imagine why someone would want to live in example number one but that might just be me...

Havoc

[Bullet Magnet]

No species ever lasts, it is just impossible. They all go extinct. Sometimes there is a sudden event, perhaps an environmental catastrophe or the introduction into the habitat of a new predator or competitor. In the case of humanity, our blame for this type of extinction depends on the degree of responsibility we must accept (perhaps posthumously). We have indeed dealt this fate out to innumerable species already.

The obvious one is war- all species compete with one another in some way, but humanity does seem to have taken this to another level. We are liable not to simple reduce the population to a manageable level in which the magnitude of such warfare will not occur again for some time, but actually overshoot that mark and annihilate ourselves entirely. We have the means to do it, and not the discipline to avoid it. I suspect that the non-occurrence of this scenario will be one of pure luck, we will have no idea just how close we truly come to it, just as we have no idea how close we have come in the past.

The third that I can think of is that of evolution. There cannot be birth without death, and there cannot be a dawn for one species without the eve of another. One way this could occur overlaps with the first, in which our species diverges into two, and one out-competes/feeds on the flesh of the other, perhaps after a long period of separation and then reintroduction. With modern travel capabilities the gradual divergence that had already generated the variety of human races is being reversed as we begin the long process of merging and unification. This comes as a result of our way of life, which as we all know is not sustainable. Either war, overlapping the conditions of the second term of extinction, or a slow (or sudden) decay will end the modern world as we know it, and divergence will become viable again. Because no civilisation could ever stand up to evolutionary time, so assuming collapse can occur soon enough to save ourselves from annihilating ourselves and irradiating the planet, the evolution of the human race and extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens will continue on at its current rate. Which brings us to the second evolutionary outcome: the gradual change of the species. New genes are introduced, old ones are changed, deactivated, duplicated... and spread throughout the population normally. Eventually we would no longer be able to breed with our ancestor (modern man) if any still existed, and we would be a new species. Humanity as we know it will be gone, destroying itself, and no one will even notice, even though there are still people to notice it. Though the future of the human lineage is not necessarily an intelligent, conscious and sapient one, evolution does not mean "better", nor does it adhere to our silly ideas about "progress".

[skillyaslig]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! WHOOPE!

[snuzi]

You know what annoys me the most? When members like you wait around for the more intelligent members, like BM, to share their views on a certain matter, and then claim to have had the same opinion, despite the fact that you expressed it in a vague manner, or not at all.

Seriously, if you have something to say, say it. Don't wait around for someone to say it better so you can jump on the bandwagon.

[Mutual Friend]

No, mankind will not wipe itself out because people are inherently good.

[Fortesque13]

You're such a mutual friend, aren't you?
As for you Snuzi...
Maybe someone can't think of something that way, so someone says their smartsome thought and others agree with it...

[snuzi]

Well, if you're too damn stupid to express your opinion, don't say anything. That's the way I see it.

If you agree with another person's opinion, acknowledge that, and then elaborate on why you agree with it. Don't just say "Yeah, I agree", without clarifying why. That just makes you look like an idiot.

[skillyaslig]

Oh someones getting cranky...But I do agree for gods sake!!! We are to violent and stupid! Bullet Magnet is just explaining it in better terms then me!

[Rex Tirano]

Please don't turn this into a flame war. People are entitled to post their opinions, even if in your opinion it seems vague.

- Rexy

[Mutual Friend]

Oh someones getting cranky...But I do agree for gods sake!!! We are to violent and stupid! Bullet Magnet is just explaining it in better terms then me!

Not really, he's offering you an omniscient overview of the future and treating as fact. I don't believe BM is god, and I never will.

You seriously think the fate of humanity has been truly and successfully summed by some teenager? Bah.

[Patrick Vykkers]

No, mankind will not wipe itself out because people are inherently good.

Thank you for the comedy. I think Will Smith died sneezing to that. If people are "inherently good", why is this contradicted by both the info we have on evolution (survival of the fittest), virtually all religions and philosophies (if people are basically good, then what is the point of Enlightenment/Heaven/Paradise/a Saviour when man made alternatives are possible) and many, many experiments (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/peoplegood.php) to the contrary?

[Mutual Friend]

I dunno. Why don't you ask them.

[Bullet Magnet]

I don't believe BM is god, and I never will.

Aw. Now I'm hurt.

[skillyaslig]

Oh for- Just pretend I didnt say anything, as Im not trying to piss people off or anything like that