>> ^Asmo:

>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.

Exactly. Atheism is, to my mind, your own choice not to believe, not a reason to reverse evangilise (part of the reason I dislike Hitchen's).

I certainly didn't choose not to believe in gods. I simply find there to be no convincing evidence to support the hypothesis that there are any, and for that reason I am an atheist. It's not a choice, any more than the belief that my mother is not a yellow elephant is a choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


Exactly. Atheism is, to my mind, your own choice not to believe, not a reason to reverse evangilise (part of the reason I dislike Hitchen's).

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.



Strong words for a talking penis.

Of course, you are correct. Greater evils do exist, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to this one. Christianity is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "do unto others etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


I think there are greater threats to human kind than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in this world.

>> ^gwiz665:

I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.



I think there are greater threats to human kind than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in this world.

I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:

I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.

I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.

We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.

If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:

1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.

Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?

>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^draak13:
It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.

Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.
This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

"God's justice" includes stoning people for a variety of offenses including a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night, and disobeying your parents; very specific rules on how to take, keep and treat slaves; supposedly wiping out nearly every creature on Earth; and condemning all of humanity for sin in the first place. No, I don't want God's justice, thank you very much.

You, like many Christians, seem to have this misguided idea that all atheists want to do is have hedonistic orgies and go on Christian killing sprees, when in fact atheists are usually the ones that understand that, in reality, we only have one short life and we must all work together as a species on this tiny, fragile, blue spaceship, whizzing alone through the cosmos with nothing else around us for light-years. It's the religious fantasy of an afterlife and the proper way to get to the proper afterlife that keeps everyone segregated into factions, with everybody at each other's throats.
>> ^shinyblurry:

They want Gods justice but not His punishment.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
In the US, there's been a two party system since the beginning, right? Started as Federalist v. Nonfederalist.

Good point. Why do you think there were only two factions all the way back then, instead of 5 or 6?
Me, I think it's just that the US had a pretty tight-knit group of people who created the Federal government, and they split along a 1-dimensional ideological divide at an early date. So we started with two large factions, and the dynamic in the video kept 3rd parties from rising to dominance, save when we had a collapse in one of the major factions.


The great thing about history is it doesn't care what you think. It only cares about the facts. Even the first president warned against the politcal parties.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

— George Washington, farewell address, September 19, 1796

>> ^blankfist:

In the US, there's been a two party system since the beginning, right? Started as Federalist v. Nonfederalist.


Good point. Why do you think there were only two factions all the way back then, instead of 5 or 6?

Me, I think it's just that the US had a pretty tight-knit group of people who created the Federal government, and they split along a 1-dimensional ideological divide at an early date. So we started with two large factions, and the dynamic in the video kept 3rd parties from rising to dominance, save when we had a collapse in one of the major factions.

Part of the scientific method is not overstating the implications of your results, and simply stating what your results find. Through out the video he talks about alot more than just NatGeo doing shitty experiments, which is the ONLY thing his results indicate. Sloppy science.

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

I'm not sure that all of those engineers believed that the WTC were brought down with explosives. They signed a petition demanding a more thorough investigation. How do you know that many of them aren't backing this petition because they believe a more thorough investigation could reveal improper building standards, faults in construction or over looked safety concerns with respect to building skyscrapers that the original investigation overlooked. This is common with any type of disaster involving a man made structure, ie plane crashes, train wrecks, building/bridge collapses, sunken boats....

Even if every single one of the 1400 or so engineers who signed the petition believed it was definitely explosives, thats still means very little. More than 200 000 people graduated with engineer degrees in the US during 2005 ALONE. When you consider how many graduate in India, China, Europe, and the rest of the world, 1400 is an abysmally small faction, easily less than 1 in 1000. If 999 biologist told me life on earth has evolved from a single ancestor for every one biologist that told me it was magic, I know which theory I would lend more credence to.

>> ^peggedbea:

revolutions will continue to be televised. the arab world will see democracy. and theyll be disappointed.


Although to be fair, our version of democracy is akin to the soviet version of communism.

I'd really love to see an attempt at implementing a demarchy as proposed in Alastair Reynolds "Revelation Space" books. For those who didn't read them (been a while since I read them myself, so please excuse any fuzzy memories): It's a sci-fi setting placed a good enough distance into the future; demarchists (demoratic anarchists) are one faction of humanity whose political system comprises of the general population voting over just about anything, removing the need for a centralized gouvernment. To be able to securely vote in the volume neccessary, everyone has an implant and each settlement has a central computer dedicated to distributing and tallying the votes.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Give a man a crazy ass basket and a sacred lake and well, apparently he still only eats for a day.

@MycroftHomlz There are so many reasons "local government" can't/won't help in many African countries. To understand we first have to try to put aside our First World mindsets.

The first is that everyone in the impoverished countries are in continual power struggles thus there is no solid government to speak of. We often see kids with AK-47's because one faction came to him while he was out playing and said "Fight with us and you will get food and clothing, if not you and your whole village will die." Unfortunately a massive number of people are going to suffer at either decision that child makes.

The second is most of those same countries are in debt to the World Bank. So when a stable government is put in place the first thing the World Bank takes away is social assistance programs. The World Bank cares about one thing, it's "mutha fu*king money". They don't care how or why they get it. Africa has comparatively few natural resources for export and the ones they do have they either don't have the technology to harvest (oil), are owned by DeBeers (diamonds) or run by Christopher Walken (gold).

There are many other factors but these are some of the biggest reasons why there are no government programs. Thus it is left up to you and me. Or if that sounds to big a task we can always let the big businesses in to take care of them. They probably aren't that greedy, right? *cough Goldman Sachs

*end thesis