I was so hoping this was a thread on masturbation.
Utterly disappointed.

Masturbation.

Masturbation is like a thousand thousand abortions in a gush of ecstasy.

Check this out: His movie is on youtube :]

The Root of All Evil - The God Delusion (1 of 2)

The Root of All Evil - The God Delusion (2 of 2)

I think in many years to come people will look at religion like they do witch craft.

Less than a few hundred years ago old women were drown for having things like black cats. Today it's laughable, then it was serious.
And people will be given tourned guides of churches and places of worship and told how "we" used them as a place of praise.

The reason why faith is deminishing is because socially people are more aware. Science continues to take things forward and religion continues to cause wars and hold people back.
While there still are a large % of people who promote religion that will continue to get lower as people get smarter and they get access to things like the net, where they can find their own answers and like minded people.

I will lol at my ESR comments fo sho'.

It might take time tho.. God is a persistent bastard :+\

I'm already lolling at my own views; at least i can take comfort in knowing that as I laugh at them now I must somehow be ahead of myself - progress \o/

Archive.

I wish i could build 10 intelligent robots, make them belive in 10 religions and then give them 40min on the internet, and then publish the results :P

You just have to look at the history of mankind really.

yup, looking at a map of religions it becomes pretty obvious ;D

Archive.

Commonplace.

like einstein?

Archive.

well you're known for good humour

Archive.

I hate when pantheism or even deism is taken as religion..

Religion is theism, and in that sense neither Einstein nor most other acclaimed religious scientists truly are so.

Says who? Anyone supporting any particular belief or value system, be it theistic or non-theistic deals with religion, whatever synonyms you will want to use to replace that. Using Reason or Progress as ideals do not make these movements any less religious. Check out what 19th century positivism led to.

Says I; "I hate when" ... And so says Dawkins.

And probably many other people tired of being compared to believers in UFO's when they say they awe at the complexity that arises from what we currently know about simple physical laws.

Any less religious? Soo there is no degree? It's all in definition, and i don't like the definition that takes religion into account as all possible worldviews; then rather use the word "worldview" .. The only reason the word religion is so wide is because what it represents was *previously* the only alternative to make sense of the world. Now that alternative is outdated; it is replaced by science in coordinance with non-belief, the skeptic ect who doubts all, or in coordinance with patheism, deism, panpsychism(?) ect..

As I said, you can take any synonym you like, whatever you think judgement is worth; they cover the same anthropological or cultural phenomenon -- they mean the same thing.

so since it all comes from the same "emotion" we should nerf the word to incorporate everyones emotion without differentiating?

Someone who believes truth can be reached through Reason thinks it has revelatory powers. Someone who believes in Progress thinks eventually as time passes everything will get better, which is some sort of messianism. I think you can be perfectly able to differenciate, the point is to not at the same time make youself unable to see when things share similarities. Differentiation in itself is not necessarily interesting.

Through Reason you reach the conclusion that Progress is inevitable; it has been like this forever, the opposite conclusion would have the burden of proof. It's not a matter of wether it's better or not, it just is the way it is and has always been and supposedly always will be. The trend is up, and it may collapse, like the dinosaurs, but the trend will still be up.

Reason would've been subjective, if it wasn't for the fact that every human brain is based on logic and reason, everything we see is logic and reason. The fact that some people have a crippled and unpure form of reason and logic does not take it aback that it is primary to us.

Sure there are similarities: But I just cannot see how it in any way can be equally good to be worse. Some opinions are worse than others.

No idea what you're talking about.

You talk as if they are equals, Reason and belief in Progress on one side and superstition on the other. Ofcourse there are similarities but the claim i am making is that reason is more basic than superstition, you can not have superstition without reason, and the reason leading to superstition is just unlogical, bad reasoning.

If this is not all all what you are talking about then i am the one who read past you.. maybe the capital R and P chenged the words into something i have not stumbled upon yet?

You must have misread me because I never said all beliefs were of equal values, and I never mentionned superstition.

Well you never said it was equal, but you said "Differentiation in itself is not necessarily interesting." which i think it is, and i tried to *reason* my way into why it was so. And superstition is just the word i use for religion because by religion i mean superstition while you don't so i can't use religion that way on you ;D

well i've no illusions that the misunderstandings are that superficial so i really don't know what to say ;)

Differentiating science and religion and thinking you're being original isn't interesting, as is well examplified by the parent article. Differentiation is only interesting insofar as it provides insight, as with any argumentative tool.
What I was saying was that instead of restating the obvious endlessly people should try to have a broader view and maybe accept that science and religion stem from the same endeavor and that they are comparable on many points, and not totally alien to each other like those guys seem to want people to believe.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D

Well i guess you are right in the sense that they are much alike.

But i don't agree that differentiation between religions that totally collide headon with science and those that don't won't offer insight. Quite the contrary, i think it is one of the problems that need resolving, i think we need to be clear what we support and what we do not support. And i think more people can agree to support reason rather than un-reason if they have an explicitly scientifically-supportive alternative religion that can cope with that.

It would all be easier if the "subtle" religious people did not involve in such matters as gay marriage ect, where they may think they are scientific while they really are in fact just blinded by their unreasonable faith. But then again i wonder what is left for religion when it has incorporated all the science. How do you invoke a religious feeling in people without making them suceptible to illogical moral? That is the big question for me atm.

Also you have phenomenalism..

Anyways. If by positivism you mean like physicalism or reductionism, it doesn't seem like that is all that "reductionistic" as some people tend to believe, at least not today. They can still talk about topdown-causality while remaining truly physicalistic, at least from what i've seen in philosophy of mind.

But do go ahead and tell me about what was wrong with positivism, i'm really just using words i've just learned in context here ;D

more ism please

We have this great word in norway, which means like, like.. LIKE.

And it's usually spelled, "liksom" but people tend to use it more like LIZM, which is effectivly LISM.. Soo.. the moral of this story is.. Go to Norway, it owns.

"Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his worldview (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.""

What does that have to do with religion?

When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:

Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

— H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.

Einstein can say whatever he wants, we are not here to argue semantics. It is more than clear by the statements above that when people used the word religion they were referring to organized worship along guidelines which have become traditions over time. Science could easily be classified as a religion if one were to propose the right argument for it in their own life, that wouldn't affect an argument about religion such as the one in this thread though.

wow, you're super-smart! yawn

"Science continues to take things forward and religion continues to cause wars and hold people back."

I sometimes doubt that, looking at the cathedral that was nearly impossible to build five hundred years ago, yet still people managed to do it. Religion is the worlds most powerful driving force, no matter what you do. Instead of trying to extinguish it, we should rather try to reduce it from its current dogmatism of absurd anthropoid personifications to the shape of belief in humankinds future, where God equals working together on obtaining knowledge to be used for our own good while maintaining the necessary moral standards.

Technology is more powerful.. (my answer to everything it seems:p) Of course they could co-exist, but to what degree?

As soon as religion inhibits technology they will fall short of those places were they do not let religion inhibit technology.. And those who try to combine the two will HOPEFULLY someday be enlightened by the accumulation of knowledge it hopefully eventually produces in turn xD

That has already been acchieved. It's called Alchemy. (I do not mean just the term for turning lead into gold...)

Well already schmalready.. at least people arn't enlightened yet, look at America. If those stats in that movie are right.. 45% of USA believes the earth was made 10k years ago or something? That's just wrong. I don't know how many %% has internet in the us tho, but I guess it's alot :(

I see..

331,473,276 population estimated for Northern America in 2006.

229,138,706 Internet users as of Sept/06 and 69.1% penetration rate.

So if those 45% stats are true.. that kinda sux.

Oh, you mean in daily life? Heh, I see. Well, I'll try to not comment these statistics. The USA is a fascinating country =]

fascinating* indeed

Dude, they are Americans, they say 10k because they think it sounds cool.

stats are dodgy

you could probably read the 10k answer: "I dont care as long as I have food to eat, car to drive, and a tv to watch."

probably, but if they learned otherwise at school they must have put some effort into false belief ;D

Indeed, in the period of time where practically all Western scientists were also religious alchemy held great intellectual sway over many of the leading lights. This is a pretty interesting book along similar lines if you're interested.

The fact all people know of alchemy in the modern day is the notion that it was a bunch of people trying to make gold from lead is a gross degradation the ideas and concepts involved.

looking at the cathedral that was nearly impossible to build five hundred years ago, yet still people managed to do it

Yeah because they used religious principles to build a structure clearly, not scientific ones...lol get real.

Fair trade though: wars for cathedrals...

I am talking about the effort/money/manhours it took to build it rather than about the building principles.

There is a stronger driving force than religion, it's called money. Churches had HUGE sums of money. People did not build those things because of devotion, they did it because of money.

Churches collected the money because of the religion. Why do you think a new sect pops up every ten minutes?

So you agree with me? :P

Yes, I agree that if we put ten times more money and effort into the science, we would be much further. Getting the money is another thing.

while maintaining the necessary moral standards.

While I appreciate what you were trying to convey by that comment to hold the world to specific moral standards or guidelines is an outdated and potentially dangerous idea since morality like life itself is something which changes over time. To stand still on any issue is in essence to move backwards as the world moves forwards.

i dont expect "Thou shalt not kill." to change anytime soon
and no, I am not a christian

That's in theory though, in practice few people actually believe thou shalt not kill, regardless of whether they are christian or not. Millions of people currently think you can believe that law and yet at the same time kill a whole bunch of iraqis since their leader was evil or some cobblers like that.

Even on a day to day basis people who if you spoke to them before would tell you they had firm moral standings will go on to kill their spouse/their lover when they catch them in bed together or a string of other situations whereby people will go directly back to primal instincts. Then you could go into the fact that thou shalt not kill only covers one species on a planet of millions and regardless of how good a person you are you're going to kill just by virtue of being alive yourself. Even when you look at a single person morality is less a firm set of beliefs and more a perspective on how things look at that moment, given the right opportunity or situation there are very few people in existance who can actually exercise their morality absolutely.

The term primal instincts struck me. How come science does not know shit about their origin yet religion manages to control them?

yet religion manages to control them

Imo religion does a pretty terrible job of controlling instincts, child molestation in the church is a pretty good example of what will inevitabley happen when enough people repress their sexual urges completely and then are surrounded by temptations on a daily basis. Same goes for moral guidelines like don't steal, don't adulterate etc. Give someone the right opportunity or circumstance and in all but a miniscule number of cases they will go against their firmly held moral beliefs. Those who don't tend to be fanatical to the extent of bordering on a form of psychosis or incredibly niaeve and unquestioning.

Science and religion aren't opposites so to compare them in that manner is a fallacy, they have just become so since the progression of science provides evidence-based reasons which threaten the faith-based aspects of most religions. Whether one should live by a certain set of rules is one thing but most religions are based massively off faith and faith generally is not asking a lot of questions because if those questions could be answered with any degree of certainty that would preclude the need for faith. Science raises those questions and forces them to the forefront and so people see a conflict and so it becomes religion or science.

Based on my study of human history/civilisation I'd say religious laws have done more to de-humanize the species than anything else I could name. The idea that religious mandates which control people are good is about as sensible as the idea that a tyrant who has any criminal immediatly executed without question is a good leader because he helps with crime prevention. The fact that in the latter case there would still always be crime pretty much makes my earlier point for me. Science doesn't need to explain the origins of primal instincts because science is a form of guidelines upon which one can prove to degrees what is true or reasonable as an explanation. It's not really difficult for religion to explain and account for such matters since one can essentially make anything up on the spot and that's the answer. You don't disprove one thing by saying there is no answer for something else entirely.

To stand still on any issue is in essence to move backwards as the world moves forwards.

hehe.. :p

is that a hehe you're stupid hehe or a hehe i know what you're saying because we're on the same wavelength hehe

that's a that's a really funny sentence if you think about it hehe, but I wouldn't call him stupid for that, as I didn't

Mindblowing stuff by some of the world's greatest minds right here on ESR.

we can't all be Ignignokts <3

Thanks !!!

16? :(

?

huh

you joined a cult or smmt?

read this book on consciousness based on modern science yesterday.. i'm finding it hard to accept myself :\

science and religion are both wrong. read marx on feuerbach on religion then read hegel cos hegel is the truth or maybe he's not or maybe it doesn't matter...

I'll read hegel probably.. ;)

The theory of gravity is wrong? In some sense at least it is perfectly right? So i can't see what you mean. Only way science can seem to me wrong is if it makes claims that science shouldn't do; it's the aspect of reality we can observe and measure, and should not speak of anything else than that.

Hegel is crazy(ly good) but I have no idea how one would be able to read him in a translation. It's nearly impossible in german.

I don't think I'm able to get across here and in english what I meant with the above regarding science but I'll give it one honest try .)

The easiest way and seeing how you seem to like reading would be to refer towards habermas-knowledge and human interests or something similar of post-marxist thought. I believe the book's loosely based on keeping marx distinction of "basis" (base) and "überbau" (superstructure) intact. We and therefore the superstructure we may create (science etc.) are determined (in the end) by the base (which is our needs or interests).

Simpler... objectivity does not (can not) exist... science is merely the misguided attempt in creating something like it while ignoring us (humans) as the root of all knowledge. Science was bound to be a failure when it broke off its philosophical base and started being only empiricial. That's not to say science didn't do a lot of good... it's just the underlying idea of (like you said) observing the world as it is is wrong as the world is merely what you observe it is. There's no perception without a subject and a subject is never free or objective.
Anything you measure is you measuring it with a distinct idea on what is going on and what you want to see.

I'm in the process of doing a empirical study on some sociologal stuff and the one thing I realized while doing it is that I went into the whole project with a fixed idea on what I wanted to get out of it. In the end you could say I went into this with a conclusion I was only trying to prove and in which I unsuprisingly suceeded.
What I mean with that is that not only the actual process of percepting the world is problematic but even more so everything prior to it because it's so heavily determined (sanctioned?) already. A human being no matter what he/she is trying to do never does it uninfluenced by what he/she "brings along" and seeing as scientists are still human beings everything they do is anything but observing the reality.

Hmm, that sounds a bit like what i've seen from Goethe's way of doing science.. Does all of this connect with continental philosophy?

I've heard good things about continental philosophy from the older students who are a bit aggressive towards the curriculum and advice us younger ones to seek more "radical" sources that are available outside of it.

I'll check it out.. Probably someone english who has made sense of him, at least to a decent degree.. (they seem to be arguing about interpretation all over the place on everyone around here, so i guess that's neverending ;D)

But don't get me as someone who "has" read, i've'nt read anything almost. Only like Harry Potter and LOTR, lol.. So keep it .. Introductionary on recommendations :)=

Science was bound to be a failure when it broke off its philosophical base and started being only empiricial.

I wouldn't necessarily call it philosophical but surely you're aware of the fact that modern physics is not only driven by 'measuring stuff you want to measure' but instead huge parts are made on a theoretical basis (e.g. prediction of new particles or even phenomenoms as a whole). That's where alot of aesthetic thinking and imagination is done, as an example maybe you have heard of symmetries. Symmetries not (only) meant as geometrical symmetries you know from spoken language, but symmetries meant as invariancy towards translation, or direction, or even scale. Physicists are trying to make nature's law more and more simple and beautiful in a mathematical way. To me you made it sound like they're just measuring and measuring until they found what they wanted and expected to find, but that's not the case. I'd rather say they're trying to validate/check-proof theoretical assumptions (which are based on 'philosophical' thoughts), or trying to get a first idea what the new stuff is like so they can make up their mind about it.

Dawkins is no different from the people he is fighting against.
Those believe in god, he believes not in god. That's both beliefs.
In fact, a religion is a social system built on beliefs concerning the way the world is to been seen.
Don't mix that up with spirituality, like most people do.
What is for sure true is that spiritual concepts have been abused by so called "holy men" for centuries to achieve power over men. You have to agree on that with Dawkins.
That's why you see people like the American president talking about god, but leading war. Which is, in all spiritual context, contradictory. That's why you see people in turbans talking about god and revenge. Which is again, in all spiritual context, contradictory.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is a dimension of spirituality, which is even acknowledged by modern science under the term of metaphysics. That is a sphere which reaches far beyond of what the human mind can understand.
So, I doubt that positioning himself right at the other extreme of believing will help Dawkins make America less "religious". Actually, he is just another type of Descartes, who neglected his own nature and the nature of all being when he said "I think, therefore I am". That's practically and theoretically a delusion.

Yeah, you speak lots of truths; but are you sure you understood what Dawkins meant by religion? Theism. He did say himself that he was in a way a pantheist, a man in awe before nature like Einstein. Belief in a personal god that gives rules you should follow without questioning is what he is questioning. The current law gives you rules to follow as well, but at least that is a modern version. He is afraid that the morality of past ages will come back to haunt us to this day by people blindly accepting that as ultimate truth.

At one point he said that he thought reason had won over superstition, but he was wondering is he was wrong, he saw the urge to do something as more and more people fall victim to unreason. And this subtle friendly kind of religion that may seem harmless still manifests itself in small issues like stem-cell research, abortion and gay marriage where the past moral of religion is outdated and effectively evil in context of what we now know.

I didn't see the second part yet. Boss is running around behind me =[

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22...050910.gif

Indeed, in that interviews he points out the difference between religion and spirituality and that he aims to destroy the image of a "personal" god. (The question about the experience you get when you get to the top of the mountain...) And for that I give him credit.
However, from the other questions you see that he himself had no spiritual experience whatsoever. He is a pure rationalist and is thus trying to fight faith with rational arguments.
Which is not that bad actually. At least he might wake up some people.

Agree, he is extreem on one end, but at the same time, he's not doing anything "wrong".. So I support him, like i would support freedom of speech although i don't support what's being said. Questioning faith is never wrong.

thats not very interesting =(

I'm sorry.. I guess he may look like a Michael Moore of anti-religion ;D

.

yes! animals aretheshit, especially happy pigs!

To quote Carl Sagan here.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Which attitude is better geared for our long-term survival? Which gives us more leverage on our future? And if our naive self-confidence is a little undermined in the process, is that altogether such a loss? Is there not cause to welcome it as a maturing and character-building experience?

To discover that the Universe is some 8 to 15 billion and not 6 to 12 thousand years old(1) improves our appreciation of its sweep and grandeur; to entertain the notion that we are a particularly complex arrangement of atoms, and not some breath of divinity, at the very least enhances our respect for atoms; to discover, as now seems probable, that our planet is one of billions of other worlds in the Milky Way Galaxy and that our galaxy is one of billions more, majestically expands the arena of what is possible; to find that our ancestors were also the ancestors of apes ties us to the rest of life and makes possible important - if occasionally rueful - reflections on human nature.

Plainly there is no way back. Like it or not, we are stuck with science. We had better make the best of it. When we finally come to terms with it and fully recognize its beauty and its power, we will find, in spiritual as well as in practical matters, that we have made a bargain strongly in our favor.

religion and science both have caused great evils when taken to the extreme of either end. humanity cannot take just science or take just religion and expect to survive in the long run. the key is to discover the middle ground and when that happens, thing should begin to improve.

Yeah, I love that guy already. Took this test some days ago and got similiar results as it was estimated Carl Sagan would've got, so i had to look him up ;D

Here is the quiz for anyone interested:

http://www.commongood.org/worldview_quiz.htm

Hmm, I got the top left box exactly in the middle.

Rofl, how did you end up there? ;D you hate mankind or something? :P

I'm just a bastard and proud of it:D

Though I did tick yes to hoping mankind is replaced sometime. Let's be honest, the human race is so flawed on the whole.

It's natural for the next best thing to evolve and people are not it.

Dna, rna whatever it is called and "memes" ect.. It's all virus spreading with increasing sophistication. Nevertheless i'm greatful and thankful to it, and I wish it the best of luck on ever increasing sophistication towards infinity. :)

I ended up between Dalai-Lama and the Sagan guy.

Seems to be the sweetspot from at least the people I know.. :)

Nearly Mr. Sagan for me, 10 for science and 8 for progress.

I love these tests (serious ones atleast), more more :)
Can say this particular one failed miserably in measuring one of my values though, heh. Also I dunno, "7" in science rather than faith is good I guess but I'm not really sure where the three other points went considering I'm pretty sure I never answered anything that would drag me to the faith-side...

I gave all obvious answers and they came out 10 10 :p

tried to be more.. doubtful.. came out 8,8 :)

9.


Could the study of evolution be useful in protecting against bio-terrorism?


ROLF GREAT QUESTION!

that'll win the no-bell-end prize for sure

?

deep!

How is the question bad? I mean, don't you think people will answer that it has no effect?

? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?

hugs <3

well of course they will, what with their extensive knowledge of biochemistry and the genome ect.

what?

whats the matter, not deep enough for ya?

nono, it's not deep - it's flying over my head :(

with many questions, i missed a 'wtf' in the answer list. what do you choose when the question as well as all the options come with a load of hidden assumptions and biased implications you do not identify with? it forces me to engineer my result, which kinda takes away the point of taking the test in the first place.

i hate badly done hard-choice quizzes! :P

there were several "none of the above"? lets see your question you do not identify with the answer and (even better) let us also see your custom answer - right here on esr!! that whining in itself is just boring, the alt. could be fun :P

answer to first question is yes. answer to the second is read my previous post, i did suggest a universal frame-breaking answer ;( logic is overrated

uhm

Hi I'm Carl Sagan.

you're not me! i'm you!

Dude you're totally trippin me out!

HAHAHAHAHA. Check this out:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=11...2FShowFull

I was not judging anyone, rather stating a self-evident philosophical truism: If our perception that some deeds are good and others are not is but a quirk of natural selection, none of us need feel any commitment to morality or ethics.

Sure, it is easy to deny God. We can't see Him and can (at least some of us, with prodigious effort and illimitable imagination) imagine life evolving entirely on its own, and yes, there is evil in the world that seems to go unpunished.

Deep down we know we are answerable to Something beyond our own natures.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ok i'm good.

:D

The guy says there is no rational basis for morality, and he's right. He's sort of reinventing the wheel, but some people seem not to have discovered it yet.

Yeah, but it's funny because he turned the whole thing on its head.. natural selection IS the basis for morality, and whatever we are answerable to deep down is what's "but a quirk of natural selection".. ;)

I'm not sure natural selection has much of a role to play in the construction of values systems, but it doesn't account for the reason as to why people should stick to a particular system, which is what is discussed here.

Eternal damnation in hell vs guilty conscience. They both limit your freedom to do bad right? Well, one of them is true, originated from our "will" to survive and has lead to the other.

Look at any guy in history with a fucked up system for empathy and feelings in general, that's your evil right there.

Neither hell nor guilt limits our freedom to do anything. What they do is to try to justify the choice of a moral conduct, they are not just instruments of persuasion, they participate in the cohesion of the system. I don't know if guilt originates from will, I think it's more of a cultural concept rather than a feeling, and I'm not sure as to the validity of the filiation you're trying to establish between guilt and the concept of hell, which is more like a glorified punishment, stemming from resentment.
I don't know what you're trying to point out with the last sentence but uh yea, I guess the two biggest non-deistic systems of the 20th century were catastrophic failures.

Freedom was a bad choice of word.

The filiation goes something like this: They both effectivly bias you to do less evil when evil is defined as something which you know leads to guilty conscience or hell -- both defined as painful unpleasant experiences noone wants.

I think guilt is something very strong, along with other instinctual moral biases. When i said "originated from our "will" to survive" i meant based on natural selection, not exclusively socially indoctrinated as memes or something. But i guess I can't argue how that is so without some scientific evidence :]

Anyways, religions seem play on natural emotions like guilt and fear when they try to make people behave morally good. So the social aspect of guilt is what can be said to be modified by religion.

The last sentence was to point out that there is a "nature-nurture" part to this discussion of whether guilt is social or inherited. As some people totally lack empathy and feelings they give us a look into how they would act when they have the social but not the inherited part.

But you seem to know something you show me only small portions of, as when constantly "hinting" to "two biggest non-deistic systems of the 20th century were catastrophic failures".. I don't know this. Short introduction and punee-conclusion please? ;D

I'm not hinting at anything. I don't have the time nor the intent to do a lecture, I feel like I appear as pontificating enough. Do some research on your own, and quit using jargon like "memes" and all that crap; it's worthless. Sorry I have to cut short to the discussion here, but I don't think I could say anything more useful than "go read some books", so do that. Obvious choices pertaining to this subject are Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" and "Beyond Good and Evil". I hope these will cause some kind of epiphany.

I listened to beyond good and evil a while back on audio, but i didn't quite get it all i think.. That was awesome anyways. I've collection of basic writing from nietzche coming soon i guess, that might contain that other one i hope. What's wrong with memes? :(

I get "epiphanies" all the time atm, i feel there is a big one heading for me around whatever continental philosophy is ;D

My main interest now is really consciousness tho :)

would you guys please leave the scientific and philosophical debates to the experts on myspace? thanks.

You should see my INTP mailing-list discussions.. hehehehe ;D

do not get me started on the intj only forums :)

INTP>INTJ !!!!!! That would've been an awesome forumfight.

THE INTP'S

CHARLES DARWIN
RENE DESCARTES
ALBERT EINSTEIN
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
BLAISE PASCAL
SOCRATES

VS

THE INTJ'S

AUGUSTUS CAESAR
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
HANNIBAL BARCA
THOMAS JEFFERSON
SIR ISAAC NEWTON
AYN RAND
GEORGE LUCAS

EZ!

you forgot hannibal lector!

he is enough to send against the INTPs

oh yeah? Tiger Woods will take him out anyday.. ;D

I do not think that the avg. INTJ and INTJ would engage in such activity, it would go against their nature.

hmm

"Also, two INTjs or two INTps can co-exist quite peacefully, whereas an INTj and an INTp do not make a very promising combination. Join any INTj discussion forum or mailing list and you can see this Quasi-identical tension for yourself. This is because there are many INTps among those INTjs. "


guess you are right :)

I wouldnt go putting all your trust in science either

That's such a meaningless phrase.

I wouldn't put all my trust into the laws of gravity and the simple calculations I can do to find a set trajectory, nor should I be certain that I descended from the monkeys? Is this what you mean?

I'm fearful that there is some strange ambiguity around the word science and "the scientific method".. What can possibly be wrong with taking into account observations that are carefully put in an understandable system - what is there to reject about it?