This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?
Does the world need to be saved ? Are we heading toward an inevitable extinction ? will that be a new generation bomb ? or will it be pollution ? will it be depletion of natural resources ? or will the machines be our killers as it is suggested in many sci-fi stories ?
Anand Radhakrishnan
Gail . 50+
1. It is a very rare person who is functionallly educated - not matter how many doctorates one may have.
2. Our current economic model (that is sustained by enforced ignorance by calling diseducation education) is sustained by war, depletion of natural resources, and human potential.
Brandon Lamb
Random Chance 30+
Hope, faith and insanity.
Hope is not real.
Faith becomes blind.
And the world needs sanity because its inhabitants are insane and insane people commit suicide.
Absolutely nothing is achieved by hope.
Faith is not wanting to know the truth (which means being insane), and it becomes blind if it doesn't transform into
'knowing'.
Insane people have all kinds of clarity all the time, but it doesn't make them sane. They have clarity on jumping off of buildings and being able to fly, they can stop a bullet, or see and talk to people no one else can see, but they do very clearly.
What the world needs is sanity, seeing the truth about our condition and what needs to be done and then doing it.
Right now, most are following the enormous amounts of lies they worship in so many forms from religion, education, government, military, parenting and on and on.
Studies and research have shown the human being holds true and false simultaneously but the truth is in the unconscious and the false in the conscious mind. So, the truth is constantly trying to be heard but is shut out more and more by the lies people worship. That is why the truth is so upsetting to most when it is shown, heard, spoken, seen or in some way revealed.
The world wants its lies just as it has been trained to. Those who don't forget the past are doomed to repeat it because one cannot repeat what they cannot or do not remember. But that isn't what everyone has been told for so many decades. Don't forget it, so that you can repeat it and that is still happening. Ever wonder why?
Why do we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? Even that is a lie for it is being called the "definition of insanity' when it is not.
It is however, a description of "insane behavior" regarding the fact we keep repeating what we know doesn't work, we don't want, we know where it leads, we know it is wrong and not true, yet we keep doing it.
Anisha Rikhy
Derek Young 30+
1) Property Rights Issues
2) International Politics
3) Human-Made Uninhabitable Environments
Don Wesley 50+
What you leave behind may shame you; remember, The Great Architect Above gave us unique fingerprints.
And TED gives Profiles.
Don
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Sent plagues, destroyed cities killing hundreds of thousands.
Wiped out all humans once already, except for Noah and his family.
Created conditions for viruses and disease, earthquakes, and us stuck between animal instinct and reason.
And will be sending most of us to a nasty place.
E G 10+
................. there is anger there , isn't it ? frustration , maybe hate , otherwise why would you be so determined of this certain image ? ...... because this isn't the single image the Yahweh has , He has good ones too and you know it .
robert hensley
*edit
This is to say that a believer may not be encouraged to question his beliefs in the way a non-believer would (with true doubt, for example).
-set aside from the fact that this is an "end of the world post"
E G 10+
So who has ""end of the world post"" ? At least I'm not in contradiction with myself .
Stewart Gault 30+
E G 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
No anger no hate. Thanks, butI don't need your help guessing my emotional state or motives. This is not relevant to the argument anyway. Just you trying to discredit the commentator rather than deal with the argument on its merits. Are you self aware enough to see the your pattern of attacking the messenger not the message Why don't you try focus on the argument not the person for a change? Might be refreshing for you and your comments might be taken more seriously.
I think this is a reasonably interesting observation even if you don't like it. If god is real he might be the greatest threat to humankind. Roll on Armageddon and final judgement.
On the argument side of your comment, I agree that the perception of Yahweh will depend on how the individual beholder interprets the bible. Some believe the stories literally. Others don't. Some through the filter of the new Testament or Koran. All through their particular 21st century world view.
Even if not taken literally, the message is partly of a jealous, petty, murderous deity.
I agree if you ignore all the nasty bits, hell, endorsing slavery, the tribalism of a chosen people, the blind obedience required, the hissy fit leading to Adams expulsion first time he makes a mistake, orders to kill, killing by the deity itself, and a ridiculous set up requiring primitive animal or human blood sacrifice, forgetting your responsibilities, blaming the Jews, then there are some positive messages such as the golden rule, helping the poor etc.
I see it in its entirety. Everyone can pick and choose what they like to believe, but my point is this stuff is in the bible. Its not all love thy neighbour. And this reasonably may be interpreted as a deity that is more dangerous to humans than anything else.
It also created us as dangerous to ourselves, almost as if we have evolved if a competitive dog eat dog world, with a tension between cooperation and selfishness and negative aspects of survival instincts still embedde
E G 10+
I actually made some arguments (even though in a disorganized way) : - that your interior feelings determine your judgement and focus (and that your interior feelings seem not to be better than that image of Yahweh ) .
- that you can't be sure of how much of what you talking about is true as long as you aren't sure if what you said fits Yahweh Himself . (they will remain as untouched by you, see below) .
You can look at my post as an attack to your person and maybe in a certain degree it is , I don't have a problem with recognizing it , but aside of it , why don't you see anything else than some some nonsense I'm going to comment ?
You said first that the perception of Yahweh depends on how the individual beholder interprets the Bible ; I went even further : the perception depends on our interior. We agree that our perception depends on our reason .
So to summarize : our perception of Yahweh depends on our interior and our reason .
Are you sure now that : " the message is partly of a jealous, petty, murderous deity" ?
In fact there is nonsense in your claim if we consider the basic fact that our perceptions of different things are different than the things themselves . So your perception of Yahweh is not Yahweh , so that claim is wrong (you confused your perception with the perceived thing ) , to be correct that claim should look like what follows : ' it seems that everybody , whatever their view , perceive Yahweh as a jealous , petty , murderous deity ' . But this is not true , I don't perceive Yahweh like that , there are guys who don't either (even though we consider that nasty things you talk about ) .
- ' this stuff is in the Bible ' so we can choose to believe what we like , this is another thing you said , another nonsense in the end : - the mere fact that something is in the Bible doesn't justify you to choose and believe what you like because the Bible has a meaning
E G 10+
robert hensley
"From the same place you pick up bad images you can pick up good images too without no doubt whatever your beliefs"
This is very true, but this is the title of the debate: "The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?" (ie: end of the world), therefore what was said is relevant.
"So you said what you said because you are rather pissed off by my comment than that you care of objectiveness."
You are just plain wrong here, which you would know if we were in person, but that is a sacrifice we make by having these talks over the internet.
"So you let yourself guided by your subjectivity to talk about objectivity : what a contradiction !!!!
So who has ""end of the world post"" ? At least I'm not in contradiction with myself "
This part I really just don't understand, what are your trying to say? and has any of it changed now that I've told you your assumptions about me are wrong?
"...In fact there is nonsense in your claim if we consider the basic fact that our perceptions of different things are different than the things themselves . So your perception of Yahweh is not Yahweh"
An interesting argument, who's perception do you believe is real, who's do you believe is right? Since: for everyone it is a perception, is any of it real? by this argument, "So your perception of Yahweh is not Yahweh", your perception of real is not real.
"the mere fact that something is in the Bible doesn't justify you to choose and believe what you like because the Bible has a meaning"
A meaning that is perceived.
My main point is, use our eyes to see what you might not (as I have used yours), and think about it critically in a way that you might not.
E G 10+
"who's perception do you believe is real, who's do you believe is right? Since: for everyone it is a perception, is any of it real? " of course our perceptions are a real thing , the perceived thing is a real thing too , only that they are different , what else is unclear to you ? did you mean to say : whose perception is the same with the perceived thing ? nobody's ; everybody has his perceptions which are different from anybody else's (but not entirely ).
"A meaning that is perceived." yes but it doesn't exclude that someone could be wrong and someone else right about this meaning (if I got what you meant to say).
Anyway , my point is that Obey talk nonsense .
robert hensley
I believe this is still unclear:
If the two things are different and both you only ever perceive, then you never "truly" "see" what is "real" -- only a perception of what is real. This is actually true, which is why we use systems to help us keep things as close to real as possible (systems like math and measurement). Since these systems are defined consistently, we use them to help us interpret constancy, inconsistency, and “truth” -- things have been found to be inconsistent in people’s interpretation of the bible (which is why many people have changed their interpretations, and others have developed serious doubts in some areas through this trend).
However, "truth" itself has been taken as a belief, one that many people chose to interpret in their own way using their own methods (like the method of believing in their feelings). The problem is, methods like emotions (which is what feelings fall under in this case) have not produced the consistencies in the area of "truth" that math and measurements have produced. This is why many people are skeptics.
Though many people feel like, and believe that, the bible is true; the belief in the feeling has many times contradicted the belief in math and measurements. Still, skeptics know that people can (and do) chose not to believe in the truths that they have found; so skeptics attempt to use other methods to help people open their minds to what they perceive. One perception is: “If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind.”
I know all of that is long and the way I have stated it may be confusing, but take some time to think about it, and you might see why: his perception may be more important to reality than you have given credit.
*edited to in an attempt to be more clear
E G 10+
"If the two things are different and both you only ever perceive, then you never "truly" "see" what is "real" -- only a perception of what is real " not exactly: I don't see the perceptions than after I have them , I see the real thing but through me resulting the perception ; I continued: this perception is real because it exists in me ; it's not the same with the perceived real thing, that's true, but the perceptions are real even though they aren't identical with the perceived thing , why wound't they ? (it depends on what meaning you give to the word 'real' : if real= exist in reality , then both the perceptions and the perceived thing are real , one exist in the exterior reality , the other in me ) .
- you seem to confuse the meaning of 'real' in different situation : real=exist in reality with real=the same with what exist in reality ; the second meaning is wrong here . Am I clear now ?
Well , I understand what you said , I understood it from the first time actually but I don't agree with you : -it's true there are people who based their belief on their feelings and that skeptics may have what to offer to them , but this doesn't happen with everybody . In fact the thing is that skeptics are sometimes more wrong than the simple believer who base naively maybe but sincerely his beliefs on his feelings . So the skeptics are not actually of a big help .
Very few times happen that an unbeliever/skeptic to see more clear something about spirituality or God than a believer ; be careful now : I said about God not about some stories about God. So that perception (“If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind.”) is very likely to be wrong .
robert hensley
This is what I mean to say:
His perception may be more important to reality than you have given credit. (for reasons explained in the above reply).
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not saying you are making a grievous personal attack on me. You just keep switching between the argument and the motives and emotional state of the commentator. You don't need to know the emotional state to counter or address the actual point made.
You are doing it again with "that your interior feelings determine your judgement " - how do you know what my interior feelings are and what has this got to do with countering the actual points I raise? Is your counter argument "I refute your point because I assume it reflects your emotional state". If I say that many passages of the bible claim god killed people - the claim does not stand on whether I have some emotional issues in this regards or not.
If you want to discuss what lies behind comments that is a completely different type of conversation. Are you here to psycho analyse everyone and to understand where their arguments come from, or are you here to discuss the points on there merits.
Can you see the difference between:
- The earth is not flat, because we have information X, Y, Z
- Your argument that the earth is flat is a poor one because of your emotional state
Maybe you can not even see the difference. Maybe you do but will not admit it. Its getting a bit tired sifting through your psychological analysis and put downs to the relevant points you make.
If you addressed arguments on their merits rather than bringing it back to the commentator then we wouldn't need to have this side debate arguing up about how you are arguing.
Look up Ad Homenim
Or as sports mad Australians say, consider playing the ball not the man.
E G 10+
Ok, I guess you have to choose a bit between my assumptions about your feelings and the arguments I made against what you said .
"Can you see the difference between:
- The earth is not flat, because we have information X, Y, Z
- Your argument that the earth is not flat is a poor one and reflects your emotional state" of course I see the difference ; however , the second do not reflects exactly what I said .
Letting aside your feelings , my arguments :
- you are an atheist , I see in it the reason of your focus on the bad images of Yahweh , it's not that hard , is it ? So we talk here abut a bit of subjectivity and determination to prove what you believe is correct even though it may not be, in other words your atheistic attitude blinds you a bit ..
- you confuse the perceptions with the perceived thing : your perception of Yahweh with Yahweh , due to this follows :
- you can't be sure of how much what you said about Yahweh is really about Yahweh .
The conclusion : - you are an atheist , this guides your focus and make your perceptions of Yahweh which aren't Yahweh anyway even worse .
In order to prove my second I used this sentence , yours of course : " the message is partly of a jealous, petty, murderous deity" ? " , I used it as an example because your entire comment is in this way . I don't need to prove the first ; the third is a logical derivation .
Instead of that sentence you should say (if you wanna be correct ) : - I perceive a murderous , jealous , petty deity from that message . An entirely different thing than : the message is partly of a .... deity . So from now talk about your perceptions not about deities .
So the final conclusion: "If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind." is far from the truth .
robert hensley
“"If the two things are different and both you only ever perceive, then you never "truly" "see" what is "real" -- only a perception of what is real " not exactly: I don't see the perceptions than after I have them , I see the real thing but through me resulting the perception”
You “see” your perception of what is real, not what is actually real. If you “saw” what was actually real we would not have illusions. (This may be what you mean to say also, If so just skip to the next page. If not, please read on.)
The reason I put “see” in quotations is because the information given off of the object may be different than the information your eyes collected which is in turn almost always different than the way your brain organizes that information.
Consider this illusion (An off shoot of the Ponzo illusion):
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/3.bp.blogspot.com/albums/bb234/vurdlak8/illusions/images439.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moillusions.com/2008/09/ponzo-illusion-collection.html&h=277&w=500&sz=102&tbnid=YD3jiGXFm3l8CM:&tbnh=66&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dponzo%2Billusion%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=ponzo+illusion&usg=__puZSoR8WBxS6qx1v1BRLO61NKac=&docid=1JPTQisk3jPzxM&sa=X&ei=wsftT4TvA4Gk8QSR3omHAg&ved=0CGQQ9QEwAw&dur=1396
Your eye’s collect the information, but you have no clue your eyes are doing this until your brain interprets it. Illusions are example of the way your brain organizes information and gets it wrong. Your brain has taken reality and changed it, and because of this you don’t “see” what is real, you “see” what your brain interpreted. (I will accept that you have some understanding of this because of previous arguments mixed with what you said after this).
E G 10+
So what you're saying is that I don't ever see the real thing due to everything what exist between the thing I wanna see and the thing's image I actually get in my brain (I include here the way the brain organize the information ) . I don't have a problem with it , in fact I said it partially : I used the expression 'through me' , you filled me and I agree with you .
Now the thing that creates a bit of confusion here is , that's why I said 'not exactly' , is the moment of perception . I think you agree with me that I already perceive something before having that image in my mind , otherwise how could I collect the information from the exterior things ? :
"Your eye’s collect the information, but you have no clue your eyes are doing this until your brain interprets it." I don't have any clue until then , that's right, but it doesn't mean I don't perceive anything until then .
So I think we should talk about a chain of perceptions which culminates with that image in our brain , do you agree ?
robert hensley
I do this on purpose in showing that the word real is used for two very different things which are confused to be the same thing. (It looks like we are "on the same page” for this part, so I will move on)
“In fact the thing is that skeptics are sometimes more wrong than the simple believer who base naively maybe but sincerely his beliefs on his feelings .”
This is true, you don't have to be skeptical to be right. But, there is a difference between being right for the wrong reasons, and being right for the right reasons. Someone who believes naively may be a mixture of the two, but the skeptic (if sincere in their search and well trained (and practiced) in the scientific method) will tend toward being right for the right reason (because being right for the wrong reason is not acceptable to them). The reason why that is important comes in here:
“So the skeptics are not actually of a big help .”
The skeptics aren’t that big of a help when allowing for the perpetuation of naive beliefs. But the believer will tend to perpetuate naive beliefs (also known as ignorance) without even knowing it. (In a sense, teaching ignorance). This teaching of ignorance does happen and is only fixed by skeptics (as seen with examples like Heliocentrism, not only was the truth ignored but it was taught to be ignored, a common practice with "believers").
*edit, please don't take me for being rude or an insulting here, that is not my intention.
E G 10+
Look maybe the skeptics tend to be right for the right reasons but we are not in science here , ok ? we talk about religion , their methods is very likely to not work here in other words their methods is very likely to not provide them that 'right reasons' . So I still give more credit to a sincere believer than to a skeptic (this is our point of debate , it's good to have it all the time in our face).
So more exactly my argument against what you said is : - what makes you think that the scientific method is a good/appropriate method for religion ? ---- if it's not skeptics lose any credibility for any category of believers not only for the one we talk here (sincere and naive believers) .
robert hensley
You are mixing two things here though: the seemingly physical and the spiritual.
The first part of this statement: “Very few times happen that an unbeliever/skeptic to see more clear something about spirituality or God than a believer,” is true as long as it doesn’t affect the physical world. But as soon as it comes into the physical or observable world, it can then be tested. In the case where it can be tested, the believer tends to believe (as you said) “naively”, and the skeptic seeks for more information that would attempt to either prove or disprove the interpretation of the observation.
The second part of this statement: “be careful now : I said about God not about some stories about God. So that perception (“If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind.”) is very likely to be wrong .” is all mixed up (from my point of view)… You said, “I said about God not about some stories about God.” But then you reference the quote that is about Yahweh stories and said that this argument which is not about stories has bearing on the stories (not consistent).
As far as a belief in God goes, a skeptic really can only offer circumstantial evidence bearing on God. But, this is because there is no directly observable proof of God beyond what the believer believes. So, this is just a choice in beliefs -- a choice that the non-believer has not made and the skeptic is questioning.
(sorry about the length of all of this, I tried to keep it as short as possible)
E G 10+
I did mixed that up but I did it consistently , I referred to something else , in fact you are a bit inconsistent here , you'll see :
- a believer sees more clear about God while a skeptic do not , so a believer knows more about God , that's why he sees some stories about God different of a skeptic , in a better way maybe , so “If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind.” is wrong ; it's clearly from the context of the sentence that " Yahweh stories' have already a different meaning than that of the believer .
You said that the skeptic has what to say only about the physical , then how the skeptic could help a believer about God ? do you assume a relation between the physical and the spiritual ? what is it ? you start to not be consistent here . And it goes on :
"As far as a belief in God goes, a skeptic really can only offer circumstantial evidence bearing on God. But, this is because there is no directly observable proof of God beyond what the believer believes"
You try to argue that a skeptic can be of help to a believer about God , you already limited this help only to the physical , so I guess that that "circumstantial evidence bearing on God" are about physical ; but you said here : " there is no directly observable proof of God " in other words there is nothing physical really important (which worth to be taken seriously) about God ; so what you're talking about (not consistent) ?
" the believer tends to believe (as you said) “naively”," I didn't say it .
robert hensley
It does mean that you don’t perceive any visual stimulus until then.
“So I think we should talk about a chain of perceptions which culminates with that image in our brain , do you agree ?”
Honestly, I think our understanding of this is close enough that we don’t need to talk about it more unless the problem resurfaces in later discussions :-) But if you would like to talk about this I have studied this area with great interest and would love to talk about it more. However, it may be off topic at this point, since our understandings relevant to the topic seem to be so close to each other.
E G 10+
robert hensley
I say this because: in my culture the word “ignorance” is often used as an insult, and I wanted to make sure you knew I wasn’t using it that way (since we are not talking in person you cannot hear me speak – so I don’t know what tone you are giving my words).
“Look maybe the skeptics tend to be right for the right reasons but we are not in science here , ok ? we talk about religion…”
Granted; but, when religion tries to talk about the physical world (which it often does), such as the order of the solar system, the creation of the earth, the reason for floods and the reason for plagues (as in “the Yahweh stories”): then science is more likely to provide the right reasons.
“So more exactly my argument against what you said is : - what makes you think that the scientific method is a good/appropriate method for religion ?...”
The scientific method is used to explain the observable world. There are many parts of the observable world that religion seeks to manipulate, like the topic of this part of the discussion: “If the Yahweh stories are correct, he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind.” The fact is; the interpretations of these stories are questioned by skeptics, and since they are often not consistent with the observable world, skeptics become more skeptical and non-believers grow in greater numbers.
“So I still give more credit to a sincere believer than to a skeptic (this is our point of debate , it's good to have it all the time in our face).”
I agree, it is good to keep in mind what we are talking about. For the reasons stated above: I give more credit to the skeptic, when it comes to religion talking about the observable world -- like it does in Obey one’s post about “the Yahweh stories” with plagues, floods, disease, earthquakes, etc.
E G 10+
My time here for today is over , I can't stay any longer , anyway we seem to reach to conclusions , I wait you tomorrow . At me it's full night right now .
E G 10+
As much as I know an simple understanding of the Bible do not say that Yahweh is the direct reason for any flood or plagues or I don't what else ;
It seems we have a big problem here (related to your entire comment) : I don't give a damn on what religion says or try to do, I don't trust too much the priests or the preachers , frankly don't take this part as rude or as arrogance but I think I'm smarter than them ; if you have something from the Bible that link God directly to something you think is wrong , I'm willing to talk about that if not , I'm not . ok ?
So "religion seeks to manipulate" , "religion tries to talk about the physical world" it's not my business .
" I give more credit to the skeptic, when it comes to religion talking about the observable world" I don't have a problem with it , maybe I do like you too but don't think this is an answer to "So I still give more credit to a sincere believer than to a skeptic on God " because we don't talk about the observable world here if this isn't in direct relation with God . We talk about God , stories about Him and how could a skeptic help a believer about them . You already said that not too much ,however you still try to prove that the word of the skeptic has some importance about it , how come this ?
robert hensley
“I said about God not about some stories about God.”
I think maybe this means that you say, Obe No1kinobe is talking about God as a “bad” person/entity because of “the Yahweh stories”, and you think this is a misguided interpretation of God’s personality. Did I get this right?
If that is close to what you mean, then:
Don’t we often judge people by what they say and what they do? If a person said, “I think you guys are all evil sinners, so I’m going to kill you all.” Wouldn’t we think that this might be a bad person (or maybe a person with bad tendencies), because he is taking away the lives of others? And, I know that people say, “well he’s not a person, He’s God”. But what gives God the right to take life away? And what Kind of God would kill masses of people because he didn’t like their actions? How "good" is an entity that does this?
E G 10+
Then (to your questions) :
First, I have to say that I don't have any problem with what Obey said if that haven't a bad connotation for Yahweh .
"“I think you guys are all evil sinners, so I’m going to kill you all.” Wouldn’t we think that this might be a bad person (or maybe a person with bad tendencies), because he is taking away the lives of others? " why would we think that ? I mean , if we are all sinners , bad entirely , isn't it a good thing to stop the evil ? (by killing if this is appropriate at a certain moment of time) .
You talk as if to take the life away is always a bad thing , but it is not and if you don't prove that what God did is bad beyond the killing (when He did it ) what you asked is not rational .
But what is with this diversion from the point we talk about ? Has it something to do with what we're talking about ?
robert hensley
The relationship between the physical and the spiritual is made in “the Yahweh stories” when it talks about God causing floods and plagues (among other things), when it is known that these things are not cause by God but instead are caused through natural processes (and in fact: the degree that some believers say these events happened is not physically possible, because the earth would not still be here -- raising further questions). This is important because: At one time the weather was all thought to be caused by God, but this has since been shown to be false (by skeptics). So already the skeptics have helped some religious believers with beliefs about God that are not true.
All that we know about God is what people say were his actions, and people’s interpretations of events (actions and events that are said to have happened in the physical world). These are all highly questionable. We have already talked about the difference between what is real and what you perceive, so a persons non repeatable perception is hardly evidence. And the physical aspects have also been disproven, or are strongly questionable - like the age of the earth, the life spans of some of the humans in the bible, the weather, the cause of diseases, the order of the solar system, the creation of the earth, the creation of life on earth, etc. So, all the evidence in which a believer might bases their belief is circumstantial and highly questionable in the observable world. If you eliminate all of that, then the only thing that is left is: a belief with circumstantial evidence that can easily be explain with other methods. This might be fine for a believer, but for a skeptic it is not fine. A believer may want to look at what skeptics have provided, when they chose what they believe exists
E G 10+
It's a good reasoning but it implies some things : - that they know what the theory says , I doubt it and I resume only at your examples .
- that the theory is something they could verify by comparing it with science . I doubt it .
In other words they are entirely wrong about the theory . That's why they can't help a believer :
- The skeptic in order to help the believer needs to know the theory as well as something else , then how could the skeptic help a believer if they are likely to don't know the theory as good as the believer does ?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I don't think my opinion is void because we all have different perceptions of god.
One of the 10 commandments says god is a jealous god. There are plenty of examples that indicate god is petty and murderous in support of my argument. Some might not like that portrayal or disagree. I'd like to hear their reasons why.
I agree that it is useful to add qualifiers to opinions. I note my original statement - IF the Yahweh stories are correct, he SEEMS to be the greatest threat to humankind - was reasonably qualified.
I'd like to hear why people see Yahweh differently and how they manage the verses that claim he kills people, or about hell in the New Testament etc.
Semantics aside my essential argument is not void because people have different opinions or perceptiond. I'd like to hear how people perceive god in light of the biblical verses that enumerate god personally killing hundreds of thousands, and all the rest without number including the global flood genocide, and the threat of hell.Seems a valid position. even if it may conflict with the perceptions of others based on the God is love parts. I'd like to hear how they reconcile what is in the bible with their picture of God.
Some Christians might actually agree that God is a jealous god and hell is something to be feared and we should all take this more seriously. I'd like to hear how others manage these passages if they see things differently.
"Letting aside your feelings" you just cant help yourself. Calling my opinions feelings does not help your case it just shows your general lack of respect.
E G 10+
" I don't think my opinion is void because we all have different perceptions of god. " but you'd like to hear "why people see Yahweh differently and how they manage the verses that claim he kills people, or about hell in the New Testament " don't you ? You are not consistent here .
" I don't think my opinion is void because we all have different perceptions of god. " Yes , that's right if you talk here only about the differences that appear between perceptions , we are similar in the end but I didn't talk only about it : I also talked about an amplification of this differences in the case of atheists who are focused on the bad images of Yahweh . Did you notice that ?
"I'd like to hear how they reconcile what is in the Bible with their picture of God" here you go but be more specific .
"Calling my opinions feelings does not help your case it just shows your general lack of respect." I didn't do it .
So your opinion still may be wrong .
robert hensley
“But what is with this diversion from the point we talk about ?”
First I must say that I am constantly searching for the truth, and though I have my own beliefs, I also have the understanding that my beliefs may need to be modified in places. For this reason I am constantly analyzing my interpretations of what has been said in order to ensure that I have a full understanding. During this introspection I realized that I may not have understood what you meant when you said, “I said about God not about some stories about God.” I wanted to make sure I had clarity in my understanding, because if I misunderstood what you said then my search for truth could not complete.
“Has it something to do with what we're talking about ?”
Yes. The original post was a skeptic’s point of view on “the Yahweh stories”. This point of view included a take on good and bad by saying “threat” in the statement, “he seems to be the greatest threat to humankind." Therefore a talk about good and bad has merit (although it may offer a different degree of impact). If you agree with this merit; then I might like to explore this a little bit.
“I don't give a damn on what religion says or try to do, I don't trust too much the priests or the preachers , frankly don't take this part as rude or as arrogance but I think I'm smarter than them”
Ah, so you too are a skeptic, and so you should be. Your lack of trust implies questioning and therefore skepticism; and skepticism is the greatest path to clarity. For if one is not skeptical they may never know the truth; they will only know what they believe. Because, a believer might be right for the wrong reasons or right for the right reasons (or just plain wrong), but a skeptic seeks to only be right for the right reasons, and in turn find where he/she/it might be wrong.
robert hensley
All very sound reasoning, but this is what has been missed:
The believers are the ones that give the skeptics the theories, and through the reasoning you described above, the skeptics then seek to test these theories. After testing the theories the skeptic goes back to the believer and gives them a summary of consistencies and inconsistencies, and any conclusions that can be drawn at this point (proven, disproven, trends, and/or needs more information).
At this point one of two things happens: A) the believer seeks to explain any inconsistencies by changing or adding information; the skeptic then logs this change and any consistencies/ inconsistencies it may have with the original information. Or: B) the believer seeks to explain any inconsistencies with information that is not observable, repeatable, testable, and/or possible in the physical world. If “A” happens then the skeptic repeats the process until a summary can be made that concludes with either: proven, disproven, or “B” (along with any suggestive trends). If “B” happens: then the skeptic is able to identify the believer’s beliefs as requiring circumstantial evidence and/or impossible events, and concludes the tests.
This is where the skeptic then present the summary of “B”: the beliefs you hold have been found to be lacking physical evidence and/or requiring evidence that is not physical, and a trend may be established that the information provided is in conflict with other known information; leaving the beliefs only well founded in the beliefs them self (circular, and also normally “fine” in the mind of a believer).
robert hensley
Through the earlier discussions we have identified that this circular belief leaves the believer being possibly: right for the wrong reasons, right for the right reasons, or even just plain wrong. But, because the believer’s beliefs are circular, they will never know this unless the skeptic tells them. This is important because: they may be wrong and never know it.
In both cases the skeptic has helped them find the truth in their beliefs, but after a while there is a trend. You see the skeptic gets tired of doing all the work for the believer, and because the skeptics have done all of this work they have realized how often the believer is wrong and doesn't know it (because they lack the introspection of a skeptic). So the skeptic seeks to teach the believer how to test their own beliefs.
This is where the skeptic offers the believer a choice: they either choose to keep believing what they believe based only on the belief its self, or they choose to seek the truth in the same way that the skeptic has shown them the truth (the scientific method).
So you might ask, “well what did the skeptic offer the believer who chooses to believe based on the belief its self?” and the skeptic might say, “ …a choice, a conversation, a headache, or maybe just the confirmation of their sincerity in that: the believer believes what they believe, and that’s what they believe, because they believe it. This often gives the believer happiness and a spiritual peace.” In any case the skeptic has offered the believer something, if the believer is willing to listen.
E G 10+
Frankly I think it's time to put an end to this , this was a simple idea , too much debating about something simple is boring and I think we manage something already . And I also realized this all is not about me .
I gonna make a conclusion , you tell me if you agree with it or come up with one of your own , they shouldn't be different anyway .
So , the idea up to debate was : - a skeptic may see the things differently than a believer , that's why he could help the believer . We agreed that this help is only about the physical and can be offered only after the skeptic understand 'the theory' . We also know that this help is for some categories of believers only , I'm not in one of them . More exactly this help is for the believers who are ignorant about the physical or who are less informed about this than the skeptic is . This seems to be all .
Additionally I would say that the believers who are ignorant or less informed about the physical are so usually because they don't have that concern , because they don't care too much about that (due to a lot of reasons : from low intelligence to life's circumstances ) . This being said I think you should notice that even though theoretically the skeptic may help , practically it's almost impossible this help .
I think you noticed I said that this help is not for me .
As I said I'm willing to talk about the links you think exists between God and something wrong/bad/evil but let's finish this debate first .
robert hensley
E G 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Adriaan Braam 20+
--"I know that the conversation does not appear to have ended in some grand discovery or a new understanding."--
But it could!!
There is now a new revelation available that explains in clear terms what you have been discussing (among other things).
Whoever sees Yahweh or God or the Lord as the one ending this world is misinformed. The literal text of the Bible should not be taken literally! The literal text does not make it God's word, it is the spiritual meaning that does, fully.
There never was a flood of water, an Ark or one actual person called Adam.
In fact God made Himself a body in Mary and by using that, saved the world from self destruction, and now He is going to destroy it??
Let's get our information right and then we'll see who destroys what.
When someone thinks something or someone is going to end this earth, I totally disagree. There is someone in charge Who loves us AND this world and will protect it!
This whole book (two actually) is about God and how He governs us. Please have a look and see how it applies to our life now and in the future.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/DLW_DP.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Don Wesley 50+
Bharath Kumar Kunjibettu 10+
According to me :
Does the world need to be saved ? yes , and it is up to us .
Are we heading toward an inevitable extinction ? I don't think so .
will that be a new generation bomb ? or will it be pollution ? or will it be depletion of natural resources ? they can be threat to mankind but cannot eliminate mankind due to the technology advancements that are already going on
will the machines be our killers as it is suggested in many sci-fi stories ? I again don't feel so as there is lot of importance given to quality of machines manufactured .
To summarize , I can only say that we can build a much better world for the future generations.
Regards,
Bharath
Don Wesley 50+
Personal research over a lifetime reveals that the cost of Evil and made suffering destroys a huge percentage of our Nations wealth every single day of the year. It is Humanities biggest problem and we as individuals own the problem.
Families the foundation of our society, are destroyed daily in our family court systems.
(1) Philip Zimbardo was the leader of the notorious 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment -- and an expert witness at Abu Ghraib. His book The Lucifer Effect explores the nature of evil; now, in his new work, he studies the nature of heroism.
http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
(2) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_and_suffering.html
Speaking at TED in 1998, Rev. Billy Graham marvels at technology's power to improve lives and change the world -- but says the end of evil, suffering and death will come only
(3) In this conversation, our host Sina Elli said: “You couldn't be more articulate. YES EVIL IGNORANCE. to ignore and remain silent about things is to be a partner in crime but in today's world that ignorance is being rewarded, talking out loud costs. if only we could see how much more ignorance really cost ...
(4)What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?
http://www.ted.com/conversations/12155/what_would_you_attempt_to_do_i_1.html?c=482645
Don Wesley 50+
Hi Pat, several hours ago you asked me the following two questions and made two comments.
What percentage of TED contributors are Tea Party members?
Can you give me a few examples of this evil?
Apparently you are arguing for agreement to encourage love and kindness. Problem is that is not how it works.
I find answering those questions, add no value to what I am communicating.
And your understanding of my intent is a mis-understanding.
With Kindness
Don
pat gilbert 50+
Sincerely
Pat
Don Wesley 50+
pat gilbert 50+
Don Wesley 50+
What is your position in this argument?
Are you being funny serious or just serious?
And did you make a mistake by calling this conversation a debate, when in fact in it is an idea or a question.?
"The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?"
I now look forward to clarity.
Sina Elli 10+
I understand your concern and I am thankful for it. I hope I can bring clarity you expect by answering your questions.
This is a serious conversation.
I am being serious most of the time and add some funny points occasionally to make the course of the debate a little smoother as I find necessary.
There has not been a mistake in calling this conversation a debate as It has been one to this point.
My question "Why is the sea blue in cloudy days" serves as a proof of me watching your video to the last minute of it where Jonathan asks the audience this question without answering it.
Robert's answer I guess serves the same purpose as he addresses the hint Jonathan gives.
my second answer to the question of why the sea is blue, is my own curiosity making me google it. you see I really didn't know why the sea was blue ! and I thought many members here will also not have a clue despite our mental self image that we know and understand much (This is exactly the point Jonathan makes in your video). I thought sharing it could serve as a small shock toward understanding the fact that we do not know everything and we should be open for new ideas and seek knowledge all the time and it is one little funny point that may calm the atmosphere after the recent tensions.
please let me know if i succeeded in elaborating my point.
Don Wesley 50+
In a way you are succeeding; but,
You haven’t answered one question out of the seven you have asked. So what are we debating?
You are very intelligent and educated, not to answer, so what is your true agenda here?
You have thrown out an idea and seven questions and have made one very elegant and powerful statement as a comment, that being – “to ignore and remain silent about things is to be a partner in crime but in today's world that ignorance is being rewarded, talking out loud costs. if only we could see how much more ignorance really cost”
1) What will end the world as we know ?
2) Does the world need to be saved ?
3) Are we heading toward an inevitable extinction ?
4) will that be a new generation bomb ?
5) or will it be pollution ?
6) will it be depletion of natural resources ?
7) or will the machines be our killers as it is suggested in many sci-fi stories ?
My answer is the world as we know it now, will end, in more ways than you have questions for, unless we collaborate to fight evil. If we don’t fight it, then we become a partner in the crime as you have so wisely stated. Logic should bring us to a conclusion quickly, which requires nothing more than a one sentence answer from each commenter: “I will join and fight evil – signed [Don Wesley, From The Silent Generation - the 30's]” We need recruits and not a tea party discussion among amateur philosophers or would be military scientists.
Work to get a huge list of fighters and declared partners (in the crime happening before our eyes.) If we can’t get such a clear answer, then we all have a “mental thought problem.” We can introduce ourselves and who we are, with civility at another time, “after we have put out the fire.” If there is a need to label me, call me the old fashioned “Town Crier.” Hope for recruits who come with Love and feeling of Kindness.
robert hensley
I notice that "evil" seems to be a recurring theme for you, as it seems you have been scarred by evil and I sympathize. But if someone becomes obsessed with something they will begin to project it everywhere they go. I too might say I see "evil", in the lack of day to day critical introspection expressed in pat’s, mike’s, and your own video posted.
Emotions have a habit of blinding us sometimes. When an argument is seen as an attack it may cause the person to argue more passionately. But they will be less likely to develop a clear and deep understanding of the other person’s views; nor are they as likely to criticize their own. This very problem has perpetuated in all that we do, and is a large part of the reason we have some of the problems we have to day.
For this reason it is good to keep the debate calm and civil, at least until clarity has been achieved. Even the most educated can be wrong. What’s the quickest path to discovering the truth? I would say it is amongst people who actually want to find the truth and not just argue their point.
Look at cultural wars, some say they are fighting evil, some say they are evil. But, I say they are a lack of respect and communication. As we grow, we learn the idea of respect though out our lives. Many people learn their ideas of respect from their culture’s religion and/or their culture’s history. Not only does knowledge mold us, but so does the way we packaged and communicated it.
pat gilbert 50+
What percentage of TED contributors are Tea Party members?
Can you give me a few examples of this evil?
Apparently you are arguing for agreement to encourage love and kindness. Problem is that is not how it works.
Don Wesley 50+
Ever get frustrated trying to change someone's belief system? We now have a new clue.
A little magic explanation has revealed the trick.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_drori_on_what_we_think_we_know.html
Well done Jonathan. Maybe we will inclined to think longer before we enter a debate, or launch a comment.
Sina Elli 10+
Thank you for sharing this wonderful talk with us Don.
robert hensley
That was a good video, I hadn't seen that one before.
Sina Elli 10+
"In clear water, red and infrared wavelengths of light are mostly absorbed, while blue and green wavelengths are mostly reflected. This reflection accounts for the blue-green color of water. For this scattering effect to occur, the water must be a minimum of 10 feet (3 meters) deep."
Source: UXL Science Fact Finder, ©1998 Gale Cengage
Don Wesley 50+
Your question is extending the conversation away from being on topic.
Do you not have an arguement to make. Extending, is called "Dishonest Argument."
peter lindsay 30+
Don Wesley 50+
You mention the topic of "saving the world." Are you not misdirecting this conversation.
More details like "blue seas on cloudy days" provides more opportunity for passive agression.
You said a few hours ago "to ignore and remain silent about things is to be a partner in crime but in today's world that ignorance is being rewarded, talking out loud costs. if only we could see how much more ignorance really cost."
Sina Elli 10+
pat gilbert 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
robert hensley
Don Wesley 50+
Her lesson is a valuable one, but very different.
pat gilbert 50+
How so?
robert hensley
It really was mostly a question, the closest thing to a sea by me is the gulf of mexico lol, I'm not sure that has ever been blue :-P. I did know why the sky was blue and with that I reasoned: if the sea wasn't blue then there may be some other factors effecting it.
But, you are quite right it was far from the topic, and I'm sorry about that :-(
*edtit--btw. my argument is that people need to question things more, thinking about them critically.
Don Wesley 50+
I welcome this opportunity to improve the effectiveness our conversations. There is nothing new here but perhaps we can agree here. Since we are not together around a table, with a chairman with a gavel, it becomes most important that we discipline ourselves to limit our comments so as to stay on topic. A short [off the top of my head] example could be the following.
1) Ideas - Throw out your ideas, stories, and expect others to listen; not challenge
2) Questions – ask one not several questions and expect an answer; not a debate
3) Debate - Once you get answer to one question then move on to a debate; an argument for or against the answer.
Extending an argument is a way to avoid the argument [knowing you can't win] and is called dis-honest argument.
Frequently going off at a tangent may also be called "poor thinking habits, or a mental problem"
Examine arguments with silent critical thinking and then put your own argument on the table and let it speak for itself.
Never insult someone for advancing a carefully prepared argument.
Thank a person for their story. Avoid communication by using things like :-P
I think applying the above thoughts results in kindness and its by products.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
robert hensley
The only part that I don't agree with fully is in extensions and tangents. Sometimes these two things can be used to further explain your idea/argument.
Examples: my questions about the sea were directly off topic, but also a strong part of what I have been saying will cause our destruction (and how we need to think more critically about everything). I also talked for a moment about mental and physical addiction in another reply on this topic. But, it was used as a tool to try and help relate the idea of money as a positive reinforcement system, by first disconnecting money from material.
I am however going to copy your post onto another page for my own use, because I believe these are all good things to stay constantly aware of. Anyone who is interested in communicating with the intent of understanding and possibly solving problems would be well advised to keep these thoughts close. Very good advice, thank you.
**edit, I would also like to add to your advice: Don't feed the trolls.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Mike Robinson
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
As Sina discovered wandering though our exploration of a new and more powerful vocabulary for envisioning new geo political possibilities we covered lots of interesting ground closely related to the heart of this conversation:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/6953/occupy_a_new_vocabulary_learni.html
Sina Elli 10+
English is my fourth language and I had to look up the word "Conviviocracy" in the dictionary and then google it to make sure I really understand the concept and that's how I came up with your own conversation http://www.ted.com/conversations/6953/occupy_a_new_vocabulary_learni.html
I enjoyed surfing the comments and I was blown away to see the word "UBUNTU" there.
I love this word and the great philosophy of Ubuntu.and I think It can also be an excellent addition to this conversation.
I have used it in my video a few years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF_PT8rRjFg&feature=plcp
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
You are a marvel.
Yes inspired by fellow Tedster and favorite collaborator Jaime Lubin & a young Mexican activist named Erin from Occupy Cafe I made up that word to express a vision of something bigger than democracy and more humanely centered than capitalism and continual growth.,
I tried to add it to wictionary but a word has to be in use before it can be added.
I many ways UBUNTU is the same thing as what I meant in inventing the word "conviviocracy".
Words inadvertently get worn out and come to limit our thinking and speaking when we are looking to fresh new ways of living together and governing ourselves.. Buckminster Fuller understood this. He actually went into silence for two years before he started his famous work ..in part he was trying to understand how one poor marginalized creature's life could "belong to humanity" and serve humanity and in part he was looking for a new vocabulary to express the radically importantly different ideas he was bringing to the world through his designs. ( He was challenged by a voice just as he was about to commit suicide that said to him "What do you think you are doing? Your life doesn't belong to you. It is not yours to take. It belongs to all of humanity")
Thanks for sharing your You Tube video and its empowering message.
Don Wesley 50+
Quote " In the making of books, there is no end, and much study is weariness of the of the flesh."
The talk is Ego centered and immature and it is good to leave the distraction.
The idea of evil is older than the pyramids and is in the realm of Infinity or mystery, where the devil is wiser than we can imagine; to defeat him you must be on the side of the great architect above.
To see, hear and talk about evil is imperative.
“to ignore and remain silent about things is to be a partner in crime but in today's world that ignorance is being rewarded, talking out loud costs. if only we could see how much more ignorance really cost ... – Sina”
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Don Wesley 50+
Don
Sina Elli 10+
Don Wesley 50+
There is much to reveal and time is short, and I feel the urgent call. You can help and here is your clue, which is focused right on target. Be careful of the Devil's misdirection's, and pursue this tangent and I may return. Slam the doors on sarcasm.
“Be very, very careful what you put into that
head, because you will never, ever get it out.” - Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, 1471 - 1530
"Because they haven't understood." - The Book of Concord.
Sina, forgive me but I must not reveal in a debate; the noise of Ego's will distract, like the commotion at the city market.
robert hensley
-in 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (Heliocentrism).
-in 1633 Galileo Galilei was required to recant Heliocentrism.
In addition to being careful what you put in your head, also be careful of what you exclude.
Sina Elli 10+
Thank you for the clues, I can already see how useful they are and I understand your point that Devil uses misdirection strategy. I am pretty certain that the door must be slammed on sarcasm but I am not quite sure How. what comes to my mind is that the is no single tactic. in some cases ignoring and in some cases direct response may be effective.
I do comprehend why you do not want to reveal in public and your concern for the noise of Ego's and I am sorry about that. I can not guarantee you will not face Evil if you reveal, but it is the only way others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.
Sina Elli 10+
Your suggestion to also be careful on what we exclude reminded me of a quote that I am not sure who it is from.
" In order to be Intelligent, you need to learn one thing each day
In order to be wise you need to forget one"
Sina Elli 10+
head, because you will never, ever get it out.” - Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, 1471 - 1530
I do understand the point of this quote and it puts extra emphasis on being selective on what we choose to build our framework to see the world from.
but this quote has two parts if we dissect it scientifically.
1- Logical learning that can always be criticized, changed and replaced
2- emotional learnings that once learned can never be unlearned. and that is because of the structure of a part in brain called Amygdala which is responsible for emotional learning and decision making.
I think we should be extra careful on what we learn emotionally and choose the environment so that we will not get wrong and intense emotional feelings regarding subjects that do not require such response.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Followed by germs or an asteroid
At some stage the Sun will kill all life on Earth if we haven't moved on.
Mankind is a little sexist by the way
Sina Elli 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
To get a bit more specific, you have this intelligent ape with lots of increasingly deadly tools and plenty of animal instincts, plenty of negative emotions that can override reason, tribalism, dangerous ideas, and an ability to harm to others for different ideologies or greed, sometimes even if it hurts ourselves in the process.
On the instinctual side, beside the greed and aggression, we have evolved to a point where we put much more weight on the present than the future - recency. This stunts our ability to do what is best for the future, because we want our cake now.
We also have this economic model built on increasing consumption and population growth.
There may be things we can do to lower the risk or at least prepare for pandemics etc, Not much we can do in regards to a planet killer asteroid. But the danger we present to ourselves and each other is something we can work on.
Sina Elli 10+
I totally agree with the intelligent ape concept and the fact that we have lots of animal instincts, in fact a large part of our brain (emotion generation parts Amygdala, Limbic system) is our inheritance from our primitive ancestors. emotion is not an advanced system , it is the most efficient and fast (regarding less calculations) survival system.
"we put more weight on the present that future". this is very interesting, I have never checked the brain structure that leads to this type of thinking. I wonder if there are any studies seeking the roots of our recency favoring behavior.
Stewart Gault 30+
Mike Robinson
Sperm counts have been dropping since plastics became common... so (as I posted below) it may be only men that disappear (parthenogenesis)
Surely some mad (or very sane) scientist has been tinkering in lab on some kind of pathogen that will wipe most of us out... a karma-germ would be nice if it is going to happen!
But as for all of us going extinct, it is probable that the last blade of grass on Earth will be eaten by a human. We are pretty darned adaptable!
Sina Elli 10+
Rob Clark
Fear clouds judgement and sparks panic. I think most importantly though people need to stop living in fear and just get on with life. Worrying won't solve anything. In the end, everything has it's time.
Mike Robinson
robert hensley
This video touches one of the major problems of our economic system. With the monetary reward system you have to ask one major question, where does the money come from? Without a source of money you can't offer the reward, encouraging the search for profit in order to offer the rewards.
The problem is, not everything that needs to be done in this world maximizes profit. This leaves the world deeply involved in something that isn't directly solving the problems the world needs to solve, and in some cases it is working against solving these problems. Often we are forced to think about money before we can think about the actual problem.
Money is a major distraction, and our problems are looming as we struggle against the monetary current. We need to look more critically at the base of this system. If we continue to use it, we have to make solving the world’s problems profitable. Something is going to give, what will it be…
Sina Elli 10+
Douglas Bell
An interesting conversation. For those of us old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, the answer is still nuclear war. No new super-bombs are necessary.
But for some other ideas, not counting the variations of "human nature is our worst enemy", how about:
Asteroid impact
Volcanic super eruption
Black plague style global pandemic
Best wishes,
Doug
Sina Elli 10+
I am not old enough to remember Cuban Missile Crisis but the image I have in my mind is the one from the Terminator movie, where atomic bomb destroys the city and all the buildings and children playing the park ...
these are the direct causes but indirectly it is the kind of thinking that will lead us all to the point of self termination.
Yuri Gomez
Sina Elli 10+
robert hensley
pat gilbert 50+
robert hensley
pat gilbert 50+
robert hensley
*edit, designed is a poor choice of words on my part, but I'll leave that mistake for now.
pat gilbert 50+
On the downside of religion, lack of accountability leading to transgressions, the same for money and lack of accountability and leading to transgressions, pioused attitudes, conflict from leaders in the religion.
But there is an awful lot of good done in the name of religion volunteerism, moral code, education, nutrition, spiritual counseling (not just proselytizing), help in disasters, in the case of our country abiding by natural law, a group that helps the members.
Monetary desire on the bad side you have corruption, gambling problems, greed, selfishness, vanity, graft
Monetary desire on the good side you have a better standard of living, helping your fellows by providing a service that helps them, charity, creative problem solving, the use of logic as this with effort it what creates a better product, employee, customer, standard of living for all, research on ways to create better products, education to this end, a better educated society as they have to be to create better products, more competition, better heath care, more investment in small business to create the aforementioned, innovation, more private property (intellectual property), and a more productive people because his production is rewarded.
Bad emotions anger, fear, apathy, grief all of these do nothing but bad
Good emotions boredom, cheerfulness, enthusiasm, exhilaration, serenity, action (often seen in professional athletes) These emotions do nothing but good.
Me thinks that when it comes to critical thinking that I have to give the nod to religion, monetary desire, and emotion.
robert hensley
**edit, I feel like I need to mention that I have much debate within myself over the monetary portion.
pat gilbert 50+
One definition of sanity is the ability to determine differences, similarities, and things that are identical. If the person has a hard time telling the difference between a sandwich and a snake wouldn't you say they are way south of sane? Insane thinking is not in the same universe as critical thinking don't you think? The more a person in consumed by bad emotions the more they suffer from insane thinking. A sane person who enjoys good emotions does not have the same problem. He may suffer from fear for a split second when surprised by an eminent danger but because he is able to see differences he can react much more quickly then the person who suffers from insane thinking and has a hard time reacting to the eminent danger. And for the most part is in fear all the time.
People who are able to use good emotions are a pleasure to be around because of their ability to think rationally while people who suffer from bad emotions are not because of their inability to think rationally.
Hopefully you can see that emotions have everything to do with critical thinking?
Regarding the money thing, I would contend that there is so much propaganda from politicians and others who stand to gain from your fear of the rich that you are not using critical thinking to really look at what I'm saying regarding the free market. Clearly ever aspect of you life has been benefited by the free market every one's standard of living has been raised because of the free market. I do mean everything housing, energy, longevity, happiness, productivity, knowledge, computers, communications, etc. , etc, etc.. Somehow once in awhile a big corporation does something bad and is chastised endlessly for it, don't get me wrong there are abuses but they are miniscule in comparison to the transgressions of the government.
robert hensley
At one time fear may have saved our lives and the lives of the people around us-- it may even do this today. But, as things get more complicated you may begin to run into fears that are questionable in their justification. However, as you question fear it may lose its potency in purpose --this implies that questioning it may be in direct conflict with its perceived purpose.
If you are near an agitated snake and you question your fear this may stop you from fleeing in time to prevent getting bit (a realm of fears success). But, if you are at a sandwich shop and you become afraid of your sandwich, because it looks like a snake, and you question this fear; you may prevent an undesired social conflict (further from the realm of fears success). So, when you pull these paradigms outside of their realms of success you open your self to the even greater possibility of flaws in the paradigm.
Now, the reason why I say “even greater possibility of flaws” is in this example:
Let’s take fear again and place you near a bear. If you let fear take you over instead of thinking critically about this situation, you may cause an undesired result even in stations similar to its realm of success.
Einstein’s once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” And yet we still rely on decision making paradigms that have led us to some of the worst decisions in the history of humanity.
robert hensley
I may have done this a little bit, and I will try to address this.
Here are some of the things I don't fully agree with:
-"The more a person i(s) consumed by bad emotions the more they suffer from insane thinking. A sane person who enjoys good emotions does not have the same problem. "
-"Hopefully you can see that emotions have everything to do with critical thinking?"
I don't fully agree with these because:
Have you ever heard of the neurological disorder called “Angelman syndrome”? These people have little other than “good” emotions, and because of this they lack strong critical thinking skills in social settings. Emotion’s general effects are to inhibit or change thought into a more “primitive” nature (fundamentally not critical thinking).
I think this is what I have not previously said well:
I believe people are inherently critical thinkers, just look at children-- they explore and ask questions constantly. So, if a person who subscribes to religions, emotions, and monetary desires thinks critically; they are really just doing what comes naturally to them.
The problem comes with the further development of this natural trait. On a very fundamental basis many religions and emotions encourage people to not think critically (not in an absolute way, but I will discuss this if needed) -- in turn they try to provide answers for people with a set of predetermined actions (“fight or flight” being a good example of this for emotions). Separately, monetary desires follow the straightest path to the largest profit.
In their own realms of successes these paradigms might sometimes function well, but they do not strongly encourage critical thinking in a way that will solve the reoccurring problems these very paradigms have created throughout our history.
*edited to be more easy to read.
pat gilbert 50+
Yup logic or critical thinking is organic to human beings. Spirituality is organic to human beings the aspect of a religion that makes them angry is not organic, but most religions do not create bad emotions or illogical thought. Keep in mind that the logic of spiritual nature is not necessarily logic of the physical universe.
Humans do naturally want to work within the free market, but when the individual deviates from the free market he is no longer subject to the constant scrutiny of the customer and can get away with committing transgressions as there is no accountability as is the case with the government. But understand this only occurs when the free market is subjugated.
Absolutely not true good emotions and the people who enjoy them use critical thinking as an extension of themselves. And are the most rational trustworthy individuals you will meet. As an test of what I say I want you to think of different people you know. Think of the ones who predominately are angry do they use critical thinking? how about the ones who are fearful, in fact they are some of the least trustworthy and most dangerous. Now think of someone who is cheerful, do they use critical thinking? how about someone who is conservative do they?
Religious leaders more often than not think critically.
People who make a lot money more often than not think critically as there ability to do this makes them more money.
I will agree to disagree.
robert hensley
We are talking about different things, and without a very long debate I don’t think that we can resolve this issue. So, I’m going to address this from a different angle and have a- “we are all here together and need to work together” -moment.
Since we are talking about, “The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?” We really need to recognize that for a long time we have known (consciously or unconsciously) that we the humans are the biggest threat to our selves. As such there have been many attempts to solve this problem. Religion, emotions, and monetary desires have all been applied to this issue. But, Religion, emotions, and monetary desires cause our world problems too. So, as they have taken major “bites” out of the more basic issue of humanities threat to its self, they have their metrits. However, without adjusting their paradigms in order to further address these issues, we will only ever continue to have the same problems.
Emotions help with our passions on a given area of life. Monetary gains help us organize our societies in such a way that we can apply ourselves to fill our needs. Religion does a little bit of everything: it gives sets of moral standards, offers positive and negative reinforcement for our actions; it offers an explanation for all questions, and many other things that I’m not even going to attempt to quantify. But, like I said these systems also cater to some of the more neutral or negative side of humanity: achieving goals without thoughts of unforeseen consequences, wars, the need to feel proud (which often turns into needing to feel better than others), and so on…
robert hensley
It needs to be on people’s minds every day that emotions can guide us to a poor understanding of a situation. It needs to be engrained in our social systems that success should not come from harm to others and our world. And, the religions of our world along with the followers need to step back on a daily basis and really question if they are achieving what they truly set out to achieve.
I believe we all need to come together and treat everyone as a rightful member of this world and start asking the hard questions like: are my beliefs and actions truly for the best and why doesn’t everyone else thinks so, how could I do better, how could my belief system function better, why has my belief system failed at times, and in what areas have my beliefs not solved problems. Then, when people ask these questions they need to realize that they might not have the answers and that it might be a good idea do something different in an attempt to solve the problems-- including the possibility of answers from a different system that has shown success in these areas of failure.
In short, there needs to be a mass injection of critical thinking into many of the paradigms we know today.
pat gilbert 50+
Sina Elli 10+
I am also deviating from the main subject here just to mention something I realized. like you I had also failed in communication with Pat (I guess that can be a signal to pat which he may want to take seriously). after a series of comments I decided not to continue because it was not going anywhere and the communication were not effective or efficient anymore. I wonder if there is another way around this problem.
I also realized a pattern of Pat and Krisztian working together supporting each other in criticizing keywords over and over. I can understand that this group act makes them feel good about themselves and it is possibly a dopamine raising experience for them but that is terrorizing the main aim of the conversation.
you can see that when these two respected members participate in a conversation the course of the discussion changes from what the conversation starter intended to a series of long comments defending the meaning of words and philosophy of them.
This is not helpful, not effective and most certainly not efficient.
for Pat and Krisztian,
It is easy to self judge. just watch how other comments are replied and see how yours ends up. a similar pattern to what you do can be seen in comments of EG.
pat gilbert 50+
Give me a break, the simple truth is that I don't agree with you regarding economics and psychiatry. It happens that Kriszian is one of very few participants that understands economics which is pertinent to most of the threads that I participate in, apparently you take my pointing out the truth regarding economics as some sort of personal attack? I just don't care enough to go out of my way to criticize you.
I did coin the word psychobabblogy earlier, but when you put phrases in the conversation like "it is possibly a dopamine raising experience for them but that is terrorizing the main aim of the conversation." you invite some sarcasm.
Sina Elli 10+
Personal Attack ? definitely no but deviating course of conversation yes. I thought it would be positive to share it with yourselves. and it was not just based on my own experience but also as a third party observer. I am against the sarcastic behavior and my point is to make the conversation more productive.
pat gilbert 50+
A point of logic is that pointing out an illogical is the the very definition of humor, humor is pointing out things that don't make sense. This often seems like sarcasm.
People are not comfortable with illogics so they put a plausible answer in place of confusion. The problem with this is when the meme turns toxic as is the case with the attack on the most virtuous meme in history, the meme of freedom.
So you see there is a purpose to this, it is to point out the illogics regarding the number one threat to freedom through economics.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Sina Elli 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
no it is not a waste of time. clear conclusions can be drawn only from clear arguments. monetary means "related to money, currency". greed is not related to money, but material wealth. nobody wants money for the sake of having money. that would be fetishism. we want money because we want stuff or safety or something like that.
i'm all against this tendency to substitute buzzwords for well known terms. if you mean greed, tell greed. "monetary desire" is not a thing. it is designed to sound more profound. it also designed to prepare us for the next step toward madness, which is something like we don't need money, money is evil or we can take money from people without guilt.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i often ask questions to inspire thinking. i must admit that this has often been a failure. many times i just get a dismissive answer or scolding. what is the solution?
ps2: this comment applies to itself.
robert hensley
"if you mean greed, tell greed. "monetary desire" is not a thing. it is designed to sound more profound. it also designed to prepare us for the next step toward madness, which is something like we don't need money, money is evil or we can take money from people without guilt."
I realized you had already developed your own concept around this idea, and it must have been personal. I was not interested in trying to change your concept, I merely wanted to express the need for enhancement (which was the point of my post). However, I did feel like it was a good question to leave for thought, so that's what I did.
This is the same thing I saw with pat, he already had ideas in his head, and they were not allowing him to understand what I was saying (which was what the post was suggesting needed to be addressed, a belief introspection). I realized that his ideas were based off my broad top down approach mixed with popular views on these areas. Since I was not interested in trying to change his views on the other topic, I attempted to relay my idea in a different manner.
In a sense, both of you were suffering from the very problem I was saying needed to be addressed.
robert hensley
I don't want to pretend to have all of the answers, but I do have a suggestion on this matter. Your questioning may in some part have the intention of provoking thought, but is that the whole reason behind the question? Be honest with yourself. Each time before you use this tactic try to understand the whole reason you are asking the question, consider: that reason may need to be stated, and open your mind to the unexpected.
I hope this suggestion doesn't do more harm than good.
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
(and alas, it is not *that* far from the truth.)
robert hensley
Semantically, you could argue that money is material and therefor the same thing, but then you might miss the concept of money as a positive reinforcement system that has its own influence beyond what you might acquire once you have the money.
Rajasangeethan John
Having said all that, now we can see, mankind has created all the possibilites - politically, naturally and economically - to destroy his own race. Nature might even favor the need since it needs its own survival. At the same time, if we take the fact which I previously mentioned - "Nature keeps all its extinct species in their simple forms" - we can say not the entire mankind would fall extinct. There'd be a little amount of population that might survive the danger.
And this population would have survived the extinct because they might have reached the next step of evolution, may be by learning from mistakes or by totally understanding the social structure by it's original value, which is that a human needs another human, another living being and the whole system of nature for his own survival.
If you wonder, how that big evolution step could be, I'd like to give you all a hint which might ignite your answer or exploration towards the answer. There were and are a lot of philosophers and people like Nietzche, Jesus, Buddha who attempted, said and searched for one simple idea by identifying the need for it.. NEW MAN.... :)
Sina Elli 10+
and you have a beautiful way of putting it that doubles the effect.
we are all talking about the concept of NEW MAN without knowing it. all the talks we have on the NEW WORLD indirectly includes the emergence of a NEW MAN that either creates or lives in it.
I would rather survive the possible self-termination of mankind and not continue life as happy monkeys under the moonlight by the seashore as Mike suggests and instead be sophisticated enough to solve communication conflicts. Isn't it possible ?
Rajasangeethan John
As all species live in different groups, Homosapiens too happened to live in various groups for different reasons. Particularly, in anthropological view the blood lineage became an important reason to facilitate legal sexual bonds to produce legitimate heirs who can be accounted to the society unit. And we all know what this has turned into. Groups became castes, religions and then they became business enterprises wanting more consumers and so created God as product. Naturally as the number of groups increased, the conflicts between them increased creating invasions, countries, so on and so forth.
What a man needs basically and why he needs it? Happiness? If we can bifurcate this idea, as they say, being happy is an art. The beauty of truth is that it is so simple to understand but man's preconclusive nature is making this realisation to be very far from understanding.
As long as we give the reason to be happy to others or tools, we not gonna achieve it, since they or those tools doesn't have the necessity to make us happy anyways. We fail to understand that those people or tools actually become separate entities which in turn create goals, ideas for their own survival.
For an animal, to be in group, is a factor of convenience. But if it happens to be alone it's got its own instinct to survive. But for man, living in group, is a factor of necessity. If he happens to be alone, he won't survive. Because his instinct of survival is directly proportional to his interaction with society. The problem is when man uses this necessity for his convenience.
Rajasangeethan John
So now humans are in a juncture where they have to choose either the subconscious mind or the conscious mind to take upper hand. In a way, they have to annihilate any of these two. Eliminating the conscious mind would retain us as animals. Eliminating the subconscious mind would take us to the next step of evolution.
Seeing the world's condition we can say what we seeing is the lust for winning. This lust for winning could be for fame, money or identity. This demolishes the purpose of nature in evoluting man to a completely different form giving the responsibility of his own survival by cutting off from the previous nodes, leading to completely a new tree of evolution. That's the NEW MAN.
Man has succeeded a little in this purpose by forming a society with relations and values. But he failed miserably in taking this to next level. He's having the animal instinct of looking for his own survival instead of looking for the whole mankind's survival.
Rajasangeethan John
A society where the man's living is to help other men and where the man's happiness has become intuitive would be the New Society and that man would be the New Man.
Rajasangeethan John
As we have seen in the evolution, evidently nature hasn't extincted any species completely. If we say, dinosaurs are extincted, we still can see nature retaining that species in its simple forms like crocodiles, lizards etc. Nature has always designed its models in such a way that the model itself would be the reason for its survival or its end which depends upon the way it survives. Thus man becomes the sole responsibility for his extinction.
The next step of evolution ? That's a big question with a lot of answers or I'd say speculations. If I may add one :)
The next step of evolution might not occur physically but mentally, which are the ways a brain could relate and evolve the social relations. We all know the occurrence of Homosapiens needed various forms to be tested like Neanderthals for instance. Homosapiens survived because of one factor which is his ability to adopt. He had the ability to form a social structure of his kind which doesn't rely on nature completely for its survival as the other species does. So if we speculate, with the fact that Homosapiens managed to survive such long years after going through various branches of the species tree, we can derive that Nature's purpose of evoluting Homosapiens through the various branches of species tree is to make him consume his brain for his survival.
To be continued....
Mike Robinson
Sina Elli 10+
do you see our prefrontal cortex complexity, paradoxically in the way of our evolution ?
I mean the second type of evolution that R John meant which is mentally ?
Mike Robinson
Call this theory a possibility that remains unproven but shouldn't be discounted! The jury is out on whether a big brain will be a longterm positive adaptive trait.
Personally I think our brains evolved as one of many animal experiments intended to get bacteria into space and onto other host-worlds but that is another topic.
Sina Elli 10+
I find your theory of how we got here and how we have evolved (ET experiments) very probable since we find amino acids in meteors.
regarding your sexual selection theory I must add that it has not always been the smartest ones getting the females but the strongest ones ... and perhaps in the long run as Richard Dawkins suggests the most fit ones ...
I think John Nash's theory will be interesting to you and may add or extend your sexual selection theory. "If we all go for the blond ..."
Mike Robinson
When the Alpha Arses and their Beta Boys go over to the next valley to thump some heads and steal a few mates they sometimes run into resistance and don't return. That leaves a village full of ladies for the Gamma Guys and Delta Dudes to procreate with... thus leading to a world full of "average" folks.
I'll check out John Nash... cheers M
Sina Elli 10+
I do not agree that alpha males failed to mate and naturally pushed out of the gene pool simply observing the wolf packs in which the strongest (Alpha) is the only one allowed to mate with the alpha female and the rest of female wolves.
reading about wolves I realized the Alpha is not necessarily the strongest but also the most intelligent as wolves like other animals do engage in a psychologic mental war before being physical. the intelligent one often knows this game better than the rest. wolves also send their Omega to battles in which they know they will not survive! that may be the case with humans also.
where alphas and beta will not survive because of resistance, Gammas and Deltas will not survive because of the attack of other tribes therefore the balance and the survival of the fittest remains true.
BUT having had your experience with the alpha males in work environment and watching the female behavior toward them, I can confirm your theory of sexual selection that they are the winners in the short run (in human case that does not lead to reproduction because they are dysfunctional in their relationships as well) and in the long run it is still the most intelligent that gets the female (and that leads to reproduction). !
therefore we must be heading toward a more intelligent society even if we are now bunch of "average" folks.
Cordially, Sina
Mike Robinson
I am not sure wolves are the best example to use when discussing parallel social groups. Better perhaps are chimpanzees, where the Alpha gets first opportunity, then the Betas, while those lower in the social order seems to have more success with clandestine affairs off in the bushes with adventurous females often from neighbouring clans.
Also I wasn't suggesting Alpha males fail to mate, just that they don't mate with any more frequency than the rest of us, suggesting that strength has only limited practical applications in reproduction of homo sapiens. In many other animals it seems to be the final arbitrator, though careful observation often reveals that opportunity, luck and initiative can play a part as well.
Yes back to the subject! Thanks for your great moderation on this forum. Best I have encountered!
Avdhessh Arya
Sina Elli 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
If the selfish gene was all there was to evolution, then we would be hard pressed to avoid a technological self-destruction. But Carl Sagan warned us about it, and he was not alone. There will be those who will seek to run the earth to its demise. But there are those who see past the fallacy of self deception. Good always triumphs over evil. Although many may be lost in the years to come, some will rise to the occasion, believing that we are not alone. In the sci-fi story "The Day the Earth Stood Still", the professor stated, we are on the precipice of self-destruction. This is what forces change.
Over two thousand years ago, the Mayans adopted a calendar, long before the principles of modern technology or evolution were known, long before the telescope was invented, long before modern cosmology came into view. Yet, according to this same calendar, we are right where we should be. Whatever power gave them their knowledge is still out there. I believe that that same power will get us through this.
Sina Elli 10+
It is not irrational to think of ET and in fact statistically there has to be millions of life forms out there that we do not know anything about. universe is very old (relative to earth) and what has been there before, what is and what will be is something out of our grasp today. but it is interesting to think about your suggestion. "I have seen the movie "The day the earth stood still" and that gave me an idea of what you have in mind.
pranoy sundar 20+
we are definitely not heading towards an extinction, we will find a way to cope with all existing threats, like pollution and depletion of natural resources, soon. modern humans was here only for about 200,000 years, ain't that a too short time period for a species like us to be extinct from this planet?
Sina Elli 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html