Jump to content

Mitsurugi

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mitsurugi

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. The more religions interfers with Science the less I see these people as really smart. They may be smart given in a specific rigid context like a school for example but if I tell them that their religious texts show nothing but incoherence, contradictions, and no verfiable proof that a aboslute all powerful being wrote it and they deny it then your grounding of what you believe is going to be skewed in many vital ways. In this sense, I don't consider them smart because they are stopping the use of critical thought and limiting the study of the natural world and the only world we know of at the present momment for billions of years. Take for example, Francis Collins who has a position of authority in science where he can approve or disaprove a study. If there is some new evidence of evolution that needs research that needs to be approved by Mr.Collins and he denies it because of his creationist ideas then this is where I have to draw the line between intelligence and pure stupidity and ignorance. The saddest thing is that this happens all the time in universities, governments, and etc. And no one ever notices because it's hard to see it on the surface.
  2. I say you are wrong. There are universal morals. And there are always exceptions. If I go out and kill the mother of a baby elephant, the baby elephant will attack me voraciously. So to some degree it understands killing it's mother is wrong. Even our Paleolithic ancestors had this sense of morals ingrained in us. We wouldn't kill the best hunter gatherer because we needed him for food. We didn't just kill eachother recklessly, we killed people from other tribes but often not one another. There is some universal morals that are just in all of our consciousness. The exceptions often become with those who have mental illness.
  3. This is falling a little bit into Philosophy. But to answer your question, you have to use the golden rule (Treat people how you would like to be treated.) and the platinum rule (Treat people how they would like to be treated). But since you say you are a horrible person, the rules can become skewed. Just remember, as far as science knows in a psychical sense, this life is the only life that is assured at this momment. It is the only somewhat true state of time, the present. And to waste it on self-pity due to comparison from society and others seems like a waste of time. Go out, travel, write, read, eat, have fun in the present!!! Because one day we will die.
  4. I doubt there is a soul. We tend to look at the world from the inside looking out. When in reality seems to work from the outside looking at us.
  5. It will most likely desensitize men and women to the extreme. As I am already seeing with all these dating apps emerging and general interactions between my friends and women. The love concept of it may also dimish since when the person you are dating isn't like the people you see in porn, you can easily go to a dating app and choose someone better. Well this is generally true for women mostly.
  6. I like this. Also Bite Sized Psyche is a one of my top 3 science channels. Nice compressed psychological studies and observations summarized nicely.
  7. I'm not sure if there are any scientific reasons for not having a girlfriend since from a animal kingdom view....we need mates to carry on our genes onto the next generation and as all animals strive to do. I think I once heard there are scientific beneifts for not having a mate such as lower cortisol and longer longevity and other factors but I'm much too lazy to look into it haha. This is something that has eveolved to become subjective for humans, probably as a affect of our growth of intelligence.
  8. I've come to one conclusion that you can kill the person but you can't kill the spirit. Just like the church tried to burn all of Copernicus'ses (Not sure how to spell it.) book copies of Helocentricity and many other great works of Science. Copernicus was not the first come up with the idea of Heilocentricity, it was actually Aristarchus in 280AD; Copernicus was the first to try to prove it mathematically. Anyway I digress. (I mean spirit in purely ideological belief.)
  9. I don't feel bad and I don't understand why we are arguing this? I did state my points under a obvious context of war and the current modern situation of these countries. You have put some thoughts into the thread but you keep putting me along with them or so my logic. My logic may have seemed bad to you ok, I understand but it was according to the context base. To try to belittle the Muslims statisic with only one point of Christiain extermism be it, a point where a man SAYS he WILL glady be a slave to God is not really any good to me. I'd rather like to see actually proove it. You can't switch out Christain extermists and Muslim extremists when there are metrics for the latter. I don't want you to agree but I want you to undetstand what was my intent.
  10. You seem to miscontrue my logic and take it as something absolute and out of my context. You failed to notice I said "if" in my extremist statistic. If there where Christian extremists then we would have people who believe in slavery and the stoning of people who commit adultery and heretics. Which in the modern day, have no evidence of which happening unlike with Muslim extremists. I mention bombing because it was the topic being discussed about in the podcast. Bombing people is also the quickest way to kill a large group of people fairly quickly. But I am not confining you into only on the topic of bombing. If you have read the other posts, this is a developing conversation. At the time bombing was the only topic being discussed and I therefore thought it needed to be expanded on and discussed more thoroughly and therefore made this thread. I see a trend of you attacking me instead of giving thought to the idea. If offended or confused you before sneaky, I'm sorry.
  11. Nice frozen picture . The last part was just to add a fragment to the argument of thinking ISIS is not a threat as we are constantly being told in America. Not trying to go anywhere with it but it is something I think people should be aware of. But as another poster previously said, do we bomb the ideas out of people or do we bomb the people in power of these ideas? It does seen pragmatic in terms of defense to bomb these people. But in terms of ethics, I think it is sad that there is no other way to solve our indifferences. It is somewhat due to a failure to communicate.
  12. I would prefer categorically. But it's up to you. I just want to hear out everyones answer on this. It intrests me.
  13. I was listening to the Sam Harris podcast and he had on Jocko Willink and they brought up a really good point that I believe is understated and unoticed often when talking about the effectiveness of war. Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people. Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up. Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them. Then he made the brief link that radical extremists Muslims are in some sense in the same group of bad ideas. Jacko then said that "How do we stop ISIS without war? Do we invite them to formal debates and rationalize with them?". So in the end, we are left in this grey area between war and peace. So my main question is...How do we deal with these radicals like ISIS in an ethical matter? And do you believe we have to resort to bombing once again? Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 15 million Muslims are of subjective question.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.