Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bullets kill. Pretty sure running around throwing bullets isn't going to injure someone. That is literally the purpose of a gun, to kill.
Point being, we don’t ban guns or alcohol because some persons harm themselves (or others) relative to such. It’s not as if the purpose of religion is to harm; rather, it provides a basis for morality and behaviors in those who believe as well as create a structure of community and connection, particularly relative to the charitable contribution/economic value as I mentioned previously.
As such, why remove/fight against the social unity, stability and/or personal motivation (as long as a wall remains). From my perspective, it’s foolish; time is far better spent fighting the religious right politically.
Point being, we don’t ban guns or alcohol because some persons harm themselves (or others) relative to such. It’s not as if the purpose of religion is to harm; rather, it provides a basis for morality and behaviors in those who believe as well as create a structure of community and connection, particularly relative to the charitable contribution/economic value as I mentioned previously.
As such, why remove/fight against the social unity, stability and/or personal motivation (as long as a wall remains). From my perspective, it’s foolish; time is far better spent fighting the religious right politically.
view expressed above is a sensible response and reflects wisdom
Religion is a concept; it can’t control anyone. This is similar to believing guns kill when, in actuality, it’s a (small) percentage of persons behind a gun that are the problem. Hence the reason for laws and formal means of social control.
Actually religion IS very much like a gun. Guns make for an easier and more convenient method to kill people.
And religion makes for an easier and more convenient way to control them and separate them from their money.
To quote Carlin...."Invisible man who lives in the sky" and so on.
I am no more pessimistic today - or, to put it another way, I was no more optimistic ten or twenty years ago - about the human animal [this is a descripotive term, not a disparagement]. We are the exact same biological organisms today that we were then; indeed, that we were 100 or 1000 years ago. The lynchers, the genociders, the slavers, the with-burners, these beings were us. And their presence, current and past, was clear a decade or two ago. We in Minnesota are the same animals as Texans, the volunteer at a local food shelter is the same animal as the Taliban throwing acid in the face of a young female student. I see no more reason to throw up my hands in futility today than someone in Berlin in 1945 or in Salem in 1692. More to the point, I don't see why my view of 2023 today should cause more pessimism in me than my view ten years ago of the ruin that was 1945 should have cause me then to dismiss humanity.
The only changes are the social ripples that come and go, as they always have. A surge here, an ebb tide there. The veneer gets thicker as time goes on, but of course there are periodic regressions. But this has always been the case.
Honestly, it all seems rather self-absorbed to me to think that the challenges of today - which are certainly real and disheartening - are somehow more profound than the challenges of yesterday. I'm a vampire bat, surrounded by the same types of vampire bats I always have been. Some share blood, some don't. What I do think is that some of the aging vampire bats tend to despair that the changes they once hoped for won't come while they're still around, and so dismiss the worth of pursuing those changes as no longer worth the effort because they won't be around to see it. But change for the better has no end. There is always another goal. There are always regressions, either primarily or on the edges than blunt progress or even negate it in the two-steps-forward-one-step-back cycle. It's a myopia that is not unlike that in those who game the system without all the pretense of care and despair.
Except that we are now reaching multiple tipping points. Incremental improvements won't cut it anymore.
Mind you, "the end of life as we know it" doesn't happen all of a sudden, even with multiple tipping points. It happens, from any one person's perspective, gradually ... not in a way that would make a dramatic Hollywood movie. So we sit here in 2023, getting used to cities burning to the ground, choking on Canadian wildfire smoke, long covid, 110F water temps off the coast of FL killing off the coral reefs, the return of <<cut>>, and a bunch of other things, incorporate it into our new normal ... and move on. What will we consider normal in 2033? 2043?
I do of course realize every old geezer since the dawn of man becomes convinced the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But we could always counter with some form of "good ultimately wins" narrative that is now starting to look kind of wan.
If I'm wrong, I'll be delighted; I'm just not counting on it.
Last edited by mensaguy; 09-05-2023 at 05:53 AM..
Reason: Forum rule violation
Except that we are now reaching multiple tipping points. Incremental improvements won't cut it anymore.
Mind you, "the end of life as we know it" doesn't happen all of a sudden, even with multiple tipping points. It happens, from any one person's perspective, gradually ... not in a way that would make a dramatic Hollywood movie. So we sit here in 2023, getting used to cities burning to the ground, choking on Canadian wildfire smoke, long covid, 110F water temps off the coast of FL killing off the coral reefs, the return of <<cut>>, and a bunch of other things, incorporate it into our new normal ... and move on. What will we consider normal in 2033? 2043?
I do of course realize every old geezer since the dawn of man becomes convinced the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But we could always counter with some form of "good ultimately wins" narrative that is now starting to look kind of wan.
If I'm wrong, I'll be delighted; I'm just not counting on it.
Who knows.
But I'm one of those people who believe that while trends are "ever upwards", it's still 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Right now we're in a step back. I believe this too shall pass.
Last edited by mensaguy; 09-05-2023 at 05:54 AM..
Reason: Quoted post edited.
But I'm one of those people who believe that while trends are "ever upwards", it's still 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Right now we're in a step back. I believe this too shall pass.
We need several deus ex machinas (deux ex machinae??) right about now for it to pass.
Except that we are now reaching multiple tipping points. Incremental improvements won't cut it anymore.
Mind you, "the end of life as we know it" doesn't happen all of a sudden, even with multiple tipping points. It happens, from any one person's perspective, gradually ... not in a way that would make a dramatic Hollywood movie. So we sit here in 2023, getting used to cities burning to the ground, choking on Canadian wildfire smoke, long covid, 110F water temps off the coast of FL killing off the coral reefs, the return of <<cut>>, and a bunch of other things, incorporate it into our new normal ... and move on. What will we consider normal in 2033? 2043?
It’s pretty scary how fast AGW is happening. Twenty years ago it was barely noticeable (to me). Now, it’s frighteningly obvious. Worse, we do not have economical alternatives to fossil fuels. So we are stuck. Humanity is in a runaway car headed toward a cliff, with no way to disable the engine.
Last edited by mensaguy; 09-05-2023 at 05:56 AM..
Reason: Quoted post edited
Point being, we don’t ban guns or alcohol because some persons harm themselves (or others) relative to such. It’s not as if the purpose of religion is to harm; rather, it provides a basis for morality and behaviors in those who believe as well as create a structure of community and connection, particularly relative to the charitable contribution/economic value as I mentioned previously.
Morality is a human thing, not religious. Religions adopt the morality of a culture at a certain time, that is why we no longer follow OT morality.
You are correct about creating community and connection, but the idea about charity is dubious when one looks at the whole picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
As such, why remove/fight against the social unity, stability and/or personal motivation (as long as a wall remains). From my perspective, it’s foolish; time is far better spent fighting the religious right politically.
Who is fighting to remove religion? Most posters here have said the opposite, they are against the bad side of religion, including the political right wing. You appear to be attacking others for something you agree is a good thing.
Point being, we don’t ban guns or alcohol because some persons harm themselves (or others) relative to such. It’s not as if the purpose of religion is to harm; rather, it provides a basis for morality and behaviors in those who believe as well as create a structure of community and connection, particularly relative to the charitable contribution/economic value as I mentioned previously.
As such, why remove/fight against the social unity, stability and/or personal motivation (as long as a wall remains). From my perspective, it’s foolish; time is far better spent fighting the religious right politically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Morality is a human thing, not religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You are correct about creating community and connection, but the idea about charity is dubious when one looks at the whole picture.
I clearly stated religion provides a basis for morality and behavior in those who believe. I agree it isn’t necessary to establish such, but the reality is some folks are full of anger/opposition and have the inability to find a moral backbone (or give anything) sans the concept the world is keeping score, so to speak, or it’s relative to an end-goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You appear to be attacking others for something you agree is a good thing.
How am I attacking anyone by expressing my opinion (or disagreeing), especially when I’m quoted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
