reply
- Feature
- Like
Actually enjoying life and embracing each other to enjoy life as well. Enjoying life= do what makes you happy
reply
- Feature
- 1
- Like
Honestly? I don't know how much trouble this will get me into, but I think we'd become very sexual. The two things that drive change in ourselves and on a large scale more than anything are 1) fighting for our religious beliefs or core values, and 2) our desire to procreate with desirable mates. Without religion to argue over anymore, our sole motivation in life would become sex, which would lead to a tremendous boom in the population, which we probably don't need...actually, we definitely don't need it, so let's keep arguing about religion!
reply
be free ..
- Feature
- Like
be free ..
When you see religions and believe systems are used to keep us all fighting with each other.
You will see who the puppeteers are, that have taken our freedoms way..
Then you will feel a little silly to have played in their game.
reply
- Feature
- 1
- Like
I agree -- removing barriers to certain scientific research would be a great benefit. But we would still have economic struggles over the distribution of resources (I am not saying scarce resources, because I don't know if there is actually not enough to go around), such as the extent to which the rich should be taxed in order to support the poor. This is mostly not a matter of science, as supply side economists believe, so it becomes a moral question. Would government be willing to provide services now provided by religious institutions? So I think there would still be conflict. It would be great if people got along better because of the lack of religious differences, but then there are cultural differences and others. Would scientific explanations of phenomena be enough for most people? I don't know. People would fear death and would have to accept the fact that chance plays a role in suffering from a tsunami, catastrophic illness, etc. They would have to make sacrifices in order to avoid cataclysmic climate change.
reply
Excerpted from previous literary meanderings:
- Feature
- 2
- Like
Excerpted from previous literary meanderings:
"But what about finding The Meaning of Life? No, no, goddamn it! It’s too much and we know it. Why the f*ck would you want to know the Meaning of Life anyway? And what would you do with the information once you got it? Seriously, if you discovered the Meaning of Life on Tuesday, what would you do on Wednesday? Go bowling? (“I’ve achieved Nirvana, clearly defined a path to Satori, had an all-day meeting with Shiva, but I still can’t pick up a seven-ten split!”)"
The answer is clear: go bowling.
reply
The only things that I can think of regarding the matter are things like stem cell research. Most of the push-back stems from the religious right. I think there could be great medicinal advances if people would just give it a go. I see no problem whatsoever with helping someone recover from a spinal injury, however cloning weirds me out. Christian or not, I don't like it (but that's a completely different argument).
- Feature
- Like
The only things that I can think of regarding the matter are things like stem cell research. Most of the push-back stems from the religious right. I think there could be great medicinal advances if people would just give it a go. I see no problem whatsoever with helping someone recover from a spinal injury, however cloning weirds me out. Christian or not, I don't like it (but that's a completely different argument).
As far as space goes, we're kind of limited. To my knowledge I don't think there's a whole lot of push-back from theists on space exploration and the like.
And regarding evolution thought in schools... I think that if that's the leading theory, then go for it. I was mature enough to set my personal beliefs aside and lean what I was required to learn. And I honestly can't remember creation being taught in in any science class of mine (at any level) and I grew up in po-dunk Lawrenceville, GA.
I mean, up until recently, light was thought to be the fastest unit of measurement in the universe... no evidence suggests that neutrinos may travel faster than light. And that's probably gonna flip the world of physics on it's head. If this is the case, then Einstein was wrong. Big deal... it doesn't mean he was a bad scientist, he did the best he could with what he had to work with. Same thing with Darwin-- as of now, evolution seems to be the leading theory, if sometime in the future it turns out to be something different, big whoop. He was still a brilliant scientist and we can still learn from it.
reply
In the presence of default Human nature, we would find something else outside of "this religious business to fight about ". History can be a shackle if we don't cut to the root cause and not get hung up on the various symptoms or costumes it might be wearing.
- Feature
- Like
In the presence of default Human nature, we would find something else outside of "this religious business to fight about ". History can be a shackle if we don't cut to the root cause and not get hung up on the various symptoms or costumes it might be wearing.
Fortunately, there are other options open to us . . . should we wish it.
reply
- Feature
- Like
In a hypothetical realm where religious process, political correctness and a the driving mindset of personal glorification do not exist, the human race might, in fact, be much further along than it is now. If you think about it, technological, societal and scientific advancement are stunted by the three aforementioned causes. So as an answer to your question, "What would we do next?", I claim that the human race would experience a whole new level of cohesion in the purest form of communism. Granted, your question outlines a perfect world that, to some, was destroyed a long time ago.
reply
One more obstacle to actual scientific education will be removed -- either that or fact dictated from the imagination of leadership -- depending on who won. We have examples of societies where this religious business was settled in favor of religion. When religion has gotten its way without resistance, we see human rights traded away without the least bit of compassion.
- Feature
- 1
- Like
One more obstacle to actual scientific education will be removed -- either that or fact dictated from the imagination of leadership -- depending on who won. We have examples of societies where this religious business was settled in favor of religion. When religion has gotten its way without resistance, we see human rights traded away without the least bit of compassion.
A huge billion dollar fleecing business can finally be shut down, relegated to the same shelves as Nigerian scams -- or perhaps that fleecing business will have required participation, with its opponents put to death -- much like what has happened before in history. Again, this depends on who won.
reply
- Feature
- 1
- Like
Wouldn't it be better to let people believe what they want to believe and quit arguing about it? How great would it be if everyone accepted people for who they are? Sadly, I don't see this ever happening.
reply
- Feature
- Like
this is a good question. I'll have to think about it though. Right now I'm thinking that let say Hitler and Stalin weren't particularly caused by religion more than racism, but there's probably a lot more involved than that.
reply
- Feature
- Like
We'd find some other bullshit to argue about. I feel like religious arguments aren't usually truly about the religion. Just you being a faggy booksmart atheist and me being a creepy boy hungry christsian. It's not our differences that make us pissed at each other, it's the presence of differences. Just the fact that you disagree with some people pisses them off. I guess people would be smarter as the average atheist's IQ is higher than the average theist but smart people can be arguementative douchebags too.
reply
it would have to involve a fairly substantial rise in the general level of intelligence of a majority - and a massive majority at that - of the world population, to ameliorate the base instincts that give rise the the religious imperative...
- Feature
- Like
it would have to involve a fairly substantial rise in the general level of intelligence of a majority - and a massive majority at that - of the world population, to ameliorate the base instincts that give rise the the religious imperative...
but given that happening, in a fantasy very quick fashion - the by products of that fast track evolution would include astonishing rational solutions to perennial problems to do with the defensive mindset that springs naturally from the same base part of the mind.
This could mean that we are all debating the ways in which the now totally civilised world works on making an assured protected planet with battery and solar power used to successfully manage the world environment,
population growth would be under control via the education and economic development of the under developed nations (as Hans Rosling demonstrates)
And we could realistically look at using the newly developed nano-technology to extend healthy lives beyond the natural 120 year limit so recently established as a norm. - we could also use the knowledge gained from the fast track advancement of human knowledge, to begin as serious space probe mission at near light speed with deep hibernation as per the sci-fi ideas....
In thereby discovering the existence of other intelligent life-forms we may cement the new knowledge base into an even more elevated sphere that would - as one of its many happy by-products, effectively eliminate the human trend to make fear and pattern making primal instincts behave in such a way as to create any new religions...
at the same time, the exploration of the powers of the human mind may lead to a new spiritual way of looking at ourselves as one pseudo-organism (much like an ant colony) where individual consciousness is enhanced a hundred fold by the waking awareness of the "hive-mind"
in fact - if we hadn't been such base, possessive, religion-creating morons back in the last 2 millennia - we might be there right now...
reply
- Feature
- Like
