Poll: Should we strive to eliminate culture?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
19
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    Has that happened a lot to you? I find from personal experience it's similar to learning a language. Once you understand it then you can also translate and find equivalents in yours. That's why a purely material and analytic approach won't work well.



    Science and education alone only works for a limited group of religious people but will filter out others. Those using religion as foundation for a materialist view and way of life that is. You'll need to speak the language of psychology and philosophy to get anywhere with the rest. But as long as we have not explained the universe, the time before it and the reason for existence we will have to live with the fact that religions will exist. In the near future you will only manage to diminish its importance on all aspects of life over time in your country but it may happen on global scale as well...in a few millennia.
    I really have a simple belief, I live my life in accordance with that which is most likely true. Religion doesn't offer me this, thus I don't subscribe to religion. And just because science can't answer all the questions doesn't mean I get to make up my own rules. When science doesn't have an answer, you go with what science does know and you make a prediction based on those scientific facts. That way ensures that you are making the most correct possible decision. I'm also more comfortably with saying "I don't know" rather than "X did it" which is just sheer arrogance.

    I believe some people can be reasoned with & others can be ridiculed, to change their views. Both methods work.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  2. #162
    No. How could you even ask such a thing? That is how dystopias are ran. I do think it is a good idea for everyone to learn a single language, but not eliminate the other languages just because everyone doesn't speak them. And culture and religion? Why? Because they are "dangerous" to the "progression" of the human race? Bullshit.

    I like my culture and my religion, and I think I'll keep them.

  3. #163
    Stupid concept. People are not solitary animals no matter what the emo goth in your highschool stairway tell you. Take people, place them in proximity and they will tend to gravitate toward organized groups. Take organized groups and put them together and they tend to gravitate toward communities. Etc, etc, etc.

    Countries are just organized groups of people wherein the majority seek security, power and stability in comparison to the country next to them. You will always have splintering, you will always have divisiveness and fragmentation of the majority. You will never attain this scientific technocracy you so desperately wish to have because at the end of the day even science the golden child of these discussions is based on the concept of splintering from the majority. As long as people seek to be better then everyone not themselves, you cannot have peace.

  4. #164
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    I really have a simple belief, I live my life in accordance with that which is most likely true. Religion doesn't offer me this, thus I don't subscribe to religion. And just because science can't answer all the questions doesn't mean I get to make up my own rules. When science doesn't have an answer, you go with what science does know and you make a prediction based on those scientific facts. That way ensures that you are making the most correct possible decision. I'm also more comfortably with saying "I don't know" rather than "X did it" which is just sheer arrogance.

    I believe some people can be reasoned with & others can be ridiculed, to change their views. Both methods work.
    See, and not all religions/denominations are about contesting science. For many religion is a transcendental concept rather than a material concept - ways of life are changing, science is changing but yet you will find religions or denominations of it which have been pretty much unchanged and who only may have to change little at all in future. So all in all I still believe your target is merely the one trying still to convey the universe is 6,000 years old who may or may not be convinced with facts but those who already acknowledged those facts long time ago and still continue to practise their faith are hardly worth your time as they are not competing with you and are out of your league.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    See, and not all religions/denominations are about contesting science. For many religion is a transcendental concept rather than a material concept - ways of life are changing, science is changing but yet you will find religions or denominations of it which have been pretty much unchanged and who only may have to change little at all in future. So all in all I still believe your target is merely the one trying still to convey the universe is 6,000 years old who may or may not be convinced with facts but those who already acknowledged those facts long time ago and still continue to practise their faith are hardly worth your time as they are not competing with you and are out of your league.
    This is actually my biggest worry. I want to live in a world were we make decisions based on that this is our only life, and that it is a valuable life we have. That our actions will have consequences, and that we can measure those actions to be good and/or bad and take responsibility for them. So those kind of people are very much my "targets".

    Some people are almost impossible to get through, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.
    Last edited by Dezerte; 2013-06-14 at 03:20 PM.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  6. #166
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    This is actually my biggest worry. I want to live in a world were we make decisions based on that this is our only life, and that it is a valuable life we have. That our actions will have consequences, and that we can measure those actions to be good and/or bad and take responsibility for them. So those kind of people are very much my "targets".

    Some people are almost impossible to get through, but that doesn't mean we should give up discussing.
    So you oppose YOLO as well? Transcendental does not mean to waste one's life, ignore consequences and don't enjoy life at all or make other's lives miserable. On the contrary. The extreme factions would like to do that yes, and that's actually going back to material mode. They are pretty much your targets and rightly so but otherwise it is pretty much supplemental and not substitutional.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    So you oppose YOLO as well? Transcendental does not mean to waste one's life, ignore consequences and don't enjoy life at all or make other's lives miserable. On the contrary. The extreme factions would like to do that yes, and that's actually going back to material mode. They are pretty much your targets and rightly so but otherwise it is pretty much supplemental and not substitutional.
    All religious people are my "targets", the more extreme ones are of course of bigger concern, but nonetheless, all religious people are my "targets". If these people lived in a vacuum where they couldn't affect anyone, I'd have no problems with whatever belief they have. But since none of us live a vacuum and we all interact with each other, what your beliefs are will affect & shape who you are. And that is why I care, and will continue to try and change people's ways, because I want to live in a world where we make decisions based on what is most likely true, in order to achieve the best possible result. And not what we feel is true.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  8. #168
    Herald of the Titans Eorayn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    2,982
    The internet is stupid anyways. Of course we shouldn't get rid of culture and religion, yeezus mayun.

  9. #169
    The more important question to the OP is: "Can you eliminate culture, language and religion?"

    If you wipe out the entire human race, then yes you can eliminate these three things.
    Other than that, then no.

  10. #170
    Reading this is kinda funny, all the people spouting about how the world will be better without Religion. What if everyone had the exact same religion? And I mean exact same. Like no religion what so ever, there wouldn't be conflict caused by a difference of beliefs.
    For the Alliance, and for Azeroth!

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by gcsmith View Post
    Reading this is kinda funny, all the people spouting about how the world will be better without Religion. What if everyone had the exact same religion? And I mean exact same. Like no religion what so ever, there wouldn't be conflict caused by a difference of beliefs.
    Really, try putting 100 pastors from the same religion in the same room. You'll have wild disagreements, because religious beliefs are very shaped by our personal bias, even if technically they should all believe the same things.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  12. #172
    The Unstoppable Force THE Bigzoman's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Magnolia
    Posts
    20,767
    Quote Originally Posted by gcsmith View Post
    Reading this is kinda funny, all the people spouting about how the world will be better without Religion. What if everyone had the exact same religion? And I mean exact same. Like no religion what so ever, there wouldn't be conflict caused by a difference of beliefs.
    Lets make everyone catholic, no group of people will want to break away from the church and form their own religious views towards god.

    Oh wait.

    ---------- Post added 2013-06-14 at 05:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Religion is responsible for the greatest evils men have ever committed. Trying to argue that religion is a prerequisite for good is like arguing that Hitler was right. He formed an alliance with the Catholic church and systematically exterminated an entire ethnic group because he thought it was God's work.

    I'm sorry, but just because you have this belief in a very benign version of a religion, doesn't mean that religion itself isn't the worst invention man has ever devised.
    I don't think someone getting some members of a church to agree to a political alliance is a good example by any means of all religion as a whole is evil.

    Factoring in the good that religion has done to make the world better isn't being "benign" And if I understand you, you are implying that since people can use religion or religious figures to commit evil, religion is a great evil. I wonder why you don't feel the same about guns. To be frank, it seems hypocritical.
    Last edited by THE Bigzoman; 2013-06-14 at 08:52 PM.

  13. #173
    Mechagnome Khraine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Todmorden, UK
    Posts
    613
    Feck no! To all three. Some things are bad but overall they are what make us human.
    Stormrage 4 lyfe

  14. #174
    The Unstoppable Force THE Bigzoman's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Magnolia
    Posts
    20,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    Not that I subscribe to the idea that without religion there wouldn't still be conflicts, but that also means without religion there'll still be good. You can't both have the cake & eat it. Either religion is responsible for both evil & good, or it probably doesn't matter that much.

    And you see, that's exactly what scares me. That there are people out there, who's reason for doing good is because their religious beliefs tells them so. I find that very scary and immoral.
    I didn't establish my sarcasm that well in that post.

    I never said that Religion was good overall. Religion is responsible for evil and good.

    My quibble was that people commonly cite the evil wrongs religion is somewhat responsible for and cite it as justification for it's eradication while completely factoring out the good religion has done for the world

  15. #175
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    All religious people are my "targets", the more extreme ones are of course of bigger concern, but nonetheless, all religious people are my "targets". If these people lived in a vacuum where they couldn't affect anyone, I'd have no problems with whatever belief they have. But since none of us live a vacuum and we all interact with each other, what your beliefs are will affect & shape who you are. And that is why I care, and will continue to try and change people's ways, because I want to live in a world where we make decisions based on what is most likely true, in order to achieve the best possible result. And not what we feel is true.
    Assuming decisions made out of their beliefs will always contradict yours based on what you know to be true. You never know their beliefs until they tell and you would never know whether a decision made was because they shared a similar subset of beliefs which you are sharing or because of the supplemental ones which you don't share. Also as I said if it's supplemental they may still share you materialist-scientific views in matters materialism and science but if they are going to belief something in addition to that and you have no pendant to that on your side then how can you tell it's automatically having a negative effect on you? And moreover why would that be worth combating it even when it has no tangible effect on you at all...unless you are paranoid about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    Really, try putting 100 pastors from the same religion in the same room. You'll have wild disagreements, because religious beliefs are very shaped by our personal bias, even if technically they should all believe the same things.
    First off pastor is usually only a title used in Protestant Christianity which is a major division within one religion. And naturally humans may disagree on individual basis. But I have seen meetings with more than 100 pastor and some of them with different denominations. The closer the discussion to the core tenets the less disagreements you will find and almost none of the wild one. You will only find disagreements within major denominations or divisions but even so dialogue is quite common these days. But assuming there would only be one religion then there would only have to be one denomination as well for the true homogeneity effect and then disagreements will become very little. It's a matter of how it is organized anyway. If it's centralized then disagreements will be none. If it's decentralized then disagreements may eventually be purged in one big synodal meeting.
    Last edited by Ravenblade; 2013-06-14 at 08:38 PM.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  16. #176
    Don't worry, once the Emperor of Mankind arrives with the Primarchs and their legions the only culture will be the Imperial one, the only language will be High Gothic, and the only "religion" the Imperial Truth.

    I can't wait.

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    Assuming decisions made out of their beliefs will always contradict yours based on what you know to be true. You never know their beliefs until they tell and you would never know whether a decision made was because they shared a similar subset of beliefs which you are sharing or because of the supplemental ones which you don't share. Also as I said if it's supplemental they may still share you materialist-scientific views in matters materialism and science but if they are going to belief something in addition to that and you have no pendant to that on your side then how can you tell it's automatically having a negative effect on you? And moreover why would that be worth combating it even when it has no tangible effect on you at all...unless you are paranoid about it.
    This isn't about my beliefs, this is about what's demonstrably true. But you're right, I don't know how religion affects a specific individual, that's why I encourage discussions so we can find out what they really believe in.

    Here's an example of "metaphysical" belief that is dangerous; "All disbelievers will go to hell", this is a belief which can cause individuals to behave badly to non-believers. Here's another example: "My god will forgive me for my sins", this is a belief which can cause individuals to do bad things, knowing that they can be "forgiven" and still get to "heaven"

    Do I really need to go on? I hope you understand why I'm concerned about these pseudo-science concepts & beliefs.


    First off pastor is usually only a title used in Protestant Christianity which is a major division within one religion. And naturally humans may disagree on individual basis. But I have seen meetings with more than 100 pastor and some of them with different denominations. The closer the discussion to the core tenets the less disagreements you will find and almost none of the wild one. You will only find disagreements within major denominations or divisions but even so dialogue is quite common these days. But assuming there would only be one religion then there would only have to be one denomination as well for the true homogeneity effect and then disagreements will become very little. It's a matter of how it is organized anyway. If it's centralized then disagreements will be none. If it's decentralized then disagreements may eventually be purged in one big synodal meeting.
    It's even worse among the adherents, ranging from hating homosexuals to loving homosexuals, the contrast only grows starker when you involve people who haven't really read their particular "holy book".
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  18. #178
    Again, if youre talking about Hilter he allied with a lot of people. If we're going to demonize every faction that Hitler associated with then we we must demonize all of Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. See how silly that argument gets?
    It's not silly when you look at the facts. Hitler was a jew (no offense to jews). He had a plan to eradicate an entire race of people from the face of the planet (the jews), and he converted every government institution into a tool set on accomplishing just that. He went about what he did in an extremely dogmatic fashion, running directly parallel to nearly every major religious movement the world has ever seen. Even if he didn't believe in the christian god, he DID believe in some type of god, and he believed he was doing god's work.

    He constantly referenced god in his speech, and the uniforms the Nazi's wore also referenced god.

    And again, Stalin killed a lot more people being anti-religious, so what does that say about secularism. Nothing, but you're the one using the argument that one bad seed spoils all even that Hitler was the "most evil" dictator.
    Stalin was anti other religion. He established a strict state religion, executing and/or imprisoning anyone who followed a different religion. Like Hitler, he was extremely dogmatic in his views and exercised them with extreme prejudice.

    And finally again, Hitler wasn't even religious He used religion as a pawn, plainly evident in the way he conducted himself and through his own words, the entire Catholic Church didn't allie with Hitler or endorsed him. Many were appalled by him even before people learned of the concentration camps.
    He wasn't your kind of religious maybe, but he most certainly was religious. The tool of religion is dogma, and he exercised his power with such zealous dogmatism that it rivaled other religious powers at the time. The catholic church definitely did form an alliance with Hitler, and it was only after the war once they discovered the holocaust, that they tried to distance themselves.

    I don't think someone getting some members of a church to agree to a political alliance is a good example by any means of all religion as a whole is evil.
    You're right! We only have to look at the child abuse scandals, Mother Theresa death houses, anti condom preaching in Aids Ridden Africa, missionaries that hold food and other charity hostage until people convert, and the coffers of wealth churches amass through tithe. At the very least, you have to accept the fact that religion teaches little kids that they are inherently bad and doomed to death unless they blindly follow a faith.

    Factoring in the good that religion has done to make the world better isn't being "benign" And if I understand you, you are implying that since people can use religion or religious figures to commit evil, religion is a great evil. I wonder why you don't feel the same about guns. To be frank, it seems hypocritical.
    Religion is a form of power that denies people freedom to act on their own. It reinforces passive aggressive control mechanisms and causes people to make irrational decisions for bad reasons. Never mind the tiny amount of good religion does (good that secular groups do just as well), you can't reconcile the bad they do by stuffing the few good things down our throats.

    Benign doesn't even begin to describe it.

  19. #179
    Brewmaster Zangeiti's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Grilled Cheese Factory
    Posts
    1,299
    Its not like every country in the world is just gonna learn English or Russian or Asian languages. Also their are country's who keep culture as a main goal for their lifetime.

  20. #180
    Deleted
    Language, no. A universal language could be good, though. Would make it easier to communicate.
    Culture, not really; people can cling onto culture and so it's difficult to remove.
    Religion, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Religion is responsible for many wars and the like. I personally don't see an issue with eradicating it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •