PDA

View Full Version : Mankinds Worst Mistake


Marius Fett
04-20-2008, 01:51 PM
Title says it all really...

What do you think the BIGGEST mistake mankind has ever made is?

Corinthian
04-20-2008, 01:56 PM
The Apple.

Construct
04-20-2008, 01:58 PM
n00bz.

mur'phon
04-20-2008, 02:17 PM
posting this in the outlanders?

HerbieZ
04-20-2008, 03:54 PM
posting this in the outlanders?

Quoted for blah blah bl....

Ravnas
04-20-2008, 03:59 PM
The Matrix Sequels :D

TKA-001
04-20-2008, 04:10 PM
Failure to have asian chicks imported to non-asian countries in the world.

Marius Fett
04-20-2008, 04:21 PM
Come on guys, this is meant to be serious.

PoiuyWired
04-20-2008, 04:22 PM
Vanilla Ice.

Marius Fett
04-20-2008, 04:23 PM
posting this in the outlanders?

:lol: I only just realised that...

Arcesious
04-20-2008, 04:24 PM
Mankinds's worst mistake was religion, IMO.

Totenkopf
04-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Not so much religion as a strict adherence, to the point of exclusion and violence, of any belief or operating (economic, political, etc..) system as being the ONLY one acceptable for everyone.

Ravnas
04-20-2008, 04:49 PM
Okay, actually the worst mistake was Harding's isolationist policy in the 20's

Totenkopf
04-20-2008, 04:51 PM
What, you're absolving Euro pacifism and appeasement in the face of the rise of facism w/in europe, Hitler specifically?

jonathan7
04-20-2008, 04:53 PM
Man kinds worst mistake is not being loving enough. If we loved each other more the worlds problems I think would be overcome. Religion, though it gets a bad press in fact is only a tool; the majority are sheep; who allow themselves to be manipulated into thinking in particular ways and committing horrible atrocities in the name of their country or God or money. Even if religion did not exsist, I think those in power would still use things to manipulate people in their favour.

Ravnas
04-20-2008, 05:00 PM
What, you're absolving Euro pacifism and appeasement in the face of the rise of facism w/in europe, Hitler specifically?

Sorry,I meant one of the worst mistakes in American history. I should have made that clearer. :giveup: Obviously those decisions were far stupider.

mur'phon
04-20-2008, 05:10 PM
I agree with J7, religion is a tool, for better or worse. In my wiev our worst mistake is to regard those who agree with us higher than those who don't. Those who disagre are too often seen as wrong and in need of "enlightening", often using voilence.

jonathan7
04-20-2008, 05:16 PM
I agree with J7, religion is a tool, for better or worse. In my wiev our worst mistake is to regard those who agree with us higher than those who don't. Those who disagre are too often seen as wrong and in need of "enlightening", often using voilence.

Whats curious, is how mob mentality, runs amoc in religions which at least from my reading of them are teaching love and respect...

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche The Dawn, Sec. 297

Totenkopf
04-20-2008, 05:27 PM
Whats curious, is how mob mentality, runs amoc in religions which at least from my reading of them are teaching love and respect...

..the majority are sheep
This, sadly, probably explains it. Coupled with man's own basic imperfection.

JCarter426
04-20-2008, 05:27 PM
Whats curious, is how mob mentality, runs amoc in religions which at least from my reading of them are teaching love and respect...

If the first mistake was religion, the second mistake was not following that religion. ;)

jonathan7
04-20-2008, 05:30 PM
If the first mistake was religion, the second mistake was not following that religion. ;)

I didn't say the first mistake was following religion ;) :p

This, sadly, probably explains it. Coupled with man's own basic imperfection.

Agreed.

Jae Onasi
04-20-2008, 05:47 PM
This thread is pretty spammy--stay with the topic, please.

*Don*
04-20-2008, 06:36 PM
Vanilla Ice.

Agreed. lol

No, but in all seriousness tho, I'd have to say that religion and money are probably the two worst mistakes mankind has evermade.

Oh, and electing Bush as President wasn't that bright either...

JCarter426
04-20-2008, 07:47 PM
I didn't say the first mistake was following religion ;) :p

No, I'm saying it :p (and Arcesious said it too ;)).

Oh, and electing Bush as President wasn't that bright either...

Not so much a mistake, per se, as he wasn't elected. :p

Titanius Anglesmith
04-20-2008, 08:20 PM
Mankinds's worst mistake was religion, IMO.
More like "religious politics," rather than religion itself.

Q
04-20-2008, 08:28 PM
Procreation. ;)

Web Rider
04-20-2008, 08:50 PM
Mankind's worst mistake, hmmm, that's a tricky one. In recent history, I'd go with the Cold War. In AD history, I think I'd go with the Dark Ages. In history in general, I'd probly go with religious warfare/intolerance.

This is of course, mistakes that ALL or a significantly large portion of humanity participated in. Not mistakes caused by a small faction, like the Holocaust.

Tommycat
04-20-2008, 10:17 PM
Mankind's biggest mistake: Personally I think the post WWI actions which led to WWII would have to be right up there at the top as far as recent history. Though if we are going of all time, definately the concept of ownership. Religion itself wasn't the problem as those using it simply as a tool to gather support so that they could own more stuff. Granted it has driven the many inventions, made many lives better, but truth be told it has caused more problems than anything else in this world.

Q
04-20-2008, 11:00 PM
^^^
While I understand what you're saying, I believe that lack of ownership would only work in a perfect world, where people are incapable of selfishness. Here in reality, it's the concept of ownership that inspires us to achieve. It's ugly and imperfect for sure, but it works because it's based on realism, not idealism.

Oh, and I'll throw in another big-time mistake of the modern age: Imperialism.

Rev7
04-20-2008, 11:13 PM
The Apple.
QFE.

Short and sweet.

mimartin
04-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Poisoning our own environment, something along the lines defecating where you eat sound pretty stupid to me.

Beyond that, I believe it is our attitude that we are owed something by society and life in general.

Of course, our stupidest mistake is the one that has yet to be discovered, the one that will destroy us all.

JCarter426
04-20-2008, 11:15 PM
Religion itself wasn't the problem as those using it simply as a tool to gather support so that they could own more stuff.

Good point. However, take away religion, and could anyone have done that? Probably yes, but not as easily, I bet.

Oh, and I'll throw in another big-time mistake of the modern age: Imperialism.

There go the last 200 years. ;)

Ravnas
04-20-2008, 11:17 PM
^^^
While I understand what you're saying, I believe that lack of ownership would only work in a perfect world, where people are incapable of selfishness. Here in reality, it's the concept of ownership that inspires us to achieve. It's ugly and imperfect for sure, but it works because it's based on realism, not idealism.

Oh, and I'll throw in another big-time mistake of the modern age: Imperialism.

Yay!!! Communism is the answer :D

Jae Onasi
04-20-2008, 11:40 PM
Mankinds's worst mistake was religion, IMO.

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa. The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.

Arcesious
04-20-2008, 11:44 PM
Then I'll revise... Mankind's worst mistakes were blind faith/religiously based wars...

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.

I see your point. But you don't have to be a Christian to help people... However the mentality of religion to help, love, and care for others is not one we shoudl throw away. That is the good thing that came from religion, was being taught to help others. The bad part of religion is the part that tells you to deny logic and evidence...

Ravnas
04-20-2008, 11:45 PM
Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa. The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.

From what I know, not many religious organizations have been over there as well. Besides, I'm not saying what your doctor is doing isn't doing is a bad thing, but most Christians use their time by protesting nonstop.

Jae Onasi
04-20-2008, 11:52 PM
I see your point. But you don't have to be a Christian to help people... .
I agree. However, no one else has stepped up to the plate to help out these people.

Rev7
04-21-2008, 12:04 AM
^
Unfortunately...

Arcesious
04-21-2008, 12:12 AM
Sadly no one else will do it... I agree, it's a tragedy.

True_Avery
04-21-2008, 01:13 AM
Our first biggest mistake was evolving into humans in the first place.

Our second biggest mistake was not evolving into the Bonobo first.

Totenkopf
04-21-2008, 01:20 AM
Our first biggest mistake was evolving into humans in the first place.

Our second biggest mistake was not evolving into the Bonobo first.


No, that was nature's mistake. ;)

DarthJebus05
04-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Letting Uwe Boll direct Farcry...

Totenkopf
04-21-2008, 01:28 AM
Don't you mean letting Uwe Boll direct anything? :D

True_Avery
04-21-2008, 01:40 AM
No, that was nature's mistake. ;)
Then I blame nature for every single thing humans have done and will do.

Or, I can name some simple thing that has happened in the tens of thousands of years we have been around and call it the "worst thing" we have ever done... which I would blame on the way we are programmed.

Or, I could blame religion or something. Being that religion has always been around humans as far as we can tell, I think we can blame that on nature programming out minds that way. War is just colliding beliefs using a lot of destruction, so I'd blame that on how inherently violent we are... which I would also blame on nature.

Basically, I think most human problems can be traced back to how we evolved to perceive things and each other socially. I wont single out any event or series of events and even attempt to call it the worst thing humans have ever done, because I don't know everything terrible we have done. The worst thing we have done is also relative, seeing as many "terrible" things eventually lead to "good" things and vice-versa. Generally, what we do to each other is similar to what we have been doing to each other for tens of thousands of years and wont be stopping until we evolve into something resembling the Bonobo or die out in some fashion.

Or, I could name some amusing game or movie series for laughs.

mur'phon
04-21-2008, 01:46 AM
Our second biggest mistake was not evolving into the Bonobo first.
Good point, their way of solving conflicts apear to be rather, eh, stimulating :D

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.

On the other hand, thousands of AIDS victims die because of the rabid anti condom stance promoted by many christians. A hammer is not good because it can help build a house, nor evil because it can help murder people.

Web Rider
04-21-2008, 02:22 AM
Then I blame nature for every single thing humans have done and will do.

using determinist theory, which is basically what you did, Humans ahve no free will, and everything we do is the result of how the electrons first collided when life first sprang into existance.

True_Avery
04-21-2008, 05:24 AM
using determinist theory, which is basically what you did, Humans ahve no free will, and everything we do is the result of how the electrons first collided when life first sprang into existance.
"It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism); however, determinists believe that the level to which human beings have influence over their future is itself dependent on present and past."

"Determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature."

- The doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
- The doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
- The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent (prior) states of affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determinism

Cause and effect. One thing leads to another. The concept that we have "free" will is silly, because everything we do and believe is based around what the world around us has done, is doing, and will/might do. Free will would entail that no outside influence could change the way we act in our lives.

The way we work socially and physically is based around what we changed from and into. If you go far enough down the line, you can "blame" nature for turning us into what we are. Or we can "blame" ourselves by letting it become a normal. Either way, the worst mistake we made, or that nature made, was letting us turn into what we are. Everything else is just minor details throughout history.

Like I said, I wont pick out an event like World War II (Holocaust, Hitler, etc) because despite how bad it may have been, good did come out of it. Much of the world settled down into ties of friendship and unity. We found a huge number of new medical information from the Nazis and Japanese that have saved billions. We created a United Nations that has helped billions across the globe.

Every action will have an equal and opposite reaction. A woman who is raped may adopt an orphan child in need of a mother because she can no longer have any. A war may eventually lead to the unity and help of billions. Your house burning down may lead to you meeting your spouse in the new area you live. A close friend or family member's death may push you into helping other people.

A mistake or tragedy is only one as long as you focus completely on the negative.

"If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward."
-Thomas Alva Edison

On the other hand, thousands of AIDS victims die because of the rabid anti condom stance promoted by many christians. A hammer is not good because it can help build a house, nor evil because it can help murder people.
Quoted for complete truth.

Tommycat
04-21-2008, 05:26 AM
To be sure, many of the things that are deemed horrible have actually proved to be good.

For Example WWII. Deemed pretty well bad. However we learned a lot about triage and saving lives from the medical journals of Japanese doctors that were performing experiments on Chinese prisoners.

War in general. From war we got radar, Lasers, CRT's Computers, microwaves, Satelites, GPS, and countless other items we use in day to day life. Heck the internet sprang from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration. First DARPA, then ARPA, Then ARPANET, then internet. We also got many of our "less than lethal" weapons from the military as well.

**edit: Rats looks like Avery beat me to it. Must have read the same book or something. My mother was a nurse, and I was studying to become a doctor, until I learned that I get a bit uneasy inside a hospital. We're talking panic attacks..... So I got into other ways to help people.

Pho3nix
04-21-2008, 05:34 AM
Our worst mistake? being human.

Ctrl Alt Del
04-21-2008, 07:40 AM
Though if we are going of all time, definately the concept of ownership. Religion itself wasn't the problem as those using it simply as a tool to gather support so that they could own more stuff. Granted it has driven the many inventions, made many lives better, but truth be told it has caused more problems than anything else in this world.
Can you picture yourself as a Buddhist monk, owning nothing? I can't, he can't and the guy next to hi certainly can't. That was the very first concept of Communism, hence why we've never had truly Communism.


Our second biggest mistake was not evolving into the Bonobo first.
:lol:

Very true.

Tommycat
04-21-2008, 08:37 AM
Don't think that by saying it is the worst mistake I don't believe it has done good as well. Greed has produced many wonderous things. Without altering man's mental state, ownership will be the driving force. I love our capitalist society. But the concept of ownership would be the driving force behind the largest number of deaths.

Ctrl Alt Del
04-21-2008, 08:54 AM
There's no capitalist society without ownership. Can you imagine people working and getting nothing in return?

Sabretooth
04-21-2008, 12:07 PM
Mankind never made a mistake, because there is no such thing as a mistake in the grand game of fate. If the topic is socially-geared, then I'd say it's impossible to say that as well, since mankind has never united as a singular entity, and so there cannot be a single 'greatest' mistake from mankind.

igyman
04-21-2008, 01:17 PM
Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa. The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.


You know Jae, back when I was in high school my logic professor told me to write an essay called "Religion is an opium for the people". Basically what it's about is trying to determine if religion is good or bad for mankind. In the end I acknowledged the efforts done to help some people, but it was still my opinion that religion is indeed an opium for the people, that over the course of human history it has done a lot more harm than good. I still have that essay somewhere, if you want me to present the arguments I used there.

Inyri
04-21-2008, 01:27 PM
I think it's hard to say that religion has done more harm than good since harm is typically better documented. Religion does a lot of people a lot of good every day, whereas the 'bad' is fairly isolated. I'd say religion does far more good than harm, but just as with the news media you typically only hear about the bad things. :)

Achilles
04-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well.

The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.Doctors Without Borders? UNICEF? Aids Healthcare Foundation? I'm sure there are others, but these are the first three that spring to mind. Is there a source that you're referencing that I may have missed?

jonathan7
04-21-2008, 01:44 PM
I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well.

That is though from the long and 'wonderfully thoughtout' non-Christians should act like Christians frame or referance, its about as logical as expecting a deer to behave as a dolphin....

I've never really got some Catholics (especially those in charge) aversion to condoms either, and given what they should beleive, surely if an individual isn't a catholic, you would want them to live longer so you have more time to make them a catholic. Then again, the Vatican speaking out against 'new sins' such as obsence wealth; multi-national corperations with lots of money and too much political influence didn't make much sense either!

I think it's hard to say that religion has done more harm than good since harm is typically better documented. Religion does a lot of people a lot of good every day, whereas the 'bad' is fairly isolated. I'd say religion does far more good than harm, but just as with the news media you typically only hear about the bad things. :)

Aye, I also think that even if religion had never exsisted people still would have found things to fight about; and populations would still have been manipulated by other means.

Inyri
04-21-2008, 01:47 PM
Achilles, it's a little silly to condemn all Christian activities simply because some of the more extremist Catholics are a little behind in the way of the modern world. I don't particularly like being lumped in with them just because you can't tell the difference. =_=

Web Rider
04-21-2008, 01:53 PM
I would argue that religion has done more large scale bad things than large scale small things. Though this I would attribute to the religious leadership more than it's practitioners. That most of the good done by religion is by or through the little people.

Inyri
04-21-2008, 01:55 PM
That most of the good done by religion is by or through the little people.Does that somehow reduce its value simply because history hasn't documented it?

Web Rider
04-21-2008, 02:00 PM
Does that somehow reduce its value simply because history hasn't documented it?

yes, and no. Yes, because it takes the good-doing away from the framework of the religion. In essence, it is not the religious institution that is doing the good, it is the base belief system that is motivating people to do good.

No, because it is the belief system, which is the only part of a religion that even matters, that is promoting people to do good.

And I wasn't addressing what history has recorded at all, though if you were to look at history, particularly modern history, help, aid, and the good of religion comes from just plain people desiring to help others. While history records that the bad has come from the top, control, oppression, violence, all that from the institution of religion.

Inyri
04-21-2008, 02:05 PM
No, because it is the belief system, which is the only part of a religion that even matters, that is promoting people to do good.I think you've hit on the difference between organized religion and personal religion. It's the same as the difference between a government and a country -- one is an institution, and one is the people.

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter.

The beliefs of most religions are sound. It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems. The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.

Achilles
04-21-2008, 02:13 PM
That is though from the long and 'wonderfully thoughtout' non-Christians should act like Christians frame or referance, its about as logical as expecting a deer to behave as a dolphin.... I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. Are you saying that catholics aren't christians (i.e. they believe that jesus was the messiah, the one and only son of the lord god who died for our sins so that we might know salvation)?

Achilles, it's a little silly to condemn all Christian activities simply because some of the more extremist Catholics are a little behind in the way of the modern world. I don't particularly like being lumped in with them just because you can't tell the difference. =_=Hmmm, I wasn't aware that I had done that. I think my post pretty clearly stated that while some christians were helping, others were hurting. Could you please help me understand how that constitutes "lumping all together because I couldn't tell the difference"? Thanks in advance.

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter. I think the argument is that "people" are capable of doing good regardless of what "country" they belong to, therefore it doesn't make a lot of sense to congratulate the "country" for what the "people" are doing. You can't have it both ways.

The beliefs of most religions are sound.I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion. What criteria have you used to for determining this?

It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems.This is certainly one perspective. One might argue that if one isn't part of the solution, then they are part of the problem.

The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.Of course not, but I think it would be similarly foolish not to notice that you're significantly more likely to see a pissed off Irish person bomb a car than see an enraged Tibetan monk do so. I, personally, don't understand how people fail to grasp that.

Web Rider
04-21-2008, 02:14 PM
I think you've hit on the difference between organized religion and personal religion. It's the same as the difference between a government and a country -- one is an institution, and one is the people.
yes.

So basically you're saying the 'government' of Christianity is doing more harm than good, but the people of Christianity are typically doing more good than harm? Because honestly I think people give far too much attention to the former and not enough credit to the latter.
yes. And I tend to agree that the institution of religion gets too much attention, but that's because it is big, it is noisy, and problems always attract more attention than solutions. The quiet Christian who donates to a cause and does a little good will never get attention...unfortunately.

The beliefs of most religions are sound. It's minority groups within the larger whole that cause problems. The funny bit is you wouldn't condemn all Irish people, for instance, if a couple of them bombed a building, but somehow all of Christianity gets condemned because a few evangelists do something silly. I'll never understand it, personally.
Well, again, yes and no. I tend to only make that distinction(his fault, not the religions fault), when it can explicitly be said that the motivation was/is not easily found in the religious belief or institution itself. And how much ability the nearby people's had to stop the violence.

Inyri
04-21-2008, 02:20 PM
Hmmm, I wasn't aware that I had done that. I think my post pretty clearly stated that while some christians were helping, others were hurting. Could you please help me understand how that constitutes "lumping all together because I couldn't tell the difference"? Thanks in advance.Let me refresh:Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa.I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.Jae is talking about "Christians" and you immediately jump into "Catholics are killing the world!!!!" Ignoring your next paragraph, that sounds awfully like you're lumping all Christians in with the Catholics, doesn't it? I mean you really can't have it one way in one paragraph and another way in the next.

jonathan7
04-21-2008, 02:24 PM
I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. Are you saying that catholics aren't christians (i.e. they believe that jesus was the messiah, the one and only son of the lord god who died for our sins so that we might know salvation)?

I wasn't arguing; evangelicals do much the same thing... That is to say, to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians, or dictating to non-Christians as to how to behave. e.g. Expecting non-Christians not to sleep with one another before marriage, and then condemining non-Christians when they fail this, at least to me seems illogical, as non-Christians will have their own frame of referance, and will follow their own morality.

Nor was I saying that Catholics aren't Christians (though I do have quite a few issues with the Vatican, but thats another discussion entirely).

I hope that clarifies :)

Achilles
04-21-2008, 02:28 PM
Let me refresh:Jae is talking about "Christians" and you immediately jump into "Catholics are killing the world!!!!" Ignoring your next paragraph, that sounds awfully like you're lumping all Christians in with the Catholics, doesn't it? I mean you really can't have it one way in one paragraph and another way in the next.First, Catholics are Christians. Second, I think you and I can both recognize that you're taking liberties with what I actually said. Third, since I clearly acknowledged that christians (and thereby catholics too) are doing both good and bad there (the paragraph you're asking us to ignore so that you argument might stand a better chance of holding up), I still don't see how you've concluded that I'm "lumping" the groups together.

Clearly I am willing to acknowledge that some christians are doing some good. Are you willing to acknowledge that some christians are doing some bad?

I wasn't arguing; Hey buddy. "argument" doesn't equal "arguing".
2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade
<snip>
b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusionI hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

evangelicals do much the same thing... That is to say, to expect non-Christians to behave as Christians, or dictating to non-Christians as to how to behave. e.g. Expecting non-Christians not to sleep with one another before marriage, and then condemining non-Christians when they fail this, at least to me seems illogical, as non-Christians will have their own frame of referance, and will follow their own morality.

Nor was I saying that Catholics aren't Christians (though I do have quite a few issues with the Vatican, but thats another discussion entirely).

I hope that clarifies :)I think it does. Thanks for taking the time to do so. :)

Samuel Dravis
04-21-2008, 02:37 PM
Avery, I'm sure you'll notice that determinism is a philosophical position. As such, determinism can't be proven by any possible means, nor disproven. That's not to say that things don't happen the way they do - for causes, reasons, etc - but simply that limited observations never become more than they are.

I've never really got some Catholics (especially those in charge) aversion to condoms either, and given what they should beleive, surely if an individual isn't a catholic, you would want them to live longer so you have more time to make them a catholic.Well, the reason given is that they aren't only concerned with the person using condoms. Seems relatively easy to understand, even if you disagree with their assessment.

jonathan7
04-21-2008, 02:38 PM
Hey buddy. "argument" doesn't equal "arguing".
I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

Hehe, sorry, got wires slightly crossed my end; I hadn't quite understood what you meant; I hadn't really percieved us as 'arguing'; but I kind of took it as you thinking I was disagreeing with you, which I wasn't. Just wires crossed at my end.

I think it does. Thanks for taking the time to do so. :)

No worries, always a pleasure conversing with you, apologies for insufficiently articulating myself in the first instance. :)

Well, the reason given is that they aren't only concerned with the person using condoms. Seems relatively easy to understand, even if you disagree with their assessment.

Aye, I understand, its the source of frequent debate with some of my friends; I distinctly disagree with their assessment ;)

Ray Jones
04-21-2008, 03:33 PM
I think mankind's biggest mistake *is* that they constantly whine about how bad they are and they whine and whine and cry to god and mommy instead of simply changing something. In fact, this is the only real human mistake. ::

Da_man
04-21-2008, 03:46 PM
I think mankind's worst mistake is not relizing we can all get along.

A little off-topic, but I think the gaming industry's worst mistake was allowing Atari to make the E.T game. :xp:

The Doctor
04-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Capitalism.

Corinthian
04-21-2008, 06:34 PM
I'd counter with Communism, but frankly, Karl Marx's idiocy wasn't that big of a mistake in the grand scheme of things.

Jae Onasi
04-21-2008, 06:37 PM
I have to balance the sentiment of this statement with the knowledge that the introduction of condoms and safe sex education would have a huge impact on the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the Catholic church's anti-contraception/pro-abstience-only position frustrates any attempt to prevent the spread of the disease via this avenue.

What does that have to do with the work she's doing with patients who already have the disease?

Let's face it--the single best way to avoid spreading it sexually is not to have sex. Abstinence needs to be part of the education process as well as safe use of condoms and avoiding multiple partners.

So yes, while your point that many christians are doing more than their fair share to help with the crisis in Africa is valid, it is also accurate to say that many christians are putting faith before medicine and thereby exacerbating the problem as well. Those are two different issues. Furthermore, the Catholic stance is not reflective of all of Christianity.

Doctors Without Borders? UNICEF? Aids Healthcare Foundation? I'm sure there are others, but these are the first three that spring to mind. Is there a source that you're referencing that I may have missed?
Well none of those organizations are in the region she's in or helping at the hospital she's at--it is the only one for miles, per her visit to our church a few months ago. I'll happily provide you with her address if you would like to ask her more. I'm sure she'd be delighted with any donations, too. Atheist dollars spend the same as Christian ones. ;)

Achilles
04-21-2008, 06:58 PM
What does that have to do with the work she's doing with patients who already have the disease? "She"? I don't follow :confused:

EDIT: Disregard. I just went back and re-read your post. I see now that you were referring to a specific doctor, not all christian missionary doctors.

Your statement was that christians are the only ones offering assistance with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. My response was to point out a) that this isn't necessarily true (however I'll happily stand corrected if your reliable source states otherwise) and b) some christians are actually making the problem worse, so let's not rush out to congratulate them all as being outstanding example of humanitarianism too quickly.

Let's face it--the single best way to avoid spreading it sexually is not to have sex. Abstinence needs to be part of the education process as well as safe use of condoms and avoiding multiple partners. Absolutely. Let's all take a moment to acknowledge that my criticism was leveled at "abstinence only". I think you and I both agree that abstinence should be part of every comprehensive safe sex educational program, just like proper condom use.

Hopefully, the condoms will help staunch the spread of the disease while we spend the next [insert necessary length of time here] years reprogamming thousands of years of native cultural habits and practices with Proper Western Values (TM).

Those are two different issues. I thought the issue (which you brought up) was AIDS in Africa :confused:

Furthermore, the Catholic stance is not reflective of all of Christianity. Indeed. I don't recall stating otherwise. I do think that 17% (and growing) is significant though.

Well none of those organizations are in the region she's in or helping at the hospital she's at--it is the only one for miles, per her visit to our church a few months ago. Where who is at? Jae, was your earlier comment related to someone specific? Nothing in your post indicated that it was.

I'll happily provide you with her address if you would like to ask her more. I'm sure she'd be delighted with any donations, too. Atheist dollars spend the same as Christian ones. ;)From the sound of things, your friend isn't affiliated with any of the charities I already donate to. The only religion-affiliated charity that I send my money to is the local food bank. Everything else goes to organizations that don't try to indoctrinate the recipients of their aid.

(I do love getting those "god bless you for your donation" letters in the mail though :))

JCarter426
04-21-2008, 07:14 PM
Absolutely. Let's all take a moment to acknowledge that my criticism was leveled at "abstinence only". I think you and I both agree that abstinence should be part of every comprehensive safe sex educational program, just like proper condom use.

The problem, it seems to me, as you mentioned, is that it usually is "abstinence only". I'm from Massachusetts, and even here there are restrictions on promoting anything other than abstinence. Yes, you heard me right--Massachusetts. :p And from my experience, "abstinence only" doesn't work--and not just in Massachusetts. ;)

Achilles
04-21-2008, 09:56 PM
The problem, it seems to me, as you mentioned, is that it usually is "abstinence only". I'm from Massachusetts, and even here there are restrictions on promoting anything other than abstinence. Yes, you heard me right--Massachusetts. :p And from my experience, "abstinence only" doesn't work--and not just in Massachusetts. ;) If it makes you feel better, your experience is supported by quite a bit of social research as well. Unfortunately, discussing it comes dangerously close to violating the PG rating of KC so I can't post any of it here. PM me if you want links to the CDC (etc) studies.

CDC and other gov't studies are OK to post as long as they aren't vividly graphic in their descriptions. If they are, please send me the links by PM too--I'd love to see the research, too. Thanks, Jae

You pruned my posts last time I covered it so unless the rules have changed, the gov't studies were too graphic for KC.

Probably too graphic then. The PG-13 rule applies to all of LF, actually, not just KC. The owners want it that way, I follow through on their wishes. :)

Jae Onasi
04-21-2008, 11:03 PM
You know Jae, back when I was in high school my logic professor told me to write an essay called "Religion is an opium for the people". Basically what it's about is trying to determine if religion is good or bad for mankind. In the end I acknowledged the efforts done to help some people, but it was still my opinion that religion is indeed an opium for the people, that over the course of human history it has done a lot more harm than good. I still have that essay somewhere, if you want me to present the arguments I used there.

Let's see--how many people have been allegedly harmed/killed? 100,000? A million? Maybe a couple million?

Let's compare that to the good done by one single Catholic hospital in Milwaukee--approximately 480,000 people assisted in some way (care for birthing, surgeries, inpatient/outpatient care, ER visits, etc.) every year. This hospital has existed 128 years. Even if they haven't seen that many people over the last 128 years, they've easily exceeded a million people helped. That's _one_ hospital. There are easily thousands of Christian hospitals around the world providing health care for millions of people. However, that doesn't get recorded in history (other than perhaps data) and doesn't make the news for the most part. Warfare is 'sexier' to historians than records of patient visits at religious health care facilities.

I went to a Christian work-study college--you work on campus 20 hours a week and it pays tuition/room/board. We made too little to afford college when I went, but too much to get decent financial aid. That college provided me with a solid education along with about 1500 other students. They graduated about 400 a year--multiply that by about 80 years for 32,000 just at that college. That doesn't include other universities that educate students, like Loyola, Notre Dame, De Paul, Marquette, Pepperdine, Wheaton, Trinity University, and those that started as religious schools such as Harvard, Princeton, and Northwestern. How many millions have received educations that might not have access to any higher education at all without these and many other religious colleges and universities?

We have thousands of visits to our local (religiously based) food pantry and thousands to our local (religiously based) shelter every year. Our church during the summer months hosts a homeless shelter once a week in our church gym. We feed and shelter anywhere from a few to 75 people depending on weather conditions. With the housing/credit crisis we'll probably see more this summer. Multiply that by the other churches that help in this program in our city. Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago houses hundreds of homeless people in its shelters and provides around 10,000 meals daily. That's roughly 3,650,000 meals in one year at that one mission alone. That's not including their food pantry program, their health care mission, and their education programs that help tens of thousands more. There are many other homeless shelters and food pantries around the world run by churches that reach people in need. How many people have been fed and housed by the Sisters of Charity around the world?

The Salvation Army helps people in need after disasters such as home fires or tornadoes or hurricanes and help others with things such as getting warm coats. They helped over 31 million in 2006 and over 33 million in 2004.

Religion has its warts--none of us is perfect and we all screw up. That includes screw-ups in the institutions we run, too. However, the billions helped by religious organizations in just the last 20 years, never mind the last 2000, far exceed the harm done to people by frankly sinful church members and leaders.


Stream of consciousness reply here....
Your statement was that christians are the only ones offering assistance with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I never said Christians were the _only_ ones. I said this:

Tell that to the thousands of AIDS victims and people with other health problems that our Christian missionary doctor is treating in Africa. The Cameroon gov't doesn't have enough resources to treat them all, and no other secular organization has cared enough to go help.I could have been ultra-specific at the end of that last sentence and said 'at her hospital/in her area' but I thought it would be inferred by context because of the reference to only one missionary doctor and the 'all' referring back to her patients specifically and not all Cameroon citizens. There are lots of missionary health care professionals in Cameroon and the rest of Africa. I know there are secular organizations working in Africa and I'll assume that includes Cameroon, but they're not active in her particular area, and the hospital she works at covers a fair amount of territory.

The people who have been helped by the staff of this missionary hospital and this missionary doctor are very grateful for their help, and they would never characterize religion as mankind's worst mistake, as Arcesious asserted.

I think you and I both agree that abstinence should be part of every comprehensive safe sex educational program, just like proper condom use.Yes, we do agree on the comprehensive sex ed approach, that's for sure. Now, people might think the space-time continuum has ruptured and/or the 'end times' have arrived because we actually wholeheartedly agreed on something....

I thought the issue (which you brought up) was AIDS in AfricaWell, it was really more commentary on 'the people she has helped' than the specific disease, but AIDS patients make up a huge percentage of her patient base there.

I do think that 17% (and growing) is significant though.I've not seen that stat before. Please don't think I'm questioning the veracity--I'm being literal there. Other organizations can fill in the condom gap, too. The Catholic church wants to and does provide help, but I don't see why they should provide condoms in violation of their own faith and when other organizations are available to take care of that in their place.

Achilles
04-21-2008, 11:49 PM
Religion has its warts--none of us is perfect and we all screw up. That includes screw-ups in the institutions we run, too. However, the billions helped by religious organizations in just the last 20 years, never mind the last 2000, far exceed the harm done to people by frankly sinful church members and leaders. Do you think those people only acted as they did because they were religious? I think religious people come dangerously close in inferring that they are the only ones capable of behaving morally sometimes.

The people who have been helped by the staff of this missionary hospital and this missionary doctor are very grateful for their help, and they would never characterize religion as mankind's worst mistake, as Arcesious asserted.I could see how this is relevant if I thought that her actions were motivated entirely by religion. I'm sure the people that she works with praise her and not her religion (it is her doing the work after all).

I've not seen that stat before. Please don't think I'm questioning the veracity--I'm being literal there. Other organizations can fill in the condom gap, too. The Catholic church wants to and does provide help, but I don't see why they should provide condoms in violation of their own faith and when other organizations are available to take care of that in their place.I think my point may have been lost in translation. The catholic church forbids condom use (and some activists, not necessarily catholic, have spread propaganda that the west purposely creates condoms with holes in them to help facilitate the spread of AIDS, thereby causing distrust and driving down use). If 17% of the population is catholic and, in their efforts to be good catholics, aren't using condoms (which I'm sure is helped by the aforementioned propaganda) and the local culture doesn't have the same criteria for adultery as we do, then hopefully you can see how an unsupportable ban on safe sex (and comprehensive safe sex education), based on superstitious belief, is not only criminally reckless and irresponsible, but deadly.

Jae Onasi
04-22-2008, 12:18 AM
Do you think those people only acted as they did because they were religious? I think religious people come dangerously close in inferring that they are the only ones capable of behaving morally sometimes.Do you think that religious people who did negative things only acted as they did because they were religious? It cuts both ways in this case.

I could see how this is relevant if I thought that her actions were motivated entirely by religion. I'm sure the people that she works with praise her and not her religion (it is her doing the work after all). She's an extremely quiet, humble person. She'd be terribly embarrassed by such praise, actually. She used to be in practice in the US--she felt called by God to use her skills in the mission field, and that's how she ended up in Cameroon.

I think my point may have been lost in translation. The catholic church forbids condom use (and some activists, not necessarily catholic, have spread propaganda that the west purposely creates condoms with holes in them to help facilitate the spread of AIDS, thereby causing distrust and driving down use). If 17% of the population is catholic and, in their efforts to be good catholics, aren't using condoms (which I'm sure is helped by the aforementioned propaganda) and the local culture doesn't have the same criteria for adultery as we do, then hopefully you can see how an unsupportable ban on safe sex (and comprehensive safe sex education), based on superstitious belief, is not only criminally reckless and irresponsible, but deadly.[/QUOTE]I wanted to know more about the stat than anything else.
In regards to condom usage and the Church, the Church isn't forcing people to have sex, so there's no way this can be considered criminally reckless or irresponsible. If they did force people to have sex unprotected, then they would be culpable of malfeasance. However, people have a choice whether or not to engage in sex. Promoting the only way to avoid an STD is neither reckless nor irresponsible. Condoms, for all the good they can do in this situation, are not 100% fool proof, unfortunately, though I think they're a big help in that department.

The 'intentional holes in the condoms' thing is just ludicrous.

Serpentine Cougar
04-22-2008, 12:35 AM
I think mankind's worst mistake was eating the forbidden fruit, and the sin that introduced into the world.

Regarding religion being the worst mistake, it's not so much the religion that is flawed than the people following the religion are flawed. That's why they need the religion in the first place. As Mohandas Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." If people followed their religion perfectly, there wouldn't be any mistakes of mankind, because we'd all be perfect.

Yay!!! Communism is the answer :D
Like religion, if true communism was followed perfectly, it would be a good thing. But it doesn't seem like that's happened yet.

Achilles
04-22-2008, 12:55 AM
Do you think that religious people who did negative things only acted as they did because they were religious? It cuts both ways in this case. You didn't answer my question, but in the interest of being a good sport, I will answer yours:

No, I do not think this is true for most cases and it has never been my contention that they did. My argument has been that religion does allow them a "free ride" and that in some cases religion does instigate the behavior. In almost all cases, religion is partially culpable because if you look in the applicable holy text you will find a verse telling the person to do what they are now in trouble for doing.

(note: "religion" is used rather vaguely here. Let's assume that we're discussing the big three and not Buddhism, etc).


In regards to condom usage and the Church, the Church isn't forcing people to have sex, so there's no way this can be considered criminally reckless or irresponsible.It is influencing them not to take reasonable precautions. We can put aside philosophical differences regarding whether people should have sex or not and operate from reality, i.e. they are.

If they did force people to have sex unprotected, then they would be culpable of malfeasance. However, people have a choice whether or not to engage in sex.Indeed. It would be be great if they could get sufficient education so that they also felt as though they had a choice to be protected or not. Let's stick with reality please.

Promoting the only way to avoid an STD is neither reckless nor irresponsible. Agreed, unless the person taking the responsibility for educating is also guilty of intentionally misleading their audience about public health information. Then it is reckless and irresponsible.

Condoms, for all the good they can do in this situation, are not 100% fool proof, unfortunately, though I think they're a big help in that department. I don't think anyone will contest this. However this is like saying say that trapeze artists should not use a safety net because they sometimes fail or that people should not wear seat belts because they sometimes don't work. Sure, no one has to drive, but amazingly a lot of people do anyway.

The 'intentional holes in the condoms' thing is just ludicrous.Most of what these people are being told is ludicrous. :(

Ravnas
04-22-2008, 12:56 AM
I think mankind's worst mistake was eating the forbidden fruit, and the sin that introduced into the world.

Regarding religion being the worst mistake, it's not so much the religion that is flawed than the people following the religion are flawed. That's why they need the religion in the first place. As Mohandas Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." If people followed their religion perfectly, there wouldn't be any mistakes of mankind, because we'd all be perfect.


Like religion, if true communism was followed perfectly, it would be a good thing. But it doesn't seem like that's happened yet.

Exactly, a system like Communism can only be achieved through common understanding and a true desire among man to work together, which is a problem as the necessary criteria to meet those goals require a change on how is man viewed and how they would act, which would conflict with the nature of man that religion has established. The Bolshevik revolution in the early 20th century did not lead to communism contrary to popular belief but to some sort of despotic state with a communistic twist.

igyman
04-22-2008, 04:31 AM
Let's see--how many people have been allegedly harmed/killed? 100,000? A million? Maybe a couple million?

Let's compare that to the good done by one single Catholic hospital in Milwaukee...

First I want you to know that when I say that religion is mankind's worst mistake I don't mean specifically Christianity, or any other religion, but rather all of them. As for the allegedly harmed/killed, as you put it, there's nothing alleged about it, people have been harmed/killed and the only thing historians aren't sure of is the number of victims.
Some examples of religion based crimes would be:
- people being sacrificed to the gods in ancient times, including ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome. In Egypt and Rome as far as I know some rulers were considered to be gods and people were killed for offending them.
- the Medieval and Spanish Inquisition, where the death toll varies according to different sources, but could have been up to nine million.
- the Crusade, again at least thousands of deaths, but there's no accurate count.
- the Turkish conquests. Serbia was once occupied by the Turks and we have an extensive history when it comes to Turks trying to convert the enslaved population to Islam and persecuting those who wouldn't convert. Christianity had to be practiced in secrecy.
- more recently the terrorist attacks on your own country, fueled by radical Islamists. Then the subsequent wars started by your country in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to bring the terrorists to justice, but as far as the media report more civilians and soldiers have been killed than terrorists.

I doubt the crimes that spanned for over two thousand years can be overweighted by recent efforts to help the needy.
One more thing. I'm well aware that there are lots of good and tolerant religious people and that there are those who aren't, but you don't need a lot of bad people to cause bad things. Again I will reference to the more recent tragedy of 9/11 - it took a couple of fanatical terrorists with guns to take over airplanes with hundreds of people and ram them into buildings to kill even more.

Since this forum has its share of religious discussions, I will try to refrain myself from further commenting on religion in this thread. The title, after all, says "mankind's biggest mistake", not "religion is mankind's biggest mistake", the latter is just my opinion.

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 04:58 AM
Bit of a stretch to blame religion for peoples' own willingness to be sheep in the face of any ideology (facism, communism, nationalism.....). Mans' biggest mistake is most likely his own inability to see beyond his own wants and desires, consequences be damned.

JCarter426
04-22-2008, 05:06 AM
Bit of a stretch to blame religion for peoples' own willingness to be sheep in the face of any ideology (facism, communism, nationalism.....).

True, but religion (all of those) teaches people to be sheep, even if they wouldn't be otherwise.

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 05:13 AM
So do most/all secular ideologies also. Frankly, most ideologies strongly encourage or demand a level of conformity that reduces people to sheep.

Ray Jones
04-22-2008, 05:32 AM
Got any examples?

If people followed their religion perfectly, there wouldn't be any mistakes of mankind, because we'd all be perfect.As far as I know, most religious people deem their acts as "perfectly following their religion", even more those who have the "nutter"-attribute bit set.

In other words, how do you define "to follow their religion perfectly"?

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 05:43 AM
Nazism and communism leap to mind. Also, PCism.

Ray Jones
04-22-2008, 06:55 AM
Nazism worked mainly through the principle of oppression and fear, not through people being sheep. Communism, well that may be another story, dependent on which country's communism you take into account. At least the communist/socialist Germany I grew up in did not demand people to be sheep. Of course some people were, but the majority surely was not.

However, I don't consider a certain level of conformity as "being sheep" -- I rather call that "acting as a whole".


As for PCism, is that an ideology anyway? Or is it merely another term for "got too much time at hand"? :p

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 02:08 PM
Right, there was no pressure to conform in any of those societies. :rolleyes:

However, I don't consider a certain level of conformity as "being sheep" -- I rather call that "acting as a whole".

So, when religious people "act as a whole" they are being sheep, but not so in a secular situation? Talk about having your cake and eating it to. :lol:

PCism, as in political correctness. cute pun on your part, though. :rolleyes: :)

Ray Jones
04-22-2008, 02:52 PM
Right, there was no pressure to conform in any of those societies.Oh, so, all those religious "sheeps" are religious due to...pressure?


So, when religious people "act as a whole" they are being sheep, but not so in a secular situation?Err, no?

The Source
04-22-2008, 04:10 PM
Mankind's worst mistake would be:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

I think that the invention of weapons that could wipe out whole civilizations is a big mistake. Yes, I could make an argument over oil spills, but those things can be cleaned up and cured overtime. When a nuclear weapon goes off, both human and environmental damage is next to almost unfixable.

Edited :: I didn't even see this:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=187341

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 04:24 PM
Mankind's worst mistake would be:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

I think that the invention of weapons that could wipe out whole civilizations is a big mistake. Yes, I could make an argument over oil spills, but those things can be cleaned up and cured overtime. When a nuclear weapon goes off, both human and environmental damage is next to almost unfixable.


Well, don't forget bio and chemical weapons. They may do less obvious damage to the environment, but the are deadly b/c they're much cheaper to produce in quantity.

@Ray--perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by pressure. But generally speaking, that's what people mean when they talk about people being sheep. Not just that they merely mill around and do nothing b/c they're lazy, but also b/c they want or need others to tell them what to do. In essence, they're sheep b/c they don't/won't think for themselves. They willingly succumb to pressure in order to belong (or at least be otherwise left alone, so they hope).

The Source
04-22-2008, 04:32 PM
Well, don't forget bio and chemical weapons. They may do less obvious damage to the environment, but the are deadly b/c they're much cheaper to produce in quantity.

@Ray--perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by pressure. But generally speaking, that's what people mean when they talk about people being sheep. Not just that they merely mill around and do nothing b/c they're lazy, but also b/c they want or need others to tell them what to do. In essence, they're sheep b/c they don't/won't think for themselves. They willingly succumb to pressure in order to belong (or at least be otherwise left alone, so they hope).
I hear you man. I think weapons of mass destruction tops my list. Right below WMD is the creation of religious sects. I am not talking about Christianity the faith, but more in the lines of Catholicism, Islam, Protestant, and Mormons. Religious sects are widely responsible for more deaths than anything else man made. People twist faith in a way, which causes crusades based upon ethnic cleansing. Grrr... "We come in the name of this faith, we translate that faith this way. If you don't like our translation, you will be hung or crucified." Horrible. Horrible...

Ray Jones
04-22-2008, 05:35 PM
@Ray--perhaps you'd like to define what you mean by pressure. People are usually not forced into religion, but ideological systems usually have severe means of punishment at hand for not sheeping in line. To put it simple -- while one side "only" fears hell in afterlife, the other one fears deportation/torture/death in this life.

To me that makes quite a difference in "pressure".

But generally speaking, that's what people mean when they talk about people being sheep. Not just that they merely mill around and do nothing b/c they're lazy, but also b/c they want or need others to tell them what to do. In essence, they're sheep b/c they don't/won't think for themselves. They willingly succumb to pressure in order to belong (or at least be otherwise left alone, so they hope).I strongly doubt that any victim of deportation (or their family members) would agree on any of these points. Neither did they want to be lazy, nor needed someone to tell them what to do. And by no means they did not want to think for themselves. Also, I would not call it "willingly" when you succumb to pressure because you don't want your family dead.

Jvstice
04-22-2008, 05:54 PM
Yeah. Developing the technology to wipe yourself and probably most multicellular life at the same time from the face of the earth would definitely top my list of worst mistakes.

Ray Jones
04-22-2008, 06:06 PM
Well, at least mankind is now aware of the dangers coming from the use of this technology. At the end it might not be so much of a mistake, because we kind of stopped using it.

Totenkopf
04-22-2008, 10:35 PM
People are usually not forced into religion, but ideological systems usually have severe means of punishment at hand for not sheeping in line. To put it simple -- while one side "only" fears hell in afterlife, the other one fears deportation/torture/death in this life.
To me that makes quite a difference in "pressure".

Wrong, history is replete with examples of religion being forced down the throats of various populations. It still occurs in some parts of the world and is the ultimate aim of the radical islamic groups. Ideological groups like the nazis and communists also brainwash (ed) children early on to conform to their new environment through education and socialization. It doesn't work on everyone and many who defied religion being thrust down their throats also suffered bodily harm and/or other forms of loss.





I strongly doubt that any victim of deportation (or their family members) would agree on any of these points. Neither did they want to be lazy, nor needed someone to tell them what to do. And by no means they did not want to think for themselves. Also, I would not call it "willingly" when you succumb to pressure because you don't want your family dead.

Not really sure what you're talking about here. Are you implying that the only people who are "sheeple" are a specifically targeted class (like perhaps the jews). Most people in a democracy are sheeple, who merely vote for the candidate of their parents/friends w/o really thinking about it. Or b/c they joined a party and don't wish to alienate their friends/fellow party members with their misgivings (assuming they think about it at all). As to the point about willing, you confuse that with desire. They may not have desired being on the butt end of coercion, but if they don't find a way to fight back, they go willingly (though not happily).

Serpentine Cougar
04-25-2008, 12:32 AM
As far as I know, most religious people deem their acts as "perfectly following their religion", even more those who have the "nutter"-attribute bit set.
I know many religious people who wouldn't say they are perfect. They know they are sinful; that's why they need religion.

In other words, how do you define "to follow their religion perfectly"?
Impossible. I don't think we as humans are capable of perfection. What I meant with that statement was that even people who say they follow a certain religion don't keep all of the tenants of that religion perfectly. If all Christians lived the way the Bible tells them to, and followed all of its commandments perfectly, never doing anything wrong (according to their religion), they'd all be Jesuses. The fact is they don't, and they can't because of sin.

ForeverNight
04-28-2008, 08:54 AM
Biggest Mistakes?

Either having far, far, far too much tolerance (That probably didn't come out the way I wanted it to...) or Zealotry.

Tolerance: If you tolerate too much then eventually it will get to the point of: (S)He's killing tons and tons of people, but its okay, because her/his culture says that it is okay to kill many people to become happy... <--- Extreme? Yes, but I believe it gets my point across...

Zealotry: People who will do anything to get their message spread and/or follow their ideology (Whether political, religious, or what) too much and get to the point of: "You are an infidel, DIE!" or "You are a Stupid, Ignorent, Right/Left/Anything-I'm-Missing believer."

So, yeah, too much tolerance or zealotry.

DarthAve
04-28-2008, 06:29 PM
-The Treaty of Versaille
-Eve listening to the freakin serpant
-Slavery
-Getting too intelligent for it's own good (IE. WMD's, Atom Bombs)
-Getting to dumb for it's own good (IE. Fast Food corporations shoving practically toxic waste down humainty's gullets)
-Gangsta rap
-Relying too much on techknowledgy (I am not looking foreward to a 2001:A Space Oddssey type occurance.)
-Cannibalism for recreation.

Jvstice
04-28-2008, 06:48 PM
H.A.L. was cool though.

Where have you heard of cannibalism for recreation? :(

DarthAve
04-28-2008, 08:50 PM
I know a lot of people with too much time on their hands...

who have too many fat friends that are slow runners.....

Yeeeeaaaaahh.

-Cannibalism as a whole. Unless you're gonna die. Than it's every ham for himself.

Q
04-28-2008, 08:58 PM
-The Treaty of Versaille.
Definitely in my top five. ;)

Tommycat
04-28-2008, 09:48 PM
H.A.L. was cool though.

Where have you heard of cannibalism for recreation? :(
H=I
A=B
L=M

At any rate, Some of our greatest achievements may at some point prove to be our greatest mistakes. Technically I could call Television our greatest mistake because of the society it has bred. The internet for the ease of allowing people to hide their identities.