Summer means no religion or politics?

[miguel]

...

[discordance]

Quantum? Of course! Quantumn mechanics! By observing the train you are changing the results! The answer is to close your eyes and turn away. Nobody dies. Six people and a train are there. Open them and there is one and no train.

I'm pretty sure that's not how quantum mechanics works. That's more of a misapplication of the Uncertainty Principle. The only way quantum could get you off the hook would be via a handy wave function collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse) which would reveal upon observation that the train was in France, Hitler was in Denmark, Ghandi was in Antarctica, and you were in Equatorial India chilling with a bunch of tigers. Hooray quantum!

[Jared]

Dang. That last post was also my thesis. Does this mean I'm not a real doctor?

[Khris]

About the thought experiment with five people on the tracks:
It's not so much about what one would do personally, it's about the fact that the two questions were posed to many, many people and an overwhelmingly large percentage would pull the lever to kill one instead of five, but wouldn't push the fat guy to kill one instead of five.
The whole idea was to demonstrate that humans have an innate morality and don't need laws or especially religion to tell wrong from right.

It's just a scientific way of saying "what? You seriously think our morals are derived from the Bible? What the hell you fucking moron, of course they aren't!"

[miguel]

Another great conclusion:
 
  People that think morals are derived from the Bible are fucking morons.

  Even Borat would have second thoughts about that phrase.

Very nice. I like. 

[Akatosh]

Of course, that "innate" sense of morals stems at least partially from what we've been taught in our childhoods (plus some instincts), which probably involved at least slight amounts of Christianity (I know mine did). So you figure it out. 

[Khris]

Religion usually deals in absolutes; at least it doesn't teach you that there's a difference between the two hypothetical questions.
The ten commandments which basically translate to "be nice to other people" if you leave out the irrelevant stuff certainly don't.

[Jared]

Of course, that "innate" sense of morals stems at least partially from what we've been taught in our childhoods (plus some instincts), which probably involved at least slight amounts of Christianity (I know mine did). So you figure it out. 

...you, erm, forgot to add "and/or Judaism, Islam, or Hindu".

Also, the idea that people have absorbed religious ideals via osmosis in their youth as the basis of their morality... well I'm not going to diss it outright but it definitely hasn't sold me on anything. I'm more morally upright and ethically minded than a lot of people I know (...yeah, I say so myself, I know) but I'm as atheist as is acceptible, raised by thoroughly atheist parents in a small patch of New South Wales where atheism(/agnosticism for those who want a slipper in both camps. Wimps) is very much the community norm. Until Year Four there was no scripture at all, and I can't say the messages it taught were particularly clear. By that stage a sense of right and wrong had very much developed. It continued to develope more maturely through high school, where I used notes from my parents to avoid scripture entirely.

Generally the feedback from my peers who took scripture was that 'it was awesome' because it was 'an easy class you could bludge for 40 minutes'. I doubt they were taking away much in ethical terms.

[miguel]

Jared, but right and wrong is a notion that only the society you live in can provide. And it may change considerably according to the culture of the people involved. In some extreme antagonist cases incest is common procedure while it may lead to death sentence in others.
What IS innate is humanity belief in God(s).
Maybe in 100 years time the Catholic Church will be nothing but some ridiculous cult, absorbed by science evolution and technology, but so far, and we have come very far, 2000 years later I can't find a better organization to deal with humanity need of believing.

[MrColossal]

How about a catholic church that doesn't hide child rapists for years? That seems like a better organization to me!

AND WE'RE OFF!

[Nacho]

Maybe in 100 years time the Catholic Church will be nothing but some ridiculous cult, absorbed by science evolution and technology

Ain't they that now???

[Matti]

Maybe in 100 years time the Catholic Church will be nothing but some ridiculous cult, absorbed by science evolution and technology

Ain't they that now???

Haha. Yeah I consider it a ridiculous cult too, but a major religion like that can hardly be "absorbed by science, evolution and technology".... unfortunately.

[miguel]

Dear Mr.Colossal, Nacho and MrMatti:
    the absolutist way you are dealing with this issue is the trademark of some that not only condemn the belief in God, but the respect for belief in God.

    Here's what I think, you might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to believe in God. We can also say it's wrong to believe in unicorns, Thor, Jupiter and the likes. Isn't it all the same?
    Well there always has been things that at some point people believed, and things that nobody believed.
    The question here is why is it up to you to disprove what people believe?
    In case you don't know atheism is as old as any religion known to man, and at a given time it was a cult with its own followers.

    Science is in its essence is the quest for eliminating data that at some point can have a meaning or value but can always be proven wrong later on.
    Science also reached the conclusion that the probability of God's existence is near zero. But so is Venus or Jupiter, so why are you so disrespectful to God?
   

[Jared]

Jared, but right and wrong is a notion that only the society you live in can provide.

I would dispute that thoroughly, as I believe that the perspective of the individual is often underestimated in a lot of arguments.  I also belive that just as a culture is half of the influence on the individual, the religion is probably half the influence on the culture, if that. There are far too many factors to attribute one responsibility for all the end products.

What IS innate is humanity belief in God(s).

Again, debatable. Although religion is seen as a universal trait of all humanity until quite recently in history, this is simply because of the power of churches and the control they had over states usually with their laws that the people had to follow their churches. The population of England universally see-sawed between Protestantism and Catholicism for decades - how truly did the survivors believe to convert between the two so readily?

It would be an interesting experiment if there ever is a lunar colony, to raise the children without ever mentioning the concept of God, and thus see if they would idolise things within their reference point or create a similar concept of their own initiative. 

Maybe in 100 years time the Catholic Church will be nothing but some ridiculous cult, absorbed by science evolution and technology,

I'm not sure exactly how they could be absorbed by abstract movements of society. And if they were a ridiculous cult, they would of course be the richest ever in history unless their trillion dollars gets put on a horse sometimes soon. (That probably isn't hyperbole. The Catholic church's investments in just the sharemarket of Australia is around 50 billion dollars - the point being they aren't going away any time soon)

but so far, and we have come very far, 2000 years later I can't find a better organization to deal with humanity need of believing.

I respect your right to believe in such, and hope that that is reciprocated in my right to not believe. I've never taken issue with somebody's religious beliefs, only through people who use religion as an excuse or even as a shield for abhorrent politics and actions.

Oh, and people who use 'religion' as a synonym for 'Christianity'. There's more than a couple out there.

[MrColossal]

why are you so disrespectful to God? 

I was talking about the catholic church, not the abstract belief in a god. The rest of your post seems to be you putting thoughts into my head?

[Matti]

I was talking about the catholic church, not the abstract belief in a god.

That's exactly what I was going to answer.

[miguel]

MrColossal, men run the Church, not God.
     As for putting thoughts into your head, It's scientifically proven I can't do that from a computer in Portugal.

Mr. Matti, I guess the same answer applies.

[MrColossal]

That's fine Miguel, dudes run the church, I agree. I don't see how my attitude was absolutist or spoke disrespectful of god or the belief in such a being, I was talking about the church that is run by men, a lot of men, a lot of men who hid child rapists. You said:

Maybe in 100 years time the Catholic Church will be nothing but some ridiculous cult... but so far ... I can't find a better organization to deal with humanity need of believing.

Were you or were you not talking about the catholic church?

You then went ahead and attached beliefs to me with no other evidence than my vaguely pithy sentence.

No big deal really, I just wanted to clarify!

[Nacho]

I am not going to get into this ^_^ One religious argument per year is ok.

Miguel, if the "evidences" we have of God are enough for you, bravo! They are not enough for me.

[Tuomas]

My lil' sister argued today, after seeing a documentary on ghosts, that there are no ghosts.
-I asked: How would you know?
-She said: Because I've never seen one.
-I the asked: But what about if you saw one? Your argument doesn't make sense for so many reasons.
-She replied: But how could I see one when I know there are no ghosts.

Her rethorics might be explained through her age of 7 I tried to give her nightmares then:

-She said something like: The ghost on the video could have been a table cloth and maybe someone under it or wind blowing into it. And what seems like a man hung from his neck could be just a boxing back that you see in the dark. Do you believe in ghosts?
-I replied: No, I don't. But I most certainly would, if I saw one myself. That's why people believe; They've seen them themselves.
-She asked: But how could they, when there are no ghosts?
-I said: Well surely if you saw a ghosts here, you couldn't deny, that it wasn't there?
-She: But there would not be any ghost!

And so forth. what a stubborn little kid. They should teach openmindedness in the school. Especially on these matters. Here's why:

-I said: But do you believe in God, even though you haven't seen him?
-She said: yes, of course.
-Me: But why? I don't, but I would, if I saw him. how is he different than ghosts, you don't know if he is real.
-She: They said he is real at school. And he has helped me.
-Me: How did he help you then?
-She: Yesterday I losta  Barbie comb, and I couldn't find it, so I asked mum, and she found it on the bed.
-Me: But that was our mum who found it, not God. And how do you know it wasn't a ghosts rather than God?

But she wouldn't accept that I'm just playing around, but it's fun to see what teaching religion really does to our children. I mean, I wonder when it happens, that the kids who stop believing, do so. Can't remember personally. But I feel a bit failed when I wasn't able to make her believe, that the chance of ghosts existing is pretty much equal to God existing, since you haven't seen either yourself. But there are some "data and evidence" on both.