I'm so sick of the backwards logic that is the well accepted American Philosophy.

case in point: a totally fictitious game, WORLD OF WARCRAFT, in which people actually take sides in a fictitious world and literally get mad at each other in reality, for being in the opposing faction lol



watch that and tell me you think removing religion or modifying its meaning, at this juncture, will fix the problem

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

removing religion won't solve it. lol we'll find some new group think territories to separate ourselves into and repeat the same scenario. the issue at hand is, the leaders all know this! they know, and they manipulate it for all its worth, then blame their own people and their people's beliefs, on the situation. just as you are doing now. it isn't religion. it isn't the people. it's the leaders. well, it's the human condition + the leaders manipulation. it's an auto adjusting population control mechanism.

Agreed. Removing religion wouldn't solve anything, it would just remove one more layer of modesty from the skirts of political hawks. No bad thing. Regarding leaders, they are a distilled aspect of human nature. I'd hesitate before distancing ourselves from them. If people are too convinced of their 'otherness' they are overlooking the fact that 'they' are 'us.'

IMO human nature demands, requires and creates leaders. Picture three average people in a boat...cast adrift. Before long, one would become the leader. Human nature....so it goes...

reply to post by Kandinsky


I'm not convinced they are us. They may be us when they are rising to power, but once there, big changes happen and i suspect those big changes are related to them not being us anymore. How is it possible to make the decisions the leaders of the world make, and still be thinking, feeling, human beings? unless you can prove they immediately become psychopathic killers by virtue of their title of power?

you're numb. yep. numb.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo
I think socialization plays its part. If you want to get into politics, you have to fit in. To advance, you have to trade in any morals or principles. Ambiguity and flexibility. Dissimulation and mendacity. These are the passwords for *progress.*

you're numb. yep. numb.

Not sure what you mean there. If it's aimed at me, I'd point out that you aren't in a position to know if I am or not.

reply to post by Kandinsky


well if the issue is they "Trade" in their humanity for something inhumane in order to fit in, i'd have to wonder how that makes them human still? are they? to view it from our vantage point, don't they seem a bit wacked in the head? i mean, would you go shoot your neighbor, rape his women, steal his money and property, poison his land, and make sure his future generations were born deformed, over a difference of opinion? you have to ask yourself the really hard questions once you get to that point in your deliberations and if you aren't asking yourself those questions, you would have to be numbed by the automated auto-adjusting population control mechanism that WANTS you to believe it's okay to kill people over a difference of opinion, if the opinion is in disagreement with your own. look deeeep inside kandinsky.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo
Although I despise most politicians and similar personalities, they are aspects of the human personality. They are us.

reply to post by Kandinsky


then let me ask you: do you condone the idea of removing religion from the planet for the sake of revelation, knowing full well the human condition is such that when there's a vacancy for such group think, the void will simply be filled by new group think that will inevitably have the same outcome? in essence, you may be suggesting that since you don't agree with religion, it's okay for it and its followers, to be removed for the sake of disclosure.

sad but true. your brain is in auto-adjusting population control mode. new target is: abrahamic religions. with those out of the way: pagan religions. with those out of the way: people who wear beards. and then people who drink water. and then people who think and feel, independently, and then people who don't think and feel independently, ad nauseum.


their real target isn't religion. it's population control. resources man, resources.





[edit on 29-1-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo

hen let me ask you: do you condone the idea of removing religion from the planet for the sake of revelation, knowing full well the human condition is such that when there's a vacancy for such group think, the void will simply be filled by new group think that will inevitably have the same outcome? in essence, you may be suggesting that since you don't agree with religion, it's okay for it and its followers, to be removed for the sake of disclosure.

Although I have reservations about religion, I'm not completely against it. Despite that sentiment, I didn't realise that you were interpreting my thoughts through that idea?! When I raised the idea that a world without religion would expose the actions of politicians and leaders for what they are, I wasn't advocating banning religion.

There are few things in the world that warrant banning. I'm a libertarian by nature. I'll ask questions of people with alternative views. None of which means that I would seek to proscribe them. I think you've misunderstood me and we've been at cross-purposes

reply to post by Kandinsky


my purpose is to suggest that the mechanism that's been causing suffering for thousands of years, isn't religious at its core. it's a population control mechanism. religion is just one excuse it uses to achieve its desired outcome. another, perhaps less obvious, are things like. .. joe and those like joe, wear weird pants, let's attack the joes. marge and those like marge, are strange, let's attack the marges. ya know, the usual. why do we have such a strong, over powering dislike for the "unusual ?" auto-adjusting population control mechanisms.

detach from it and they come up with some new one. the never ending scenario for keeping the herd from over extending its boundaries, with millenia of examples to draw from once you know what you are looking for.

reply to post by undo
Population control is a popular concern for some ATS members. The process you suggest is simpler. People arrange themselves into groups naturally. Remember being a little kid? Playgrounds are pure examples of humans gravitating to those they like...and away from those they don't. In the middle of that is the sense of rejection for those that don't get to 'choose' their groups, but have the choice thrust upon them. Who'd be a kid again? Tough, but fun.

The mammal world shares the same processes with hierarchies and splinter groups...

reply to post by Kandinsky


so you believe it's encoded in our
genes to behave this way?

reply to post by undo

so you believe it's encoded in our genes to behave this way?

Probably it's a nature and nurture combination. It's clearly observable in very young kids, but likewise we can raise our kids to more accepting of others. If you haven't seen the 'brown eyes/ blue eyes' classroom experiment, I really recommend it. It's human nature being exploited towards a political end and then subverted to give the kids a perspective that most people will never enjoy. It may have some resonance with your beliefs...

reply to post by Kandinsky


that is so interesting! she was saying only the suggestion of it was enough to completely change the way they treated each other. wowzers.

Simply because something comes to us naturally doesn't mean that is what we should do, how we should act, etc. Case in point: it is natural to be greedy. Children want their toys, it's only once we teach them about sharing that they develop a sense of altruistic tendencies.

It may be natural to have an "emptiness" that needs filling via religion, etc. However, that tendency is what needs to be erased. Our tendency to act on impulsive emotions needs to be erased (please don't misconstrue this to mean we should rid ourselves of emotion) and replaced with rational thought before irrational spontaneous action.

The crux of the OP's rant seemed, to me at least, to concern hypocrisy. That is a direct result of irrational behavior - saying one thing and acting differently. As human beings with Reason we should act how we talk. I feel like I have just gone on a tangent rant myself (I needed to get this out I suppose lol).

reply to post by undo
I'm glad you enjoyed it There's another three parts. When she finally explains why she did it to the kids and they all make friends again...my eyes well up. I've friends and colleagues who are teachers and they've used these videos as part of their classes. Empathy is a huge benefit to us humans and needs nurturing.

reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp


Our natural desires and emotions all have uses. They must not be ignored or repressed, but moderated wisely. Greed has as much a place in life as anything, but like many things in life it can become ugly and damaging if overused. Never be so greedy that you cause harm and never be so generous as to invite it. Abuse will turn anything against you, so the focus should always be concentrated on balance.

This relates to religion as well. Nobody should ever be denied the practice of their religion as a simple matter of freedom and equality. Faith has purpose for many people providing confidence and strength, but abusing it is harmful just like everything else. Totally removed from law and policy making, it should be private and chosen freely, but never forced on others. No single religion should be used to shape global social behavior, instead let only broader principles from all faiths be a reminder to being good.

Being a good person does not have to be so complicated. Making good choices and helping others as often as you can should be universal. Religions are merely alternate methods of assistance to help people make good choices. In this role religions have nothing to prove and never need to oppose one another. We make the simplest things far too complex. Only when your actions bring harm on another person have you done wrong. That's the only rule needed.

You are correct of my meaning here. We portray ourselves as righteous God fearing people trying to help those in need, but we are far from it. We are violent and deceptive people only helping ourselves. We Americans claim principles of equality and liberty, but not for gays or blacks or even women not so long ago? We spout off about peace, while faithfully supporting the USA's never ending string of violent wars? The fact that rich countries have forsaken starving Africans for so long when solving world hunger would be easy? Hypocrites that boast of ideals that reflect only their delusions.


Pitiful.

reply to post by Zerbst


The only ones in need is ourself.

Greed is not an emotion. Greed is your will, so is faith. Faith is your will.

This life is not going to just open up for you until you realise who you are.

Nothing is given, without being given first. Taking just closes what you could have given yourself.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by DarkCyrus]

So what is the point of this thread? To complain? Where has that ever gotten anyone? Are you offering some kind of solution to all of the things that just really "grind your gears" ? You know a lot of things really piss me off as well like people starving on the streets when we have T.V. shows like man vs food. So I go and volunteer my time to help the homeless shelter and do as much as I can to help fix the problem in my area. Imagine how bad the world would really be if everyone that did help just went home and whined to an online community about things they didnt like. If you have such a problem why aren't you taking the necessary steps to get in a position of leadership? Where you can help make decisions? Your right, that sounds a lot harder than going home and blowing some steam.

Not trying to be a jerk, but if your not a part of the solution then what are you apart of?

reply to post by Zerbst

The fact that rich countries have forsaken starving Africans for so long when solving world hunger would be easy? Hypocrites that boast of ideals that reflect only their delusions.

do you agree with the one child policy in china? because population control is what this is all about. if you were to take a team of medical personnel into an african village and try to convince them that having sex with infants will NOT cure their AIDS infections, they'd call you liars and have you ran out of town on a rail (or worse). the thing is out of control. it's a mechanism of some sort, for population control. i dunno who plants the ideas in their minds that this road or that road is the way to go, but the end result is pretty aggregious, and usually is characterized by the abuse of weakest in the populations of the planet, which are typically women or future generations (children).

[edit on 6-2-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo
Education is a strong factor in population control. Empowering women through education actually reduces family sizes. The correlation between number of children and level of education is relevant whether it's the USA, China or 3rd World village. Improved education thresholds apply to men as well women, but in many areas girls are educated to the ages of of 5-9....if at all.