Bigthink - User Ideas Feed

Re: What is the most important war in human history?

Bigthink — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:38:58 +0100

: The most important war in human history, without a doubt, is the sum of all the current conflicts because until all current wars are resolved to a satisfactory end for all parties, our children's futures — and the planet's safety — are at risk. Any other choice as "the most important" only serves to further embitter those not still rolling in the spoils of their victory.

Re: Is it human nature to be violent?

Bigthink — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:59:12 +0100

This is one of the great questions for the ages. Looking at human history (including that being made to this day,) one would have to say, yes, indeed. That humans have had a violent past is undeniable. We have the capacity to create violence for many different reasons. But is it the basis of human nature, the single defining trait? This I think deserves much more attention. Along this line, we create our own realities by how we live our lives and conduct our personal and public lives. Once someone has been influenced by violence, then the battle begins to not let that become the overriding metaphor. If people use violence as the focus in their lives, it just creates more violence down the road, in one form or another.

Humans must maintain their capacity for violence if for nothing more than to provide protection for their tribes. It is clear not all humans function on the same set of human values and it remains a possibility that, at some point, someone will try to kill you for reasons unrecognized by you; i.e. your ethnic makeup, political or religious views, diet, consumptive patterns, or whatever distorted minds manufacture.

So, the real question is how is violence best contained without ruining the human experience? And I don't think watching extreme cage fighting is on the list.

The border wall: how long should it stand?

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:25:06 +0100

: Lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that the border wall produces its desired effect, which has been stated as a stop for illegal immigration. Then what? How long do you plan to leave the wall in place? What is the long-term plan to eliminate its necessity? What are the criteria for dismantling the wall?

Re: Money: Do we really need it?

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:12:09 +0100

Of course we really need money. This is how the modern world functions, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps the question should be, how do you transition out of an inequitable system without creating a worse problem? As it now stands, we've created a non-sustainable world economy, but one with momentum. A boulder rolling down hill has momentum but the energy is difficult to harness.

The current real estate situation really frames the debate. People were encouraged to better their living standards by buying new homes. It didn't matter if they could afford what they were being sold. They took on ill-advised debt, which can become a burden to the debtor, especially if they were betting on the come, so to speak, of higher wages just around the bend. The original debt holder turned around and sold the debt to someone else, so the long -term prospects didn't really matter to the seller or original debt holder. The second debt holder often resold the debt yet again.

In this example, it's all based on greed and profiting from another person's burden. In this sense, it's not about the quality of the means of payment (money,) it's about the underlying assumptions.

Re: Why must science defy God's existance?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:16:40 +0100

The excuse I was speaking of was the lack of scientific understanding not necessarily an excuse to fall back on religion. But let’s see: you don’t believe any of the science is “falsified in an attempt to lead us astray.” You do believe that this god may have created the sciences “in order to cloud man’s perception of him.” Isn’t clouding on a par with falsification? What am I missing here?

Re: Another question for athiests.

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:48:53 +0100

Cultures the world over have the same basic set of rules ("Don't kill people," for example) because it's common sense. Human societies have been around since long before there was a bible and they have developed many common-sense structures in order to help avoid the pitfalls of all-out animal behavior. Constant mayhem doesn’t usually help the majority of people the majority of the time. Take your pick: don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, don't steal your neighbor's stuff, don't murder your neighbor, don’t eat the yellow snow, to name just a few.

Just because many cultures have some sort of deity they defer to doesn't mean there really is one. Maybe it means they didn't have the ability to explain things any other way because their scientific understanding of natural phenomena was limited. The human race is quickly loosing that excuse. We now know with reasonable certainty that although Thor might indeed have been pissed off, he is not the reason for thunder.

Re: the weak argument of atheism

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:46:02 +0100

You’re saying the discussion can’t happen without both sides considering the other. Once that consideration takes place, there are neither true believers nor true atheists. Zealots don’t consider opposing points of view. It also depends on how the discussion is famed. If someone asks me if I believe in a particular god and I say "yes" or "no," then I'm labeled a believer or an atheist. If I say "I don't know," I'm labeled an agnostic. It might be better to say "I don't care" or “okay, fine.”

How else would one discuss one's non-believer position with a believer without bringing up the inconsistencies of religion? Remember that to argue is not to discuss, which would make both participants agnostics. I'm talking about true discussion, when one is trying to understand the other's point of view. This is different than listening for the sole purpose of blowing up the other argument. When talking with an adamant believer, I tend to ask questions based on the inconsistencies rather than try to beat them into submission with my counter arguments. I'm never really looking for faith anyway, just understanding. Besides, you can't change a believer or non-believer, only provide a different reality for them to consider at some later point in his (or her) life.