My thoughts regarding stuff.
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Apr 14, 2012 15:37:49 GMT
Here I'll post random stuff not very related to each other. Discuss.
We must save animals from extinction. People say we don't have to because they can't adapt and don't even care so they deserve to be extinct. I say we do because rainforests getting destroyed en masse is't a natural process. We, humans, are cheaters, and those animals don't deserve to be extinct and we should help them.
The idea behind religion is good: Helping less intelligent people to know the difference between good and bad. I've read the bible and I found it inspiring, even though I didn't learn a new lesson. Religious people don't have to annoy us smarter people because we already can differntiate between good and bad, which is good enough. People now forget the purpose of it, besides sticking it up in everybodies butt. Ignorant religious people need to be punished and ignorant atheists could need some religion. Amen.
Humans are ignorant, selfish, short-minded and think themselves superior. But some more than others.
Drop your thoughts here and/or discuss mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Apr 14, 2012 18:12:40 GMT
Humans are superior though, I am not sure if you understand the accomplishments we have made.
I can understand how it is good to protect some endangered species, but there are some animals that do not really contribute too much, and are just bad animals. I really think that things wouldn't be too bad if some animals went away, but some of them are very important, just that the idea of them all being "beautiful and loving" animals is a pretty dumb statement. Something people need to realize is that an ice bear will not discriminate when they are running towards you just because you say you're against people hunting animals to extinction. If animals cannot contribute and stay alive, then they are not going to stay alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Apr 14, 2012 19:41:57 GMT
Ignorance is not a reason to punish. You're also calling every single religious person dumb, that's just wrong. You are the ignorant person here, and according to you, you need some religion.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 14, 2012 20:59:25 GMT
Ants are superior to humans. They have been around a lot longer than us, and they rule the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 14, 2012 21:28:59 GMT
Humans vs. Other Animals (with mention of quantifiable superiority)
That depends on your definition of superior. It's impossible to have any set definition of superior, as it suggests some kind of sliding scale of quality. This may be the case in specific instances, but as a model it fails in general.
In age, ants > humans. In size, humans > ants. You can go on and on naming different categories but none are definitively "better" than the other.
As far as I'm concerned, everything that is, is. Not by some label of "better" or "worse" than something else, save in a specific quantifiable manner (key word quantifiable).
Religion and Morality
Connecting this to religion: You are talking about a set of morals that often accompany religion. In the case of ignorant atheists, they could use humanism, not religion. Making someone believe something may be an effective way to make them behave but it isn't necessarily the best (or the most moral, or the most effective, considering the vast number of immoral religious people out there).
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned religion is disconnected from morality. You have religious immoral people, nonreligious immortal people, religious moral people, etc, etc. I dunno what determines whether or not someone is "moral" (see my first paragraph as to why we can't quantifably state what that word means), but religion (when applicable) is simply a reasoning to keep it up.
In other words: Say there's a religious person that is 'moral' (morality being current generic western standards, so to speak). If that person was never introduced to religion, there is no way to know whether or not they would still be 'moral'. Arguing that there is would be fallacious. There's simply too many variables and too much we don't understand.
In addition to all that, of course, we have the fact that religion isn't always what we consider moral. The bible may cheer some people up (at least, the new testament), but frankly the old testament is an unnecessary gorefest of truly biblical proportions. The new testament is far better (with notable exception of a few rather sexist parts).
Of course, that's only considering Christianity. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion. Islam is very popular, and there are many other religions out there. Did Charles Manson's religion bring any morality to the hearts of its followers? Why, by their definition of morality, it did indeed. We can't truly say that we can tell the difference between good and bad and neutral before we have their meanings worked out. When it comes down to it, morality is just what the majority of people feels is moral. It's why such issues as abortion come up today: people simply have a differing definition of morality. What is unspeakably horrid to some people is right and just to others.
tl;dr: Religion =/= 'morality', for a given definition of morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Apr 15, 2012 6:14:54 GMT
Humans are superior though, I am not sure if you understand the accomplishments we have made. I can understand how it is good to protect some endangered species, but there are some animals that do not really contribute too much, and are just bad animals. I really think that things wouldn't be too bad if some animals went away, but some of them are very important, just that the idea of them all being "beautiful and loving" animals is a pretty dumb statement. Something people need to realize is that an ice bear will not discriminate when they are running towards you just because you say you're against people hunting animals to extinction. If animals cannot contribute and stay alive, then they are not going to stay alive. Well, not contributing is better than destroying, like we do. In the end, nature has only suffered from us. @qwerty: Nice post. However, when I was atalking about religion, I was actually taking about the morals that accompany it. Should've cleared that up. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 15, 2012 7:36:15 GMT
Yes, but that's what I mean. The morals that accompany it are, well... sort of mixed. Religions have vastly conflicting morality systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 15, 2012 7:42:49 GMT
Non religious "immortal people"?
#Corrections
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Apr 15, 2012 19:14:48 GMT
In essence, humans are still animals in a sense. (my opinion)
The majority of us would still step on another's neck to get up in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 15, 2012 19:56:37 GMT
In a sense? Humans are animals. A specific type of animals, yes, but animals indeed. There's no separation.
Except for the immortal atheists of course. They're just freaky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Apr 15, 2012 20:58:11 GMT
Derrrrp
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 12, 2012 13:49:02 GMT
Some animals don't deserve to be saved.
Pandas are a prime example of this...
I'm not saying we kill them, but stop giving them so much attention. Let them die of old age. They never reproduce anyways. When they do it is BIG news. And they don't really fit into the ecosystem in any sort of important way. Ergo, all of this attempt to make them live on is just a hole to throw money and effort in. It could be redirected to something more important. I've recently heard bumble bees are dying for an unknown reason recently. Saving them would be more logical than saving pandas. They're VERY important to the ecosystem.
|
|
|
[M:977802]
