Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:07 |
Epignosis wrote:
a) Nonbelievers are destroyed, but not tortured for all eternity.
|
Phew.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:26 |
Epignosis wrote:
They were told they could stop during the remake of the experiment.
I think we are getting our lines crossed. What I'm saying is that I don't see squeamishness as an evolutionary "curb" on violent behavior. In the second Milgrim experiment, people were told they could stop at any time and yet most continued inflicting pain, which means people are even crueler than the original test would leave us to believe (because now they were not blindly following the orders of an authority figure, but were inflicting torture of their own freewill).
Even if they exhibited stress or squeamishness during the course of the experiment, those feelings did not stop them from continuing, rendering your point moot.
|
In all Milgram's variants of his own experiment obedience decreased:
For example, in Experiment 2, where participants received telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent. Interestingly, some participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment. In the variation where the "learner's" physical immediacy was closest, where participants had to physically hold the "learner's" arm onto a shock plate, compliance decreased. Under that condition, 30 percent of participants completed the experiment. |
...I couldn't find any mention that the subjects were told they could stop voluntarily at any time in any of his 18 variants.
The Milgram Experiment is purely an experiment into obedience to an authority figure. I will accept that could indicate that obedience to gods can have a positive effect in reducing human suffering, (it was one of Milgram's conclusions - some participants stopped because they felt they were accountable to a higer authority while others simply questioned the authority of the experimenter), but in that case I will also have to side with Mike in deducing that the same obedience can and is used for the opposite effect.
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:31 |
chopper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
a) Nonbelievers are destroyed, but not tortured for all eternity.
|
Phew. |
Even though the net result for us is the same, in Rob's version we still have to hang around in a state of deadness until the resurrection. Limbo/Purgatory had better have cable .
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Online
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:38 |
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:43 |
Oh well, I'll just have to verbally slug it out with the agnostics and see if I can persuade them that silently mouthing hymns for eternity is not that much fun.
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:44 |
" I've never blown up frogs or indeed killed any animal for fun ... and I think that someone who takes pleasure in that as a child is either severely mislead in thinking that those creatures feel no pain or suffering (religion can do that, based on the theory that only human beings have a soul), or is indeed a sociopath (not capable of feeling empathy)."
Sociopathic it is then (or was). As little of the event as I can recall, the notion of them feeling the pain was not a concern. It more how high they jumped before they went boom. Group mentality kinda thing which , at least in my case, had nothing to do with any religious training (funny how its to blame for absolutely EVERYTHING) as I had none. I was raised totally unchurched, and decidedly anti-church by a pair of alcoholics. I knew what they (churches) were, but knew nothing about what went on in them. When I was at your tender age I held pretty nearly the same deluded view that you are espousing. A little less dogmatic, but basically feeling the same somewhat juvenile "need for proof". I outgrew it so there's still hope for you.
And Dean: After my maudlin rambling (why is thhere no good emoticon for maudlin rambling) that little "meat" gem just seemed out of place. I'll gladly repeat it if you like. I was actually looking forward to your response. You'll have to steer the topic back around to something that will tie it in though.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:48 |
^ no need Tom - I'll save that for my anti-vegetarianism rant
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 07:56 |
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 08:00 |
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 08:37 |
" my anti-vegetarianism rant "
for once we'll be on the same side of an issue.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 10:02 |
Vegetarianism is a cultural choice, as is veganism.
Vegetarianism is a viable way to live. Veganism is VERY difficult to do without be malnourished. The lovely pale green tint to most vegans skins will attest to that fact.
I'm a garbagecanarian. Open the hatch and dump whatever in. I should change that but I haven't got to it yet.
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Online
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 29 2009 at 10:10 |
I just got a book of Burger King coupons too.
mmm...burgers.
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 10:20 |
^ no meat there then
So... if we are a mad bad killing machine why are we squeamish?
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 11:06 |
Trademark wrote:
"I've never blown up frogs or indeed killed any animal for fun ... and I think that someone who takes pleasure in that as a child is either severely mislead in thinking that those creatures feel no pain or suffering (religion can do that, based on the theory that only human beings have a soul), or is indeed a sociopath (not capable of feeling empathy)."
Sociopathic it is then (or was). As little of the event as I can recall, the notion of them feeling the pain was not a concern. It more how high they jumped before they went boom. Group mentality kinda thing which , at least in my case, had nothing to do with any religious training (funny how its to blame for absolutely EVERYTHING) as I had none. I was raised totally unchurched, and decidedly anti-church by a pair of alcoholics. I knew what they (churches) were, but knew nothing about what went on in them. When I was at your tender age I held pretty nearly the same deluded view that you are espousing. A little less dogmatic, but basically feeling the same somewhat juvenile "need for proof". I outgrew it so there's still hope for you.
|
Would you care to elaborate a bit on my deluded view ... which are the dogmas that in your opinion I'm following, and which you grew out of?
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 11:19 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Trademark wrote:
"I've never blown up frogs or indeed killed any animal for fun ... and I think that someone who takes pleasure in that as a child is either severely mislead in thinking that those creatures feel no pain or suffering (religion can do that, based on the theory that only human beings have a soul), or is indeed a sociopath (not capable of feeling empathy)."
Sociopathic it is then (or was). As little of the event as I can recall, the notion of them feeling the pain was not a concern. It more how high they jumped before they went boom. Group mentality kinda thing which , at least in my case, had nothing to do with any religious training (funny how its to blame for absolutely EVERYTHING) as I had none. I was raised totally unchurched, and decidedly anti-church by a pair of alcoholics. I knew what they (churches) were, but knew nothing about what went on in them. When I was at your tender age I held pretty nearly the same deluded view that you are espousing. A little less dogmatic, but basically feeling the same somewhat juvenile "need for proof". I outgrew it so there's still hope for you.
|
Would you care to elaborate a bit on my deluded view ... which are the dogmas that in your opinion I'm following, and which you grew out of?
|
How about you guess and tell us what you're going to say anyway?
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 11:30 |
^ I'd rather not guess about what other people think or would say. Trademark is essentially saying that he once was like me. I'm really asking him what his views exactly are or were in the past. I will then happily comment on whether I think that's true or not, and what my point of view is.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 11:38 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ I'd rather not guess about what other people think or would say. Trademark is essentially saying that he once was like me. I'm really asking him what his views exactly are or were in the past. I will then happily comment on whether I think that's true or not, and what my point of view is. |
Well I let him bite on this if he chooses but it is unlikely to end well.
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 11:50 |
^ well, excuse me for being curious.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 13:01 |
"Would you care to elaborate a bit on my deluded view ... which are the dogmas that in your opinion I'm following, and which you grew out of?" < ="utf-8">
Nothing I bring up in the forums ever ends well. I've no one but myself to blame.
Part 1: I thought it was fairly clear, I used to be a pretty militant agnostic. I demanded incontrovertible proof from anyone who tried to "sell" me on the existence of God. No form of creationism was taught in schools in the US (still isn't as far as my experience with 7 different school districts in three different states over a period of 40 years and three kids indicates. 2 schools were in the heart of the Bible Belt where I lived for 3 years), so I grew up with with only one option to choose from, the scientific one. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything else becomes a nail, and I hammered away with my one tool for most of my life. That changed for me about 10 years ago. The reasons are testimonial and won't satisfy your present mind-set.
As for the dogmas, you may call it splitting hairs but I did not use the word dogma. I never said you followed dogmas. I said you were following your beliefs in a dogmatic manner. Dogmatic, meaning "as in the manner of a dogma". You insist on proof for things which, at present, cannot be proved. This insistence is "dogmatic" without being an actual dogma.
I used the word "deluded" because its one of your favorites. One or the other of us may be deluded. You think it definitely is me and I think it may be you, but only for relying too heavily on science that you clearly don't fully understand, and which may not be correct and surely isn't complete.
Science is a wonderful and interesting tool that can and probably will continue to expand and evolve. 1,000 years ago your ancestors (the ones that need proof, since you see it as an evolutionary advancement) would surely have been demanding concrete PROOF that the earth was not flat, because the science of the day said it was. And as we know now, the Earth is not flat. Science later proved this. We don't know what science may prove (or dis-prove) next. Science may prove the Bible to be true. That seems unlikely now, but 1,000 years ago a trip to the moon seemed equally unlikely. Hanging so dogmatically onto what little is currently known about things seems like a mistake to me. I looked for more and I found it, or rather, it found me.
Part 2: I also think that for you the scientist's need for agreement and consensus, coupled with what appears to be some personal insecurity or self-image issues, are causing you some problems. In science, if you cannot demonstrate your case to the satisfaction of other scientists, (through duplication and other means) your conclusions are thought to be wrong. I think that you believe that you have "made your case" so well that no one could possibly come to any other conclusion, and it confuses, and frustrates you then you don't receive complete agreement. When this happens you fall back to the Standard New Atheist line of defense; ridicule.
Other atheists (including one of my closest friends since childhood) do not feel this consuming need for others to agree with them. Dean (sorry to drag you into this) and I don't agree on these issues, but we have a chuckle about it and move on, because we both know and are comfortable with who we are. Our beliefs or lack of beliefs are not seen as a threat. You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a challenge to your self-worth, and THAT is the thing that I hope (and pray) that you will someday, grow out of. You are not comfortable with the position you have chosen unless everyone agrees, and I find that a little sad. There is a difference between discussion and argument. It appears to me that you see everything as an argument, and in an argument, discussion is not possible.
No one, in what now amounts to over 100 pages of these threads has said or even hinted that you should not be an atheist. You, on the other hand, have stated that you will not accept anything less than the total abolition of all religion, and your reasons for that have been decidedly UNscientific. The world may or may not be better off without religion. It cannot be proved scientifically, and therefore by your own definitions, it is a delusion.
Edited by Trademark - December 30 2009 at 13:06
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 14:26 |
This thread is still alive... I will read all that I miss but I'm back after a well deserved trip to Costa Rica and now I'm on to defend my prog archives dutty... just give a little time to see what's been covered already...
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.