Hypothetical Question... new human civilisation

Crucifix

I remember Feynman basically answered this question, and his answer was a short but informative sentance about the nature of matter. I'd probably go with something similar.

Jeeves

Just a few thoughts on this matter. How exaxctly would you passs on this information to this new civilisation? Would you not in fact be creating a new religion by giving them a philosophy,a view or a way of life to follow. Would you not infact become a God, and they would naturally need to have faith that yours is truly the rightous path. Most religions bar satanic ones preach, love,peace, selfnesses, and non violence, they do not preach hate, bigotry, greed ,extremism and violence this is truly a human element. From a christianity point of few God did not bomb the tax-man, he had dinner with him in order to help him. Secondly money cannot get up and shoot a person, it cannot stab, poison and butcher people, its the human element again that provides such actions.
Men and women of science maybe you hold the answer, you only have logic, facts, the truth which could save man kindness from disease of body and mind.
You can break everything down to an atomic level, the following quote i think speaks for itself although further observations are available online, see if science and logic can reason, how this possibly benefited man kind?

"A bright light filled the plane," wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. "We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud...boiling up, mushrooming." For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. "Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!" exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets's shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. "My God," he asked himself, "what have we done?" (special report, "Hiroshima: August 6, 1945")
note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not "Lt. Colonel," when he was the pilot of the Enola Gay.

My point is that some of the suggestions have lead to some of mans biggest problems, how could we possibly condemn another generation, i have no solutions to this riddle, i think that it might be safer to give them nothing until we solve this human flaw. The odds are stacked in there favour if they recieve nothing from us, and leave them to fate.

Sleepy

So, we should let them go forth on their own path, to start off as cavemen and progress through thousands of years of warfare instead of educating them about human history and why it's not a good idea to go down the path of war?

I completely disagree with the notion that you would become a god, unless you started claiming to have risen from the dead and started performing magic tricks and declaring them miracles and even then you wouldn't be a god, you'd be a hoax. Although judging from the success of that chap two thousand years ago it may be as good as the same thing.

Oh, and btw, from a christianity point of view, God is a pretty vengeful and violent figure if you read your old testament...

Jeeves

Well if you want to look at it that way, you believe that they would go through years of warfare in their evolution as we did( and we still have not learned from our mistakes) so then you must believe that any new civilisation must be fated to go through this process of evoloution, thus you cannot stop this process even with education. Sorry that might not be the clearest

Do we not at this stage in our evolution, not have thousands of years
of experience in warfare, we do not have to be taughts the effects of warfare, we can see the effects presently everyday in our lives and a full history to back it up. So in saying that, why are we still at war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_date_of_last_war) follow this link to see how many countries are currently at war, we have learned nothing, we cannot teach our fellow man not to go to war, tell me how do expect to teach a new civilisation that war is a bad idea when we with experience cannot see it is a bad idea.

Also just another clarification on the last posts, maybe i was wrong to suggest you would be a "god" but you at least would become a figure head or leader of a philosophy in providing a source of information and maybe im wrong,which i very well could be ,but i thought the prophet Mohammed was regarded as a God or leader by the muslim faith but i believe he never claimed to brought back from the dead. Jesus Christ was brought back from the dead, his father the almighty was never in human form to be brought back to life.

Finally, all i am saying is that to interfere would maybe suggest that we have founded the perfect world which is not strictly true, we are still in the process of our own evolution. If we founded the perfect world without hate, greed and war and learned to live in peace then we would truly have a legacy to leave behind.

Dades

Jeeves wrote:

i thought the prophet Mohammed was regarded as a God or leader by the muslim faith but i believe he never claimed to brought back from the dead.

AFAIK he was 'only' a prophet to the God of Islam (and Christianity and Judaism) - not himself one.

I don't think it would really matter what you taught the survivors. Once they are old enough, they will think for themselves and their personal traits will kick in. Some will be passive, some will be aggressive, some will seek power, some money etc. etc.

Wiping out the current crop of civilisation won't wipe the human condition we are afflicted with.

I suppose a reading of The Lord of the Flies would be a start though.

Mortmain

I think that, if my conscience could allow me, I'd actually quite like to try and experiment. Drawing upon the preceeding discussion, i'd split them into two tribes on opposite sides of the land and erect an impassable, impenetrable barrier. I would provide the necessities for life to each tribe on a unforseen basis until they were old enough to fend for themselves. In the meantime, I would provide one tribe with Dan Brown, Cecelia Aherne and John Grisham books, MTV 24/7, Westlife CD's, taped copies of American Idol and copies of heat magazine ("Celebrity Sweat Patches" editions). The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man. I'd watch as each tribe developed and introduce them to each other when they turned 21 - I do think it would prove most interesting.

Dades

Mortmain wrote:

The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man.

That would indeed be an interesting experiment, although if I might quote a great literary work myself - "There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast."

Personally I'd rather be on the low-brow side of the wall until I was 21.

Asiaprod

simu wrote:

What sort of ethical ideas would you try to pass on to them? Which myths and stories of our present-day world, if any?
Just wondering!

Buddhist philosophy and compassion. No Gods, not even one little one. The tooth Fairy for the sake of the kids wouild be ok.

Zulu

Great question. I'd try to create as altruistic a society as possiable. ...fu(k knows how I wouldn't screw it up, but I'd give it a shot.

nesf

Mortmain wrote:

I think that, if my conscience could allow me, I'd actually quite like to try and experiment. Drawing upon the preceeding discussion, i'd split them into two tribes on opposite sides of the land and erect an impassable, impenetrable barrier. I would provide the necessities for life to each tribe on a unforseen basis until they were old enough to fend for themselves. In the meantime, I would provide one tribe with Dan Brown, Cecelia Aherne and John Grisham books, MTV 24/7, Westlife CD's, taped copies of American Idol and copies of heat magazine ("Celebrity Sweat Patches" editions). The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man. I'd watch as each tribe developed and introduce them to each other when they turned 21 - I do think it would prove most interesting.

That essentially is happening today tbh. The results are not pretty. Balance is key, etc.

Freelancer

simu wrote:

If you and a bunch of toddlers were the only survivors of a disaster that wiped out the rest of the human race and you had to raise these toddlers to become the Adams and Eves of a new human society, what knowledge would you pass on to them? Would there be ideas from our present civilisation you woud not mention to them for fear of negatively affecting this "New Eden"? What sort of ethical ideas would you try to pass on to them? Which myths and stories of our present-day world, if any?

Just wondering!

Interestingly I've come across a relatively obscure low budget BBC series from the 70s called "survivors". It ran for about 33 episodes (donkeys for BBC in the 70s) and was written by Terry Nation (wrote alot of doctor who (including inventing the daleks) Blake 7, and er, produced Mc Guvyer)

The basic premise is a cataclysmic plague has decimated the planet, and the population of Britain is reduced to maybe 10,000 people. All the remnants of society exist, cars, shops, etc, but the cities and even small towns are pretty much uninhabitable due to stench, and rotting corpses and associate diseases they bring.

Some survivors grab what they can and hunker down, protecting what they have and plunder, some go out try and build communities.

So far so ho hum. But it does get philosophical, there are survivors who are talking about what happens to the next generation and the one after, one theorises that within two or three generations they'd be reduced to primitive agrarian society.

Anyway, onto the actual point of the debate. Suppose there was such a calamity and what would or could you teach.

Medicine? A necessity surely, but if a doctor survived, could he teach outside his speciality? Medicine has been come a rarefied and specialised diverse set of skills. What if the only doctor who survived was a radiologist? What could they teach about surgery? Even a surgeon needs a specialised team around them to work, and they may fully understand how everyone else operates, but could they teach someone surgery, someone else anesthesiology, etc etc. Hell could a modern doctor make medicine like aspirin or antibiotics from scratch? I'm sure he could but it would be a lifetime achievement for one doctor to play every role in a modern hospital, could he pass on that knowledge?

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

My point is, we've reach such a critical mass in the specialisation of our knowledge, that it'd be impossible for you or I to teach the very fundamentals of our society, so in the case above that you are suggesting I'd ditch the Foucault, Voltaire and the bible, and start teaching them to read, and how to snare rabbits, and let them worry about the existentially crap, when their tummies are full around the open fire.

I'm aware that this more of a philosophical question about what are the good and bad points of modern society, I'd just raise an interesting point about societly codependence.

Mortmain

Freelancer wrote:

Interestingly I've come across a relatively obscure low budget BBC series from the 70s called "survivors". It ran for about 33 episodes (donkeys for BBC in the 70s) and was written by Terry Nation (wrote alot of doctor who (including inventing the daleks) Blake 7, and er, produced Mc Guvyer)

The basic premise is a cataclysmic plague has decimated the planet, and the population of Britain is reduced to maybe 10,000 people. All the remnants of society exist, cars, shops, etc, but the cities and even small towns are pretty much uninhabitable due to stench, and rotting corpses and associate diseases they bring.

Some survivors grab what they can and hunker down, protecting what they have and plunder, some go out try and build communities.

So far so ho hum. But it does get philosophical, there are survivors who are talking about what happens to the next generation and the one after, one theorises that within two or three generations they'd be reduced to primitive agrarian society.

Anyway, onto the actual point of the debate. Suppose there was such a calamity and what would or could you teach.

Medicine? A necessity surely, but if a doctor survived, could he teach outside his speciality? Medicine has been come a rarefied and specialised diverse set of skills. What if the only doctor who survived was a radiologist? What could they teach about surgery? Even a surgeon needs a specialised team around them to work, and they may fully understand how everyone else operates, but could they teach someone surgery, someone else anesthesiology, etc etc. Hell could a modern doctor make medicine like aspirin or antibiotics from scratch? I'm sure he could but it would be a lifetime achievement for one doctor to play every role in a modern hospital, could he pass on that knowledge?

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

My point is, we've reach such a critical mass in the specialisation of our knowledge, that it'd be impossible for you or I to teach the very fundamentals of our society, so in the case above that you are suggesting I'd ditch the Foucault, Voltaire and the bible, and start teaching them to read, and how to snare rabbits, and let them worry about the existentially crap, when their tummies are full around the open fire.

I'm aware that this more of a philosophical question about what are the good and bad points of modern society, I'd just raise an interesting point about societly codependence.

I doubt that we would revert back to being a primitive agrarian society, though I see your point. The fact that any survivor would be aware of what medicine/engineering/electronics etc. was capable of at one stage would be enough to catapultsociety forward in far larger bounds then those initially taken.

As regards ditching the Voltaire etc. - what would you reccommend teaching people to read - Anne and Barry will only bring one so far and then we need to move forward.

I think the essential thing would be to do, show or teach something that would inspire people to be more than just the some of their parts - I think that this is what essentially makes us human.

Mortmain

nesf wrote:

That essentially is happening today tbh. The results are not pretty. Balance is key, etc.

I don't agree with you - there is no isolation in today's society. Those who wish to immerse themselves in the world of academia cannot avoid being exposed to pop culture. Those who wish only to immerse themselves in pop culture have academia thrust upon them in school. Though they may wish to distance themselves from it, they are nonetheless aware that society deems it desirable to be so orientated. The isolation of the two groups would be the key - would the two groups develop different skill sets, or the same with differing levels of expertise?

Freelancer

Mortmain wrote:

I doubt that we would revert back to being a primitive agrarian society, though I see your point. The fact that any survivor would be aware of what medicine/engineering/electronics etc. was capable of at one stage would be enough to catapultsociety forward in far larger bounds then those initially taken.

Well yeah, I'm aware of lots of things, we just don't understand them to degree that would be of any use. Take penicillin, I understand the principle of how it was found, what it does, how it's important. And I suppose if you stuck me in a working laboratory I could try and figure out how it works. I understand how DNA works, I'm just not sure I could explain RNA sequences to a group of children.

So unless you actually went out and talk children everything and I mean everything from mechanics to physics to algebra, to animal husbandry, to horticulture, to meteorology, to metallurgy that knowledge will just slip away. These children won't be able to teach their children.

For at least a few generations of society there will be a diminishing return on education, society won't advance on the previous generations knowledge, society will have to distill and refine what is necessary for survival from the vast array of knowledge we possess.

At the same time, the resources left over from our society will start to dwindle, and the the society will have to spend more time and energy becoming self sustainable. Machinery will have rusted and petrol will have gone, and these your children's children will be plowing fields with horses.

Now if you've not given them an education in horticulture, and metrology they're screwed. Furthermore if you've not given them an education in chemistry, biology and pharmacy, and say a potato blight happens they're really screwed.

You've got three or four of the grandkids trying to experiment to make pesticides that they've only read about in books. They're using the looted remains of laboratories, but through entropy and decay, they've got to go further and further afield to find basic things like glass beaker. Why don't they make more? Because you forgot to teach them how to make glass.....

As regards ditching the Voltaire etc. - what would you reccommend teaching people to read - Anne and Barry will only bring one so far and then we need to move forward.

I think the essential thing would be to do, show or teach something that would inspire people to be more than just the some of their parts - I think that this is what essentially makes us human.

Obviously the classics, and everyone needs to read to a high standard, but I think this situation would be alot bleaker then this social experiment makes out.

rsynnott

pyramuid man wrote:

I would tell them not to eat yellow snow.
Alternatively I would never mention religion and see the chaos unfold.

Er, what? What chaos would this be? In any case, we know that people are perfectly capable of making up religions all on their own.

Freelancer wrote:

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

Very true. Our society is vastly dependent on a huge industrial base.

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

There would be no God, Gods or religion of any kind.

who are you to instill in them the belief that there is no god? let them make their own decision. instilling beliefs into people wether the belief is that god does exist or god doesnt is a bad idea and bring a whole host of problems

eg. scientologists dont believe in god yet theyre a multimillion dollar brainwashing society, whos out to get everyone who doesnt follow thier way of thinking

heres what id do, give them a good lesson in history, about everything that has happened to lead up to this point. then id teach them. how to defend themselves, how to defend others, how to hunt, how to gather, how to make fire, how to build a shelter, that life isnt always fair, not to kill, not to steal, not to rape. basic principals and then let them off to make thier own decisions about the rest of it.

i would also teach them not to hold on to their opinions so dearly, and not to take too much meaning out of what others have said in the past. as this brings a whole host of religios + social + scientific problems

i would love to bring up a society based on ideas and not beliefs

Sleepy

Catsmokinpot - while you say you'd like a society based on ideas and not beliefs, I'd like one where thought and governance were based on logic and common sense instead of superstition and fear. I think a society without any religion would be more sensible, peaceful and better run than one with one. It's been the justification for far too many evils to be considered desirable in society imho.

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

Catsmokinpot - while you say you'd like a society based on ideas and not beliefs, I'd like one where thought and governance were based on logic and common sense instead of superstition and fear. I think a society without any religion would be more sensible, peaceful and better run than one with one. It's been the justification for far too many evils to be considered desirable in society imho.

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible, wether we like it or not, religion has taught us alot. religion is when man is trying to be good.

alot of people take their own meaning out of things, they hold on too much to what others have said and try to make it doctrine, then religion gets misconstrued, distorted, and wrecked. its not religion at fault its mans belief that he is special/that he is right that wrecks it. its so easy for man to blame his problems on a thing instead of himself. you teaching a bunch of toddlers that there is no god is just as bad as saying that there is one.

that sort of a belief is a personal one. when i bring my kids up im going to teach them all about religion, not just about catholicism which seems to be the basis of all irish religion classes (again because man has built the belief that he is right and that others are wrong even in this brewing "multicultural" society), but about every religion then let him/her make his own mind up. but remind him all the way along that he is not right, because at the end of the day that belief is a stab in the dark.

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible

What the hell are you on about?

rsynnott

Catsmokinpot wrote:

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible, wether we like it or not, religion has taught us alot. religion is when man is trying to be good.

I see. Most of the decent beliefs in the bible basically involve not harming others; they are common-sense and contribute to a stable and happy society. All other major religions have similar core values; people seem inclined to think of them on their own. They are in no way dependent on belief in a god or gods. It's the crap they are accompanied by that makes religion dangerous. "Thou shalt not kill" - common sense. Rules about mixing fabrics, or stoning homosexuals, or not eating peas on passover, erm, no. Silly.

Secular humanism encompasses basic human decency, without the nonsense.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

What the hell are you on about?

through social evolution every good belief you have was taught to you by the bible and other religious texts, if it wasnt then i stand corrected, but i believe your parents were brought up with certain beliefs, their parents before them and their parents before them. all through teachings of religion. so dont say that religion has brought us nothing but trouble, its people that bring nothing but trouble.

Catsmokinpot

rsynnott wrote:

I see. Most of the decent beliefs in the bible basically involve not harming others; they are common-sense and contribute to a stable and happy society. All other major religions have similar core values; people seem inclined to think of them on their own. They are in no way dependent on belief in a god or gods. It's the crap they are accompanied by that makes religion dangerous. "Thou shalt not kill" - common sense. Rules about mixing fabrics, or stoning homosexuals, or not eating peas on passover, erm, no. Silly.

Secular humanism encompasses basic human decency, without the nonsense.

im not saying the bible is right, im dont even believe in a christian god, i was using it as an example(as we are in ireland). i also said that people hold on too much to what other people have said in the past eg. stoning homosexuals.....

listen man i didnt say religion was completely right, im just saying people are wrong, they refuse to blame themselves, when theirs something easier to blame like a book.

"Thou shalt not kill" - common sense.

you ever watched city of god? where kids go around with no teachers whatsoever? then end up killing people not seeing any problem with it? it happens every day. every where. when people arent taught properly. its not common sence

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

through social evolution every good belief you have was taught to you by the bible and other religious texts, if it wasnt then i stand corrected,

Stand away.
Incidentally, and possibly fairly importantly, what are you using as your definition of "good", there?

but i believe your parents were brought up with certain beliefs, their parents before them and their parents before them.

Parents - they were brought up with yes, still believe and forced on me, no. I went through a fair amount of re-evaluation of beliefs years ago.

all through teachings of religion.

Yes? Where does the bible say killing animals is not nice?

so dont say that religion has brought us nothing but trouble

Would you like to quote exactly where I said that?

I find it stupid to think that any morality would be taught with a threat of punishment or a "because I/god/someone said so" attitude.

Religion encompasses general morals people have rather than the other way around. IMHO.

rsynnott

Catsmokinpot wrote:

im not saying the bible is right, im dont even believe in a christian god, i was using it as an example(as we are in ireland). i also said that people hold on too much to what other people have said in the past eg. stoning homosexuals.....

So, what useful morals does religion give us which are not obvious from a societal well-being point of view?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

listen man i didnt say religion was completely right, im just saying people are wrong, they refuse to blame themselves, when theirs something easier to blame like a book.

I don't follow that AT ALL.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

you ever watched city of god? where kids go around with no teachers whatsoever? then end up killing people not seeing any problem with it? it happens every day. every where. when people arent taught properly. its not common sence

First, fiction. Now, when I said common sense, I didn't mean common sense to the individual, necessarily. I meant common sense from a societal point of view.

Now, religions with separate roots all have basically the same ideas on the 'do no harm' thing, once you remove the crap. Where do you think these ideas came from?

rsynnott

bluewolf wrote:

Yes? Where does the bible say killing animals is not nice?

Actually, Jewish interpretations are often of that vein; kosher slaughter was the most humane method available at the time, and the prohibition on cooking a kid (goat) in its mother's milk, while leading to the prohibition of eating meat with milk, is also seen as a warning against needless cruelty.

This, in fact, is part of the problem with the bible; it's extremely vague. No matter what you want to say, you can say it with the bible.

coffee_cake

rsynnott wrote:

Actually, Jewish interpretations are often of that vein; kosher slaughter was the most humane method available at the time, and the prohibition on cooking a kid (goat) in its mother's milk, while leading to the prohibition of eating meat with milk, is also seen as a warning against needless cruelty.

This, in fact, is part of the problem with the bible; it's extremely vague. No matter what you want to say, you can say it with the bible.

Fair enough; I had the memory of all that detail about animal slaughter from Leviticus in my head.
And the idea that many christians seem to have that we can do as we like with animals since they were given to us by god etc etc. Or something along that line.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

Stand away.
Incidentally, and possibly fairly importantly, what are you using as your definition of "good", there?

ok im going to say the 10 commandments, and your going to quote some passage about eating babies or adulterous women, when i already said that people hold on too much to what other people have said, and try to make it doctrine.

bluewolf wrote:

Parents - they were brought up with yes, still believe and forced on me, no. I went through a fair amount of re-evaluation of beliefs years ago.

beliefs forced upon people exactly what i said was the wrong thing to do. read my previous posts

bluewolf wrote:

Yes? Where does the bible say killing animals is not nice?

as far as i know it is

bluewolf wrote:

Would you like to quote exactly where I said that?

i didnt say that you said it i said dont say it, i assumed because you said what the hell am i on about that you were agreeing with sleepy.

bluewolf wrote:

I find it stupid to think that any morality would be taught with a threat of punishment or a "because I/god/someone said so" attitude.

Religion encompasses general morals people have rather than the other way around. IMHO.

Religion encompasses general morals people have that they are trying to pass on to people who didnt... and theirs loads of em around.

and im not saying religion is right im saying that instilling the belief that there is no god, is just as bad, because if someone else comes along who believes in god they are going to clash immediately + you dont know

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

ok im going to say the 10 commandments, and your going to quote some passage about eating babies or adulterous women, when i already said that people hold on too much to what other people have said, and try to make it doctrine.

Ah, the 10 commandments.
Dont have any other gods - I dont care
Don't take name in vain - I dont care
Keep the sabbath day holy - ditto
Honour your father and mother - well, I half care.
Don't murder (murder is usually closer, btw, not kill) - ah, finally something we agree on. And the only one that's really a matter of legality so far, too.
Dont steal - fine
Don't lie about your neighbout - eh, fine
Don't covet+don't covet - I don't care.
I would also guess that a lot of people don't care so much about these either. Most aren't even a matter of law.

As for the last part - is that backpedalling I see?

and im not saying religion is right im saying that instilling the belief that there is no god, is just as bad, because if someone else comes along who believes in god they are going to clash immediately + you dont know

There wouldn't BE a belief that there was no god, because he would have it that there would be no concept of god. Therefore, it's a non-issue.
He wouldn't be instilling any belief, there just wouldn't be any to deal with.
Don't you see the difference?

Catsmokinpot

rsynnott wrote:

So, what useful morals does religion give us which are not obvious from a societal well-being point of view?

would they have been as obvious to you if you werent taught them?......

rsynnott wrote:

I don't follow that AT ALL.

i was going back to the original statement that i was making to sleepy, i was saying that i dont believe that religion is completely right, but we shouldnt forget what it has taught us, and we shouldnt just ignore it. and we shouldnt instill the belief in no god coz thats forcing your beliefs onto someone aswell

rsynnott wrote:

First, fiction. Now, when I said common sense, I didn't mean common sense to the individual, necessarily. I meant common sense from a societal point of view.

that film is fact, it is a true story, not one of these films based on a true story, most of the kids in that film were actually child gangsters. and every thing that happened in that film actually happened in real life. common sence to a society point of view there wouldnt be a society if it wasnt for religion in the first place.

rsynnott wrote:

Now, religions with separate roots all have basically the same ideas on the 'do no harm' thing, once you remove the crap. Where do you think these ideas came from?

they came from people.... but what i was originally saying that it wasnt religion / the belief in gods ; fault that things go wrong its people who hold on to their beliefs that cause problems, in the end believe what you want but dont think your right

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

point of view there wouldnt be a society if it wasnt for religion in the first place.

Prove it.