Hypothetical Question... new human civilisation

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

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?

where did i back pedal? from my first post on this thread ive said that people hold on too much to what others have said, or cant you read? and my idea of a society based on ideas and not beliefs still stands and why is the belief in god wrong? that area is a personal area why shouldnt people be allowed to make up their own mind on this matter (as long as they are taught that they are not 100% right on this one) i dont see anything wrong with it.

bluewolf wrote:

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?

there will always be the question why are we here? you cant program people not to ask that question.... so if one of those toddlers came up with the idea that a "god" existed what would you do? which it would do at some stage. and even if you didnt mention the name god they would find another name for it.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

Prove it.

lol what do you mean prove it, religion has been linked to society since the beginning of society.... you look at any society and tell me religion wasnt a part of it. "prove it" :rolleyes:

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

lol what do you mean prove it,

I mean back it up. Do you not understand English?

religion has been linked to society since the beginning of society....

Please prove this, and then show how "linked to" equates to "cause of".

you look at any society and tell me religion wasnt a part of it.

No. You made the claim.

Catsmokinpot

medievil england, roman empire, arab nations, india, back in the stone age, the greeks, the egyptians. the theres so much proof this is the internet im not backing up claims when there is so many different sources you can get look at wikipedia man look in a library, religion and society have been hand in hand since the beginning. even on american money it says in god we trust, you do the looking i couldnt be bothered. theres a picture of a nun on the £5 note i dont think you need more proof of a link there.:rolleyes:

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

medievil england, roman empire, arab nations, india, back in the stone age, the greeks, the egyptians. the theres so much proof this is the internet im not backing up claims when there is so many different sources you can get look at wikipedia man look in a library, religion and society have been hand in hand since the beginning. even on american money it says in god we trust, you do the looking i couldnt be bothered. theres a picture of a nun on the £5 note i dont think you need more proof of a link there.:rolleyes:

If there are so many different sources claiming that every single society ever has been linked to religion, and was founded on and sustained by religion, which is basically what you've been claiming, then you should have no trouble proving it.
I'm not backing up your claims. Do you know what "burden of proof" means?
And remember, you have to prove it for all societies, since you claimed there wouldn't be any without religion. A 5 pound note is not going to cut it.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

If there are so many different sources claiming that every single society ever has been linked to religion, and was founded on and sustained by religion, which is basically what you've been claiming, then you should have no trouble proving it.
I'm not backing up your claims. Do you know what "burden of proof" means?
And remember, you have to prove it for all societies, since you claimed there wouldn't be any without religion. A 5 pound note is not going to cut it.

up untill recently church and state were linked, you ever study the seperation of church and state? which happened only recently.

roman society was founded with the roman gods, then their leader changed his religion, all of a sudden the religion of old was discarded.

in medievil britain, the kings of old believed they had been given the right by god to rule the land,

islamics who were living in iraq want to form break away states because of their religious differences.

i could be here hours explaining it to you but i couldnt be fúckin bothered to be honest you want proof you go looking for it, i dont feel guilty not trawling through years of history trying to prove my point. man i dont have to prove anything to you, i dont know ya, im never gonna see you, i dont feel bad for not proving it to you, so whats ur point, burden of proof lies on those who see it as a burden.

so im asking you do you think im wrong? and if so, do you feel like gooing through every indevidual society and proving it?

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

up untill recently church and state were linked, you ever study the seperation of church and state? which happened only recently.

roman society was founded with the roman gods, then their leader changed his religion, all of a sudden the religion of old was discarded.

in medievil britain, the kings of old believed they had been given the right by god to rule the land,

islamics who were living in iraq want to form break away states because of their religious differences.

i could be here hours explaining it to you but i couldnt be fúckin bothered to be honest you want proof you go looking for it, i dont feel guilty not trawling through years of history trying to prove my point. man i dont have to prove anything to you, i dont know ya, im never gonna see you, i dont feel bad for not proving it to you, so whats ur point,

Don't make claims you can't back up. That's my point.
Particularly ludicrous ones.
First we've gone from "all good morals you have come from religion" to "there wouldnt be any society without religion" [sorry communist russia, I guess you had no society]. If you aren't going to back any of this up without trying to backpedal or "I don't feel like proving it" stop posting the damn stuff.

burden of proof lies on those who see it as a burden.

Not quite.

so im asking you do you think im wrong? and if so, do you feel like gooing through every indevidual society and proving it?

I didn't make any claims, so I'm not inclined to back anything up.

If your answers to things you argue are going to be "I don't feel like it", I'm outta here.
All you had to do was link something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion
which makes quite an interesting read.

Now, founding a society where the members knew nothing about religion would be quite interesting. To see how long it took before they came upon the idea, particularly if they were scientifically advanced already.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

Don't make claims you can't back up. That's my point.
Particularly ludicrous ones.
First we've gone from "all good morals you have come from religion" to "there wouldnt be any society without religion" [sorry communist russia, I guess you had no society]. If you aren't going to back any of this up without trying to backpedal or "I don't feel like proving it" stop posting the damn stuff.

Not quite.

I didn't make any claims, so I'm not inclined to back anything up.

If your answers to things you argue are going to be "I don't feel like it", I'm outta here.

communist russia is an exception to the rule but was still setup on a belief system "a religion" if you will in which they believed there was no god. they believed that everyone that did believe in god was wrong. tell me one before that that wasnt based on a beliefs system set around religion

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

Don't make claims you can't back up. That's my point.
Particularly ludicrous ones.
First we've gone from "all good morals you have come from religion" to "there wouldnt be any society without religion" [sorry communist russia, I guess you had no society]. If you aren't going to back any of this up without trying to backpedal or "I don't feel like proving it" stop posting the damn stuff.

Not quite.

I didn't make any claims, so I'm not inclined to back anything up.

If your answers to things you argue are going to be "I don't feel like it", I'm outta here.
All you had to do was link something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion
which makes quite an interesting read.

Now, founding a society where the members knew nothing about religion would be quite interesting. To see how long it took before they came upon the idea, particularly if they were scientifically advanced already.

i didnt say i couldnt back it up i said i couldnt be bothered. you told me to make references to every single society, do you know how many societies have existed on this planet. i couldnt be bothered going through all of that to prove every single point. religion has had dramatic effects on society and have gone hand in hand since the beginning of religion, back in the days where people who spoke out against a religion they were cast out of society, you would have to be blind not to see the link.

my question to you now is why ask me to prove a point you already know to be right?

coffee_cake

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i didnt say i couldnt back it up i said i couldnt be bothered. you told me to make references to every single society, do you know how many societies have existed on this planet.

Maybe you shouldnt have made such a general claim then, hm?

i couldnt be bothered going through all of that to prove every single point. religion has had dramatic effects on society and have gone hand in hand since the beginning of religion, back in the days where people who spoke out against a religion they were cast out of society, you would have to be blind not to see the link.

Yeah, that's still not helping.

my question to you now is why ask me to prove a point you already know to be right?

Because I didn't. It sounded unlikely to me. After you repeatedly posting "I can't be bothered" (which makes one wonder why you bother posting at all) I had to go look for it myself. I'm still dubious, but a little more swayed. No thanks to you.
And I still don't believe either of your claims that "society would not exist without religion" and that all my "good beliefs" come from religion.

Catsmokinpot

bluewolf wrote:

Maybe you shouldnt have made such a general claim then, hm?

Yeah, that's still not helping.

Because I didn't. It sounded unlikely to me. After you repeatedly posting "I can't be bothered" (which makes one wonder why you bother posting at all) I had to go look for it myself. I'm still dubious, but a little more swayed. No thanks to you.
And I still don't believe either of your claims that "society would not exist without religion" and that all my "good beliefs" come from religion.

ok the part thats still not helping was worded wrong, im sorry. i was just trying to show that religion had a part (still has a little bit of a part even if we dont want to admitt it) in wether or not people were accepted into society. obviously this is changing but it was always there.

here listen man i dont have anything against you, i wasnt trying to piss you off, i just really couldnt be bothered looking for proof of the fact. if you couldnt see it its not my problem.

anything i know about religion/society isnt through teaching, i listened very little in school and im no sociology student. but ive always had a great love of history and ive lived in a hell of a lot of different places and i have seen the part that religion has played in these places, i have seen many places that have had no religion and seen the bad, careless attitude that these people have towards life. (not all people mind you but everyone is different)

maybe some of us have grown past the point of needing religion to sustain our society and goodness, but some of us havent, and we should never forget religion. denying that religion existed which was what sleepy was on about is denying people their history, granted there was alot of mistakes made by people about religion but there was alot of goodness there too. and its only through the mistakes of history that we can learn and move foreward.

Sleepy

Regarding the 10 Commandments and how 'all good came from the bible':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Origins_of_the_law

Religion may have spread certain good morals, I can see that. However, it spreads them in the wrong way: by making people afraid. In most religions this is by promising an nice after-life of some kind (nice trick that, promise someone rewards in a fashion no-one can certifiably deny) and many also promise bad after-lives for those that don't follow the religion. This worked well as a control mechanism for ignorant societies. If a king could tell his people that he was 'chosen by god' to be their leader, he could control them easier.

I would probably educate the kids in this scenario about what religions were, why they were a bad thing. I would try to engender an adoption of secular humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism) in these kids, teaching them to be questioning, rational and logical rather than ignorant and fearful.

Essentially I believe I could educate these kids beyond the need for religion.

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

Regarding the 10 Commandments and how 'all good came from the bible':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Origins_of_the_law

Religion may have spread certain good morals, I can see that. However, it spreads them in the wrong way: by making people afraid. In most religions this is by promising an nice after-life of some kind (nice trick that, promise someone rewards in a fashion no-one can certifiably deny) and many also promise bad after-lives for those that don't follow the religion. This worked well as a control mechanism for ignorant societies. If a king could tell his people that he was 'chosen by god' to be their leader, he could control them easier.

I would probably educate the kids in this scenario about what religions were, why they were a bad thing. I would try to engender an adoption of secular humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism) in these kids, teaching them to be questioning, rational and logical rather than ignorant and fearful.

Essentially I believe I could educate these kids beyond the need for religion.

lol ok first of all.... all kids are different, your not going to be able to teach all of them what you want them to know, i understand where your coming from, but denying that religion ever existed, is denying these kids history, wether we like it or not religion existed, and wether you like it or not, one of these kids is going to come up with the notion of a god, however they define it, and once this kid does are you going to cast him out of society because you dont believe this is the right way to live? who are you to say this person is wrong?

if you have a problem with religion teach them what you think the problem is, dont deny it ever existed because the whole senario will happen again...

you say you want to move foreward? you cant move foreward without knowing the mistakes of the past..... you want them them to be questioning, rational and logical rather than ignorant and fearful yet you cant teach them about their history? are you afraid some of them might question you? i mean after all arent we all just stabbing in the dark where that issue is concerned? i dont see how not telling them about it is going to help the situation

Tar.Aldarion

Ok original question.
What would I teach them?
Where to begin.

Ok, no religion, obviously.
Questions would be asked about creation. I would explain scientifically and why religion is inherently bad because of current human nature.
No killing where it is not needed to survive so basically no killing of humans or the other animals.
Vegetarian utopia \o/
Etc.
Basically people would teach what the believe is right.
Everybodies morals are correct to themselves.


No religion=no society?
That's a bit crazy.

Sleepy

Catsmokinpot wrote:

lol ok first of all.... all kids are different, your not going to be able to teach all of them what you want them to know, i understand where your coming from, but denying that religion ever existed, is denying these kids history, wether we like it or not religion existed, and wether you like it or not, one of these kids is going to come up with the notion of a god, however they define it, and once this kid does are you going to cast him out of society because you dont believe this is the right way to live? who are you to say this person is wrong?

if you have a problem with religion teach them what you think the problem is, dont deny it ever existed because the whole senario will happen again...

you say you want to move foreward? you cant move foreward without knowing the mistakes of the past..... you want them them to be questioning, rational and logical rather than ignorant and fearful yet you cant teach them about their history? are you afraid some of them might question you? i mean after all arent we all just stabbing in the dark where that issue is concerned? i dont see how not telling them about it is going to help the situation

Did you even read my post?

Catsmokinpot

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No religion=no society?
That's a bit crazy.

didnt say no religion no society, i said religion helped shape society of today. and you cant deny that.

Sleepy wrote:

Did you even read my post?

no, i read the first half and i feel like a feckin idiot because we were making the same argument, i apologise, was pissed when i came back home and was 3 or 4 in the mornin i wasnt really in the right state to be replying

Tar.Aldarion

Catsmokinpot wrote:

didnt say no religion no society, i said religion helped shape society of today. and you cant deny that.

Really?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

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

Yes, there would be a society.

Catsmokinpot

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Really?






Yes, there would be a society.

they came about the same time, all the core values of religion helped shape society, they have gone hand in hand since the beginning neither one came first.

although i have the suspicion that religion was part of the natural evolution of the social structure. unless we find some sort of door to an alternate reality we will never know if the no religion no society rule applies and i say "rule" lightly there

GerryRyan

hullaballoo wrote:

I would teach them that money is unnecessary.

For the most part, I'm a capitalist in the way I view the world (at least, that is the label people would generally give me, given my beliefs on economics and politics), but in a sort of paradoxical way, I think that the world would be an entirely better place without money.

I might be wrong here, but a modern economy couldn't develop without the introduction of money.

Barter would work for a while but it's a fairly cumbersome method for exchanging - need for double co-incidence of wants - rate of exchange ?

I'd make introducing money one of the first tasks - they (new civilisation would be at nothing without it)
I don't believe in all that "money is the root of all evil" line of thinking tbh

Feel free to correct me ...

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No killing where it is not needed to survive so basically no killing of humans or the other animals.

I completely disagree with this - one instinct we have managed to hold onto is survival. You're not going to teach a new civilization how to hunt and supply their own food?

Catsmokinpot

ThatGuy wrote:

I might be wrong here, but a modern economy couldn't develop without the introduction of money.

Barter would work for a while but it's a fairly cumbersome method for exchanging - need for double co-incidence of wants - rate of exchange ?

I'd make introducing money one of the first tasks - they (new civilisation would be at nothing without it)
I don't believe in all that "money is the root of all evil" line of thinking tbh

Feel free to correct me ...

i can see both points of view, i think that the whole "no money" idea could work, but it would be cumbersome as you said.

but then again the money system doesnt work at the moment, it works for the rich and makes poor people even poorer. but aswell as changing the way we construct exchange systems to make them more "fair" and people have to alter their perception of what money is.

alot of people use their money as a status symbol, to say how brilliant they are, and how much better they are than other people. this creates alot of tension in society and simply is not what money is all about. you can have all the money in the world and still be unhappy/a bad person. we have created this need for lots of money to sustain ourselves and our happiness. when really this isnt the case, we dont need money in the way we think we need it.

ThatGuy wrote:

I completely disagree with this - one instinct we have managed to hold onto is survival. You're not going to teach a new civilization how to hunt and supply their own food?

life will always have the natural instinct to survive but thats not really what Tar. said, he said no killing where its not needed, ie no killing and wasting of lives that dont need to be wasted, at the moment the consumer industry is growing extremely fast and too many animals are needlessly bred and killed, look at the amount of cases of obesity in america and those cases are rising fast not only in america but the rest of the world, this alone must show you how much food we are wasting.

i totally agree with no killing of humans needlessly, throughout our history the "eye for an eye" policy of retrobution hasnt helped anyone or solved anything. any major steps foreward for humanity have been non violent, killing is a cycle, once you kill one person the cycle of retrobution begins and continues untill the people have forgotten what they were fighting for, this cycle has to stop sometime.

we are the only bunch of animals on this planet that kill our own kind for because they cut infront of you in a line, or because they are robbing something from somewhere, or because they got caught doing something they werent supposed to be doing.

needless killing has nothing to do with survival.

Sleepy

Catsmokinpot wrote:

but then again the money system doesnt work at the moment, it works for the rich and makes poor people even poorer. but aswell as changing the way we construct exchange systems to make them more "fair" and people have to alter their perception of what money is.

Money serves it's functions quite well.

What you're describing is international monetary policy and government's taxation systems, not flaws with 'money' itself.