[split] Morondog vs the new guy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2013, 09:56 PM
Exclamation [split] Morondog vs the new guy
I am within shouting distance of 70, or rather my body is since I still ski --- Sometimes on black diamond slopes. I also read quite a bit, and seldom if ever fiction. in 2009 I was motivated to write a 6000 word article that I called orwells boot. A year later, I enter those two words into a search engine, and found that I was on the first page of google. Six months later I was, and remain number one on all the search engines after paid links. Usually it will be under the name factotum666.

Well, given that success, I figured that what I had to say was not without value (That last phrase was probably the most convoluted that you will see in my writing as I have aspergers, and a simple mind) and began to do more research and more writing. What I wrote can be seen at xfoolnature.org

Recently I had an ephipany that fundamental / conservative / extreme religious belief is like a disease. Note that this is quite different from agnosticism, or belief in "the great spirit who moves in all things" (My own outlook, and I have no idea what it means) or belief in an afterlife or any other kind of spiritual outlook. I am speaking of those who posess "THE TRUTH!!" Not only that, but this disease is mildly contagious.

This belief is supported by evidence. The more people go to church and prey the worse off society is by almost any measure
http://tyisnotahero.files.wordpress.com/...kpb5a1.png
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-...d-religion

There are studies that indicate that very religious people may enjoy better well being. But I think that what those studies indicate
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152723/religi...being.aspx
is that they are more delusional, since in the one category that connects the most to the physical world, and is the least susceptible to self deceit (physical health), those who are religious did worse.

Now perhaps this is a situation where one concludes that flies come from garbage because where ever there is garbage, there flies. Thus it may NOT be that religion causes all these problems, but these problems tend to make people religious. Possibly, but this study would refute that.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm.

Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Like all statistics, this can be looked at in other ways:

Divorce Statistics: Christian Faith Groups:

Christian Faith Groups: Divorced or had been Divorced:
Non-denominational (independent) 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

Divorce Statistics: Non-Christian Faith Groups:

Non-Christian Faith Groups: Divorced or had been Divorced:
Jews 30 %
Atheists and Agnostics 21 %
Muslims 11 %

So ... the evidence strongly points to the conclusion that being very religious causes "dis-ease" or all kinds from social problems to health problems to crime including murder.

What do do about that? If a person has a contagious disease, and that disease is serious enough like Multiple drug resistant TB, then quarantine is considered.

I would like to propose that in order to minimise the impact of the disease of religion that we discuss the possibility of a kind of quarantine. Specificially we prohibit the free distribution of any information advocating a specific religion to strangers. That is, no more broadcasting of religious services. No more religion associated with government functions. (Which I might add, is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus). This is, after all, a health issue, little different from forcing whack job religious parents to actually treat their sick children with actual physical medicine. You can have a website, but you can not send out spam linking to your site or it will be shut down as a danger to the health of society.

To quote Richard Feynman, Nature can not be fooled. And the second quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 11:12 PM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
(18-11-2013 09:56 PM)factotum Wrote:  I would like to propose that in order to minimise the impact of the disease of religion that we discuss the possibility of a kind of quarantine. Specificially we prohibit the free distribution of any information advocating a specific religion to strangers. That is, no more broadcasting of religious services. No more religion associated with government functions. (Which I might add, is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus). This is, after all, a health issue, little different from forcing whack job religious parents to actually treat their sick children with actual physical medicine. You can have a website, but you can not send out spam linking to your site or it will be shut down as a danger to the health of society.

Your cure proposes limiting free speech by government mandate. To me it sounds roughly equivalent to this:
- I have flu.
- I don't like flu.
- The symptoms of flu are runny nose and aching joints.
- The reason I have these symptoms is because my immune system reacts to fight the flu.
- I must kill my immune system.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 01:59 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
Your cure proposes limiting free speech by government mandate. To me it sounds roughly equivalent to this:
- I have flu.
- I don't like flu.
- The symptoms of flu are runny nose and aching joints.
- The reason I have these symptoms is because my immune system reacts to fight the flu.
- I must kill my immune system.

1. The idea of freedom to broadcast is NOT in the constitution since broadcast did not exist, and was not even imagined in the late 18th century. To the extent that it exists, it exists because of an extension by analogy. And the airways are still considered to be owned by the public. So is the water supply. In the past you could poop in the river that ran trhough your land. Now you can not. Few people consider this restriction a "taking" of private property. Because it is not a taking of private property.

2. I really did not follow your last two points. How, exactly, is a limited quarantine akin to killing ones immune system? And what exactly does that have to do with the observation that certain kinds of religion --- especially religion that is evangically broadcase --- tends to lead to unpleasant things like disease and death?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:35 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
While I agree that religion is bad, dealing with it by restricting what people can say in *any* medium raises the hydra of *only* government approved messages allowed to be propagated. i.e. press becomes not free, but a propaganda machine. I don't live in US under your constitution so the minutiae of what's in it don't bother me, the *principles*, the *spirit* of what's enshrined there, I fully support.

How will *you* decide on a fair way to censor what may or may not be broadcast ? Once you've declared religion to be illegal it's a very short step from there to "X political ideology is bad and must not be broadcast". People like their freedoms anyway, and taking them away is not something that you will easily do, regardless of how well-meaning your intention may be in doing so.

Better to fight it by counter-tactics like immunization with a more rational message, IMO, than by allowing some pencil pusher somewhere to stamp approved or not-approved on what's allowed to be broadcast.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:39 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
(19-11-2013 01:59 AM)factotum Wrote:  ...disease and death?

Hi and welcome.

Just on a point of order, this is the intro thread. People will not notice a debate topic in amongst all the intros here.

Why not start a new thread? It's a good topic... go for it.

Dog, if you still have the power, maybe you can do a split?

DLJ

ps, welcome to the Aspie club, too. Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
My analogy is not perfect... but by immune system I was largely envisaging free speech laws. While they allow all sorts of crap to be spouted by all sorts of people, they *also* prevent any single entity from monopolizing the right to spread propaganda, which IMO is a far worse thing. Imagine if it was illegal to speak out against your president, as they tried very hard in Zimbabwe (my country, where I no longer live) to implement, and were largely successful. Once you have government approval of media *that* is a very real possibility.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:41 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
(19-11-2013 02:39 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 01:59 AM)factotum Wrote:  ...disease and death?

Hi and welcome.

Just on a point of order, this is the intro thread. People will not notice a debate topic in amongst all the intros here.

Why not start a new thread? It's a good topic... go for it.

Dog, if you still have the power, maybe you can do a split?

DLJ

ps, welcome to the Aspie club, too. Wink

I lost the power Sad and you are right, my apologies. Maybe one of those what still are Gods could click the little button (Gods are so powerful!) and do the split Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: Introduce Yourself HERE!
(18-11-2013 01:15 AM)nextabe Wrote:  ... was an alter boy and all that,
...

So tempted to ask but I don't wanna know what you meant by "and all that".

Shocking

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-11-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: [split] Morondog vs the new guy
(19-11-2013 02:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  While I agree that religion is bad, dealing with it by restricting what people can say in *any* medium raises the hydra of *only* government approved messages allowed to be propagated. i.e. press becomes not free, but a propaganda machine. I don't live in US under your constitution so the minutiae of what's in it don't bother me, the *principles*, the *spirit* of what's enshrined there, I fully support.

How will *you* decide on a fair way to censor what may or may not be broadcast ? Once you've declared religion to be illegal it's a very short step from there to "X political ideology is bad and must not be broadcast". People like their freedoms anyway, and taking them away is not something that you will easily do, regardless of how well-meaning your intention may be in doing so.

Better to fight it by counter-tactics like immunization with a more rational message, IMO, than by allowing some pencil pusher somewhere to stamp approved or not-approved on what's allowed to be broadcast.

We restrict "rights" all the time because rights are often in conflict. Despite the rantings of the Conservative Right the right to practice religion stops when such practrice puts a persons life in danger.
We restrict what people can say all the time. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire. You can not slander people. If they are private people, you can not even call them bad names as in "My neighbor is a commie nazi jew". You can not threaten or stalk people or harass them verbally.
The rule of thumb is that some rights take precedence over others, with the right to life being at the top. Thus a right to do X can be abridged if doing X presents a clear and present danger to life and / or health.

This debate will be more fruitful if we stay away from absolutes and present evidence for our positions. I do believe that I presented evidence that some forme of religion are like some forms of contagious disease in that they present a threat to life, health, and well being in general. I have not said that I have "THE SOLUTION" or even a solution, I threw out some ideas for discssion.

It would also help if you paid attention to what I write. You can not show that I advocated that religion be illegal. Nowhere close.
You advocate fighting religion with rational thought. Which is like fighting the plague by praying. A waste of time, and if you were as rational as you think that you are you would know that there is no evidence at all to show that rational arguments 'immunize" people, or even convert very many. Yes, smarter people tend to be less religious, but there is no evidence of cause and affect here. In fact, there are smart rational people who claim that it was logic that made them believers. Think Descartes, and Godel.

Oh ... those pencil pushers somewhere --- Historically that has been SCOTUS

To quote Richard Feynman, Nature can not be fooled. And the second quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 08:25 PM
RE: [split] Morondog vs the new guy
(19-11-2013 02:40 AM)morondog Wrote:  My analogy is not perfect... but by immune system I was largely envisaging free speech laws. While they allow all sorts of crap to be spouted by all sorts of people, they *also* prevent any single entity from monopolizing the right to spread propaganda, which IMO is a far worse thing. Imagine if it was illegal to speak out against your president, as they tried very hard in Zimbabwe (my country, where I no longer live) to implement, and were largely successful. Once you have government approval of media *that* is a very real possibility.

My initial argument was not against speaking out. Again, please respond to what I write, not what you want me to have written. One would be able to write and publish in magazines and books, and over the internet, at least in written form. Such forms require the active participation of the recipient of the message. You couild even have churches and events where people could come if they wished, to hear you. That is, the recipient would have to actively want to receive.

It is the difference between a disease that requires the transmission of bodily fluids (You still need a degree of active stupidity to get aids or be very unlucky) and someone sneezing in an elevator. What about this do you not understand?

To quote Richard Feynman, Nature can not be fooled. And the second quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: