+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread (/thread-2337.html)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - activeaero - 2008-12-30
kazelee Wrote:Of course it sounds strange because it is BS. You can't do anything in the name of Atheism because atheism is NOT a belief.....it is a LACK of belief. Killing in the name of atheism is the same as saying "I killed in the name of NOT believing in pink unicorns"....or "I killed in the name of having 10 fingers".SammyB Wrote:Got any sources for that claim. Cause that sounds strange to me.alyks Wrote:And yet, despite religion (and even in the name of religion) bad people do bad things.And in the name of Atheism Joseph Stalin is responsible for the death of 20 million people...
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - activeaero - 2008-12-30
I'd now like to get to the question of WHY or more importantly HOW you can believe what you believe as a rational human being?
The typical response is "well God is outside of rational thought" or some other sort of elegant response along those lines.
Well that in itself presents a problem and here is why:
If another religion comes to you and says their God performed a miracle you, as a follower of your own religion, know that this is not true because their God is a false God. You therefore must acknowledge, with ease might I add since you know your God is the one true God, that their belief has a LOGICAL explanation as to why it appears to be a miracle.
This of course shoots your own religion in the foot because if you admit that their religion has a logical response to it's miracles (or any other such acts) then you should have no problem turning that EXACT same logic on your OWN religion. Why? Because if your own religion IS truly real it's miracles will NOT be explainable with logic.
This is actually what started my turn away from Christ. I actually thought that this would be a huge boost to bring me closer to the Lord as I knew the Lord's works would stand up to it yet when I actually looked at my faith under the same microscope I use to dismiss all other faiths a horrible thing (at the time at least) happened...........my faith and all of my God's majestic works failed, horribly. All of them could be explained away with equal logic as all other "false" religions.
Even worse is when I went and looked up social statistics of Christians. Christians are actually WORSE members of society, compared to non-believers, in almost all areas Christians deem important including ones were God made it specifically clear that he would aid believers.
For instance marriage. Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists even though God states he will bless believers that come together under him. Of course the first counter argument, which is completely void of any merit, is that "well all people that call themselves Christians aren't really Christians so they messes up the statistic". This fact is actually completely irrelevant because even with some people lying about being actual Christians the number of Christians in Christian group would STILL outnumber those in the atheist group where NO Christians exist and therefore NONE will being blessed to stay together under God's power.
Therefore the fact that Christians actually have WORSE marriages than atheists, even though they are supposed to be blessed by God, should be completely impossible.
Then we have the issue of miracles. My favorite is this little issue that maybe some of you have heard before: Why doesn't God heal amputees?
Really think about it for a second. God supposedly performs miracles every single day on sick people of all sorts but for some reason he has NEVER healed one single amputee, ever.
And please don't respond with "God doesn't say he will heal everyone" because that is not the argument. I didn't say God would. I'm saying that he has never healed ANY of them, ever.
Go around to any Church there is and you'll hear about all the times God has answered prayers healing, protecting or helping so and so in some manner. Yet even with endless numbers of prayers they can't get God to help even just ONE amputee.
In fact as a Christian maybe you should be concerned about this? Maybe people have just forgot to pray for amputees? This would actually be an excellent task to pursue to actually help your fellow man. You know for a fact that your God is real and does answer loving prayers so why don't you get together as many Christians as you can, heck go and make a website about it, send out emails, myspace messages, etc to get every Christian you know to start praying for amputees around the world so that God may regrow their limbs. You believe he's done it for all other sorts of illness so for an all powerful being regrowing a limb is no more miraculous than getting rid of cancer.
Of course the real truth as to why this doesn't happen is glaringly obvious..........
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - SammyB - 2008-12-30
kazelee Wrote:Got any sources for that claim. Cause that sounds strange to me.I thought this was fairly common knowledge. Anyway, a quick internet search yields the following:
"Kill tally: Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'. "
From http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html
A much better (and academically referenced article) can be found here:
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/stvictims.htm
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:No, we don't. All humans know decent behaviour, but it has nothing to do with being "Right". Like me and others have tried to say this whole topic, ethics are just a consequence of empathy and social behaviour. There is no holy rightness about it, no devine power which tells us to do so. It's evolutionary instinct. We act that way because we must act that way to survive, we act that way because it gives us benefits. It's not a feeling that we ought to behave a certain way, it's the instinct that if we don't act nice towards other people, they might act the same way towards us.Tobberoth Wrote:...I don't need God to tell me that it's wrong to kill a human. I don't need anyone to tell me or teach me that...So you are admitting that there seems to be some standard of decent behaviour that all humans know yeah? That some things are just Right, and some are just Wrong...
Quote:...Universal ethic: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. It is completely independant on religion.I totally agree, we all know this, and certainly don't need "religion" to make us aware of it.
However... why is it then that we don't all follow this "universal ethic"? I'm sure you will agree with me that at some stage this year, or this month, or more likely today, we have failed to practice the kind of behaviour we expect from other people... yeah?
Now, there may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were rude to someone was when you were really tired, or that thing you promised to do for that dude and never did -- well, you would never have promised if you had known how busy you'd be... etc. I mean, I'm as guilty as the next guy! But the very fact that we feel a need to come up with excuses is further proof of how deeply we believe in some "universal ethic" or standard of decent behaviour.
So, we have two important points here: Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have the feeling that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact always behave in that way.
Do we agree so far?
We do agree on the second point, not everyone sticks to behave that way BUT tons of christians do, tons of muslims do, tons of atheists do, tons of buddhists do.. it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with religion, and that's the whole point of the argument.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - SammyB - 2008-12-30
activeaero Wrote:Of course it sounds strange because it is BS. You can't do anything in the name of Atheism because atheism is NOT a belief.....it is a LACK of belief. Killing in the name of atheism is the same as saying "I killed in the name of NOT believing in pink unicorns"....or "I killed in the name of having 10 fingers".But, isn't Atheism the belief that there is no god? Killing in the name of Atheism is as simple as killing someone for their differing belief. Stalin was pro-atheist and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism. How is that not killing "in the name of Atheism"?
I am not, however, trying to say that there is any causal relationship between Atheism and violence. Nothing in atheism demands that they kill theists, but someone like Stalin did it anyway.
In the same way, it is stupid to say that because some Christians have killed people "in the name of Christianity", therefore Christianity itself was the cause of that violence. It wasn't, it was those particular people's intolerance.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:In the same way, it is stupid to say that because some Christians have killed people "in the name of Christianity", therefore Christianity itself was the cause of that violence. It wasn't, it was those particular people's intolerance.But the bible preaches intolerance. There's no atheist "holy book" which all atheists have to follow which preaches intolerance. Atheists can be 100% fine with other religions, Christians can't unless they want to go against the holy word of the bible which actively tells them there is only one God, he HAS to be worshipped and people who do not will go to hell.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-30
Yo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
Have you read this before?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - SammyB - 2008-12-30
Tobberoth Wrote:...ethics are just a consequence of empathy and social behaviour. There is no holy rightness about it, no devine power which tells us to do so. It's evolutionary instinct. We act that way because we must act that way to survive, we act that way because it gives us benefits...Now this is getting interesting!
Of course we have instincts, but there are some compelling reasons why these might be different from a kind of "Moral Law", (i.e. feelings that we ought to behave in a certain way). C.S. Lewis wrote:
"We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct -- by motherly love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires -- one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this things that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard...
Another way of seeing that this "Moral Law" is not one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at these moments, when we are most conscious of the Moral Law (feelings of what we ought to do), it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.
Another way of seeing it. If these feelings of what we ought to do were just one of our instincts, we would be able to point to some particular impulse inside us which was always what we call "good", but you cannot. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses -- say motherly love or patriotism -- are good, and others, like sexual or fighting instinct, are bad. There are situations where it is the duty of a soldier to encourage his fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It does not have two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law (feelings of what we ought to do) is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call "goodness" or "right conduct") by directing the instincts."
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this things that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.Still no connection to religion. What tells us we SHOULD help the man are social norms. It's considered cowardice to run away from someone who needs help. You save yourself but people will think less of you. YOU will think less of you because social norms have been part of your life since you were a baby. God isn't telling you that you're doing the wrong thing, your upbrinding is. This is why some people wouldn't help while some people would. If there is just one God who decides what is right, everyone would do the same thing. But we don't. Some people are braver than others. Some have been brought up with a stricter adherence to ethics.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out the futility of using terms like "good" and "evil". Those are abstract mythical concepts used in fairytales and have no real basis in the real world. Nothing is inherently good or evil, it's all a matter of perspective. We feel a "good" person would save the man, an "evil" person wouldn't. What defines those things? Social norms, again. In China if you run over a man with your car, you're doing the RIGHT THING by going back and running him over again to make sure he's dead so he can't become a burden on the government. Most people would think that such a thing is unethical, immoral and evil. All because of perspective. In a world where everyone agrees that it's a good thing to keep the government unburdened, it would be good and ethical, not evil. Same with euthenasia. Is it alright to kill someone who wants to die? Are you evil if you do? Good? Perspective.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - SammyB - 2008-12-30
Tobberoth Wrote:But the bible preaches intolerance.Does it? The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance. If it did, then Atheism is technically just as intolerant, because it is the belief that there is no god, therefore anyone who thinks there is must be wrong. Can you see that?
And by the way, the bible does not say that you should kill anyone who doesn't agree with you (even if people who claim to follow it have done just that)...
Tob you prompt some stimulating discussion man! Thank you, but it's 2am here, gotta grab some sleep. Haha..
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-30
Well, technically it does say.
Believing other people are wrong and that other people are going to hell is very different in essence.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - kazelee - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:I'm aware of who Stalin is. It simply sounds absurd for any person to kill in the name of Atheism.kazelee Wrote:Got any sources for that claim. Cause that sounds strange to me.I thought this was fairly common knowledge. Anyway, a quick internet search yields the following:
"Kill tally: Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'. "
From http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html
A much better (and academically referenced article) can be found here:
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/stvictims.htm
"As assured as I am that there is no god, is as assured I am that I must kill you."
"Today, no god spoke to me. And in this silence I was assured that I am on the right path."
I even tried to search for any grounds on that claim, and all I found were religious sites. It seems like something someone made up because they were tired of hearing all the heat religion takes for genocide.
I would love to see some proof on this fact. Seriously.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - kazelee - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:The few Atheist I've seen who were "intolerant" of religion were intolerant as a result of the massive "intolerance" of their being an Atheist by virtually everyone around them.Tobberoth Wrote:But the bible preaches intolerance.Does it? The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance. If it did, then Atheism is technically just as intolerant, because it is the belief that there is no god, therefore anyone who thinks there is must be wrong. Can you see that?
Quote:And by the way, the bible does not say that you should kill anyone who doesn't agree with you (even if people who claim to follow it have done just that)...I'm sure there are many secs of Christianity that would disagree. It's mostly Old Testament, but I've seen quotes advocating this sort of thing, and thought they were BS until I looked them up. They could have been taken out of context, but they do exist.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
igordesu Wrote:I've thought about that in the past. What if we and the universe actually don't exist and it's all just...whatever. A dream. Not real.That would actually be a very pleasant scenario. What if the "waking life" was much better. What if you could do in this "dream" what those who practice lucid dreaming do? If you could bend the dream in any way your mind wished? If you were fully aware it was a dream and could just take off flying when ever you wanted? If you could just turn those who seem harmful into saints with just your imagination? Sounds like a pretty fun reality!
Well, since it would pretty much suck if I went on that and it turned out that that isn't so, I'm just going to assume that it is real and do my best assuming that system. And besides, we don't really have a lot to go on with the whole "not real" deal. Because of that, we're stuck with the other box options.
SammyB Wrote:But, isn't Atheism the belief that there is no god?Yes of course it is a belief. I think most would never state their beliefs though if they weren't constantly goated on by faith based religions.
I wonder how many who feel they are atheist are actually agnostic. I always felt that was the most intelligent view. "I just don't know if there is or isn't a god(s) because it is impossible to prove". How many go to the extreme of nihilism believing that consciousness begins (like evangelicals) at birth and ends at death.
I have no proof that there is consciousness after the body rots away or that it was present before birth. It is just the most logical conclusion to me. My Catholic wife before would tell me who she thought she was in previous lives so re-incarnation is not universally rejected by all Christians. I have read it was part of the Christian belief until the time of Constantine.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-30
The reason people don't call themselves agnostic is because agnosticism is usually coupled with Christianity. Instead of the proper meaning, believing that "We can't know", it has become a Christianity "lite" for people who can't commit to the real faith.
Personally, I'm not saying God doesn't exist, we can't prove that so we can't KNOW that. However, it's the same as if I said "The world is actually a bean in a soup which a fox is eating". You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove myself right. It's just random, there's no real logic to it. So my conclusion is the same as buddha: There MIGHT be a God, we can't know. So why care?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
Actually the Buddha claimed he met the gods and found them to be very pleasant and playful but really of no benefit to humans. They are too busy with sensual pleasures to bother with lowly creatures like us (would kind of kill their buzz so to speak). It is said the first thing the Buddha did after death was to go to heaven and ask his mother to return to the human rhelm to aid suffering beings by teaching her of the futility of her (impermanent) god-like existence.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Hashiriya - 2008-12-30
God gave proof that Jesus was his son by having Jesus perform miracles throughout the Bible, but there were still many people that didn't believe in him even when he showed proof that he was the son of God... i wonder if God sent his son in the present time... how many people would believe in him then?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - kazelee - 2008-12-30
Hashiriya Wrote:God gave proof that Jesus was his son by having Jesus perform miracles throughout the Bible, but there were still many people that didn't believe in him even when he showed proof that he was the son of God... i wonder if God sent his son in the present time... how many people would believe in him then?Considering that magician, and fake healer, do what he does, literally, everyday I would say the only one who'd believe him are the ones who want to.
Unless of course a mountain was moved over 2000 miles with 3.5 billion witnesses, and empherical data were taken to show that mountain was indeed moved.
Deception is easy. Moving a mountain is not.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
Dragg Wrote:it goes against women's general instincts to not want to have to share a husband.I think it depends on the situation. How many women would give up their one dead beat husband to share Brad Pitt with ten other women. Is it better to have 1/10th possession of a great guy as opposed to having a loser all to yourself
But generally in plural marriages, it has been a slave like existence for the women. Not in all though. In Tibet, it was common for both men and women to have several spouses. Because a woman can only have one child (other than twins) per year and a man can have as many as he potentially has partners, there are complications. But there have been examples of people throughout the world living harmoniously where the entire tribe raised the children not caring who the father was. As long as the women had equal power in decisions and not treated as property.
Hashiriya Wrote:God gave proof that Jesus was his son by having Jesus perform miracles throughout the Bible, but there were still many people that didn't believe in him even when he showed proof that he was the son of God... i wonder if God sent his son in the present time... how many people would believe in him then?I think he would be nailed to the cross by the Christians this time as a blasphemer. I really don't think he/she would be a part of the Christian religion as it exists now.
Hhhhmmmm... I wonder if David Blaine is Jesus?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - alyks - 2008-12-30
SammyB Wrote:I blame religion for being intolerant and don't believe there is a god. The church has been responsible for terrible things, and I still don't see any change. There are many people around me who are religious and try to use the bible as an excuse to be prejudiced against gays, people of different religions, etc. Religion has no right to judge ethics, and has no right to say they are ethically superior because they follow a religion. This goes for any religion.alyks Wrote:To answer your question, SammyB, my mother was raised in a devote Christian community (The Worldwide Church of God, to be specific). She was mentally abused by her family throughout her entire childhood because she didn't believe in the religion. It may not have been me personally, but it's part of what shaped my views.And dude, I am sorry to hear that... and I'm not just saying that, I mean it. I'm the first to admit that the Church is responsible for some terrible atrocities over the past 1500years. I just hope you don't blame God for something that people did. What they did was wrong and you have a right to be angry with them.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
alyks Wrote:Religion has no right to judge ethics, and has no right to say they are ethically superior because they follow a religion. This goes for any religion.This is true. What is religion anyways though? What does a belief have to include to qualify as a religion? I have heard that it requires a creator god. If so then I am not religious. If it is just pagentry and ceremony, I don't feel I qualify in that reguard either. I don't even feel I am Buddhist. It is just people who do call themselves that seem to be happier than anyone I know who doesn't label themselves that way. So I try to emulate their behavior. I practice their meditations and study their theories. For me it has worked. I do not suffer from unstable emotions like anger, jealousy, and desire so much anymore. It may not work for others.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-30
I'm still confused as to some of the explanations of ethics that have somehow evolved in a universe/box without a creator. Remember, without a creator of the box, all that the box would be is pure existence. That means we're all the most highly developed/evolved portions of "the box". We're so developed that we are aware of ourselves and the box. That means the box has become aware of itself. With just this pure existence, how can you say there is any ethics? Remember, ethics are by definition some sort of code or set of rules by which we *should* act. You keep on saying that we've evolved "ethics" or "social norms". Why have we done that? I'm serious about wondering the reason. Is it because that's the most efficient way to prolong our existence (and therefore the box/universe's awareness of itself) and not kill ourselves off? I'm honestly wondering. Because if that's the reason, then that's not really ethics. That's us coming up with a set of guidelines to follow to accomplish that goal. Survival of the fittest. The strongest (in this case smartest) find a way to prolong their existence (by forming societal rules). Coming up with rules to accomplish a goal is not ethics. That is not how everybody "should act". That's how people who want to accomplish that goal should act. And, since the beings who don't want to accomplish that goal are just as much a part of the box/universe as the beings who do want to accomplish that goal, it would be (in theory) unfair to do anything like lockup other beings for not following the rules that some have created to accomplish their goal. But, since majority rules (survival of the fittest), the ones who've created the goal do it anyways. Am I wrong? I can't seem to figure out why I "should act" one way or another if there is no creator of the box/universe. All there is is pure existence. If that's so, I could do whatever I want. I could kill babies, brutally torture babies, be a cannibal, or whatever if I wanted, and, if certain other members of the box tried to stop me, they're enforcing the rules they've created to accomplish their goal. Survival of the fittest.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
There is no ultimate good or evil. Ethics and morality are relative to the situation. Survival of the fittest for a human would in fact be to be as kind, humble and affectionate as possible. We did not evolve with fangs, poison, claws or an external skeleton to protect us. We have sensitive skin with very little hair and no fur so it seems we are ideally built for being affectionate. Vegetarians live longer healthier lives as a whole so even the killing of animals works against our survival except under harsh conditions such as an ice age. Because of my ability to reason, I know if I steal, lie or kill, the social consequences would cause me great suffering. If I kill the farmer, who will grow my food? Even if I know I can get away with something, empathy causes me mental suffering. If it did not, we would not have survived as a species
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - byakko - 2008-12-30
bodhisamaya Wrote:We did not evolve with fangs, poison, claws or an external skeleton to protect us.Sapience is a far greater weapon than fangs, poison, or claws; for we have domain over them all.
Reason is the pinnacle of our existence as homo sapience. That which promotes life is the good, that which denies it or destroys it is the bad, I'd say that's pretty absolute. Societal laws, or the axioms that define social interaction amongst humans are based on real metaphysical realities, they cannot be changed or wished away, one cannot believe in something contrary to reality and not suffer some causative penalty towards his/ her life.
If you wished to kill babies Igor, then what fate would befall you, your quest would soon end as others have a vested interest in the lives youre taking, others have an interest in the property you steal.
Interestingly Economics is perhaps the most revealing social science one could study as it discusses the benefits of human interaction and trade amongst fellow man at its most basic level, and all other things evolve from this. That a man has a right to his life and his property. Thus we have created laws to protect these things in developed nations, and we prosper the most because of such basic and necessary rights.
If these basic and logical tenets are denied then life will be squandered, existence requires rationality. Should more assume anti life propaganda as truth than those with an absolute and rational view of life then they would be the cause of their own end.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-30
@ igordesu
Yes, it is all based on survival of the fittest.
I find parts of this reality unpleasant so I choose to believe that there is more to it mainly as a coping mechanism.