Nouw said:
Now I read your post and loosely understand what you mean. Now obviously I'm not nearly as bright as you are in this subject so whether you're vomiting out rubbish or speaking the ultimate truth I wouldn't know. However I have picked up on 'wars' and 'killing themselves.'
I am kind of flattered at the mention that you believe me to be bright. Thank you, it's not often someone who would disagree with someone else acknowledges a level of intellect in the other. The very least I can do is do answer your questions of me to the best of my ability, to return the respect I've earned.
Now pardon me but aren't wars the event that kills the most people? Yes smoking causes more deaths but I'll be damned if WW2 wasn't one of the most bloodiest of all wars. It's roughly 48-49 million people dead and to me that sounds like one way to solve the over-population problem. I'm not saying that it is the solution but just stating a fact in the tone of you while reading your post. So wouldn't wars fix the over-population problem?
Wars are a mixed bag in this regard. While it is true that wars are a source of solving overpopulation, I must reiterate what I posted previously: "Wars often have the potential to destroy resources...while, at the same time, costing resources to maintain." Our technology is such now that it is conceivable that we can damage our planet to the point where trying to survive off of it would become a greater hardship that what we've already made it through overpopulation. To pose the question that Miria did in Breath of Fire 3, if we make our own home inhospitable for ourselves to live in and become too consumed with the struggle to survive, what good would all our advancements have done us? I'd be for wars if it wasn't for the trade-off's potential to destroy all of us, regardless of all factors, both internal and external. Moreover, as MovieBob pointed out in his latest episode, humankind's own stupidity and recklessness combined with nature does a good (and sometimes humorous) job at decreasing the population. (Though, IMO, they can gladly take a few more!)
Now obviously I greatly beg to differ but it can be both a really good thing as well.[sub]There haven't been many wars waged because of Christianity has there? RECENTLY.[/sub] It gives purpose in life, bringing joy to countless people. Know that is the thing I always get irked about it. Without religion, many people are going to question their established morals and values. If religion is taken away, wouldn't that imply that their morals and values are incorrect? And when people start wondering what moral and value is 'correct'[sub]which there isn't[/sub]wouldn't that lead to self-deterioration?
To address your second sentence, there has always been a unspoken war that most of the religions in the world have waged - the big 3 being chief among them. In case you wish not to read my previous post again, or that you might have forgotten, the "Big 3" refers to Catholicism/Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The war they wage is the subjugation of one's conscious and rational mind to an unseen celestial authority that will judge you for what you think, what you do and how you live. See also:
And also John Galt's radio speech near the end of Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged.
Also remember, that I have nothing against a person who is religious, so long as it's kept personal. That caveat is important to me...and also incredibly generous when you stop and think about it. I've often seen that religion is rather intrusive in this regard, and it is easily offended - which is something I've questioned often. In fact, these four men have questioned this more eloquently than I can, so I'll post part of their conversation here. It is quite long (roughly two hours long, spread across 12 parts on Youtube) but the only the first part here matters in this particular argument; though I will not discourage listening to them in full!
As for the rest of your second paragraph, I never said, nor implied, to remove religion entirely. I only proposed to remove the
organized part of religion. The word 'organized' cannot be stressed enough. No one man, now or ever, could hope to remove religion entirely. Personally, I hope it never is. Religion, in its time, has influenced art, architecture and a host of other fields. Also, I don't believe that people need religion to have morals and values. I have them, and I have questioned them very often. In research and reading of books, I have questioned my own views through the views of other people. As for self-deterioration, I think that if you don't question yourself and don't challenge both yourself and others, then deterioration will be almost all but certain. I'm not sure who said this, but I'll quote it regardless:
"When I argue or debate with another rational person and we reach an impasse, I let reality be the final arbiter. If he wrong, then he shall learn. If I am wrong, I will. One of us may win, but both of us shall profit."
I wish I could meet you in person and have further discussions about this. You seem personable, and rational, enough that I think we could enjoy each other's views, company and debate.
