Nevermore Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 Serisly, this is discusstion is WAY OT. Peregrine, if you can't see it then you're an idiot. Darnoc, you're not helping. Would some moderater, besides Peregrine*, please lock this lost cause? * If you do it then it will just be taking the last word. Which is childish to make an effort to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Ok, let me quote from a PM you sent me: As a matter of fact I don't bother sifting through 12 quotes with 12 seprate responces on every OT reply some one makes. By your own words, you don't bother reading the arguments. So don't start talking about what's on topic or not. If you'd actually cared enough to read the arguments, you'd see that Darnoc has a relevant point (although a very flawed one). Since I know it's too many posts for you to read, here's a nice simple summary: 1. The initial question can be restated as "Is there enough evidence/reason to believe in a god that a completely emotionless person would do so?" This is the key point... an emotionless person judges entirely by facts. Without a belief in god, religion has no purpose, and would not exist. Both Darnoc and I agree with this part. 2) The (according to him) philosophers that work entirely by logic and reason have concluded that there is a god. They have made arguments as Darnoc has posted, and I have disagreed with. 3) (My argument) A logical analysis of the evidence in our observable universe says that there is no god. Since an entirely emotionless person would believe/not believe in god (and therefore religion) based on facts only. Therefore without emotion, one can not believe in god (and therefore religion). 4) (Darnoc's counter) Observation is flawed. We can not trust our observations, therefore a god may exist even if all evidence says otherwise. Therefore the arguments of the philosophers (that I disagreed with) are valid, and it is possible to have belief in god (and therefore religion) without emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 So my view is that the removal of (or non-existence of) emotion would not affect the development of religion. At the end of the day the purpose of ALL religions is to keep the proles in check and that is not connected to emotion. Except that greed and desire for power are emotions. Without emotions, there are no proles and no need to keep them in check. It seems unlikely that absence of emotion will lead to the absence of hierarchy. In any hierarchical system there will be proles. One can assume them to be accepting of their function as would those in charge, possibly even unquestioning. Such rules as existed could be born out of a desire to protect, nothing to do with greed or power lust. Therefore I stick with my view. I cannot accept the corollary of your assertion, i.e. that an emotionless society would have to be non-hierarchical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I would even say that a non-emotional society must have a hierarchy. Because those people would posses only their logic and reason, they must find a way to function the most efficently and at the same time furfill the basic needs of all people. So a non-emotional society would have hierarchy of abilities. That means, only people with abilities usable in a government (talent for organization) will be a member of a government. Persons with abilities in research will be scientists. Persons with abilities in manual work will get a job where they can use this ability. A society which has for every person the right place (considering abilities and intelligence) will work the most effiecent. Because this society of non-emotional people is not hindered by any emotions like "freedom", the people there won't have any problem with it, because it is the most reasonable way to make a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Your point? This is completely irrelevant. Religion is only needed to mainain this hierarchy if the people in higher positions of power are taking that power without the consent of the others. Religions is a tool of control in this case. You don't need a tool of control if the people you're controling want you to control them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Note the word if in perigrine's post, as I am sure no one WANTS to be controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Because of our (emotional) desire for independence even when it's not the best answer, and because our (emotional) greed for more power than we should have puts people in that situation. In reality, of course it works this way, and religion is a useful tool to get and maintain power. But in an emotionless society, it would be pointless, since there wouldn't be a need to force control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.