Mor(m)ons

[daddy1gringo]

But what if in the future when we live in a post-scarcity society, and we can upload education to peoples brains, and then everyone would be too smart to be religious?

...and too humble as well, no doubt.

[Lootifer]

Arguably in a post scarcity society egos would be irrelevant outside of sports and entertainment.

[Army of GOD]

I got an ant farm. Those motherfuckers didn't grow shit

[BigBallinStalin]

However, this entire argument, spurned on by natty, is silly because "a world without religion" would be extremely unlikely

y

What benefits do the many religions provide to their adherents, and can such benefits be perfectly substituted by non-religious groups/organizations?


Also, even if science were to somehow answer the most fundamental questions, I doubt everyone would find them satisfying; therefore, they'd still seek substitutes, e.g. religion.

But what if in the future when we live in a post-scarcity society, and we can upload education to peoples brains, and then everyone would be too smart to be religious?

Oh, so assume away the demand for finding a satisfactory answer, even after the "correct" one is discovered? Okay then. Let's just homogenize human preferences!

I mean, sure, that's one way around my questions, but it doesn't really apply to people in the near future as I understand them. Of course, people in the future could be extremely different, or not at all, but at that extremely far point of speculation, I lose interest because it's no longer practical.

[natty dread]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

[Woodruff]

The Crusades are the most overrated thing in history.

except for nirvana

Yeah, that band sucks.

[Woodruff]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

I see.. and where, exactly, did I mention Republicans in the above quoted post?

Uh...that's a pretty Phatscottyish post, right there.

[BigBallinStalin]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Since you've been correctly exposed as a bigot in this thread, what steps will you take toward becoming less bigoted?

[natty dread]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Since you've been correctly exposed as a bigot in this thread, what steps will you take toward becoming less bigoted?

Sorry, the opportunity cost for bigotry is waaaaay too high for me, so naturally I can't be a bigot. Economy says so.

[BigBallinStalin]

Seriously, f*ck mormons.

http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=4329

Religion is a disease.

What a bigot. And a hypocrite too!

"YOU"RE A BIGOT, NS!@!! YOU"RE A BIGOT, AOG!!! SEXIST< RACIST< DURR DURR DURR!!"


It's okay, natty. You can at least concede your initial positions, but if not, then we have to assume that you really meant what you said. I guess you really are a bigot.

[natty dread]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post.

Can you explain it in economical terms?

[Crazyirishman]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Since you've been correctly exposed as a bigot in this thread, what steps will you take toward becoming less bigoted?

Sorry, the opportunity cost for bigotry is waaaaay too high for me, so naturally I can't be a bigot. Economy says so.

Yes but the Marginal Propensity to be an Asshole (MPTBAA) and the expected ultility maximization of the entertainment value that you gain from bigotry negates the opportunity cost.

[natty dread]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Since you've been correctly exposed as a bigot in this thread, what steps will you take toward becoming less bigoted?

Sorry, the opportunity cost for bigotry is waaaaay too high for me, so naturally I can't be a bigot. Economy says so.

Yes but the Marginal Propensity to be an Asshole (MPTBAA) and the expected ultility maximization of the entertainment value that you gain from bigotry negates the opportunity cost.

No it doesn't. You forgot to carry the one

[PLAYER57832]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

I see.. and where, exactly, did I mention Republicans in the above quoted post?

Uh...that's a pretty Phatscottyish post, right there.

??
Not sure what you mean by that.
In truth, my comment was about other groups, some of which have decided that the Republican Party is "their" party, but some have also taken the Tea Party and some tak other groups as well.

[PLAYER57832]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Religions is inherent to humanity. You like to pretend, for example, you have none.. but that belief, itself, is a religion.

Now, it is possible we might get away from organized, structural religions. I doubt it, (and honestly don't think it would be a good thing), but it is possible.

[natty dread]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Religions is inherent to humanity. You like to pretend, for example, you have none.. but that belief, itself, is a religion.

Now, it is possible we might get away from organized, structural religions. I doubt it, (and honestly don't think it would be a good thing), but it is possible.

Redefining words again, are we?

[Woodruff]

Hitler would have a hard time rising to power in 2012 Germany for instance; .

Maybe not in Germany, but a slight change in wording and a lot of the rhetoric in the US can seem not so different from that of Germany at the time.

Except.. its not "dirty jews" its "dirty liberals" that are "ruining society"

This is a ludicrous minimizing of the potency of National Socialism. To say the Republican Party is two steps away from launching a global holocaust is the same kind of rhetoric you're screeching about.

I see.. and where, exactly, did I mention Republicans in the above quoted post?

Uh...that's a pretty Phatscottyish post, right there.

??
Not sure what you mean by that.

It means that while you may not have specifically used the word "Republicans", nobody in the fora had any doubt who you were referring to. So to try to claim that you didn't use that word seems very disengenuous.

In truth, my comment was about other groups, some of which have decided that the Republican Party is "their" party, but some have also taken the Tea Party and some tak other groups as well.

For instance? Again, like Phatscotty, you seem to be trying real hard to be intentionally vague.

[Woodruff]

What if people in the future all find the opportunity cost of religion waaaaaaay too high?

Religions is inherent to humanity. You like to pretend, for example, you have none.. but that belief, itself, is a religion.

That's really a terrible assumption and frankly does the term "religion" a disservice. It makes no sense at all.

[john9blue]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

[Symmetry]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

[john9blue]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.

but feel free to keep reducing anything that you disagree with to a ridiculously simplified statement in order to straw-man your way out of any actual debate or critical thought. works for everyone else.

[natty dread]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.

but feel free to keep reducing anything that you disagree with to a ridiculously simplified statement in order to straw-man your way out of any actual debate or critical thought. works for everyone else.

Translation: I cannot argue with that, so I'm just going to bitch and moan about popular fallacies and hope no one will notice

[Woodruff]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.

That's a really strange way to use the term "rational", I must tell you.

[Symmetry]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.

but feel free to keep reducing anything that you disagree with to a ridiculously simplified statement in order to straw-man your way out of any actual debate or critical thought. works for everyone else.

I sort of feel that you didn't apply any degree of critical thought to your post, and were attacking a straw man. Have you ever thought that it might be a little bit odd that "a ridiculously simplified statement i order to staw-man your way out of any debate or critical thought" seems to be something that "works for everyone else".

Dude, you ain't the Messiah, beyond everyone else, much as you seem to hold your own peculiar claim to the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything.

[BigBallinStalin]

belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews

If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.

religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.

That's a really strange way to use the term "rational", I must tell you.

In john's defense, a more general definition of "rational" is choosing the means which attains one's ends. Irrational would be continually choosing a means which fails to attain one's ends.

Other than that, I got nothing left for john.