Most "SCARY" invention of mankind. What is it?

[Segev Moran]

Something that scares you.



I guess they do, and have done so in history.



So what would you pose as the most scary human invention?

So far, A.I. without a doubt.

 

[firedragon]

It is an observation of history. Implosion of faiths, causing conflicts and division, wars between faiths, the domination of native peoples in the sense of a doctrine based superiority etc etc.

Regards Tony

But the observation of history by scholars, like Charles & Allen, who wrote the encyclopaedia of wars os absolutely opposite to you. The difference is, they did research.

 

[firedragon]

So far, A.I. without a doubt.

A.I. Hmm. Thats very interesting.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But the observation of history by scholars, like Charles & Allen, who wrote the encyclopaedia of wars os absolutely opposite to you. The difference is, they did research.

But not just wars, as pointed out. How do you measure these intangibles?

 

[firedragon]

But not just wars, as pointed out. How do you measure these intangibles?

First, do you accept that what he said about wars was wrong?

 

[Mock Turtle]

First, do you accept that what he said about wars was wrong?

He didn't say they caused all wars or even most, which I'm sure many will accept. And where pointing out the deaths in modern wars (WWI and WWII, for example) being some indicator as to non-religious wars being worse when they are just so because they occurred at a particular time and with the technology available then, when such wasn't so much earlier. Many seem to do this - number of deaths - as being some kind of indicator. How do we measure the many other negative things that religions might cause over time?

 

[firedragon]

He didn't say they caused all wars or even most, which I'm sure many will accept. And where pointing out the deaths in modern wars (WWI and WWII, for example) being some indicator as to non-religious wars being worse when they are just so because they occurred at a particular time and with the technology available then, when such wasn't so much earlier. Many seem to do this - number of deaths - as being some kind of indicator. How do we measure the many other negative things that religions might cause over time?

Yeah. So what caused most wars?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah. So what caused most wars?

People not having a vote as to such?

 

[firedragon]

People not having a vote as to such?

Wars are "CAUSED" by people not having a vote for it? Thats not a cause. If people had a vote, maybe it would stop wars, but that's not the cause. Not having power to stop a war is not a cause for war.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would say the infinitely creative ways people can kill others is the scariest.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Wars are "CAUSED" by people not having a vote for it? Thats not a cause. If people had a vote, maybe it would stop wars, but that's not the cause. Not having power to stop a war is not a cause for war.

So there are just some who cause wars and all the rest have no input? The causes seem to be that some in power either decide to wage war or react to others that threaten such, and hence perhaps pre-empt them. My position doesn't rely on wars alone but on many other things, as I've laid out before.

 

[osgart]

Some atheists claim that religion is the one. Some theists claim non-religion is the one. Some people think the nuclear bomb is the one. Others think the nuclear bomb is necessary, thus it is a response to other things that are scary. Some people think that missiles are the scariest invention of mankind, while others call some missiles "peace keepers". Some people thought in history, the "lightning bringing stick" referring to the gun as the one. Some others may think a rebellion is the one.

What do you think is the scariest thing mankind ever invented? Why do you think that is?

Moral relativism. Why? Because people can justify anything without an objective, universal morality. When there is no right and wrong then people are only arguing their preferences and there is no truth to be accountable to.

Human nature is just plain dangerous anyway; The desire for power, wealth, and control, the desire to delude one's self into having all the answers, the propensity to hate those whom are different, the armchair critics, on and on, but especially those who take a liking to deceive, to cheat, steal. And with danger comes dangerous inventions as a defense mechanism that usually backfires from its purposes.

 

[firedragon]

So there are just some who cause wars and all the rest have no input?

Not what I said.

Ciao.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But the observation of history by scholars, like Charles & Allen, who wrote the encyclopaedia of wars os absolutely opposite to you. The difference is, they did research.

It may only be the way you are perceiving what I am offering.

The world suffers because of how we choose to perceive God or choose not to perceive God. There is no unity.

A doctrine built in faith has far wider remifications that just those people that implemented it. It has ripples of consequences on a global scale and most likely universal scale.

People turn to other ways, when faith was weakened by doctrine. They even choose to become godless and wars that are not attributed to Faith, were born because of lack of faith.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Moral relativism. Why? Because people can justify anything without an objective, universal morality. When there is no right and wrong then people are only arguing their preferences and there is no truth to be accountable to.

Human nature is just plain dangerous anyway; The desire for power, wealth, and control, the desire to delude one's self into having all the answers, the propensity to hate those whom are different, the armchair critics, on and on, but especially those who take a liking to deceive, to cheat, steal. And with danger comes dangerous inventions as a defense mechanism that usually backfires from its purposes.

Interesting. I think you are referring to normative relativism.

 

[osgart]

Interesting. I think you are referring to normative relativism.

That's true.

 

[firedragon]

It may only be the way you are perceiving what I am offering.

The world suffers because of how we choose to perceive God or choose not to perceive God. There is no unity.

A doctrine built in faith has far wider remifications that just those people that implemented it. It has ripples of consequences on a global scale and most likely universal scale.

People turn to other ways, when faith was weakened by doctrine. They even choose to become godless and wars that are not attributed to Faith, were born because of lack of faith.

Regards Tony

Most of the wars were never associated with any faith. Some of them were. I would say around 7%. SO what you are talking about is true for this minority in history. So your concerned universe is this smaller number, which cannot be applied to the whole.

What you are attempting is to say that the suffering of the world will its end in the unity of how God is perceived because this so called disunity in this perception of God is the cause of suffering. So if everyone belongs to one doctrine, this would end.

What you fail to realise is Tony that the majority of problems dont come because of any of these doctrinal issues, unity or disunity. The majority of the problems are correlated to no-doctrine. I am not saying "caused", I said "correlated". So that should be an indication that no unity of doctrine or "one world religion" would solve this problem.

Nevertheless, so I understand what you think is the most scary human invention. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Most of the wars were never associated with any faith. Some of them were. I would say around 7%. SO what you are talking about is true for this minority in history. So your concerned universe is this smaller number, which cannot be applied to the whole.

What you are attempting is to say that the suffering of the world will its end in the unity of how God is perceived because this so called disunity in this perception of God is the cause of suffering. So if everyone belongs to one doctrine, this would end.

What you fail to realise is Tony that the majority of problems dont come because of any of these doctrinal issues, unity or disunity. The majority of the problems are correlated to no-doctrine. I am not saying "caused", I said "correlated". So that should be an indication that no unity of doctrine or "one world religion" would solve this problem.

Nevertheless, so I understand what you think is the most scary human invention. Thanks for the clarification.

I would add another thought, I see you are yet to see what I am offering.

I see the result of doctrine is like a virus. Covid-19 being an example.

So to me the Trinity doctrine is such a virus, it ramifications does infect all humanity, in one way or another, in the end it will infect all. There are symptoms in the disunity it creates, one symtom is lack of faith, one symptom is superiority complexes etc etc which all render humanity ill, that does unfold in conflict to varying degrees of severity.

So I am saying 93% of the wars are still connected to the source of the virus.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

I try to be a realist, and hence my belief that we are all basically the same, even if and as we all tend to go our own separate ways. I think this is the default position - as to race, colour, sexual orientation, and all the rest, so as to why we shouldn't discriminate against others because of any of these. Religious beliefs often are the reason why we have any of this discrimination, and why I see such as not useful, just as I see some other ideologies not useful as wel

Why do you think the default position is not to discriminate?

We see the world in terms of in/out groups and there is good evolutionary reason to instinctively favour your own tribe and to be biased against outsiders.

Studies have even shown you can assign people to completely arbitrary groups (red v blue shirts for example) and people pretty quickly start to discriminate against the other side and favour their own.

We can strive to be as fair minded as possible, but we cannot escape our genetic programming.

How do we measure the many other negative things that religions might cause over time?

How do we measure the positive things they cause over time and compare them to the negatives in some kind of cost/benefit analysis? How do we factor in the positive and negative factors of whatever unknown belief systems would have replaced religions?

Why should we assume that the alternative would have been better?

 

[Augustus]

The world suffers because of how we choose to perceive God or choose not to perceive God. There is no unity.

A doctrine built in faith has far wider remifications that just those people that implemented it. It has ripples of consequences on a global scale and most likely universal scale.

People turn to other ways, when faith was weakened by doctrine. They even choose to become godless and wars that are not attributed to Faith, were born because of lack of faith.

There is no unity because not enough people have realised my worldview is right yet