where are we going as a civilization?

[DeletedUser]

Grr... So much muttering about an apocalyptic conclusion to humanity, darn you 2012!

Anyway I honestly see no reason why we can't be a type 3 civilization (maybe species is a better descriptor). Think about it, the colonization of space if technology can get to that point would resemble the colonial era here. A certain group of nations with possibly opposing ideologies starts expanding into space lets say. That would mean that we wouldn't have to overcome our constant competitiveness and opposition to each other. We'd still be the same old humanity on a much larger area. Then of course there's the fact that since Earth is still a finite mass if humanity ever plans to exist longer than any other mammalian species ideally we'd expand our frontiers to add more resources that we could consume and alternative homeplanets (which means what wrecks Earth won't mangle all of humanity).

Of course there's still the question of tech. But I have faith that with some more work put into it we could have space colonies in the next 100 years (hopefully sooner).

(Call me loony, call me Newt, call me a Trekkie, call me an '80s sci-fi dreamer. That's what I think humanity ought to shoot for and can reach if it wants to survive.)

 

[DeletedUser]

mhh, let's just call that a bit too optimistic. Technology isn't evolving that fast for us to colonize a planet in 100 years. Getting to a planet that can sustain life will take ages to reach... even if we travel with the speed of light, that unless we discover worm holes or something(don't think my fingers aren't crossed).
If we want to colonize another planet that's closer but can't sustain life we'll have to terraform it... that not a fast process. Either way, untill we dry earth of every drop of resource I don't think we'll be that eager to colonize another planet.
Don't get me wrong, we will never stop trying to reach other planets, but colonizing... not in a 100 years... and we're definitely not reaching a type 3 civ in 100 years.

 

[DeletedUser]

mhh, let's just call that a bit too optimistic. Technology isn't evolving that fast for us to colonize a planet in 100 years. Getting to a planet that can sustain life will take ages to reach... even if we travel with the speed of light, that unless we discover worm holes or something(don't think my fingers aren't crossed).
If we want to colonize another planet that's closer but can't sustain life we'll have to terraform it... that not a fast process. Either way, untill we dry earth of every drop of resource I don't think we'll be that eager to colonize another planet.
Don't get me wrong, we will never stop trying to reach other planets, but colonizing... not in a 100 years... and we're definitely not reaching a type 3 civ in 100 years.

Our long term survival with out divine intervention is a bit too optimistic. The only way we could survive is if every one went back to primitive living. Its is very improbable human kind would agree to do this as a group. It really wont help if only a few thousand or even a few million decide this is a better course. Every one would need to be in agreement or it would fail. That agreement would never happen. We cannot even agree to destroy all nuclear weapons.

 

[DeletedUser]

divine intervention... srly?

 

[DeletedUser]

divine intervention... srly?

1. (adj.) divine
of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being

1. (n.) intervention
the act or fact of intervening.

2. intervention
interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another.

 

[DeletedUser]

hehe...

Divine Intervention (adj)

The irresponsible belief in an event, or events, that we can do whatever the hell we want in this ''middle earth" because some omnipotent diety will come save our asses from our selfish, reckless, and otherwise assinine approach to species survival. Yay...

 

[DeletedUser]

hehe...

Divine Intervention (adj)

The irresponsible belief in an event, or events, that we can do whatever the hell we want in this ''middle earth" because some omnipotent diety will come save our asses from our selfish, reckless, and otherwise assinine approach to species survival. Yay...

That's funny but actually not really logical. Actually in that event any one doing what ever they want would be in deep trouble. If you let a bunch of people rent a House from you and some of them intentionally wreck the place, you most likely would invite the trouble makers to leave.

If anything you would think the opposite is true. If there is no God and we are all just here by accident then we are not special or unique, so why should we care if generations down the line become extinct.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know what a divine intervention is... and still, srly? The definition of it is in contradiction with this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know what a divine intervention is... and still, srly? The definition of it is in contradiction with this thread.

I never said anything about there being a god or that there would be divine intervention. I said with out divine intervention; its entirely up to you whether or not you wish to believe in that or not. The purpose of my post was not to convince you in one way or the other.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

If there is no God and we are all just here by accident then we are not special or unique, so why should we care if generations down the line become extinct.

I have some questions: How does the belief in God (or faith in general) justify or ultimately define human morality? Are you saying an atheist or anti-thiest cannot be moral simply for the sake of respect for life and respect of another human's existence?

I really have never understood why morality has some magical connection to faith and that morality cannot simply be based in reason and the love, fascination, and respect for life.

I actually put to you that if you truly consider the vacancy of faith to lead to the inevitable extinction of mankind, you have little trust in (blind) faith's capability to sustain humanity in the first place. Either that or you just subconsciously know that the concept of a omnipotent magic being out there is a genuine fallacy and your denial of that truth manifests in very blanket, malcontent generalizations like "why should anyone care...", etc.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I have some questions: How does the belief in God (or faith in general) justify or ultimately define human morality? Are you saying an atheist or anti-thiest cannot be moral simply for the sake of respect for life and respect of another human's existence?

I really have never understood why morality has some magical connection to faith and that morality cannot simply be based in reason and the love, fascination, and respect for life.

I actually put to you that if you truly consider the vacancy of faith to lead to the inevitable extinction of mankind, you have little trust in (blind) faith's capability to sustain humanity in the first place. Either that or you just subconsciously know that the concept of a omnipotent magic being out there is a genuine fallacy and your denial of that truth manifests in very blanket, malcontent generalizations like "why should anyone care...", etc.

And I put it to you you are attempting to insult those that do have a belief in god and that in itself is immoral.

First off it depends on your definition of morality and faith. Both are only words in a dictionary but if you have some notion morality is a product of a religious belief and unique to it according to those followers then you are way mistaken for i have never met anyone who has said it is unique to the belief in god perse however religious. Not by the time I have finished debating with them anyway.

Maybe there are those like that out there but ive never met one but have met plenty that judge morality to be more correct or perfect followed by a particular religious sect and those that arnt are inferior.That will include those that arnt of the exact same religious sect ie my version is more perfect than yours. Its all a matter of perception in its extremes.

However if you are talking about faith that is altogether different, again it is only a word but I have never met anyone who does not have faith in something even if it be merely themselves. Faith in god or humanity or just oneself it is still there used as a word. So if you have faith in yourself you have belief in yourself ergo your religion is you. Again religion is just a word.

Your misconception of faith in god being something unique to religion or in the way you use it is just lack of understanding. Strangely enough atheist or anti-thiest have more trouble grasping the above explanation than most. Probably because they have a strong belief ( theres that word again ) there is no "magic omnipotence force out there and get their knickers in a twist when words frequently used in religion are applied to them.

There are those that are amoral and they come from all quarters and are usually psychopaths in order to be so, the world is full of them but that is another conversation altogether

You seem to be mixing emotions and conduct exactly the same as a traditional religious follower so whats the difference ? Am I a believer ? yup most certainly but better to ask in what rather than assume the obvious.

What if I were to tell you that after you are dead you do go on ... always were and always shall be. Would you believe me ? Atheists or anti-thiest usually deny that more than religious believers in my experience btw

I'll let you ponder that, if you ask i will explain and prove it to you with 100% certainty. I'll give you a clue its not magic

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually Victor, it was Willy who posed the insult to atheists, non-Diety believers, stating they they are amoral. Orgo merely presented a contrapose to Willy's assertion. Also, Willy's assertion was not about faith, it was specifically about God vs not-God.

Something for you to ponder *smirk*

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Actually Victor, it was Willy who posed the insult to atheists, non-Diety believers, stating they they are amoral. Orgo merely presented a contrapose to Willy's assertion. Also, Willy's assertion was not about faith, it was specifically about God vs not-God.

Something for you to ponder *smirk*

Tsk Tsk patience old man

Who said willy wasnt insulting ? he would have been next after orgo who i consider far more worth talking to than willy, they are both poles apart so better to deal with one thing at a time.

Kindly go stand in the corner and ponder with yourself or better still join in you know i love it when you get involved.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

However if you are talking about faith that is altogether different, again it is only a word but I have never met anyone who does not have faith in something even if it be merely themselves. Faith in god or humanity or just oneself it is still there used as a word. So if you have faith in yourself you have belief in yourself ergo your religion is you. Again religion is just a word.

Your misconception of faith in god being something unique to religion or in the way you use it is just lack of understanding. Strangely enough atheist or anti-thiest have more trouble grasping the above explanation than most. Probably because they have a strong belief ( theres that word again ) there is no "magic omnipotence force out there and get their knickers in a twist when words frequently used in religion are applied to them.

Victor, just to be clear these are the words I used: reason, love, fascination, respect. Not "faith".

Also, when humans die or any life expires, biochemical functions cease and organic tissues become disorganized (and eventually decay). Our minds function based on that biochemical interaction/energy and organization of organic tissues. When that all ceases, life ceases. You will cease and so will I. Oblivion is the ultimate fate of all conscious life. Yeah, that sucks and it's scary but it's a fact. So, why not make the living world a better place -- Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem. Indeed, you should do so out of a basic, logical moral imperative. I don't need a liturgy to ascribe that basic truth to me (especially at sword-point).

Also, yes we do carry on I suppose as inert matter possibly mere molecules or atoms of our material bodies that somehow persist or help to add to the organic make-up or sustenance of some other organism. That's about it.

Finally, to tie this into the thread title, I hope (yes that does require faith I suppose) that one day humanity realizes that we need to care for each other but not for a reward in some afterlife or for eternal grace, rather we do so because: We exist. We know our existence. We care that our existence is fragile.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

ummm you used the word faith three times orgo. They are just words and can be applied to other than religion as you know but I felt is was worth mentioning the connections there as words.

Who is to say what goes on and what dosnt ? neither can be proved and is a matter of "faith" or personal belief.

Yes certainly atoms and therefore the energy vibration they possess does go, always has been and is more than enough for me to be content so you also know where im coming from. Thank you for replying and supplying the answer I thought you would.

It is also worth remembering the further science goes the closer to what could be construed as accepting all is in fact one we get. Consider the quantum world and multi dimensions or as science now believes infinite co existing dimensions.Currently it cannot be sufficiently explained but is this not the same as saying god is everywhere he is everything always was and always will be ? again god is just a word for something that cannot be explained.

Science or the divine it dosnt really matter, afterlife or not concious rebirth in some way or not here or in another dimension where all possibilities are possible and where you could and probably do live forever. I know its deep but its also entirely plausible and accepted by science and religion in its own way. I find it fascinating those of a belief in the divine in some cases just know it is not always a matter of being swayed or convinced some just feel it. Are they in tune more somehow than others ? is this just a way of giving voice or words to what is known on an atomic or even deeper level ? very possibly it is.

What I totally agree with you on is humanity needs to move past these divides and evolve regardless of human created belief systems and just exist together in harmony and make the most of our concious time in this arena called life on Earth.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

Victor,

I do have to concede the following: I cannot refute your statements/concepts about the existence of other dimensions or timelines, etc. I cannot because I consider it foolish and hubris to think that the meager senses of humanity including the human intellect can even begin to understand the nature of the universe nor ever truly understand it. That has to be absurd otherwise.

I suppose I'm essentially contradicting my statement about what death is but at the same time I cannot say I'm wrong either.

I hope (there's that word again) that you are right of course.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

aye orgo the whole thing is a bit of a paradox really .

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you saying an atheist or anti-thiest cannot be moral simply for the sake of respect for life and respect of another human's existence?

That is not what I said, I said it would be more logical for an atheist to say there are no moral consequences since there is no one to enforce a moral code other than themselves. So it would really just be up to them what moral code they want to follow.

It was HS that said believing in god makes one a bad person who does not care about the environment. And where was you moral out rage at his comment???

 

[DeletedUser30834]

This arguing over moral BS is pointless. Without a structure that teaches it and promotes it as some religious have attempted to do, morals or even the degree of importance to them are all optional and purely up to the individual to determine at will. The only reason morals are generally assciated with religion is because it is generally set in some book and preached to the masses and those followers are expected to hold the same morals.

In short, there are no moral absolutes outside this structure and it's purely moral relativism. That doesn't mean an Atheist (which is not anti theist, but without a theist) will not have morals, it means their morals could be different, unique, the same, or altogether missing compared to what is expected from that structural absolute.

Willypete did have a good point, what does make us special without a purpose insomuch that we should be concerned about tomorrow. It would seem that religion is well enabled to define that purpose or why we are special and have one- then propagate it to the masses to a generally uniformed understanding and it does so mostly in terms of a God and God's will. Again, an Atheist could very well have an answer to that, but they generally do not have the structure to teach the belief or to have others follow it to the same degree.

Look at it this way, someone cheats on his wife. in some circles, he's a bad person, in others, it's life and it goes on. Make that guy a preacher or someone known to hold religious beliefs and even the lenient circles will have disdain for him. It's sbecause how to behave is known and expected when the structure is there and not so much when it isn't. I mean how about Newt Gingrich verses Bill Clinton. Their cheating turned out to be viewed completely differently because one pushed his religious convictions to the front. Newt is an evil person, Bill got a hummer and everyone seemed to excuse it.

 

[DeletedUser]

This arguing over moral BS is pointless. Without a structure that teaches it and promotes it as some religious have attempted to do, morals or even the degree of importance to them are all optional and purely up to the individual to determine at will. The only reason morals are generally assciated with religion is because it is generally set in some book and preached to the masses and those followers are expected to hold the same morals.

I can agree with that, said group would need to actually follow the guidelines they preach and actually enforce those guidelines. The vast majority of mankind has difficulty actually doing either, religious or not.