The nature of religon
 

This is a thread about the nature of religion as a whole.
Is it an archaic and outdated concept whose only purpose it is to explain what we do not understand?
Does it explain the whys of life or not?
Is it just an invention of individuals to attempt to wield power over others?
Is it the unavoidable satisfaction of a certain part of our human nature?
Are we designed to be like that?

Discuss. Politely.

Personally, and this is only personally, I think religion is archaeic and has no real purpose but to offer salvation to those who are lost among humanity or need an imaginary reason why things are.

I think people just need to feel less alone, by nature. So they make up some stories. Some really GREAT stories, but stories nontheless.

I don't think that religion, in itself, is a bad thing. Only when it is abused and used as a power device does it turn into something outright evil. People should be able to think for themselves, and religion is counterproductive to that point.

My personal beliefs(in a very truncated form):

There is an aspect of human nature which demands meaning to be ascribed to our lives. We have trouble functioning properly in our lives when we do not have this satisfied. I feel this is actually part of the deliberate design of human beings. Since thi is design, it is only logical to figure that there is a designer, which I feel is God.
God placed in ourselves this yearning for meaning, and I feel that Christianity is the proper vessel through which this is satisfied.

Double Post:
I want to know, and take your time to properly and thoroughly explain this, what do you think "religion" IS?

I could write an entire essay on it, but I'll try to keep it as brief and concise as I can. (Keep in mind, I am terrible with words.)

I think religion is just a human construct in which people put all their hopes, dreams, and faith into. I can imagine that without religion, our history as a people would have been vastly different.

Who would those caveman have begged for rain, afterall.

It's a feeling of powerlessness which summarizes religion, in my opinion. ^_^

I am just wondering (so don't think I am attacking), why do you suppose that we have a tendency to put our hopes, dreams, and faith in something external?
Why couldn't we accept that things are not within our control? (although, some religions already ackowledge that things are totally out of our control... like Christianity... so I think that is a bit off :-P )

Anywho, I am off to a friend's house, so I will pick this up later when I get back home.

Sass:
I agree that a huge part of religion is to bring hope to an overall sense of hopelessness. However, I think its something slightly more than that.

For one, religion is a social construct. You have a hierachy, and places of worship are for the most part places of instruction and community. Many forms of religious worship contain sermons, a method of instructing followers and gioving advice. There is also an emphasis or payer / meditation and the like. Even if prayers are unheard, they force someone to think about a problem they may have and give them confidence that it can be solved.

To me, religion is an intrinsic part of human nature. There just seems to be a part of us that requires the existence of a higher power (for atheists, the higher power is reason / science). It may be there or it may just be a fragment of consciousness or our evolution as a species. But it is most definately there. I feel it every time I meditate and reach that state where all conscious thought stops and the entire body feels enveloped in a great ocean. It's a very powerful feeling and it leaves me with a sense of calm and knowledge that my problems will work themselves out with the right amount of effort.

In one sentence, religion is the power of prayer and reflection submitted to a higher power. At least for me it is.

I agree with most of this. Since most people don't consider their god(s) to be imaginary, I don't really see it the way you put it.

For a lot of people it's a tool used to explain things they cannot rationally explain. Some people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions.

A lot of self-centered people NEED it to keep them from doing immoral stuff.

Others need it to boost their confidence. Life is scary, and having an all-knowing, all-powerful being on/at their side makes going out into the world easier.

In general, I think most believers mix these three factors together.

Because we have no power to control what happens to us here in this life.

Now, I am not talking about today. I am talking about in the days where there was major issues in society and nature.

People had no way of controlling what happened to who and when. So they attributed it to something.
I disagree with the latter statement (in parenthesis) almost entirely. I think Christianity - and almost all other religions do say things are in our control. Heaven. Hell. Commandments. Pillars. Expectations. Codes. Ethics, even.

Yea, I'm off to dinner with friends too - but honestly, I really look forward to a nice, civil conversation like this. <3

Agree for my purposes.

Now, I am atheist, but I do not find that math and science are absolute. Pang and I talk about this constantly (and he avoids bringing it up anymore).

I think math and science work only from our perspective. I think we've read the chapter titles in a book, if I can use a metaphor. We may have some things right, but we haven't seen the big picture yet. We're likely to never see it.

Does that sound religious? Maybe. But I do not have faith or hope in anything - including science. I can see how some people would identify it as a sort of religion, and I AGREE that a lot of people "worship" it, in a sense. It holds answers. Science and religion parrallel in a lot of very interesting ways. But it should be observed that nothing - and I mean nothing (includiing nature) should be sought out for answers of a reason to believe in anything.

What science offers as fact may not be fact at all.

We know science is discovering new things everyday on a whole. Some of things contradict what we have found in the past, and will contradict things we will find in the future.

There are no definites. Welcome to the universe. ^_^

I don't believe in meditation, either. I mean, sure, it can work, if you put faith in it. But like anything, unless you believe in it, it's not there. Your mind is a powerful, powerful thing.

So long as it helps in the journey of life. <3

Eks, I almost entirely agree with you. But I don't have time to type everything out that I want to. ^_^

eks:
If a person uses religion as a reason to not do immoral things, doesn't it intrinsically mean they are NOT self-centered?

That is a major part of it, but it also is something that you can fall back upon. If there is a major problem in life, religion provides a means of dealing with it. It also instills a sense of calm and serenity.

Sass (Yeah, Moon = Candle Tree):
In a sense, I think religion also only works from our perspective as well. Religious thought certainly gives the notion of an absolute, but in reality does not. There are too many interpretations of religious texts and teachings to allow that. Rather, religion is more so a method of discovery. True, a religious doctrine dictates that certain things are true (like mathematical axioms), but allows the observer to take them in a personal way.

Take the religious notion of God. His existence is asserted as true, but exactly what is God is left to the believer. Is he a being, or is he an omniscent force? Heck, even the Bible isn't sure what God is. In Genesis 4:26, God is asserted to be an anthropomorphic being without human flaw, whereas in Deuteronomy 12:5, God is asserted to be an all-permeating, omniscient force.

This is a lot like what reason and science does. It takes something that is asserted to be true and builds upon them. For example, the number system is based on 8 axioms (or set theory, depending which route you choose).

Hence, it is less so a matter of what is absolute, it is more so the system you are working on and assuming as true. It is not necessarily THE system, as I don't believe that there is one correct religion / interpretation, but it is a system.

I think that something people often overlook is simply the social aspect of religion. It's somewhere to go regularly and meet new people. This certainly isn't its origin, but many certainly practice for this reason now.

Of course. What mean is that they need a guide to tell/show them certain things are wrong/harmful.

Well, we all do. Whether you call it religion or society. You weren't born knowing the difference.

Throughout time, mankind has sought explanations for the "Why?"s of the universe. Religion now, as it has always been, is an attempt by us to explain and apply reason to the world around us. It gives us a sense of purpose, a sense of hope. It is not an outdated concept. I don't believe it will ever be outdated--it just might become really silly. "The Church of Phil" or something like that.

So you're saying the two are comparable? I heard they used to burn women at the stake. Society said that was okay to do.

No we don't. We weren't born knowing the difference, no. However, genuinely self-effacing people actually take the time to sit there and realize how their actions have negative effects on people. Same people don't need people/religion/society/whatever telling them something is 'wrong,' but reach their on conclusions on 'wrong' based on how it affects people.

Well said. I can mirror my opinions with this. I merely see religion as a facet of hope to those who are really on the edge. I wouldn't call religion evil either, so long as it doesn't endoctrinate people through force or anything. So that would be a nay on the croyance thing.

But if Humanity created religion to have a security of never being alone, why do we have families? Wives? And surround ourselves with other people? I know husbands and wives still have faith, yet they are not alone, they have each other and family members. Do you mean to never be alone on a higher plane? Other than the physical?

That however doesn't explain WHY you think that people feel the need to put their hope in something. At least, I do not feel that there is a coherent connection. Let me paraphrase, to see if I get you correctly:

"Why must we put our hopes and faith in things"
"Because when humanity was young, many things happened to us which we had no control over"

It does not seem like you answered my question at all. Why is there the need to put our faith in something? It does not seem like you are making the logical link from "we cannot control everything" to "we put our hopes and faith in something"
Perhaps it is just me right now. My brain is getting a bit scattered.

Now, there are some things which Christianity says you DO have control over; but that is something ANYONE would say they have control over; even you yourself would say that we have control over our personal ethics. You do not need religious beliefs to assert that. There are things in your life which you have control over, and there are things in your life for which you cannot. You have pointed out the ones that are obviously within a person's control, but neglect the things which are not. Such things are: life, God, and anyone else. Unless of course you are a strict Calvinist, which then, you would believe that not even your own salvation is under your control. But I am not Calvinist, and I do not think that is good theology to begin with.
I don't know exactly where I am going with this, but that I totally disagree with your entirely disagreeing with me. :-Þ

Right. And you weren't influenced in any way by the people around you?

And is it possible that your preception is wrong? Maybe something doesn't appear to be affecting people, but it is?

Oh wait. You must be one of those people that understand 'wrong' as absolute. Nevermind.

Perhaps it's just me, but you're not making a great deal of sense.

Religion is a good and bad thing.

The good thing is many of the major religions preach peace, love, and respect for one another. If people really lived by those guidelines, then there would be no war now would there?

The bad thing is a lot of people do not follow those guidelines, and think their religion is the best, and ask their god to destroy those who oppose them, when in reality, the religion states that god and their prophet is merciful. These people become extremists, and people die everyday because of them.

Well, that is true. Everything used to be much more spiritual rather than scientific, and people believed that everything that happened, good or bad, was an act of God (or of some higher power). To bring that more up to date though, I think faith these days gives people hope in the sense that they feel they have someone to turn to no matter how bad things are (by praying to God it feels like someone is listening and cares about them). Religion seems to have a great influence still in third world countries; whenever we see news reports of the countries hit by say earthquakes, tsunamis or famine, there always seem to be a lot of people turning to God. I'll keep the politics of aid out of this, but apart from that, the only belief these people do have that they will survive is that God will come and rescue them. Without this belief, I think many of these people would give up hope.

However, in developed countries I agree that religion is quite archaic and seems to be more of a cause of conflict these days (religious extremists etc). I have always been atheist and have never believed in any higher form of existence such as a god, and I don't see any issue with this. Even people who call themselves religious aren't all following their holy book 100% any more (heard reports of Sunday church numbers falling for example); I think these people look for a balance between religion and society.

I'm basically saying that your responds gave away some huge flags on how your mind probably evaluates 'right' and 'wrong.' Because I didn't want to get off topic, which I will if I took the time to arugue against your statement, I just said nevermind.

I don't think you would be going off topic much by answering my question. It's a simple question. How do you know your preception of right and wrong or what "affects people" is valid?

Minion was saying that your interpretation of what actions might and might not affect other people can vary from person to person, and as such, that sort of standard ("only you can be the judge of whether what you do is right and wrong") is an unreliable system within which to work in.
:ReadingComprehension101:

Let us use an example: Porn.

It is the common understanding that there is nothing wrong with looking at pornography, and is in fact something natural. We need to "flush our prostate" or whatever crap people say. Not only that, but it doesn't hurt anyone else. Right? No one is harmed.



BUT! that is not true. Pornography has a significant effect upon your ability to make lasting and worthwhile relationships with people of the opposite sex. Pornography can make you objectify the other sex, so that they are nothing but a hunk of sex-meat. Or pornography can make you have problems with intimacy, because you are used to associating sex with images, and nothing truly physical. And there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong.
Nonetheless, your spouse is significantly harmed by these problems. So, what usually would not be considered harful to others, is in fact, harmful to others.
There are numerous other things which have already been said to be unwise through various religious contexts (like Christianity), which people usually deny as being unwise, when in fact these religions were right all along.

Religion has a lot of potential functions.

On a personal level, I believe it is the human brain's attempt to battle despair.

You see, since we (generally) have the ability to reason out our own existence and make sense of our life's situation, we soon come to wonder "why?" For some reason we want to find meaning and purpose in everything. Most of us are not content with simply existing, we want meaning to exist. In all my pondering, I cannot figure out why we desire meaning in everything. I for one know that if I do something that would ordinarily be enjoyable for too long, I get anxious - not bored. I feel that I have to do something that I find productive, even if only subjectively so.

That said, I believe that each and every one of us has some type of subjective belief that gives ultimate purpose to our overall existence. This is often religion, as most (if not all, I don't know) include some concept of a conscious existence after death, and generally this existence is greater - or at least vastly different - than the previous life. Nevertheless we will face something more magnificent after life; this may or may not be based on how well we performed during life.

As an atheist (perhaps nihilist); I often question my existence and at varying intervals realize that THERE IS NO MEANING. When I realize this and fully grasp the weight of this truth, I usually despair.

Why is there no meaning to life? It's actually somewhat of a paradox:

• Imagine starting to read a book. Although the book appears to have definite size and fits in your hand, you find that no matter how many pages you turn, you're always somewhere in the middle of the book. You read this book for years and years. Things happen to the characters, the settings change, events occur. But as you continue to read, you get frustrated. It's neverending!
  Why is it so frustrating? You cannot draw a conclusion from it. It has no end; thus it - as a whole - has no meaning. Parts of it do, but they ultimately build up to nothing.
  This would be the nature of everlasting life or ceaseless consciousness. It is meaningless because it does not end.
• But what if you do die? Does that give meaning to your life? Some say you can find immortality by making history. But history in itself is only temporary. All will be lost to time. What is important now; what is important for hundreds of years could be trivial in the face of an ever-increasing history. Even if you made history that lasted for as long as there were beings to study it, it's ultimately useless.
  This universe is doomed. It's going to collapse; rip apart, reach maximum entropy, or all of the above, and all history will be erased.
  And if it wasn't erased, would it matter? If the universe were everlasting; it would be meaningless in itself, and for the reasons stated above.

That which is temporary and that which is everlasting is equally meaningless. Cool, huh?

The mind does not like to despair. It might be accurate to say that this is necessary by nature; if a creature despairs, it will let itself waste away. From an evolutionary aspect, survival is key to existence, so despair is a no-go for any organism with the slightest ability to reason. The mind does not want to deal with the meaningless of its existence, and it will find a way to avoid it if possible. This includes creating a false reality or refusing to let go of nonsensical or illogical reality (often times, religion.)

Religion of course has multiple purposes, so besides being the mental enemy of despair, many other things tag along with it. Some of them are good for the mind/body, others are negative but necessary. I - knowing my existence carries no purpose - sometimes wish I could still have religion. Unfortunately, my mind's logic, subjective or not, rejects it.

I surprisingly agree with a lot of what you are saying.
However, I believe that (and this is semi-cyclical reasoning, I know) there is a reason for us desiring a reason and meaning for our life. Obviously, without meaning and reason, we despair, as you say. This is no good. There is a purpose for our despairing after "realizing" that there is no meaning in our life.

It is because it is not true, and we know it!

The conclusion that life is meaningless is at odds with something at the very core of our being, and this battle within causes the despair. It seems that we are designed to not be able to cope with meaningless.

Solomon pretty much said the exact same thing as you in Ecclesiastes. He basically said "All life is meaningless, and all pursuits are in vain, for all things are forgotten and pass away." That way of thinking is nothing new. But, Solomon realized that there IS something which gives meaning to our lives, and that is through the one who designed us to despair without Him.

It seems to me that your conclusion that "life is meaningless" is a dangerously premature one. How can you know that with certainty? It would seem more logical to say that we are not meant to believe that, because that causes despair.

As soon as you allow yourself to enter into that slight loop of reasoning, it all becomes clear. :)

Well I basically supported my "premature" conclusion with the paradox:
It would be impossible to draw meaning from that which has not ended.
Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven.

I do not believe we are born with the inherent belief that life has meaning.

My only guess as to why we seek meaning in everything is because our brain realizes the trend that is finding meaning in things. Throughout life, there are lessons to be learned. Some of them can be called subjective ("Don't talk back to your mother, she will slap you if you do"; applies to some but not all), and some of them are pretty much objective ("Don't touch fire, it will be painful"; if this is not true for someone, I'd like to meet them).

At a very early age our brain notices that learning is essential to avoid pain and seek pleasure; and part of learning is logically reasoning out meaning from events that don't have obvious meaning. Learning about the nature of mankind cannot be determined with a single burn or slap, it takes years of fuzzy logic and observation; and it can change on a whim when another aspect is shown. Fire will always burn if you touch it, this will never change unless part of you is paralyzed.

Unlike other animals (arguably) we can actually decode our own existence. A dog, for example, is not intelligent enough to psychologically analyze itself. It is too simple for this. It cannot despair out of lack of life's meaning, for it most likely does NOT take the time to ask itself the meaning of life.

Humans are different. Thanks to our advanced intelligence, it would make sense to say that we will one day figure out how our brain works in its entirety, so much that we will be able to duplicate it programmatically. It's actually somewhat of an ironic thing that we can do that.

Because of this, and because of the trend that is "events have meaning" (this is especially apparent in the fact that we try to derive meaning from things that don't even necessarily have it. For example, some try to take objects that appear in dreams as means of predicting the future, when scientific evidence shows dreams are actually compilations of past thoughts), we want to find meaning that which is most important - life. Not so much our life, but our very consciousness. Our thoughts and feelings and experiences, we believe they must mean something because everything else seems to mean something.

I wonder if all people even reach the stage of "life is meaningless", even briefly. Surely people question religion or any other belief, but do any of them actually think that life is meaningless? I know I've brought it up to a few people, and their reaction was basically, "Oh come on, that's ridiculous!" It was almost as if they had never considered it; like they assumed life had meaning, they just didn't know which meaning it was or what it was at all.

So what happens when the ultimate trend - the trend that an event equals a meaning - has no application to the very "IS" that is consciousness? For most people, nothing precedes consciousness. It is all there is; the one thing that can be grasped, that can be proven ("I think, therefore I am"). Even if our life were a long dream, even if our life was someone else's dream, existence is existence; pleasure is pleasure; pain is pain.

Brain and mind can't handle it; the ultimate trend has no application to consciousness. It can't be true. Maybe for some other events, but existence in itself? The mind shuts down; the mind despairs. Why live? It's lived not only because it can, physically, but because it thought it was going somewhere, but it's not. It's trapped. This is the limit; the end of the road.

Existentialism man, existentialism is where it's at. ;D

Also, I believe that the first statment in your paradox is insubstantiable.
Nor can you really substantiate your next claim either. You say logically and scientifically as if they were the same thing. However, there have been numerous instances where what is scientifically proven has not always conformed to what seems logical at the time.

So can one reasonably say there are some scientific explanations that defy logic?

I'd say there are some that concepts that would seem illogical, but when broken down into the smallest chunks of logic, could not be claimed to be illogical.

My paradox, however, is not science (most likely cannot be), it is raw philosophy. I can only support it with logical reasoning, which is inherently subjective. I trive to illustrate the concept in an earlier post.

Since it is impractical to prove a universal negative, these are only ideas at best. I can only support them with logic.

That said, I've seen you discredit some of my key philosophical concept, but I don't see any substantiations behind your rebuttal. I know that it cannot be proven; if it could, then it wouldn't be philosophy. So what are your arguments against my paradox besides the mere idea that it cannot be proven?

Yes, things that would seem illogical at first but are defied by science make more logical sense after a closer analysis. And my point is that you would not know for sure if your logic is complete. You are not entirely sure that you have broken it down to the most elemental details.

As for the paradox once again. Like you said, it is impractical to try and prove a universal negative. However, though you may be able to support them with logic, I do not believe they are supported by complete logic. Meaning, all the possibilities have not been considered, and thus are not reasonable a priori notions to start with.

You say for example that it is impossible to draw meaning from something that is not complete. However, my contention is that is an invalid claim, not entirely supported by a consideration of all possibilities.
For example, God could come to the world and say "This is your purpose in life. This is why you live." Then, we would have to admit that it IS possible for us to know the meaning of our lives even before we see the end, right? Disproof by counterexample. Let us not get into the argument of whether God HAS done this or not just yet (although I would like to say right now, that I do believe this is the case)

As for the following axiom:
"Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven."

First of all, although it sounds really cool philosophically to say "anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time," that is a logically incoherent statement. How can something be lost to time? Do you mean the memory of someone or something? This may be true. But that would nonetheless be a logical falsehood if you are implying that the world would not be any different if such a thing(or someone) had not existed. Perhaps my decision to pee in the woods might not be affected by whether there were 3 or 2 rocks for me to hide behind as I pissed, but those are small things, bearing little impact on the universe as a whole. However, the human life is still a very powerful thing, regardless of whether anyone remembers your name and what you did. You still had an impact on the world around you.
Just because someone doesn't remember you completely doesn't mean that you did not make a difference. :)

I believe this is true with any philosophical argument. The limitations of personal human experience, intelligence, reasoning, and objectivity make any argument valid only up to a point. That said, any argument that is not apparently logically unsound should NOT be disregarded on that basis alone. If there were no limitations to the validity, it would be a truth and not a philosophy. No philosophy is 100% true.

It is impossible to consider all possibilities, as there are an infinite number of possibilites to consider. Again, subjectivity comes into play when I try to consider any possibility that I think is valid. That is my only choice. If you think I have missed a valid possibility, you should mention it.

This is a tricky thing to bring up because it involves the notion that a higher being responsible for the existence of the universe(s) and humanity exists. This is a separate debate in itself, so I feel there is no way for me to argue against this without bringing up the age-old topic of "Does God exist?" That would be beating not only a dead horse but the descendents of a dead horse. However, it is true to say that only way this could happen is for God to exist. Not only that, but God would have to truly have a meaning for our existence and not be bullshitting. This sounds terribly sacriligious, perhap to you. The nature of God is up for debate; some believe he has intelligence on par with a human's but the power to create worlds (I could believe this if I believed in a God; humans will eventually create an AI which could very likely be sentient and could very likely be almost as smart if not as smart as we, yet we would still be in control of the on/off switch. We would be Gods, but superior only by our physical power.) Some believe he's greater than us in ever aspect.

This to me presents a circular argument that would be similar to the following dialogue; I say something is true or false based on a set of evidence, you say but what if the opposite is true or false based on other evidence, and I once again say that something is true or false based on a set amount of evidence.

I actually don't know how to approach this criticism without getting into the debate of if God exists. Basically if God (as I'm assuming you defined him) existed, I would be totally wrong. If he didn't, then my argument still stands. But the evidence for/against God is pretty even, so there's no where to go in any direction besides arguing if God does or doesn't exist, which is just as circular.

Any action/event will have an impact on something or someone, which will trickle unto something/someone until that tiny action has perhaps impacted the universe. I believe this is where "the Butterfly Effect" term originates; how the smallest thing can set off a large thing. That said, anything I do will essentially impact the universe, albeit in a subjectively significant way; the removal of any given event would most likely drastically alter the course of time, but the effects would most likely not be immediate.

Nevertheless, the universe's existence - from a scientific point of view - is finite. Unless God exists or a greater being can stop the universe from constantly expanding, it will, based on current science, reach maximum entropy and all will be frozen forever. This cannot be said to be the actual destruction of the universe, but it does end all possibilities for life or any other kind of action to ever occur. Other models say the universe will collapse; some say it will rip apart. But it is true that the universe is ever-expanding, and since matter cannot be created or destroyed, maximum entropy would be the most obvious end.

Any impact I make on the world or universe is temporary and ultimately pointless; if it is not pointless now or even hundreds of years from now, it will be in several billion when my action no longer has anything to impact and when the impact is no longer existant.

A better question would be, how do the alleged dictators of right and wrong, like society, religion, whatever, know its understanding of right and wrong is valid?

In order for me to respond more appropriately, I’d have to get into the nature of right and wrong, not so much religion. I really don’t feel like doing that.

I understand what he’s saying. I’m choosing to back off because to continue forward would mean opening up a can of worms I don’t feel like getting into. But, I can’t resist this one:

Take your porn scenario for example. On what basis do you have to say that porn causes people to develop intimacy issues, the fact that a correlation exists? This may be true, but I’ll never forget this scenario purpose to be me before:

Let’s say you were driving to work on the freeway. You happen to notice ten broken down cars on the road. In every instance a person was sitting on the hood of the car. They also were all taking to someone on their phone. Is it logical to assume that because they are all talking to someone on the hood of their car, that this is the cause of their car breaking down?

Now, let’s apply this to porn. Is it that porn is causing these things to happen. Or, is that indulging in porn is the affect of greater issues within people. Is it unreasonable to assume that people who already have underlining intimacy issue for reasons totally outside of pornography turn to porn because it allows them to be sexually satisfied without having to be intimate with another person? Who’s to say what is what, objectively? It not as easy as saying “there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong” because ‘wrong’ is variable.

I am VERY familiar with correlation/causation issues. This is almost my dad's whole life as an insurance company pharmaceutical policymaker, and I hear it a lot. Anyways, I can assure you that pornography is a CAUSE for intimacy problems, not a correlation, or an effect of intimicay issues. This is exactly what Minion was saying. You clearly would not want to admit that pornography is a cause of problems.

Anyways, just to back up my claim that it is a correlation, not a causation. What brings something from correlation status to causation status in a purely scientific inquiry is, in this case, a significantly high amount of absence of said effect (intimacy issues) in those people who have not participated in the act in question(pornography viewing). Which is the case as well. Therefore, it is logical to conclude causation, not just correlation.

Don't talk to me about analyzing data and problems. I know full well how to do this.

I wonder if I'm the only person that sees that you still haven't explained how pornography causes intimacy issues. You basically just said because it happens frequently, you consider it a causation. But, I guess that's another topic.

That would require more time than I have got right now.
Which is the main reason why i have not responded to Legato's post either.

Well, since you can't answer any of my questions, I'll answer one of yours.

http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm

I really admire how you probably sat there actively chose to use the word "can't" instead of the more accurate word "won't", cute. Thanks for the article though, I'll read when I get off work.

Ah, I see. It's not that you have trouble communicating your ideas; just that you are far too brilliant to bother with such a trifle as me.

Enjoy the article. I hope you find that it is not beneath your intellectual requirements.

Pick one!

[_] Man, it’s boring
[_] Duuuuuuuuuuuuh
[y] Incapable of seeing the obvious
[_] What!?

I didn't. But I loved how it was mostly about addictions to pornography and not how/why porn - itself - is bad. I mean, usually when something becomes an addiction, it tends to be bad. But I don't know man. What do you hold responsible, the person or the object? Don’t bother answering that, because ‘the answer’ isn't even relevant to the topic. The fact that multiple angles exists of seeing the issue, without something to arbitrate what's 'wrong' absolutely, still backs up my original point. You can't just say it's wrong. You can say, "I understand it as wrong because [insert reasoning]."

Yeah, I would say that it's the addiction to pornography, here, that is bad. Pornography in and of itself is pretty benign. Pornography can cause an addiction to pornography, which can cause a lot of intimacy issues. The argument is that seeing pornography once in a great while and watching pornography rather than finding a mate is like the difference between a few drinks on a Saturday night with friends and drinking at ten in the morning.

So, I would argue that pornography causes problems indirectly.

Are ya sure you read the article?


Additionally, it doesn't take a genius to see how giving young women - some not very far from being children - the opportunity to make money by allowing themselves to be exploited is damaging.

Ummm, you do know that the context of that piece was still in reference too those addicted to pornography, right?

^The thesis of the selection that you conveniently chose not to quote.

What’s being deciphered here is “harm,” in which “harm” is being defined as the effects of addiction previously mentioned in the essay. ANYTHING can be detrimental when it become an addiction. This does not necessarily make it inherently wrong, absolutely. Fuck.

First, that selection you quote is not the thesis. That is the ANTITHESIS of their intended thesis.
They first said:
"some say there will be no problem if you take out the violence" (antithesis)

But then went on to contest that idea:
"Most therapists, however, as well as most ordinary citizens, would not regard the following examples as healthy models of sexual behavior, but all are frequently depicted in "non-violent" pornography:"
list
"All of the above, while lacking violence, still have the potential of having negative effects on some viewers because they model unhealthy sex role behavior or give false information about human sexuality. Additionally, non-violent porn can contribute to acquiring a great variety of sexual addictions."

And no, in regards to your comments about addiction. Because it is not just the fact of addiction which is the primary detrimental aspect.
They SAY addiction, but that is the only due to the fact that it is the most convenient way of describing consistent exposure.

Let us also not forget the pornography is inherently addictive.


NONETHELESS, after all of this bullshit, Minion's point still stands that what you THINK is not harmful to anyone, is in fact harmful. THUS your own opinions are not a reliable source for a moral code.

Man, you must really enjoy arguing. Because now, you’re just nitpicking.

So I didn’t use the formally correct term for thesis. Well whoop-dee-doo. If you want to be a prick, and call out ridiculous technicalities, technically, an antithesis is still a fucking thesis. It’s just a thesis that opposes the opposition’s. That’s exactly what I fucking said in my post. Are we really so hung up on totally stupid and irrelevant shit, that w.e. h.a.v.e. t.o. s.p.e.l.l. o.u.t. e.v.e.r.y. f.u.c.k.i.n.g t.h.i.n.g. l.i.k.e. t.h.i.s?

As far as causation goes, you guys line of logic is the same line of logic that asserts that video games and music “causes” violence. You can even think that it does if you want. I don’t care, I really don’t. I’m saying that it’s not as black and white as you’re making it out to be on the objective scale, damn. The gray area is what line of influence from an object “causes” the problem. This is the reason why I didn’t want to get into with you people that always think in absolute terms. You people consistently miss very basic points, take totally irrelevant crap, and beat a dead horse with it. Am I saying:

Person A analyzes a situation, whether it’s porn or whatever.
Person A concludes result A is ‘right.’

Person B analyzes the same situation, same facts.
Person B concludes that result B is ‘right.’

Without an objective entity (note not necessarily even ‘god’ because an objective entity could be something like the laws of physics) evaluating one of them as ‘right’ or 'wrong' their conclusions are relative to their analysis of ‘what is.’

I don’t care if you consider porn to be wrong or not. My point wasn’t even to say that porn is some perfectly angelical gift of sex viewing that does absolutely no harm to anyone in any instance. My point was to say that porn, in your opinion is wrong TO YOU because of your line of reason. I don’t agree with your line of reason, in the respect of it being a 'cause', no. But unlike you people, I’m not even trying to say that my line of reasoning is the ‘right one.’ Out of nowhere, you people keep assuming that I am. That’s why I didn’t bother answers Minion’s retarded question. His question assumed something that I never even declared in the first place. It’s like someone asking me “what’s the best shade of blue” when I JUST got done talking about how there is no best.

FINALLY, even your last statement isn't as black and white as you're making it to be. Yes, my own opinions of 'right' and 'wrong' are not going to be consistent with everybody. Get off the fucking notion that I think it will be, I never said it would. But is this conflict any different when society, religion, culture, or whatever says something is 'right' and 'wrong' and another group opposes this notion then have all out wars about it? Who's too say which one is better? What statically defines 'best' as you put it?

Because of this, fundementally what this thread is going to boil down to is right and wrong relative or absolute? Out of the 3 years I've been reading this forum, It's been done to death and I'm sick of even reading about it, let alone writing about it.

No, it is not being nitpicky for you to give improper labels to these things, and then me to call you out on them. Especially as soon as it gets to the level of detail and specificity that we have gotten to.

Also, you had set a universal, yes fucking universal, means by which one is to arrive at their own morality:
"However, genuinely self-effacing people actually take the time to sit there and realize how their actions have negative effects on people. Same people don't need people/religion/society/whatever telling them something is 'wrong,' but reach their on conclusions on 'wrong' based on how it affects people."

The point still stands that your univeral guide by which someone should divine their morality (basically, judge by how it affects people) is flawed, because how YOU think something may affect other people, may not necessarily be correct, as is the OBVIOUS case with pornography. So, given your example of person A and person B: Person A has some background information that Person B does not have, and as such causes him to conclude A. Upon educating Person B with said background information, he concludes A as well. This would imply that it is not just about each individual person's opinion we are left with, but in fact matters of information, and an informed morality will inevitably proceed towards an objective one, as it would be the most complete one.

With your system, people can be deliberately and selectively ignorant, and then do whatever they want, because their self-designed morality permits it. Are they then justified in this act? No, because, whether the persons want to admit it, or are even aware of it or not, their actions could have a negative impact on other peoples.
Lets dig up another example: Suppose a pedophile (like the infamous "sarah" from the previous times) justifies that it is okay to have sex with children because they are in fact sexually aware people, and also have the ability to make conscious decisions in regards to sexuality. Not only that, but he feels that he is doing a service for these children by helping them mature faster.
Now, according to your system Person A (let us say, me) would judge that sex with children is wrong for a crapload of reasons.
However, Person B ("sarah") does not think so.

Is Person B then justified in enacting sexual relations with minors?

Also, we are not missing your "very basic points," we just see them as terribly, pratically flawed, and overly simplistic.

SMX, you're coming dangerously close to being a troll. Between that rock solid skull of yours, your refusual to argue when pressed and your condescending insulting tone, I'm starting to think that you might do well with a warning.