Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[kungtotte]

A lack of critical thinking is a problem that affects most of humanity, regardless of ethnicity, social class, religion or lack of same.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I just have to wonder if the contingency allowed in her plea bargain might end up establishing a precedent that could become quite dangerous. I can't think of a really good example, but let's say that someone were to commit murder by freezing someone (in a method similar to cryogenic freezing). Would it be plausible, given the precedent established in this case, to argue for a pleas to a lesser charge with the contingency that the criminal charges would be absolved entirely if the person should ever be revived? How about pleading way down to something like simple assault and providing that it becomes murder if the person cannot be revived within 50 years?
Also, does it set an example for allowing concessions to cater to a particular individual's faith into the legal system? If that is the case, does it raise an argument for allowing Sharia (Sp.?) Laws to come into play?

Can one of the many "legally empowered" minds on this board let me know if I am barking at the wind here?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1740316' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.54']Would it be plausible, given the precedent established in this case, to argue for a pleas to a lesser charge with the contingency that the criminal charges would be absolved entirely if the person should ever be revived?[/quote]

Not plausible. Prosecutors have discretion in determining what to offer the defendant. That's never going to happen.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740322' date='Mar 31 2009, 12.56']Not plausible. Prosecutors have discretion in determining what to offer the defendant. That's never going to happen.[/quote]
Thank you. That at least makes me feel a little better about it.
I still say that we should offer her the death sentence and tell her she'll be pardoned as soon as she's resurrected.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740300' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.50']So your empirical claim is based on another, more elaborate unsupported empirical claim? Is it turtles all the way down, EHK?[/quote]

What do you want exactly? We don't exactly have a laboratory setting where we can input or export every plausible variable in order to determine absolute root cause and effect. But I find it ridiculously implausible that 19 people from 5 different countries, most of whom would have no non-religious context with which to interact with eachother, would suddenly come together with a burning desire to kill themselves and thousands of others in a country 5,000 miles away that was not actively oppressing or bombing them without the intervening and motivating factor of religion. Like I said before, we fuck with alot of countries. Most of them have much more reason to be pissed at our government than Saudi's, UAE's, Egyptians, etc. Only the Islamic ones are lobbing airplanes at us. You think there JUST MIGHT be something to that?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740309' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.51']Religious faith does not preclude critical thinking.[/quote]

Sure it does. In fact it requires it.

[Stego]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740309' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.51']Religious faith does not preclude critical thinking.[/quote]




Actually, yes it does.

But I would not expect you accept that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stego, EHK,

[quote name='Stego' post='1740331' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.01']Actually, yes it does.

But I would not expect you accept that.[/quote]

Please tell me you aren't saying I'm incapable of thinking critically [i]because[/i] I believe in God?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740328' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.59']What do you want exactly? We don't exactly have a laboratory setting where we can input or export every plausible variable in order to determine absolute root cause and effect.[/quote]

Exactly. So in fact when you say that things aren't really that disputable, that's not true at all; they're easily disputable, because at no point can you show what the level of atrocities would be like without religion. You can go around saying that 9/11 wouldn't happen were it not for the network of Islamic extremists that brought these people together. And I agree with you. I also agree that were it not for a legacy of Christian Judeophobia, there would be no Holocaust. But it's the height of intellectual arrogance to say that you know what would have happened were something as fundamentally important to the history of human civilization as religion taken out of the equation. If you were at all honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that you have no idea what the absence of religion would look like.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740309' date='Apr 1 2009, 08.51']Khalessi,



Religious faith does not preclude critical thinking.[/quote]

It does if one is brought up not to question religious authority. In fact, if one is punished for questioning it. Also, being told that the answer to many questions about the world is "because it's God's will".
I agree that there is a general lack of critical thinking in society, but, IMO, religion adds another layer of un-critical thinking.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Khaleesi,

[quote name='The Khaleesi' post='1740350' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.11']It does if one is brought up not to question religious authority. In fact, if one is punished for questioning it. Also, being told that the answer to many questions about the world is "because it's God's will".
I agree that there is a general lack of critical thinking in society, but, IMO, religion adds another layer of un-critical thinking.[/quote]

Really, I had five year period between the end of undergrad and graduating Law School where I was an agnostic. How is that possible as I was brought up to not questions religious authority? In fact I imagine there are more than a few agnostics/athiests on this board who were "brought up not to question religious authority." How is that possible?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1740313' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.53']This shows some serious ignorance in how the Hutu/Tutsi conflict arose at all. It had nothing to do with religion.[/quote]

I was talking about the Holocaust.

[quote]What, you didn't like lynchings and torturing of civilians in gitmo?[/quote]

There is no 9-11, thus no Afghanistan or Iraq, and thus no Gitmo WITHOUT RELIGION.

[quote]Why wouldn't the Crusades happen? Maybe under a different name, but Alexander didn't invade Asia because of religious views. Like I said - give me an example of something that could not happen without religion. Crusades are the same as Mongols, Napoleon, Germany, Alexander, Rome, the US and the Monroe doctrine, etc.[/quote]

All of Europe didn't suddenly come together for the purpose of global conquest. Nor to help some weak, effeminate greeks who read and bathed too much. They did it to strike back at the evil heathens, recapture the Holy Land, get remission of their sins, and to serve god's will. Glory and treasure certainly factored in, but that alone is not launching a continent to a unified war at this point in history. This particular instance is not 'just like Alexander or Rome'. No religion, no Crusades. Period.

[quote]Inquisition? Okay, figure out how many people were killed in the Inquisition. Do you think it's more or less than the number of people sent to Gulags in Russia? Or the number of people reeducated in China?[/quote]

And this is relevant how exactly? Without religion, we still have gulags and Chinese reeducation. Bad shit. With religion, we have gulags, reeducation, and the Inquisition. Even more bad shit. Less bad shit is better than more bad shit.

[quote]9-11 didn't happen because of religion; the people that did this didn't do so because of their religious views, they did it because they believed that they were at war with the US. Before they went and did this they were wacking off to american porn.[/quote]

Yes 9-11 happened because of religion. They believed they were at war with the US primarily due to religion.

[quote]Sure, but you're saying that it's far worse than anything else. And that's really not supportable, especially given the atrocities that happened in the 20th century and the 21st and what their root causes are. The fact is, EHK - we've removed religion as a factor in a lot of places, and people still continue to fuck each other over. We know how this experiment ends. Rwanda has absolutely nothing to do with different religious views. It has zero factor. FGM in a lot of Africa has nothing to do with religion. South Africa wasn't oppressing black people until the 90s because of religion.[/quote]

If I knew you were going to include man's desire for wealth and power into the 'anything else' equation I would've amended my statement. Jesus, of course. Some immutable factors inherent in human nature cause more death and suffering than religion. If you can think of a way of lessening or removing the devastating effect of them, I'll be on board.

[quote]So I've shown precise cases where religion was removed and the opposite of what you said would happen happened. Again, I ask - can you give one example where religion was removed and atrocities didn't occur? Just one?[/quote]

Jesus Christ, I've listed the shit 3 times now. The secularization of the west has seen the removal of most of the bad shit religion was heavily responsible for during the previous 2,000 years of European history.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740334' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.02']Stego, EHK,

Please tell me you aren't saying I'm incapable of thinking critically [i]because[/i] I believe in God?[/quote]

Religion generally requires you to believe in a god or gods. There is no way that one can come to the absolute conclusion that there is a god when there is no actual evidence to support its existence if they use critical thinking. Hence the premise upon which just about every religion is based requires a suspension of critical thinking at least in some instances. And most religions require many more critical thinking suspensions than that. I think one can fairly say that religion would be impossible if critical thinking were applied universally. Its existence is premised on the absence or suspension of it.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740354' date='Apr 1 2009, 09.15']Khaleesi,



Really, I had five year period between the end of undergrad and graduating Law School where I was an agnostic. How is that possible as I was brought up to not questions religious authority? In fact I imagine there are more than a few agnostics/athiests on this board who were "brought up not to question religious authority." How is that possible?[/quote]

It's possible because you grew up in a secular country, where you didn't get jailed,killed, or simply shunned for questioning religious authority.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740357' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.16']Jesus Christ, I've listed the shit 3 times now. The secularization of the west has seen the removal of most of the bad shit religion was heavily responsible for during the previous 2,000 years of European history.[/quote]

The problem being proving causation, once again. Your level of certainty is impressive, considering that the changes you listed previously took place in America while levels of religious self-identification has stayed largely the same.

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740309' date='Mar 31 2009, 12.51']Religious faith does not preclude critical thinking.[/quote]


It does require an abdication of critical thinking in at least one point. Any religion [i]qua[/i] religion necessarily entails at least one tenet that can be neither proved nor disproved. As such, each abandons critical thinking about the religion itself, though it may pick up again on critical thinking at any point thereafter.


What I think is the point, then, whether correct or not, is that an institution that bears no fruit wholly unique to itself, which also limits critical thinking, is dangerous. Myself, I find it hard to dispute this premise, with the understanding that the danger is much less pronounced where those limits to critical analysis are similarly abandoned.


Some faiths may even be so subject to intense scrutiny by their own adherents as for their so-called "danger" to all but evaporate in practice. The only danger they present is a sort of latent one.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Khaleesi,

[quote name='The Khaleesi' post='1740365' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.23']It's possible because you grew up in a secular country, where you didn't get jailed,killed, or simply shunned for questioning religious authority.[/quote]

Fair enough, but, that's not what you said earlier.

Bill Starbuck,

Obviously I disagree. Further, I think there are, "More things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosphy." Because something doesn't lend itself to rational exploration does not mean it is not true.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740343' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.08']Exactly. So in fact when you say that things aren't really that disputable, that's not true at all; they're easily disputable, because at no point can you show what the level of atrocities would be like without religion. You can go around saying that 9/11 wouldn't happen were it not for the network of Islamic extremists that brought these people together. And I agree with you. I also agree that were it not for a legacy of Christian Judeophobia, there would be no Holocaust. But it's the height of intellectual arrogance to say that you know what would have happened were something as fundamentally important to the history of human civilization as religion taken out of the equation. If you were at all honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that you have no idea what the absence of religion would look like.[/quote]

I know what religion is capable of. I know it is yet another divisive factor when we have more than enough already. I know that it serves no present purpose that cannot be adequately fulfilled by secular means. I know that it is a powerful and persuasive force capable of spreading globally and precluding critical thinking or sound judgment. I know there are other factors that can do the same, but I can't for the life of me think of one that's nearly as effective at it on such a massive scale. I know that it can be used to justify any atrocity without need for real world rationalization nor is it nearly as open to dispute as other influences. All of these things add up to a dangerous brew and its extremely easy to see how it might (and does) motivate repression and atrocity above and beyond what already exists due to prior divisions, motivations, and just plain human nature. No I can't say with any certainty how history would turn out in the absence of religion. Given all of these factors I've come to the completely fair conclusion that it is a dangerous cancer that we'd be better off without.

[Nous]

Religion does not preclude rational thinking, but it certainly obstructs it. For one thing, all religions are based on faith, by definition. That means there's a certain set of beliefs that are to be accepted despite there being no rational reason to believe they are true. In addition to these particular beliefs, accepting religion means accepting [i]the principle[/i] that some things are to be believed regardless of lack of evidence, or contrary to evidence.

The core principle of rationality--that we should arrive to our convictions based on evidence and reasoning--is in itself hostile to religion, and thus there is a strong incentive for religious people who want their children to hold on to their religion not to teach this principle. And who wants their children to end up in hell just so that they may be a little bit more rational?

Often, there are also certain claims religion makes about morality and the nature of reality. To the extent people want to hold on to these beliefs, they have to evade and not think rationally about them. This evasion will tend to spread, as no set of facts is isolated from everything else. It may be an individual is able to compartmentalize his creationist beliefs; more likely, in order to be able to accept the various flimsy arguments offered for them, he has to evade and blank out other facts about biology, scientific method, and the like. The same would apply to people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; is it merely a coincidence that so many of these people believe homosexuality is also a choice, regardless of whether they have evidence for this belief? A faith-based moral belief reconciles a lot easier with reality if the reality is twisted just a bit into proper direction.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740366' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.24']The problem being proving causation, once again. Your level of certainty is impressive, considering that the changes you listed previously took place in America while levels of religious self-identification has stayed largely the same.[/quote]

Self-identification does not equate fervency. America has been slowly but surely secularizing largely since its founding, with a few speed bumps along the way. Hell, even before our founding America was largely a haven for religious undesirables seeking to live their lives free of persecution. Already a secular ideal leading to progress compared to the more repressive regions they had left. If it helps, look to Europe. A few hundred years ago they would torture, persecute, and kill eachother over real or perceived religious differences. I think we can safely assume that these persecutions don't happen without religion. Than when religion died off and secularism arose, that shit died off with it. Can we get a damned cause and effect out of that?