200+ Nigerian schoolgirls kindapped - culprits selling them £7 each

[braineclipse]

Thanks it was awesome, my mates band got through to the final of a competition to play Bloodstock.

I take all of your observations with awe and respect because I myself am not knowledgeable enough to break down what he says in parts with such clarity.

I watched that video not believing that Brand is trying to portray an absolution of truth with his views, as passionate and definable as they are. But I do believe he is trying to promote an absolution of love, some parts primitive and certainly fallible, but love is the underlying message. Leading to my original post that the message one can take from history's prophets was not intended to be defined by religion, but by not behaving like a c**t

Really going massively off-topic here so apologies. I'd love to discuss this further in a new thread with you BE. And I use the word discuss rather than debate because through posters like yourself, Dubai and Hootnow, I feel like I am always learning through personal exchanges and your interactions with others. Apart from your views on bacon. Al Quinoa is watching you.

Sounds cool! Cheers for your kind words.

A separate (non-bacon related) thread on this could be very interesting.

Somewhat related to this thread:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions they say, I have no doubts Brand's intentions are good. For me though that's not enough, because without rationality and evidence to support that those good intentions have good outcomes your intentions lose most of their value. Some examples:

- Mother Theresa probably was well intentioned, but her continuous fight against family planning probably caused a lot more poverty amongst those that actually needed help. Arguably doing more harm than good. A reasonable, evidence based, approach would have done a lot more good. But with religion this is seemingly very difficult, because the interpretations of ancient texts is more important than rationality and evidence.

- You mention Buddhism. Some Buddhists are strict pacifists, and I'm sure their intentions are good. But when evil is at your doorstep in the form of an invading army from a fascist state is that non-violence really a good?

You mentioned some of the prophets. But some of the teachings of Jesus and the new testament for example are downright immoral. So you're left having to use other sources to separate the good from the bad. This is fine for any text written by mankind, but ingrained in the message from this prophet is that he's more than a man, that his opinions are those of GHod and that we are not in a position to judge what's good and what's bad.

Dawkins is a dingdong - as an atheist I can and will happily say that. It doesn't make any of what he says less true though.

He seems to feel that there's some need to fight fire with fire, that the fervour of a handful of religious simpletons needs to be somehow balanced with equally angry opinions. What he doesn't realise is that these people can't be convinced and that they're doing a perfectly good job of making themselves look ridiculous - he doesn't help the cause by pointing and laughing.

I respect the fight he's fighting and the dedication he gives it, I just don't agree with the way he fights it.

But his argumentation against those on the other end of the spectrum isn't just to convince them that they're wrong (although it sometimes happen), a large part of it is to convince those that fall somewhere in between that they should be moving in his direction.

As far as it's a question of strategy I think it's impossible to judge the outcome, but there seems to be movement in the atheist direction in the UK, in most of Northern/Western Europe and in North America. It doesn't seem likely to me that the new atheists like Dawkins have hurt this, although it's possible I'm wrong here.

I think a host of different approaches is the right way to go, I think Dawkins is more or less just being himself, and apparently that means being a bit of a dingdong sometimes.

My problem with him is that he's not good enough at separating between the day to day ordinary believer and the religious authority figures. The pope says that condoms are worse than aids, some pastor or bishop says that natural disasters are caused by homosexuality, I say go ahead and be as dingdongish as you feel like in response.

I agree with this, in that Dawkins is as bad as those he criticises. It's an easy argument to have over religious people, that science and reason make a mockery over religion.

What he forgets though is that for religious people, the world isn't defined by what we know, and it's arrogant to think that we know everything.

Also, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a boy named Jonah who lived inside a whale, or a fellow named Noah who had a boat with 2 of every animal, even those that eat each other.

It's the moral message of those that people believe in, not that it actually happened.

But what gets my goat, why doesn't he go to Native Americans and tell them their traditions are a load of hogwash. The indigenous Australians believe a frog swallowed all the water in the world, then burped it out and that's why we have oceans. Ludicrous - so why not take them to task. "No you idiots, a frog's mouth is far too small to hold all the ocean's water. It would also be very salty. Now sit there while I continue to tell you how clever I am".

Christians are just an easy target and to be fair, you get a good response out of them too.

He's not as bad as (all) those he criticizes. No chance.

Dawkins is quite a bit less arrogant than many religious people from what I've seen. And he certainly doesn't claim to know everything. However he speaks with a great amount of confidence and certainty when talking about his field(s) of study. Considering that he's a world renowned expert with decades of experience I would expect him to.

Dawkins runs an educational foundation that does a lot of work in the US for example. A country where around half the population doesn't believe in evolution, almost exclusively for religious reasons. Where creationists are trying to undermine the scientific education of young people in schools. Where a considerable amount of people believe that global warming is not an issue, because GHod gave us this planet to rule over and that Jesus will return soon enough for it not to matter. If the Australian frog myth had that kind of influence on the world I'm sure Dawkins would have a lot to say about it.

As is it's probably one more mythical story that he appreciates. He has no issue with mythical stories, it's the stories that people claim aren't mythical he's arguing against.

 

[AuroRaman]

Sounds cool! Cheers for your kind words.

A separate (non-bacon related) thread on this could be very interesting.

Somewhat related to this thread:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions they say, I have no doubts Brand's intentions are good. For me though that's not enough, because without rationality and evidence to support that those good intentions have good outcomes your intentions lose most of their value. Some examples:

You've hit the tickle my balls with a feather there. For example, someone like myself who denounced my faith at an early age and does not have much personal time for religion, will still at times put faith in 'good intentions' without sound reasoning.

- Mother Theresa probably was well intentioned, but her continuous fight against family planning probably caused a lot more poverty amongst those that actually needed help. Arguably doing more harm than good. A reasonable, evidence based, approach would have done a lot more good. But with religion this is seemingly very difficult, because the interpretations of ancient texts is more important than rationality and evidence.

- You mention Buddhism. Some Buddhists are strict pacifists, and I'm sure their intentions are good. But when evil is at your doorstep in the form of an invading army from a fascist state is that non-violence really a good?

I agree. Coming from a Sikh background, the intention is that all are equal, live in harmony, spread love. However, a fair percentage are borne from warrior backgrounds (including my family), and therefore we will fight to the last man and woman for justice and freedom.

You mentioned some of the prophets. But some of the teachings of Jesus and the new testament for example are downright immoral. So you're left having to use other sources to separate the good from the bad. This is fine for any text written by mankind, but ingrained in the message from this prophet is that he's more than a man, that his opinions are those of GHod and that we are not in a position to judge what's good and what's bad.

I should be clearer with my sentiments regarding prophet teachings. I don't agree that what is written in doctrines is the 'word' of these chaps and chapettes (is that disrespectful? I'd like to think not!). I do believe that they may have reached what we would term as a higher state of consciousness and therefore were more in tune with themselves and their environment, both physically and spiritually. One thing we can all agree on I hope is that love is a pure emotion, perhaps the purest of them all, and to love unconditionally without agenda and promote this action can only be achieved when one has reached some sort of 'Nirvana' (not sure if making sense at the moment). I would consider Steve Irwin a modern day prophet! The unconditional love and compassion he showed for endangered animals the promotion of awareness of other living beings that share our planet lend themselves to a being that had reached a level of spiritual awareness.

I would certainly question their teachings as those of GHod, however, I am enamoured by their motivation to spread love, unity and compassion. We are the ones that have twisted their words for our own agendas.

Thought you might appreciate this:

.

 

[scaramanga]

BE, like I said to Scara, maybe I misrepresented myself in my last post. I don't follow religion, but I do believe Jesus, Mohammed, Guru Nanak et al tried to enlighten us through a message of love and compassion for all beings. WE converted that to a form of control and mass obedience via doctrine and religion.

In lieu of a full answer as I am on a bus typing this going home from an awesome celebration of metal music, I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure. I expect ridicule and I expect many won't be able to stomach watching it in full, but the guy does talk some semblance of common sense.

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...ll-brand-destroys-everything-were-being-told/

Brand is a perfect example of how dangerous a little bit of knowledge can be. He's often incredibly eloquent and people (I include myself here) often mistakenly accept eloquence as being linked to knowledge. It's only when he (very, very rarely) hits on specifics - like quantum theory as BE mentioned - that we can see how little content there is in his verbal stream of consciousness.

His biggest problem is that whilst he clearly understands, and to some extent accepts, the logic of a no-GHod uni/multiverse he doesn't want to let go of that last bit of faith/spirituality.

It's a very common and understandable problem. A few years ago, when first getting properly into physics, I 'invented' the big crunch theory (see diagram below post). Unfortunately, like everything I invent (Communism, aged 10 and remotely operated car heaters, aged 24 and a half) someone had got there first and been far more thorough in their exploration.

Soon afterwards it started to become clear to most physicists that this was a very unlikely solution to how the universe began/ended/repeated. But I really wanted it to be true - partly out of wanting to be right, but also because it very neatly covered all the questions I wanted asked. Every piece of new evidence I heard of I tried to fit into my (broken) theory because I was so convinced that it had to be right.

This is pretty much what Brand is doing with his spirituality, although with far less intellectual honesty. He hears a little bit about real, observable theories and fits them around a pre-existing nonsense that he's made up in his head - any bits that don't fit he just ignores. He's also a horrible, horrible Gish Galloper - see his interview with Paxman.

 

[Superted]

Brain eclipse - im on my phone so won't quote your whole post.

But the thing about religious influence in USA. Well that's 2 easy targets then. Churchies and yanks. Most countries have some sort of religious doctrine overseeing their culture, education, medicine, etc.

In the scheme of things, the US are pretty non-secular compared to Middle East, China, South America. Why does he not try to get some traction in Africa where he could actually make a difference in the spread of Aids?

No, he just seems to target the more sensible religious folk who may teach their kids a few fairy tales but at least aren't killing and raping in the name of their GHod.

 

[braineclipse]

I cut out the parts of your post where we simply seem to agree

I should be clearer with my sentiments regarding prophet teachings. I don't agree that what is written in doctrines is the 'word' of these chaps and chapettes (is that disrespectful? I'd like to think not!). I do believe that they may have reached what we would term as a higher state of consciousness and therefore were more in tune with themselves and their environment, both physically and spiritually. One thing we can all agree on I hope is that love is a pure emotion, perhaps the purest of them all, and to love unconditionally without agenda and promote this action can only be achieved when one has reached some sort of 'Nirvana' (not sure if making sense at the moment). I would consider Steve Irwin a modern day prophet! The unconditional love and compassion he showed for endangered animals the promotion of awareness of other living beings that share our planet lend themselves to a being that had reached a level of spiritual awareness.

I would certainly question their teachings as those of GHod, however, I am enamoured by their motivation to spread love, unity and compassion. We are the ones that have twisted their words for our own agendas.

Thought you might appreciate this:

First off, I think you're leaving yourself very vulnerable to confirmation bias. The prophets you speak of are judged by your standards, statements in agreement with that is deemed to be their true teaching and what you disagree with is sourced to man made religion. I apologize if I misrepresent your views here, but this is how it reads to me. From this viewpoint I'm not surprised you find prophets throughout history and with no definite sources on what actually happened, what they actually said, it becomes essentially unfalsifiable.

Secondly. You're talking about a kind of knowledge here? But this particular knowledge can only be gained by reaching a higher state of consciousness? And you seem to be claiming that this knowledge exists independently in some spiritual/non-physical part of the world, but can be accessed by those that reach those states of consciousness? Now I'm becoming rather unclear on what it is you're actually saying, you won't be surprised to hear that it all seems rather unlikely to me.

What I suppose I wonder is how this knowledge is different from other knowledge? What is it about it that means it can only be gained from changes in consciousness and not through the means we gain (all?) other types of knowledge?

I also wonder what the implications of this would be, if true? What world would we expect to live in? Would we expect this kind of spiritual cosmic connection (again I'm very unsure about the wording here) to exist without physical manifestation? This goes back to Descartian dualism it would seem to me, if there is a separation between the spiritual and physical should there not be some connection between the two?

For me it seems to me obvious that we're capable of experiences that can be described as spiritual, numinous or transcending (all depending on definition). And I think these are experiences that should be highlighted, celebrated and studied. But I see no reason to inject the supernatural, or metaphysical into it. Or rather, I think that explanation for those experiences is unsupported.

You're right, I did appreciate that picture. I will respond with something you might appreciate, although I'm accepting it might very well be old news to you:

Carl Sagan asked NASA to turn around the Voyager 1 spaceprobe and take the most distant picture of earth mankind has ever produced:

Upon which he wrote:

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Could Carl Sagan be one of your prophets? Is the knowledge and understanding he shares any less profound than that of the other prophets? But he claims no supernatural source, he was a skeptic, a scientist, "just a man". Is there a difference between this knowledge and the knowledge that requires a higher state of consciousness to reach?

 

[braineclipse]

Scara: Excellent example of intellectual honesty I think. Should be celebrated.

Superted: You seem to be arguing strategy, in terms of what Dawkins should do to maximize his impact. Possibly an interesting debate, but I don't quite see the relevance to the thread or the discussion.

You really think that religion in the US is an easy target? Not sure where to start, but let's just say I disagree. I don't get what you're saying with your non-secular comment?

I think Dawkins is of the opinion that the religious moderates are part of the problem as they (unwillingly) offer protection for the extremists and literalists. As for your comment about *struggle cuddle*, I point you towards the catholic church.

 

[scaramanga]

Brain eclipse - im on my phone so won't quote your whole post.

But the thing about religious influence in USA. Well that's 2 easy targets then. Churchies and yanks. Most countries have some sort of religious doctrine overseeing their culture, education, medicine, etc.

In the scheme of things, the US are pretty non-secular compared to Middle East, China, South America. Why does he not try to get some traction in Africa where he could actually make a difference in the spread of Aids?

No, he just seems to target the more sensible religious folk who may teach their kids a few fairy tales but at least aren't killing and raping in the name of their GHod.

I think it's an issue of tools and not targets.

It's easy to start arguing for atheism in the US. Internet access is comparatively good, there's no language barrier (I struggle to phrase my arguments in English, **** trying in Egyptian or Saidi Arabic), there are pre-existing methods of distributing literature (Amazon), you can broadcast or podcast on NPR with relative ease. There's a democratically elected government who (at least notionally) are required to listen to the needs of their populace, and there are no laws that would require nasty things to be done to somebody arguing the case for atheism.

How would you even go about getting started somewhere like Egypt or Sudan? Do you take a soapbox and a loudhailer and stand on a corner somewhere? How likely are you to get out of doing so intact? I'm a strong believer in my cause but I'm no martyr.

You could throw the accusation that by taking this route atheists are picking the low hanging fruit and I don't think you'd be very wide of the mark. Let's score the societal value of converting a moderate, Obama-voting Christian as 1. Now let's score the societal value of stopping a Sudanese murdering rapist as 100 (or 1,000 or 1,000,000 if you like). If your conversion rate of religious zealots is 0 (and it almost certainly will be) then the societal good done will be zero with a lot of risk involved. If you convert 100 or 1,000 moderates then you push religion further to the extreme, you make it more difficult for them to recruit and you make it more obvious how ridiculous their ideas are to everyone else.

If we could convince the zealots we'd cure religion overnight, but we can't. It will be a long slog, but if we keep pushing them further and further to the extreme then we will get there eventually.

 

[AuroRaman]

AAAAAARGH! Just been typing out a really long reply in between working and shut down Safari accidentally ](*,)

May have to wait until I'm home now for a reply guys.

 

[jts1882]

Americans buy Dawkins' books in large numbers. The potential market in Egypt and Sudan is more limited.

Dawkins is unusual for an academic scientist in that his fame is through writing books. He and Stephen J Gould traded books for decades in their arguments over evolution. Dawkins has always had a fundamentalist view of evolution, there is one true way through the selfish gene, compared to Gould's more complex multi-level conception of natural selection. Now Gould is dead, Dawkins has turned to the religion debate and has become anointed as the High Priest of fundamentalist Atheism.

 

[JerusalemMan]

I so enjoy reading threads like this

 

[braineclipse]

Americans buy Dawkins' books in large numbers. The potential market in Egypt and Sudan is more limited.

Dawkins is unusual for an academic scientist in that his fame is through writing books. He and Stephen J Gould traded books for decades in their arguments over evolution. Dawkins has always had a fundamentalist view of evolution, there is one true way through the selfish gene, compared to Gould's more complex multi-level conception of natural selection. Now Gould is dead, Dawkins has turned to the religion debate and has become anointed as the High Priest of fundamentalist Atheism.

What does it mean to have a fundamentalist view of evolution?

What does it mean to be a fundamentalist atheist? You really really don't believe in any gods?

Are you religious yourself? Seems like classical religious attempts to set up a false equivalence between the religious and atheists. Although it's somewhat amusing to me that the religious have now retreated to the point of trying to make it out that religious faith is no worse than atheism the mixing of terms is still annoying to me.

What is your definition of 'priest' (never mind high priest) that can be used to accurately describe Richard Dawkins?

 

[DTA]

Money and power my friends.

Those on this 'great' athesism crusade miss the point completely. Yes religion can be a tool to be used to control the masses in the endless pursuit of money and power but so can and is nationalism, Or other ideologies like the spreading of democracy.

Its not the tool that's the propem its the person or people using the tool and the reasons why they are using it.

Money and power.

 

[scaramanga]

Money and power my friends.

Those on this 'great' athesism crusade miss the point completely. Yes religion can be a tool to be used to control the masses in the endless pursuit of money and power but so can and is nationalism, Or other ideologies like the spreading of democracy.

Its not the tool that's the propem its the person or people using the tool and the reasons why they are using it.

Money and power.

What's wrong with money and power?

I often hear the two criticised by those without any but I've yet to meet a single person that desires neither. There's nothing wrong with money or power and neither is there anything wrong with desiring/gaining them.

 

[SteveAWOL]

#-o

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...down-on-way-to-find-Nigerian-schoolgirls.html

An RAF spy plane sent to join the international hunt for schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram militants has broken down on the way. The Sentinel R1 was forced to divert to Senegal with a “technical issue” and will be grounded until repairs have been completed.

The unexpected delay is a repeat of last year’s embarrassment for the Ministry of Defence when a C-17 transporter sent to help French troops in Mali was also temporarily grounded by technical trouble.

David Cameron offered the Sentinel to the Nigerian government to use its advanced ground scanning radar to hunt for more than 200 school girls abducted from a school hostel last month. The modified executive business jet*left RAF Waddington on Sunday bound for its new base in Accra in Ghana, where it will be stationed while flying across northern Nigeria.

However the crew reported technical problems midway through the flight. An RAF source said: “We had a choice of turning around and coming home, or landing en route.”

It was last night unclear when the jet would be able to resume its flight and travel the remaining 1,300 miles to Accra.

 

[DTA]

What's wrong with money and power?

I often hear the two criticised by those without any but I've yet to meet a single person that desires neither. There's nothing wrong with money or power and neither is there anything wrong with desiring/gaining them.

You miss my point completely, money and power are not inherently evil. But what certain individuals, groups and nations are willing to do to attain or sustain them, often leads to evil deeds, this applies to boco harem and neo colonists. Religion is not the problem it's just the excuse and one of the tools used to attain money and power.

I run my own business so I both have (to an extent) both and desire more, but am I willing to **** over people individuals or groups to attain more? No I'm not and never will be.

 

[braineclipse]

Money and power my friends.

Those on this 'great' athesism crusade miss the point completely. Yes religion can be a tool to be used to control the masses in the endless pursuit of money and power but so can and is nationalism, Or other ideologies like the spreading of democracy.

Its not the tool that's the propem its the person or people using the tool and the reasons why they are using it.

Money and power.

Religion is a tool, but also a goal for many people. Many religions also claim to offer a great power - the power to defeat death and live eternally in happiness.

You really think great atheist thinkers don't understand that money and power are important? Really? You must think really little of atheists or very highly of yourself.

Religion is probably one of the most powerful tools used to gain power over people, and certainly a very widely used tool. You seem to accept that to some extent at least the wish for money and power is innate and a part of the human condition. If a religion is false, if their truth claims aren't actually true, surely getting rid of a tool like that could do a lot for those who lose power and money because of this tool? It's not enough, it's not the end, but it's a step in the right direction. And although difficult, it seems more likely than ridding the world of the need for power and money.

The spread of democracy is probably one of the best things that ever happened to us as a species.

 

[scaramanga]

Religion is a tool, but also a goal for many people. Many religions also claim to offer a great power - the power to defeat death and live eternally in happiness.

You really think great atheist thinkers don't understand that money and power are important? Really? You must think really little of atheists or very highly of yourself.

Religion is probably one of the most powerful tools used to gain power over people, and certainly a very widely used tool. You seem to accept that to some extent at least the wish for money and power is innate and a part of the human condition. If a religion is false, if their truth claims aren't actually true, surely getting rid of a tool like that could do a lot for those who lose power and money because of this tool? It's not enough, it's not the end, but it's a step in the right direction. And although difficult, it seems more likely than ridding the world of the need for power and money.

The spread of democracy is probably one of the best things that ever happened to us as a species.

I was going to post that if we're agreed that the end result/targets aren't the problem (money and power) then we need to take the tools away (religion).

Not much point though as BE has again put it far better than I could.

 

[DTA]

Religion is a tool, but also a goal for many people. Many religions also claim to offer a great power - the power to defeat death and live eternally in happiness.

You really think great atheist thinkers don't understand that money and power are important? Really? You must think really little of atheists or very highly of yourself.

Religion is probably one of the most powerful tools used to gain power over people, and certainly a very widely used tool. You seem to accept that to some extent at least the wish for money and power is innate and a part of the human condition. If a religion is false, if their truth claims aren't actually true, surely getting rid of a tool like that could do a lot for those who lose power and money because of this tool? It's not enough, it's not the end, but it's a step in the right direction. And although difficult, it seems more likely than ridding the world of the need for power and money.

The spread of democracy is probably one of the best things that ever happened to us as a species.

The truth is you have varying degrees of an illusion of democracy, not democracy itself. is it better than the feudal system, of course, although some more knowledgable than I may argue that we are heading to a neo feudal system.

But the spreading of democracy through bombs is hilarious oxymoron, but one very much practiced by the west outwardly, yet the truth lies in the fact that is once again to do with money power and neo colonist aspirations.

As for getting rid of religion and thus depriving those with ill intentions of a tool. Well tools are not evil, a hammer can bludgeon someone to death or be used to create shelter, as is the case with religion. If someone with ill intentions has not got access to a hammer then he will use and axe. If religion did not exist then another ideology would take its place and be distorted, nationalism for example.

You and other atheist use the distortion of religion for personal gain by evil groups, as an excuse to spread a theory that has no more provable facts than any religious doctrine.

You think that the sentence directly above is a ridiculous statement? Well then have a look again at the image of the earth as a speck in the beam of the sun... And that's not even taking into account the passing of time within which we have lived on this earth for an absolutely minuscule, insignificant amount of time, yet you think that we have the answers through science of creation and absolutely everything??? Dude we can't even cure the common cold, so don't make me laugh.

atheism is no more provable than ancient astronaut theory, ie aliens helped us build the pyramids. Yet a sense of arrogance surrounds it like it is based on some irrefutable science... News flash.... It's not.

 

[DTA]

I was going to post that if we're agreed that the end result/targets aren't the problem (money and power) then we need to take the tools away (religion).

Not much point though as BE has again put it far better than I could.

But the tools are not problem as they can be used for good as well as evil, as is the case with religion. The answer is not removing the tools, it's creating a fairer society (worldwide), where of course talent and hard work can attain rewards but exploitation as the basis of business (ala Marxist theory) is replaced by fairer sustainable and ethical practices towards people, animals and the earth in general.

It's possible but it means you may have to have only one Bentley instead of five.

 

[scaramanga]

But the tools are not problem as they can be used for good as well as evil, as is the case with religion. The answer is not removing the tools, it's creating a fairer society (worldwide), where of course talent and hard work can attain rewards but exploitation as the basis of business (ala Marxist theory) is replaced by fairer sustainable and ethical practices towards people, animals and the earth in general.

It's possible but it means you may have to have only one Bentley instead of five.

There is literally nothing good that religion can be used for which can't be achieved in another way (preferably one that doesn't require checking one's brain at the door).

As for being 'fair', I have no interest in that whatsoever. Especially not as most people's expectation of fair is me giving things to them.