Actually i turned out to be closer to Secular Humanism. Despite my mistrust of being tagged to any religious or ethical faction, i found it more interesting than how much i was, in deed, expecting. To me, it's a nice test. Surely, i dont consider it, in any way, scientifically worthy.
This is pretty funny: hundreds of people here on CD, pretend to be Judge arrogating the power to acquit a cruelty, as the WW II has been, ignoring a simple common sense which aims to respect the whole world. But surely, you would answer me: "what would have happened if...". How the hell you can even think to be correct killing thousands of people for something that could have happened? Maybe you dont know that people more preparated in history have already talked about this, and them all have agreed and decreed that event the nth mistake of the human race. Of course Usa didnt pay anything for its cruelties, as you can clearly see, they are doing whatever they want to in Middle East: killing civilians, for example. But, yeah, of course this is correct too: what would happen if Usa armies were not in Middle East massacrating civilians??
Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich. How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith: christians, protestants, those who have faith in the state (yes, this is a type of "faith" too), and by doing so they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.
If peace means standing like a dumbass, senseless, without hurting anyone because you are too high to understand what's going on, then it is possible. But that's just so childish. If peace means a mature way to act actively throughout our lives, reasoning and trying to solve world problems then a joint wouldnt solve it.
But what about that tree? I mean, can you benefit of it in a way or is it totally useless? If it isnt, well, i wouldnt call it theft. If certain type of people were abandoned and had to survive on their own, spending money to feed some plants instead of others, probably, today, they would die because of ignorance. Of course this mechanism led to theft among countries' heads of state. But the principle is absolutely fine.
Silly question: thousands of years are enough to decree this question absolutely illogical, based on old closed popular belief. And if the amount of years dont light up anything in your brain, then a crumb of common sense would help you figure out how ignorant and impudent you are.
You only mentioned the right side of the "technology" coin: what about all what you ignored? I do not think this theme to be too complicated to be discussed on a web-site, but surely if you had to mantain an idea about technology you should have, at least, taken into account all the aspects; only secondly, you would analyse the one you prefer, in order to be the more objective possible. This is a criticism i could elaborate to anyone on this debate, and more generally, on this site. It lacks in reasoning, in fact most people answer questions without having fully understood the answer, emphasysing the favourite aspect of technology, ingoring the others. What about the technology used by armies, and nations? And, not to be so drastic, do you really think internet and whatever medical technology are totally "good"? It all improves humanity? Why? Simply because it helps us to live longer? Baudelaire, unfortunately famous exclusively for his poems, once said why should we all live longer? Why telephones, telegraphs? This question has even more sense if you wonder about the conditions in which we all live today: we ignore ourselves, often we kill, we exploit eachother. But we are all proud to have discovered the cure to a specific disease: oh that's right the point. We all needed it.
War is death. No matter what you are fighting for. How can be religion causing wars? Do not hide behind old rocks, guys. Man is guilty. We all are, on a different quality level; especially when we do not understand that if throughout years populations fought for religions, those people, those religions were fake. Religion itself asks no war. Man does, in order to get what he wants to: money, slaves, women, colonies. So he uses religion to give common people stronger reasons to move their asses and march thousands miles away to fight who-knows-who, for an after-life reward. I'm feeling ashamed for all those who answered "No", justifying themselves saying that sometimes it is correct for men to fight for their religions. War has nothing to do with religion.
When dolphins or whatever species will take over for us, we wouldn't be so pro-scientific experimentation. Never forget this world is a present, which we are nothing but a part of. Respecting it, would turn ourselves into humans. We would never be called homo consumens again, as we, unfortunately, are nowadays.
Darwin. Those who answered "No" to this question, could "rightly" use what Darwin discovered about species. The fact is that Evolutionism lack of reason. Let's try to put it down easily: it all started in the same point; the Earth appeared, microbes and the animals started to evolve in order to better adapt to the environment, which was and is still changing. "Only the fittest survive" says evolutionism. Then it came the Man, a rough version of a man we could meet today on the street: why? Because he was still tied up to the Nature, he was still a part of it. He lacked of intelligence, we could say, but he didnt care. He had to live. How? What to eat? He farmed and hunted. Yes he did. Vegeterians who state that is not true that Man has always hunted, or eaten meat, just accept the truth. We did. We did because we had to. Man, one among the other species, the weakest, if we think at his height and of what he was, in reality, able to do: he had no fangs, claws to defend with. He started separating from Nature, right building up tools to defend from it (such as shelters, dwellings). Then he evolved trhoughout centuries. Here we are, selfish, pretending to be Gods on earth, thinking so foolishly to have by right the power to kill others: animals or men, it doesnt make any difference. Now you could rightly ask me what is the point? The point is that differently from the possibilities we had when we were just separating from nature, and differently from what Darwin's theory states, now we have the power to chose what it is better for us, without damaging unwisely the environment and animals (our cousins). We can live in another way. We can really eat animals only when it is necessary to do so. Never forget what Natives did when they killed buffalos: they thanked the earth, the spirits they believed in, for giving them food. Unfortunately the market, the real God on earth, made its way up to our hearts. It corrupted us. How many supermarkets, fast-food, ensure their own subsistence on the fact that they can easily and quickly obtain enormous quantity of animals, such as chickens, than a drop of a hat? Those animals dont live, we aint permit them to. We breed them as we could "breed" a motorcycle: we use it, over and over, and when it stops working, we throw it, we "kill" it. We got a perverted way to look at the world. Mainly because we've got a perverted way to look at ourselves, firstly. If i had to answer honestly, i would say that it is impossible for us to really respect animals, as they would deserve. We cannot even respect ourselves, imagine if we could do it with animals.
Nice observation. The fact that without, almost everyone, feelings, worrying disappear is exactly what happened, and would happen, when a man acts as a machine: he does the things he has to do, simply because he has to do them, and without worrying because he is not responsible for what he is doing. Never forget what happens in red-taped systems as the army, for example: you obey and stop. We give you the target, the mission. Soldiers, as bureaucrats, usually don't wonders the reason why they are doing that thing, they do it. So it is possible for them to kill countless humans without worrying. Destroying emotions, or, worse, pilot feelings can have drammatic effects; just hint at what happened with the SS during Hitler's reign, or with Stalin's faithful followers. Or what is going on today, with the crazy America's leadership, led by the search of Money (as the whole world, we could say), who is sending to death a lot of american soldiers and local innocent civilians, for what? For money? How can they convince an entire country that people who live thousands miles away are The Enemy? Interesting theme, thanks for your consideration.
I cannot get the point in comparating necrophiliac inclinations to a (theoretically) Bios-philia (Love for life). Yes, there were crusades, men in the past, and still today, killed and are killing for, more or less genuine, ideals, but, please, do not give the same weight Hitler, and all those who killed in his name, along with Jesus: he may have existed or not, but what he said, despite miracles of course, was the nearest concept to life; and he was not the only one, fortunately. Buddhists, profets, Meister Eckhart, Lao-tse, Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Erich Fromm (oh God, we need so much Erich Fromm to be teached in schools) them all grabbed the most life and human concept ever grabbed or lived: humanity. Surely, i cannot deny many, thousands or billions who knows, killed in the name of a religion, but, see, if you preclude yourself the possibility, which only Humans have, to distinguish pathetic nationalists (among believers there are a lot of) from the genuine message of the Gospel, or whatever great man existed, you are the lost one, my dear. And, by the way, i feel ashamed of the guy who put that "flag" as his cover photo. As i would if any Christian (since on this site it seems everyone hates them) would use an image glorifying crusades or Inquisition.
I find it hard too, but this must not be an excuse to preclude me to hope. Hope in something better. Maybe i was not clear enough, what i mean is not that a society could work perfectly simply because it is "ruled" by Love. But surely it would help a lot. And, trust me, this would make the difference. But, you can rightly object that Love is a complex concept. Firstly i would answer that any society, from Buddhist to American society, needs rules, bureaucracies. Secondly, i may add that Love i believe in, is not so widespread. This is the reason why even if billions of people are "in love", we risk to die for a "kiddy" nuclear conflit, anyday now. Love is a responsible way to act, and asks nothing on return. It gives. It thinks. It loves. If really, and i aint think it's a concrete possibility, Love would be shared by everyone (almost everyone), a society would work definitely better. I'm not a wizard, i cannot predict the future, but what prevent us to try it?
If you arrogate the right to sentence to death "stupid people", then you are not smart. And by "smart" i surely dont think to a guy who graduated in Harvard flying colors. I think to people living together, in an active way. Does anyone of you know Socrate? He said he knew he didnt know. What's smarter than this?
Have you ever felt that feeling, deep inside, watching an homeless begging for some cents? Have you ever felt that bite in your stomach wondering why some people, simply because they were born in a certain country, benefit of everything, and others, by fortune, do not? Have you ever asked yourself, alone in your room, what is life? Why are we here? Have you ever loved someone knowing, simply knowing, deep inside your heart, that that is Life. Emotions. Actually, to me, that is spirituality. Mechanical explanations will never get the point, because spirituality, the life itself, has not mechanism preconceived.
War is an outlet to a more profound disease, better say insanity, which, be careful, it's not innate; the proof? Just hint at all those popluations pre-hellenic which worked perfectly: they were organized in a matricentric way, with no murders (what a coincidence), ruled by a simply universal law: Love. It's not me who says this, i'm not a hippy, "peace and love" etc, just read "the Matriarch", for example. Don't you wanna to waste time reading such a boring book and you think it is better to insult without giving your brain time to think? Just think at Buddhists. They get no drugs, as far as i know, but they live, well they try to, since China invaded their lands, in a pacific, genuine, way. They aint need war, guess why.
Personally, i think football players get paid widely enough for their "job"; I think a job should be remunerated according to its specific clout, i mean, a head of state, if he works in a genuine way, cannot be paid as much as an employee; and this must not be confused with the years of studying that these hypothetic individuals prosecuted. You can study a whole life, be surgeon, be whatever you wanna to, even a head of state, and resting a poor, mentally speking, man. Not to deflect too much from the subject of this topic, i would like to add a concept: to base the choice of the job depending on how much you will get paid, is simply a disease: Nowadays, the real problem is that this mental process is considered more a synonymous of cunning, intelligence, rather than avidity, mental poorness.
Ladies and Gentlemen, not to boast of being Italian, but trust me: i went to Ireland, France, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Slovenia! Despite their attractions and peculiarities, which often astonished me (Paris, for exemple), what i most missed in all these countries, in all these travels, is food: if u have never been to Italy, and u never tried Bologna's couisine, then you, rightly, cannot understand: buffets, whatever fake restaurant (abroad, restaurants dont exist) cook them, they are nothing compared to a real Pasta dish: pasta is not what you eat aborad, that is, often, overcooked mash-i-dont-know-what. Seriously, i dont wanna sound nationalistic, but there is no way: Buffets are nothing compared to real Restaurants.
It would be marvellous to be able to respect man, not only religious people, but anyone. Unfortunately, and honestly, i must admit that whenever i am confronted with a strong "believer", i usually got up thinking that he doesn't differ so much from the belief that believers are often closed. So i figure out that i am not respecting them, at all.
