• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Clean up the religion section?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 the_colossus

  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • -5

Posted 10 September 2010 - 10:41 PM


The point of this website is to promote life extension. Some of the stuff in there goes to the worst stereotypes of scientists, religion hating nut jobs. A majority of reasonable folk, the one the cause wants to attract, who go in there would draw that conclusion about life extension. If that was the first section I went to I would do the same.

It is very embarrassing. I can’t recommend a great site because doing so means I would be saying that stuff is okay.

Normally I wouldn’t say anything, but when a site is championing a cause, attitudes that are allowed in one spot reflect upon everyone else and the goal itself, image is very important.

This isn’t your average discussion forum; it serves a purpose to promote a goal.

There is a reason why political campaigns distance themselves very quickly from anyone saying anything that could reflect badly on the candidate. If the campaign keeps that person around people assume that the candidate agrees with the views or at least condones it.

Many reasonable people are suspicious about alternative motives for all causes they don’t know much about. For scientific causes, one of those is the suspicion that their real goal is to eradicate religion. If they see a section where views like that are common and not widely rebuked they will think “I knew it, they tried to fool me, that is what this is really about.”

We want people to think the purpose of the website is to promote life extension and longevity for everyone and not for spewing hate.

Most of the posts are fine, just a few make us all look bad. I don’t like others to make me to look bad nor do I want an important cause to look bad. I am not suggesting any specific guidelines. Just it should be examined and determine if everything in it serves to promote the goals of the website and if something hurts the cause try to remedy it.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#2 the_colossus

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • -5

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:03 AM

Every forum that is attached to a website promoting a cause are held to much higher standards because whatever happens reflects upon the goal and everyone working towards it.

And just to make sure, I am not talking about anything relating to trying to stop science. I am talking about completely unrelated stuff like saying burning a book that is important to someone is good. If that isn't condemned some infer that the cause agrees and stands for that. I know that isn't true, but it can scare some people off.

I don't want anyone to think that about me, all the reasonable people in favor of the cause or the cause itself.

If people want to bash religion or anything else their are tons of forums that allow that which don't hurt a noble cause.

The sad reality is people who persistently hate another group the hate has nothing to do with the group at all. It is a coping mechanism to not deal with a person's frustrations, anger and life problems in an extremely harmful way.

Being full of hate is miserable and very unhealthy. It will reduce a person's quality of life and life expectancy.

Edited by the_colossus, 11 September 2010 - 12:33 AM.


#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:50 AM

FWIW, you could say the same thing about a lot of the garbage in the Politics forum. The problem is that everyone is different and we believe different things. Some of us believe some stuff that's a little on the wacky side. Some of us are just out and out wrong. We'd all like to go in and clean up the stuff that we think is wrong, but we don't all agree about what's wrong and what's right. That's why we have a whack-job preacher in Florida causing an international incident, and everyone's powerless to stop it. There's probably even a couple people who will be mad because I called him a whack-job...

#4 the_colossus

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • -5

Posted 11 September 2010 - 06:28 AM

Obviously I cannot stay due to my own unique view of moral integrity.

I hold no animosity against any of you and wish you all the best in your noble quest. I want you to know I am not leaving the cause just the website.

Good-bye

#5 i!i

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0
  • Location:earth

Posted 11 September 2010 - 03:49 PM

All it takes is Initiative.
Do not waste time on those who have already chosen to believe what is real and what is not real.
Activate your process in the world and it will bloom.

#6 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 11 September 2010 - 09:43 PM

The point of this website is to promote life extension. Some of the stuff in there goes to the worst stereotypes of scientists, religion hating nut jobs. A majority of reasonable folk, the one the cause wants to attract, who go in there would draw that conclusion about life extension. If that was the first section I went to I would do the same.

It is very embarrassing. I can't recommend a great site because doing so means I would be saying that stuff is okay.

Normally I wouldn't say anything, but when a site is championing a cause, attitudes that are allowed in one spot reflect upon everyone else and the goal itself, image is very important.

This isn't your average discussion forum; it serves a purpose to promote a goal.

There is a reason why political campaigns distance themselves very quickly from anyone saying anything that could reflect badly on the candidate. If the campaign keeps that person around people assume that the candidate agrees with the views or at least condones it.

Many reasonable people are suspicious about alternative motives for all causes they don't know much about. For scientific causes, one of those is the suspicion that their real goal is to eradicate religion. If they see a section where views like that are common and not widely rebuked they will think "I knew it, they tried to fool me, that is what this is really about."

We want people to think the purpose of the website is to promote life extension and longevity for everyone and not for spewing hate.

Most of the posts are fine, just a few make us all look bad. I don't like others to make me to look bad nor do I want an important cause to look bad. I am not suggesting any specific guidelines. Just it should be examined and determine if everything in it serves to promote the goals of the website and if something hurts the cause try to remedy it.



Religion should be eradicated. Notice I didn't say anything about religious people being eradicated.

Essentially, I feel that we need to educate people to think logically and scientifically. Indirectly, this also means not promoting teaching which is not based on rationality and evidence, like science is. I'll say it again: Religion is bullshit, and it should absolutely be eradicated.



#7 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 12 September 2010 - 04:48 AM

The point of this website is to promote life extension. Some of the stuff in there goes to the worst stereotypes of scientists, religion hating nut jobs. A majority of reasonable folk, the one the cause wants to attract, who go in there would draw that conclusion about life extension. If that was the first section I went to I would do the same.

It is very embarrassing. I can't recommend a great site because doing so means I would be saying that stuff is okay.

Normally I wouldn't say anything, but when a site is championing a cause, attitudes that are allowed in one spot reflect upon everyone else and the goal itself, image is very important.

This isn't your average discussion forum; it serves a purpose to promote a goal.

There is a reason why political campaigns distance themselves very quickly from anyone saying anything that could reflect badly on the candidate. If the campaign keeps that person around people assume that the candidate agrees with the views or at least condones it.

Many reasonable people are suspicious about alternative motives for all causes they don't know much about. For scientific causes, one of those is the suspicion that their real goal is to eradicate religion. If they see a section where views like that are common and not widely rebuked they will think "I knew it, they tried to fool me, that is what this is really about."

We want people to think the purpose of the website is to promote life extension and longevity for everyone and not for spewing hate.

Most of the posts are fine, just a few make us all look bad. I don't like others to make me to look bad nor do I want an important cause to look bad. I am not suggesting any specific guidelines. Just it should be examined and determine if everything in it serves to promote the goals of the website and if something hurts the cause try to remedy it.



Religion should be eradicated. Notice I didn't say anything about religious people being eradicated.

Essentially, I feel that we need to educate people to think logically and scientifically. Indirectly, this also means not promoting teaching which is not based on rationality and evidence, like science is. I'll say it again: Religion is bullshit, and it should absolutely be eradicated.

What about the have nots or the chronic sufferers some with terminal illness? Religion has offered hope, false hope imo, but hope to people for thousands of years, and I continue to go back and forth on the issue of whether the truth is worth it, for people who have nothing to live for. I know critics of religion would say, it's BS, and isn't the truth worth knowing even if it's not always pleasant, but some people will always believe in the mystical, and for them, that is their right. Even a scientifc oriented person can fall prey to mystical thinking, and many believe, Dawkins for instance, that we have a God gene, and I would argue humans also seem to have a gene for magical thinking, in that we want to let our fantasies of ghosts, and other fantastical notions exist as a possibility. Some of the best people believe in things we here may deem as irrational and crazy. The best way to get people on our page is simply giving them the tools like scientific falsifications and knowledge, and education that will allow for them to learn how to think.

Religion will always be here in some form, but I think it will be much much less of a meme than it has been, when we finally can do something about aging.

I can only foresee a time when most people can relax and not have death anxiety looming when it becomes possible to halt and reverse aging in humans. But, sadly, until that time comes, we are all subject to the brutal reality of death awaiting us all. So, although the knee jerk reaction is to get angry at religiosity, I really think we should be compassionate to those who believe, and realize the good things in religion, like everlasting love, happiness, community, and hope, that religion brings to so many.

Edited by dfowler, 12 September 2010 - 05:53 AM.


#8 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:26 AM



#9 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:26 PM

I think you misunderstood a few things. (bold=mine, caps=emphasis)

The point of this website is to promote life extension. Some of the stuff in there goes to the worst stereotypes of scientists, religion hating nut jobs. A majority of reasonable folk, the one the cause wants to attract, who go in there would draw that conclusion about life extension. If that was the first section I went to I would do the same.
It's not a stereotype, didn't you know that? Many scientists hate religion. Sure many people hate* religion, but scientists in particular. The reason, of course, is that science is corrosive to religion (Dawkins). It's borne out by the statistics, big time.

*hate, dislike, want to see it gone or marginalised or at least defused


It is very embarrassing. I can’t recommend a great site because doing so means I would be saying that stuff is okay.
No you would not! This is the very magic of public fora and freedom of speech: being there is NOT an endorsement of everything. Please don't leave because of a red herring.

Normally I wouldn’t say anything, but when a site is championing a cause, attitudes that are allowed in one spot reflect upon everyone else and the goal itself, image is very important.

This isn’t your average discussion forum; it serves a purpose to promote a goal.

There is a reason why political campaigns distance themselves very quickly from anyone saying anything that could reflect badly on the candidate. If the campaign keeps that person around people assume that the candidate agrees with the views or at least condones it.
So you are suggesting hypocrisy, censorship, lying or a combination thereof? Sure, great idea if you want to sell your soul and make politics. However, keep in mind WE ARE A GRASSROOTS ORGANISATION. we do not play by THEIR rules and IAC we only attract the fringe anyway.

We want people to think the purpose of the website is to promote life extension and longevity for everyone and not for spewing hate.
You accuse us (the people) of hate mongering? (and imminst of implicit endorsement?) Do you realise how the fora are placed, where most people write, what the main page says, what freedom of speech is etc? The relig. fora are minuscule part of this org.

Most of the posts are fine, just a few make us all look bad. I don’t like others to make me to look bad nor do I want an important cause to look bad. I am not suggesting any specific guidelines. Just it should be examined and determine if everything in it serves to promote the goals of the website and if something hurts the cause try to remedy it.
Offtopic fora per definition do not promote goals. It is noble that we keep up free speech in our private forum, but even though you are wrong on most issues, I concur that those sub-fora are a distraction. But only because they really distract - even if not that much - and not because of conceived hate mongering.

Please, don't leave us, but take this as a lesson: don't be so fair-skinned; the same discussions take place in other fora over the internet and even in reality; just cope with it and if you disagree you are encouraged to state your opinion.

@ dfowler, offtopic (i.e. unrelated to life extension0
Your pro-faith argument still only amounts to "lies feel good so... a. let people believe lies they like, b. lie to [vulnerable] people". Of course, b. is still prevalent and that is what we must eradicate (e.g. indoctrination with "judge and marginalise minorities, kill for your god, etc"). A., letting people believe lies is paramount in a free society (tolerance, yes), but it is also great to try to eradicate particularly toxic lies (respect for lies, no)
You are entirely correct that some people need lies to cope with reality. Most of us do not care about those people (in contrast: religion is actually dangerous), but we have the right to tell the truth.

(hey, it's unethical for doctors to lie to cancer patients, "you will be great, ain't dying at all", why should it be moral for clerics?)

OTOH, you bought into the lie of " good things in religion". None of those you mention come from religion. First and foremost they are HUMAN, RATIONAL values that were plagiarised and adopted by MAN-MADE religions. They existed before and they will outlive religion; for most people. & many people who cannot be good w/o religion need psychiatric help ASAP.

Edited by kismet, 15 September 2010 - 11:34 PM.


#10 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 16 September 2010 - 07:36 AM

Personally I think that most people are too stupid to be trusted with atheism. Most believe it due to social pressure, which is interesting. Theism, to me, will always be a preferable state of mind. Most are controlled, and most will probably always be, and the controllers will always be fallible, but I would rather they be someone with a set a excellent morals than Britney Spears.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#11 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:06 AM

Religion is not dangerous, people are dangerous. We would have just as much ignorance, war, terrorism, etc., without religion. We are human and unfortunately we are also driven by anger, selfishness, disappointment, sadness, frustration, ignorance and fear. We would act on these, regardless of whether there was religion or not. You people that think religion needs to be eradicated may want to take a little more time to think things through. Every person I know that is religious, also thinks about the world and the human condition in a very scientific manner. They may have faith, but that does not keep them from looking at themselves, others, and the rest of the world objectively in a scientific way. And for those that are blinded by faith with ignorance that will not allow them to see certain possibilities and care about life extension, I say let them be. These people will not be anywhere close to a force that would prevent progress in the life extension movement. The reality is, most people of this generation are not religious. The real problem facing life extension is that most of these people that are not religious, don't really give a shit about the life extension movement. They just accept what life has handed them and want to make the most out of it so they can die knowing they lived as full a life as possible. I just think you guys that have your little panties in a bunch over religion need to chill the fuck out a bit and put your energy and focus into more important things.

the_colossus, you shouldn't leave because of a few angry jackasses.

Edited by morganator, 17 September 2010 - 05:07 AM.

  • like x 1

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:35 AM

We would have just as much ignorance, war, terrorism, etc., without religion.

Really? I dunno. Where would we be today if the Catholic Church hadn't kept science down in the middle ages? If the industrial revolution had happened a couple centuries earlier, life extension would probably be in the bag by now. What would the middle east look like without religion? Pretty different, I think, since religion is the axis that all the fighting revolves around. 9-11 without religion? Iraq war without 9-11? Afghan war without 9-11? Taliban without religion? George Bush without religion? Holocaust without religion?

I'm not trying to argue against religion per se. Religion has done plenty of good for a lot of people, but we shouldn't be blind to the problems it has lead to.

#13 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:11 PM

We would have just as much ignorance, war, terrorism, etc., without religion.

Really? I dunno. Where would we be today if the Catholic Church hadn't kept science down in the middle ages? If the industrial revolution had happened a couple centuries earlier, life extension would probably be in the bag by now. What would the middle east look like without religion? Pretty different, I think, since religion is the axis that all the fighting revolves around. 9-11 without religion? Iraq war without 9-11? Afghan war without 9-11? Taliban without religion? George Bush without religion? Holocaust without religion?

I'm not trying to argue against religion per se. Religion has done plenty of good for a lot of people, but we shouldn't be blind to the problems it has lead to.


I actually agree with you for the most part. I used to have a fairly vehement negative position on religion. I was trying to make the point that people are people, with or without religion, and will still find ways to sabotage or inhibit progress because of their innate imperfections.

I do think that the great minds of the past were going to do great work regardless of the influence of the Catholic Church. I realize that they may have made more progress if they had help and support from other people that may not have gotten involved because of their religious beliefs and the Catholic Church.

There are other elements of middle east that are just as detrimental to the instability over there as religion is-the lack of natural resources, the dry hot climate, and stranglehold oil has over that region. I believe that things like religion do not end up being such a powerful force in countries that are richer in naturals and have more temperate climates. I do agree that some things may not have happened if it were not for the influence of religion. Then again, who's to say that some crazy man would not have influenced a bunch of angry impressionable young men to attack a country that they felt had treated them badly, in the absence of religion?

I just believe there are so many more factors impeding the progress of the life extension movement and other advancements. Is religion one of these factors, probably, but probably not what some people here make it out to be, at least not in today's world.

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:03 PM

Then again, who's to say that some crazy man would not have influenced a bunch of angry impressionable young men to attack a country that they felt had treated them badly, in the absence of religion?

Nationalism would be the number one example here. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but do you ever notice how often you hear political agitators telling people "those elites think they're better than you". Pressing some sort of insult/inferiority complex button. That's popular these days.

#15 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:50 PM

Then again, who's to say that some crazy man would not have influenced a bunch of angry impressionable young men to attack a country that they felt had treated them badly, in the absence of religion?

Nationalism would be the number one example here. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but do you ever notice how often you hear political agitators telling people "those elites think they're better than you". Pressing some sort of insult/inferiority complex button. That's popular these days.


Nationalism is what I was talking about. It's been a problem for a long long time.

I hate when people talk about elitism and it being a problem. I do notice conservatives often talking about how it is the liberal elite that is in the wrong and corrupting this country and it's values. It's funny, I think I used to watch fox just because of how much some of the personalities on there pissed me off.

#16 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:12 AM

We would have just as much ignorance, war, terrorism, etc., without religion.

Really? I dunno. Where would we be today if the Catholic Church hadn't kept science down in the middle ages? If the industrial revolution had happened a couple centuries earlier, life extension would probably be in the bag by now. What would the middle east look like without religion? Pretty different, I think, since religion is the axis that all the fighting revolves around. 9-11 without religion? Iraq war without 9-11? Afghan war without 9-11? Taliban without religion? George Bush without religion? Holocaust without religion?

I'm not trying to argue against religion per se. Religion has done plenty of good for a lot of people, but we shouldn't be blind to the problems it has lead to.


I have to play God's advocate here for this longish post.

You may be right to a large extent with the thing about science being kept down in the middle ages by the Church ( but there's also the problem of how much you can ascribe spiritualy motivated actions to an institution like the medieval Catholic Church which was then something that could be as well described as "the other State", not just a faith denomination ), but I believe the other things are not so clearly cut. I think old Marx got at least this one right - things in history happen more because of what becomes in the "base" than in the "superstructure" of ideology, more often with religion as a pretext than a cause.

Adding to what Morganator said, the reasons why Middle East is how it is stem mainly from the afterglow of past European colonial rivarly, divide et imperia strategy ( especially by Britain, similar thing in Africa - states with borders that were cut out by mongers in cabinets ) on body of the declining Ottoman Sultanate and the Zionist movement's ( which was actually strictly secular and met with opposition of the orthodox Judaism ) mission to resettle Palestine. According to Nial Fergusson a failing empire always makes a fertile breeding ground for violence. Those are the original sins in this region, on it today lie imposed the demographics of Muslim countries and lack of means of influence by the Arab street on their respective, "bunker" governments. Religion is just one element among many at play here, it's only a flashy and loud one, and an atheist may be tempted to put perhaps too much weight on its role in political situation.
Sectarianism often does go hand in hand with it, but essentialy it doesn't need religion to thrive. Hamas and Hezzbollah are religous movements, yes, but more importantly - social ones, filling the gap between the people and their feeble states, that's why they win elections and retain support, not because they are extremely pious. Same with Shya - Sunni thing, it's not just that that they have some disagreements concerning their prophet from 1400 years ago, it's also about animosities between Arabs and Persians - Iraqi Shyas are often perceived as the 5th Column of Iran for example. This kind of conflicts ( Northern Ireland would be another case of what I mean ) are superficially about creeds, but really about matters of loyalty and belonging, "Shya" and "Sunni", "Catholic" and "Protestant" are handy markers of group identity, not a source of action by themselves.

Similarily with Holocaust, traditional Christian anti - Judaism might have had a part, but Nazis weren't about to destroy the Judaic religion but "Jewishness", they were most concerned exactly with those Jews who were not easily distinguishable from Germans by faith or customs, who were babptized and assimilated. Hitler's views on God and Christianity were often conflicting, he used to talk about "Providence" but also said "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity" or "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." This is what it was all about for them - sacralisation of ethnic identity, "blood" as a faith, Nature as they perceived it was to be deified, so "God" in the old sense wasn't really needed in the equation. At core, Nazism was a metaphisical viewpoint, but vastly independent from the traditional ruling religions and modern racism actually had roots in Enlightment that together with rejecting Bible stories rejected the view of unity of mankind made in God's image ( not like this story did much good for Indians or Africans anyway ).

Religious fanatism may play a role in spectacular, one time events by individuals, like killing an abortionist doctor or 9-11 ( and even here - exactly how important is a certain religious ideology in mind of a fanatic or psychopath ?, it's impossible to accurately assess this ) but the broader a problem, the more diminished the role of it I think is. Bush may have talked about Jesus and stuff, but Iraq wouldn't have ever happened without Neocons by his ear and without oil based economy. Same with the unconditional support for Israeli politics, I'm sure influence of AIPAC mattered to him much more at any time than Evagelical loons waiting for the Temple of Jerusalem to be rebuilt so that Christ can drop with a visit.

To be fair, I think world without religion would be a better place, but I don't suppose it's such a source of political evils as you suggest in your post.

Edited by chris w, 18 September 2010 - 02:47 AM.


#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 September 2010 - 03:02 AM

chris, thanks for a thoughtful and well-informed post as always. I didn't mean to imply that religion was the sole cause of these problems, but rather that the problems would be lessened in the absence of religion.

Without a religion to bind them, German Jews would have simply been Germans, wouldn't they? Without religion, there wouldn't have been much preventing the different Germanic tribes from assimilation over the centuries, so I'd expect German un-Jews and German un-Christians to be indistinguishable by the 20th century. There could still be scapegoating of people from different regions or different sexual orientations or whatever, but in a hypothetical world without religion, the Holocaust would have looked very very different, I would think.

Sunni/Shia and Catholic/Protestant do serve as markers of group identity, but those groups would be much more fluid and miscible without the rigid divisions of their (subtly) different faiths. Arabs and Persians might squabble, but what would an un-Sunni Arab and an un-Shia Arab have to fight over? Or an un-Muslim Palestinian and an un-Jewish Palestinian?

Edited by niner, 18 September 2010 - 03:04 AM.


#18 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:14 PM

Sorry not quite sure what the 'forum issue' is here. It looks like a general complaint about the tone in the religion forum?

Regarding that I can only say that ImmInst as an institution does NOT favor atheism or agnosticism over religious views. We simply do not have a position on this matter. ImmInst is interested in the scientific conquest of death but we are not closed to discussion of spiritual ways and means of achieving 'immortality' -- this may come as a shock to some constituents but they are free to ignore the 'religion' parts. On the other hand those who have strong religious affiliations should be aware that many forum contributors are of a rationalist mindset that regards religion as, at best, superfluous.

Rather than moderating such debates with a heavy hand, we really expect forum contributors to moderate themselves and observe the same basic level of courtesy in these sections as in any others.


Hope this helps. Sorry if I have missed the point entirely.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users