Leaving the community

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
hold that belief.


If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what is
it?

After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or to
anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you
don't
hold that belief.


If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
is
it?

Not a religious belief. You should not be trying to redefine religion,
which is based on a god or gods and is best acknowledged as founded on the
gullibility of the many and the calculations of the few.

After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or to
anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

Not random, my moorman friend. You can leave footprints in the sands of
time, or be a lasting legacy like Charles Dickens or Henry Ford, sire
children who will in turn sire children, perhaps even contribute to the
fossil record --- like the missing link between Neanderthal and human
recently discovered, or the subhumanoid bones recently unearthed in
Indonesia.

Having read some of your scribblings, however, I am not encouraged that your
legacy will be anything more than dust.

" jls" wrote in message
news

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then
there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you
don't
hold that belief.


If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
is
it?

Not a religious belief. You should not be trying to redefine religion,
which is based on a god or gods and is best acknowledged as founded on the
gullibility of the many and the calculations of the few.

After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or
to
anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

Not random, my moorman friend.

Is he really a Mormon. Uh oh.


Arguing about ethics and morals and religion is probably a waste of time
here. (not specifically due to the mormonism/LDS but just in general)

For a clear statement of objective laws see Ayn Rand - probably the most
succint philosophy on this subject, but certainly not succint with her
prose!!!



You can leave footprints in the sands of
time, or be a lasting legacy like Charles Dickens or Henry Ford, sire
children who will in turn sire children, perhaps even contribute to the
fossil record --- like the missing link between Neanderthal and human
recently discovered, or the subhumanoid bones recently unearthed in
Indonesia.

Having read some of your scribblings, however, I am not encouraged that
your
legacy will be anything more than dust.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
is
it?

It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We come
pre-wired to desire happiness.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
what
is
it?

It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
come
pre-wired to desire happiness.

Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

Really? Basic happiness comes about from several instinctual urges:
procreation, hunger, and protection from elements. Humans, being the
socially complex animals that they are, have managed to find a host of other
ways to stimulate those pleasure centers, but in many cases, those
activities still benefit the human animal in a positive way.

Furthermore, there is a very real health advantage to happiness. A feeling
of happiness is correlated with low stress, while conversely a person who is
not happy has increased stress. Higher stress levels cause problems with
one's immune system (stress stimulates the adrenal glands, which causes the
hormone cortisone to be produced, suppressing the immune system), and
general ability to cope with life (interferes with mental processes,
including problem solving and decision making, for example).

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't require
religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard time
comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.

Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
require
religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
time
comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.

Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable. I think the role
of religion should be to increase happiness.

Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
conviction. But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
(at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things where
there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes a
religion, albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to me
what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level. Nevertheless, I
hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
have defined it.

I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
accepted, except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition religious
belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do think
that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.

See the recent Scientific American articles The "God Gene"

C J Campbell wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require

religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard

time

comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.



I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.

Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable. I think the role
of religion should be to increase happiness.


Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).


To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
conviction. But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
(at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things where
there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes a
religion, albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to me
what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level. Nevertheless, I
hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
have defined it.

I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
accepted, except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition religious
belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do think
that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy.

So what? I never said one wasn't.

[...] Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes
a
religion, [...] Nevertheless, I
hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
have defined it.

How conveniently tautological of you.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
require
religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
time
comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.

It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.



Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable.

Excellent. Good for you.


I think the role of religion should be to increase happiness.

You can think what you want. In some cases religions were started to make
the founders happy. The followers' happiness is many times overlooked.


Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in
this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
conviction.

How can this be?

But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
(at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things
where
there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes
a
religion,

You are now making up a new meaning for the word. You choose to force
people to fit into your world view and that does not always work out.

albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to
me
what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level.

I have yet to see any god of any religion communicate with any follower.
Again, you are using a very loose and ill defined meaning of religion.

Nevertheless, I hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some
religious feeling as I
have defined it.


I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
accepted,

Right. Look up worship and religion in a decent dictionary. You may then
have a clue about why it is not universally accepted...

except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition
religious
belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

Generally religion is reserved for diety worship or recognition. To call
pursuit of wordly things a religion is carrying it too far.


I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do
think
that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.

Horse****