Religions

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

We aren't talking about the same things. I think you think I'm saying no one should ever be sad because there is always someone more sad, and no one should be happy because there is always someone more happy.

I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about tiers of happiness.

I'm saying that there is hunger in the world, and that people die from it. I don't think you're fully comprehending how painful that would be - to starve to death. And it happens. Maybe these people feel blessed for some things, but I doubt the children who die this way do. I know when I was a child I never really stopped to think "wow, I'm really blessed."

I'm just saying that these atrocious things happen, and there is no god in any of it - at least not a kind god. Then you have these religious people in first world countries who talk about how god has entered their lives and made their lives better.

Now THAT is a matter of perspective. Their lives are good because they lived in a developed nation and had good opportunities, not because of an act of god. Why do they give credit to him, when it's easy to see that it's just the natural entropy of the universe, that some people are very lucky and some are very unlucky?


@KG: yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. I don't think it was directed at me, probably more at Typhoid, but yeah.

I understand what you're saying, but I for one would rather be born and die from starvation then to not have lived at all. Life is a gift. Your original question was asking how it's rationalized, and I'm telling you how it is rationalized.

For example... I hate to use myself as an example, but my little brother died form cancer at the age of 2. Do I think it's unfair/sad that he never got the chance to live a normal life? Of course I do. If I could go back in time and stop him from existing so he wouldn't have to deal with the cancer? NO.

Even though he had a short life he blessed a lot of people and brought our family back together. He helped me put my own life into perspective at an early age, and appriciate the time that I do have here because it's not promised. Even if you're born in te NA or Africa, you aren't promised a longer life or a less painful death at all. Nor are you promised a happier life.

That's why there are wealthy people out there killing themselves, and poor people loving life.

So yes, when I see a poor person that I can help, I help them. When I see people dying from starvation, it makes me upset. But at the same time, it makes me remember how blessed I am to even be here and have the chance to experience life. I could have died just as quick or quicker then anyone who ever lived.

The less fortunate should create humility for you. People aren't at church going "Thank God that I have a better life then a few billion people", It's more like "Thank you for letting me be here and giving my this gift of life, because I didn't have to be here and didn't have to have this gift."

Then we can get into prayer, which is basically wishing well for other people that you can't help, and thanking god for what you have already recieved. You can pray for yourself to succeed at something, or to make it through something, but my personal preference is to wish the best for others. Usually if I'm praying for myself, I'm praying to have a good outlook regardless of how things turn out, and I leave things in God's hands.

See now I'm just preaching to GT. lol

I gotta go get my haircut.

KG Typhoid, I'm not ignoring you guys, just too much to read. I'ma have more time to look tonight.

[Bond]

I just wanted to express how sad I am that I don't have time to read this whole thread and respond.

But I will on Sunday.

[Vampyr]

Still missing the point - I'm not arguing that these people should have never been born (although, yeah, in most cases I think it would have been best if they hadn't). I'm saying that they ARE HERE, right now, and no god has fixed their plight, but evidently he helps people in first world nations feel content.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Still missing the point - I'm not arguing that these people should have never been born (although, yeah, in most cases I think it would have been best if they hadn't). I'm saying that they ARE HERE, right now, and no god has fixed their plight, but evidently he helps people in first world nations feel content.

There are plenty of people in the 3rd world who are content, and plenty of people in the first world who aren't. And everyone dies, it doesn't matter if you're in the first world or third world. Life is what you make it. Just because someone else's life sounds bad to you from your point of view, doesn't mean that the person going through it has a dark/bad outlook on life.

I'm sure some snobby millionaire somewhere looks at your life and is asking themselves "how can he live like that? I would rather be dead then be that poor". And at that same moment, there's probably another snobby millionaire who feels like they have nothing to live for and there's no way out of the mess they made except to kill themself.

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Life is what you make it. People who have less should teach you humility and make you more thankful for what you have. People who have more, well... don't worry about them, by thankful for what you have. Where you stand on the totem pole of weath doesn't matter, because your mind and your outlook on things is what's really in control.

Yes god gave them less then he gave you, and gave you less then he gave someone else.. from a wealth/health standpoint. You may be thanking god for putting a roof over your head and giving you transportation, while a dying man may be thanking him for letting him wake up another morning and seeing his wife's face again.

Bad things in general exist to make you appreciate the good things.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There are plenty of people in the 3rd world who are content, and plenty of people in the first world who aren't. And everyone dies, it doesn't matter if you're in the first world or third world. Life is what you make it. Just because someone else's life sounds bad to you from your point of view, doesn't mean that the person going through it has a dark/bad outlook on life.

I'm sure some snobby millionaire somewhere looks at your life and is asking themselves "how can he live like that? I would rather be dead then be that poor". And at that same moment, there's probably another snobby millionaire who feels like they have nothing to live for and there's no way out of the mess they made except to kill themself.

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Life is what you make it. People who have less should teach you humility and make you more thankful for what you have. People who have more, well... don't worry about them, by thankful for what you have. Where you stand on the totem pole of weath doesn't matter, because your mind and your outlook on things is what's really in control.

Yes god gave them less then he gave you, and gave you less then he gave someone else.. from a wealth/health standpoint. You may be thanking god for putting a roof over your head and giving you transportation, while a dying man may be thanking him for letting him wake up another morning and seeing his wife's face again.

Bad things in general exist to make you appreciate the good things.

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?


Hmmm.

I think I make a valid point that god not fixing these peoples plights either proves that god doesn't exist or is uncaring if he does.

And the major difference in our relative happiness is that if a billionare were to actually have my life, he wouldn't literally die from it. I would literally die if put into the situation of a lot of people in the world.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?

Made me think of this.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?

What is small to you is big to someone less fortunate. What is big to you is small to someone more fortunate. What you see as a tiny bit of help could be a miracle for someone else. Aka, waking up tomorrow morning.

I think I make a valid point that god not fixing these peoples plights either proves that god doesn't exist or is uncaring if he does.

And the major difference in our relative happiness is that if a billionare were to actually have my life, he wouldn't literally die from it. I would literally die if put into the situation of a lot of people in the world.

First of all, we all die. No matter how rich or poor you are, you're going to die. Saying that you would litterally die in a different situation means nothing, you could litterally die in 5 minutes because you're human.

And if you're saying you'd die faster in certain less fortunate people's situation.. then If the billionare were to be living your life, yes he litterally would die faster then he normally would too (under "average" circumstances). He doesn't need health insurance and can just pay for anything instantly. And even if they have a fatal disease they can drag it out forever with medication i.e Magic Johnson and HIV.

[Combine 017]

Dont forget chemical warfare.

[Seth]

I would argue that the surface atrocities of WWII are extreme, with firebombing and overt use of nuclear strikes unavoidably horrendous by the sheer immediacy of their effects.

Depleted uranium, which is in every ballistic fired from personal defense weapons and advanced missiles, is decimating the populations in a way that is just as horrendous. Women in Faluja are told not to attempt conception for the fact that birth deformities(let alone less detectable ills) have increased by thousands of times since the recent wars began.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Seth

Depleted uranium, which is in every ballistic fired from personal defense weapons and advanced missiles

I dont actually know this, but im pretty sure standard issue personal defence weapons, such as hand guns and rifles, dont have depleted uranium rounds. I think thats just for the higher caliber weapons like anti-tank guns, or artillery cannons.

[Fox 6]

Personal Defense Weapons are actually a classification of firearm. Examples are the p90 and the HK MP7. They fire smaller caliber rounds with heavy penetrating power. I think the bullets rely more on their design and less on the materials. Plus Depleted Uranium seems to expensive for smaller caliber weapons. The GAU-8 Avenger on the A10 Thunderbolt however is the perfect platform and makes better use of its rounds when taking out tanks and such, or the Sabot rounds from most modern tanks.

[Seth]

Marines used to be versed in the proper handling of their ammunition. Automatic rifles fire D.U. rounds. I meant P.D.Weapons to include standard issue rifles.

It's a really good way of getting rid of a substance that is a pain in the neck to store with environmental watchdogs raising heck.

[Bond]

KG - hasn't Jean Piaget been fairly discredited in the Psychology field? I know his stages and such are a nice general framework, and he did some pioneering work, but he also primarily studied his own children.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

KG - hasn't Jean Piaget been fairly discredited in the Psychology field? I know his stages and such are a nice general framework, and he did some pioneering work, but he also primarily studied his own children.

This is correct. Much of Piaget's frameworks and theories are still applied to modern psychology, and used in the education system. But quite a bit of his stuff has be deconstructed, challenged, and shown to be plain wrong. I believe development is seen more as a smooth continuum and complex process than Piaget originally imagined.

He's still a good place to start, influential, and probably not completely wrong. Psychology usually has a number of frameworks that can be used to describe/theorize a situation. The best developmental frameworks probably focus on a mesh of Biology/Neuroscience/Psychology. I'm not a developmental psych guy, and the neuroscience and biology stuff is definitely out of my realm.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

This is correct. Much of Piaget's frameworks and theories are still applied to modern psychology, and used in the education system. But quite a bit of his stuff has be deconstructed, challenged, and shown to be plain wrong. I believe development is seen more as a smooth continuum and complex process than Piaget originally imagined.

He's still a good place to start, influential, and probably not completely wrong. Psychology usually has a number of frameworks that can be used to describe/theorize a situation. The best developmental frameworks probably focus on a mesh of Biology/Neuroscience/Psychology. I'm not a developmental psych guy, and the neuroscience and biology stuff is definitely out of my realm.

Developmental Psychology was the only Psychology class I ever had that made me want to blow my fucking brains out.

Every other psych class I had was a fucking pleasure cruise though.