Tawasakm

Thankyou for providing that link Argus. For anyone who is interested, and to make life easier, here is the link to the actual thread: The Lancet thread I hope I'm not being redundant here but since I brought it up I suppose I should provide a link instead of just expecting people to look it up. I guess Greg will let me know if I should or should not.

Well I was referring to religion in general not christianity in particular. That 'if' is a big if Willy since there is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support the notion. If I am wrong then please provide the evidence. I did try to raise these points. If you can provide a good argument that non-religious means cannot provide for these situations then you are providing what I've been asking for - something religion provides, thats society needs, that cannot be provided outside of religion. By all means try to prove the point. Not necessarily: belief in God has produced much violence to counter-balance the more positive outcomes

You seem to have forgotten Australia. Small but highly trained.

I followed the "Waiting for Iraq" link. I notice Dyer is using the same report released by the Lancet which has been pretty well discredited in another thread. So this piece of writing does not appear that insightful.

It seems that nobody is putting up any arguments that religion provides necessary functions in society that cannot be met in other ways. If there are no arguments then I declare my hypothetical society a complete success. On the basis of that success I will draw the following conclusion: religion is completely unnecessary in society. Comments?

What, in your view, would constitute a proper timetable then? I don't think it is a simple thing to setup. I agree with you that the reasons for invasion were largely bogus, and they should have focused more on Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they do is bogus. Iraq (regardless of who's fault it is) is a mess. Would it really have been possible to hold free elections before now? As to the question of oil I think the US would get the contracts they want either before or after the elections since they will be propping up the government and nation at least initially. They have nothing to gain from delaying the elections in that regard. Australia has done something similar with East Timor - they are making too much money from that nation.

That does seem to be the plan. Also the fact that Afghan did hold free elections indicates some sincerity in the rhetoric of the US. In other words it bodes well for Iraq. (Sorry that I only quoted one question mark) Argus, Could they do that and equip them aswell as their forces are now? Could they maintain their level of training with so large a force? How much would that twenty million actually bolster their forces? If its just a matter of numbers then China has them beat. If its a matter of technological superiority then can they maintain that while trying to field so large a force?

MapleBear, You aren't serisouly suggesting that George Bush orchestrated, or participated in, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are you? Plenty have argued that he mishandled the situation before and after but you seem to be suggesting something else entirely. If that was not what you meant then please clarify your position. If that IS what you meant please provide some proof so I can understand where you are coming from on this.

Why can't I breed some chickens and give him some of those? Do I own a rooster? If I do that gives me more options. If I could give him a young rooster and small harem he could breed as many as he wanted so long as he did the right things with them. We'd both own "the means of production." Perhaps I could tax him half his eggs for renting a rooster and harem. Wouldn't it be great if I actually knew something about farming?

I looked up marriage with my favourite dictionary. Please feel free to follow the link. God does not seem to be part of the definition. Marriage definitions Here are some as samples: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law Heres one that should raise a few eyebrows: A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. I, for one, would like someone to explain how same sex marriage would effect nuclear families. I have some interest in psychology and have not encountered anything to explain this outside of religious dogma. If someone can give me a good explanation then you will be providing me with a net gain on my current knowledge. The silence, however, has seemed resounding.

Don't bet the farm> Most people that he allows to be tortured he doesn't know but let's ask Saddam about his treatment eh. Well considering his treatment of prisoners of war and so forth it is possible that I am being naive about his policy toward Iraqi civilians. I still doubt that they are behaving like Suddam however. It is perhaps fortunate, then, that I have no farm to bet.

Chloe. This reminds me of Bush's famous, "You're either with us or against us." Exactly the same philosophy. Given the amount of political spin you should be looking far more broadly for information. Sadly, it was the attacks on the World Trade Centre which so destroyed the naivety of many - Bush had nothing to do with its loss.

maplesyrup: I did not think that the US had anywhere near the amount of resources needed to pull that off. Or even the desire or intent. What, may I ask, has led you to this conclusion? I assume you didn't just pluck it out of the air - please join the dots for me. Argus: No doubt you are correct that an immediate US withdrawal would lead to immediate chaos. Do you think a staged withdrawal (say over 18 months) might work? As to the statistics (which tend to give me headaches) the data from the Lancet certainly seems to fall short of being meaningful. That was a good link Argus. theloniusfleabag: The man is certainly guilty of committing atrocities against his own people. I can't possible see any difficulties in prosecuting him. The difficulty is in prosecuting the 'worse regime' (which from context I am judging you think is deserved) as you call it. Whatever George Bush is guilty of I don't believe he is ordering Iraqi citizens who oppose him to be tortured. I don't doubt there is a general intent on behalf of the US to avoid civilian casualties as far as is possible without compromising their own safety. I'm sure there are also 'mistakes' and 'burnouts' (as I call it when a soldier has had too much and lashes out). These notwithstanding, and without belittling the meaning of those deaths, I can't see that Saddam's conduct could be considered similar, in any way, to that of the US. The President, arguably, can be impeached for other reasons but not for that. Breaking the terms of the Geneva convention for instance and violating prisoner rights etc. Don't misunderstand me; I was dead against invading Iraq (and pro Afghan invasion) but I simply can't see that the US (even with corporate greed and, dishonesty and misrepresentation at the top) could be considered to be operating in a manner even remotely similar to Suddams regime.

Well what I was asking for (in my mind at least) came in two stages. The first was to identify a function which religion provided that you think this society would still need. The second was to figure out a way this would be met with a rational/scientific system which relied on quantifiable evidence. I suppose my real objection to the Vulcans came from the presupposition that humans would need to conciously divorce emotion from all thought/action/being. You also said this: While I accede to the internal logic of this argument I have, personally, always objected to it. If there is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of a thing (especially after thousands of years) then it seems more rational to not believe in it. If I told you there was a completely invisible (undetectable in every way save by faith in its existence) unicorn living in the sky above my house it would be more rational for you to disbelieve its existence. I think the same argument holds true for the existence of God. If I cannot see, touch, hear, taste or smell God then it must be more rational not to believe in its existence then it is to believe in it. If you can produce to me real quantifiable evidence in Gods existence then I will believe - that is only rational. The same must hold true for the hypothetical society. To do otherwise would be to believe in every flight of fantasy possible. Hugo, All true. For this society I am advocating the methodology of science rather then advocating the entire history of science. I think you are raising a good point here because it is one of the central problems this society would face. How to ensure that the methodology is actually adhered to by fallible humans. However science is self-renewing - it monitors itself by publishing reports (thereby allowing others to critique), and constantly seeking new information and updating. Sooner or later incorrect information will be corrected. I'd like to return to the hypothetical and ask anyone if there is something religion is providing that will leave this society lacking when it is removed. I haven't yet seen anyone come up with anything that is substantive. I will return to this in more detail later. If I really could design a society it would be one in which I had more time (moan moan moan). PS. Perhaps I am being needlessly picky but I'm pretty sure that the only way to spell "egsist" correctly is as "exist".

Its up to you to back up your assertions lowly_caterpillar (fascinating name by the way). When you have backed up your assertion then I will respond to it. By the way you never answered August1991's question that was directed to you. There is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of God. Therefore believing in God is an act of faith (not necessarily unreasoning faith). If I do not believe in a thing for which there is no quantifiable evidence that is not an act of faith that is a logical conclusion drawn from observable evidence. I don't believe in unicorns either - that is not an act of faith. I get the sinking feeling that you won't like that example. If there was quantifiable evidence for the existence of God and I still didn't believe in him then I would be irrational. However I think I'm allowing myself to move a little off topic here. If you would like to start another thread around this concept (whether it is an act of faith to be secular) I would be happy to join in. I would appreciate your views on the hypothetical situation. What are your thoughts on any difficulties the society would be facing? Do you think their secular approach would be unable to provide something necessary which only religion can provide?

I will not, at this point, respond to that assertion then. Feel free to work on it a bit.

I'll just return to the thing about Vulcans briefly. I don't want to be dismissive so I'll attempt to justify my exclusion of them. Firstly they belong to a different 'hypothetical' with different conditions. Secondly, they aren't human. Thirdly, who says that the humans in my hypothetical would discard emotion? I said religion NOT emotion. I said (back on page 1): Happiness, for example, is a defined concept: Happiness which is observable and measurable (if not with pin point accuracy). Is there any basis for supposing they would discard emotion because they have discared religion?

Can you back up that assertion with evidence?

Just an update for anyone who may not have heard yet. She has the post of Secretary of State. Or, rather, will have after Colin Powell officially steps down. I heard on the news today that she made it to univeristy at age 15. Also that she grew up in an area of Alabama that was still so racist that her fathers church was bombed by the Ku Klux Klan. I never knew of those two things before.

For the sake of simplicity here are links to dictionary definitions of rational and irration (I'll include one definition from each here): Irrational Rational Just so we at least some frame of reference when using the terms.

Exactly how is this relevant to the hypothetical? I'm not having a go at you - just failing to join the dots. Could you try expressing this again or expanding on it for me. Feel free to join the dots. Remembering, of course, that the hypothetical relates to the practical effects on a society that completely abandons religion in favour of applied scientific principles.

It seems to me that it is important for people to be reliably informed about events in the world. Iraq springs to mind quickly but there are many other things in the world which also need accurate reporting. I am interested to know if people think the mainstream media (which is most peoples source of information of course) actually is reliable in performing its function. I would also be gratified if people could leave a post explaining why they do or do not find the media reliable and why.

It might seem naive for the nations of the middle east to celebrate the United States as a non-colonial power. Despite trends toward isolationism (such as at the time that was being referred to - I believe) the US does possess such a history. US actions in Japan (circa Commodore Perry) certainly mirrored British actions in China. As to the perceptions of indigenes you are no doubt correct. When Wellington moved into France he made sure his armies paid for everything and treated French citizens well. He even had British money melted down and reforged into French money (counterfeit but completely identical). Why? Because half the reason the French had been losing to the British was because of all the troops they had to divert to counter the Spanish partisans. The people had been mistreated and rose against them. That conflict was a terrible, vicious affair. I was thinking that perhaps they (US soldiers) would do better with Iraqi citizens if they thought of their mission as a peace-keeping force but I realise that I have no idea what the mission statement is for the troops on the ground. Does anyone know? I realise I am revealing my ignorance here (I become more and more aware of how much I don't know every day). I also have to wonder what the majority of Iraqi citizens really think. So hard to get a clear cut picture of life there.

To H3X0r: I understand the appeal of this example however I'm not sure we should extend the hypothetical to fictional alien reactions. I'm afraid you'll need to expand on that for me. I don't understand how the irrational is useful. I'm more then happy to listen to a good explanation. Rational people, with experience, develop problem solving schemas (a psychological term). This enables people to arrive at quick solutions which are most likely to succeed. Its an adaptive trait. Rational people are as likely, I would argue, to react quickly to situations which require it. It would be irrational to do otherwise. By definition an irrational reaction, as I understand the term, is less likely to produce an appropriate response not more - even if it is swift. Or to put it another way - I don't really see what your point is here. Please expand on it. I don't understand how applying a consistent scientific approach can kill your intellect in any way. Such an approach would change the answers that are found acceptable - I don't see it changing the questions or diminishing curioisity (I could see it increasing curiosity). There may be something to what you say. I made a comment earlier (which I'm too lazy to quote and will paraphrase from memory) wondering if spiritualism could exist in this society. By this I mean a method for exploring the meta-physic. Searching for the meaning of the unseen, the intangible, the non-physical, perhaps for fulfillment. I have been unable to think of any reason this cannot be done but perhaps you can. I would love it if you could pursue this line further. To willy: I have absolutely no wish to insult anybodys intelligence or rational faculties. If I have done so, at any time, then I offer an unreserved apology. I, personally, find religion irrational. Sounds like Pascalls wager there.

Also, what does this mean? Lets not what?