FIve things that you believe never should have been invented.

[captainwalrus]

1. bottled water (because it's freaking water)
2. dry erase markers and whiteboards (because chalk and blackboard is the only way to go)
3. Old Maid (because it's a terrible card game and perpetuates the notion that spinsters should be ostracized)
4. ironic, geek-chic, thick-rimmed glasses (ughhhhh... i want my un-cool geekdom back)
5. Star Wars prequels (ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... i want my childhood back)

 

[Fumbleumble]

The number 1 thing that should not have been invented (so quickly) is Digital technology (including the computer, consoles etc...)

The human race is too young and far too easily swayed at this stage of it's development for such a dominating technology... The planet has become completely subsumed by it and it has thrown us off a balanced developmental path.

It's hindering our societal growth rather than helping it

 

[ike42]

Religion did not create morals, the basic necessity for the the continuation of the species created morals, religion just came along a few thousand years later and claimed credit.

Right, and the basic necessity for the continuation of every culture pre-20th century hinged on the enforcement of morals via religion, i.e. actually gave a reason.

I'm still yet to see anyone qualify their inclusion of religion. Oh well.

Nope, your are either sadly misinformed or completely oblivious. The first code of laws on record is that of Hammurabi which had no connection to their religion (early Mesopotamian religion was fairly weak and did not govern much). Morals such as not stealing and killing one's neighbors have been enforced by society ever since we realized that our survival would be benefited by living together. Again, way before religion. In fact the major religions have shown themselves to be amoral in that they give people a way to justify their theft and murder. All religion does is make people feel more righteous (specifically Abrahamic religions), in that people believe that people they deem evil will be punished in the afterlife. So, the truth is that religion should never have been invented because it is merely a means of controlling the weak-minded to do the bidding of religious leadership. Would the world have been a better place if it were never invented? Maybe. Would there have been less pointless wars? Definitely.

Religion isn't to blame for anything you mentioned. A few select religions are, but to just say all religion is bad and hurts people is just short sighted and ignorant. Your just lumping a huge group of people together based on what the Christians did. Religion by itself just gives people something higher then themselves to believe in. In such an uncertain world some people need this. Even science doesn't know everything and what it does know could change tomorrow based on some new discovery somehow. In a world were us imperfect humans know so little about the universe one cannot disqualify any set of beliefs.

Now, your right that morality does not come from religion. You can be a good person and not follow one. I know I don't have a religion. But to just arbitrarily decide that all religion is evil and does no one any good just shows how little you understand the bigger picture. I agree that there are staggering problems with organized religion (witch is what I think you want to say) in the fact that equally imperfect humans arbitrarily decide the will of a being that is all powerful all present and all knowing and deciding that anyone that doesn't follow their version of "gods will" is doomed to hell or whatever. That kind of thinking pisses me off. But again, thats not all religion. Thats not even all Christian religions.

First of all, it's "you're" and "which." When making an argument it's important to use correct grammar, especially if YOU'RE accusing someone of being ignorant. You've changed the entire direction of the argument by the way, while conceding my main point; that morality is in no way linked to religion.

You used the faulty logic that "even science doesn't know everything and what it does know can change tomorrow." This statement shows a fundamental ignorance of the nature of science, which is merely a means of testing the world based upon what we do know and/or believe might be true. To use this as an argument why religion is worthwhile is completely pointless because it is based on testable phenomena. There will never be any satisfactory experiment to prove to people that god (lower case on purpose) is a figment of their imaginations, because of the delusion that they maintain, known primarily as "faith." You cannot say that because we cannot prove there is no god that there must be one, it's circular logic that gets you right back where you started, as with all world religions. Science has a basis in reality and is open to debate (which is by the way why I think they should change the name of climate science), religion is not allowed to be debated, just decreed. Also, I never once mentioned Christianity. I referred to "Abrahamic religions," (which are the three major monotheistic religions) merely to make a point about one aspect. I will make one final point, which I am borrowing from someone else actually: how much further along might we be if even a small fraction of the money and energy spent on religion were put towards research? Maybe we'd have those flying cars they promised us.

 

[bubba145]

1. Cloning
2. Genetic modification
3. Bioweapons
4. The tax laws that make no sense.
5. Implants that have any chance of turning on and erasing free speech and ideas.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

God, so many people here really hate on religion. Because, y'know, it's never helped fuel anything beneficial to humanity.

*cough* *cough* Italian Renaissance *cough* Einstein's Theory of Relativity *cough* *cough*

 

[masseyguy911]

Wow a lot of people put religion...
Anyway, so heres my top 3 (couldn't think of 5).
1. Snuggie, all it is is a backwards robe
2. Ipad, a very large Itouch... can not see why that needed to be made.
3. Reality TV shows along the lines of Jersey Shore, Big Brother, ect.

 

[Jfswift]

1. The internet
2. Nuclear Energy/Weapons
3. Phillips screws/screwdrivers
4. Black liquorice *yuck*
5. Segway

 

[ike42]

Well I have to say my first would be religion. I'm not here to cause friction etc, but as far as I'm concerned, the practices and legislations of religion itself (not the notion of God and so on) I find to be particularly damaging to society.

To me religion takes away one's notion for thinking for yourself. I'll sit down and let this guy tell me why the world works the way it does...yeah that's easier. I can't do that, maybe some can but I can't. And do I really have to get into how damaging religion has been to the world? The amount of wars, entire races of people destroyed in the name of God/Allah/Jimmy Hendrix whatever...very silly.

Alas, to each his own (even though I hate that saying).

How does it take away the notion of "thinking for yourself"? At all? If you believe in anything, you've had someone tell you, and you've believed them. Believing any scientific theory is the asme as believing in religion because you're still just going on what someone (or a lot of people) have told you.

Wars caused by religion: By my count, zero. Maybe the Crusades.
Wars caused by land grabs, cultural differences, economics, power or similar but used religion as a motivator/excuse? Almost all of them.

You've changed the entire direction of the argument by the way, while conceding my main point; that morality is in no way linked to religion.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

I guess you're right, all the laws and code of conduct that revolved around being a good person?

Yeah, totally not morality. /sarcasm

I'll just make the first and most simple point: I'd rather not go about killing people and dragging civil wars on for centuries simply because of an imaginary man in the sky.

Look, the simple fact is this: You want a full explanation? Just as any views from a religious person would take time for them to fully defend in my eyes, I suspect that my atheism would take time to fully explain to you. If you really want to understand my views, then by all means, send me a message. But I'm not going to waste any further time or space on this thread, due to the simple fact that anti-atheism bigots are simply going to keep harassing me.

That's an invitation to any of you, actually, that can't really seem to defend your own beliefs but fully expect me to defend mine.

Oh wow, so people who are anti-atheism are bigots but people who are anti-religion aren't? I sure hope you're ready to apply that label to yourself.

And what do you mean "understand" atheism? It's a pretty simple concept. It's not even automatically nihilistic or humanistic or anything. Also, noone brought your views into question. I don't give a shit if you're atheist or not.

And yeah, I'm not defending my beliefs here. Totally not. I've never been able to get through one of these discussion without some dipshit antitheist ending the argument by just swearing constantly at me.

Read my previous posts on the argument about religion not being linked to morality before you outright dismiss me without any argument of your own. Morality predates religion, therefore the link that is made after the fact is moot.

 

[ike42]

Read my previous posts on the argument about religion not being linked to morality before you outright dismiss me without any argument of your own. Morality predates religion, therefore the link that is made after the fact is moot.

Since when did "predates" mean "Not linked with"? By that reasoning, laws don't have any link with morality since morality predated them. How the hell are those two things even remotely related? Predate is about time, whilst links are about commen themes. They have nothing do with with each other and are sure as hell not mutally exclusive.

Well, considering that laws are based on the collective values of a society, they do have a link. For instance, the laws not to kill or steal. Laws are only enforcing what we morally accept to be the case. Also, if your argument that religion were the source of morality were true, there would me a higher percentage of convicted prisoners who were atheists than their overall percentage in the population. Since this is not true (which I believe we can assume by conservative nutjobs not jumping all over it) I think I've proved my point that morality and religion are mutually exclusive. To say that you would be an immoral person without your religion is to say that you are a piece of crap to begin with.

 

[ike42]

Well, considering that laws are based on the collective values of a society, they do have a link. For instance, the laws not to kill or steal. Laws are only enforcing what we morally accept to be the case. Also, if your argument that religion were the source of morality were true, there would me a higher percentage of convicted prisoners who were atheists than their overall percentage in the population. Since this is not true (which I believe we can assume by conservative nutjobs not jumping all over it) I think I've proved my point that morality and religion are mutually exclusive. To say that you would be an immoral person without your religion is to say that you are a piece of crap to begin with.

What.

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? You can replace the word "law" with the word "religion" and get the same proof you nong. I never said that laws and morality didn't have a link, I said it was by your own line of reasoning that they don't, i.e. because one predates another. The ethics of religion come from morals, therefore religion and morals are linked, it's that simple.

Also, you need to look up what "mutually exclusive" means. You just said that someone with religion cannot be moral. Which is ridiculous. What you've "proved" is that athiests do not suffer from a lack of morals, something I never implied nor acertained. And in fact, I'm not even saying that religion was the "source" of morality. Please regard my earlier comments concerning this matter.

HERE IS ME QUOTING MYSELF TO PROVE MY POINT

Yes, you're absolutely correct, I shouldn't have phrased myself like I did. Religious morality was a lot easier to enforce though; would you rather follow moral code because some other guy said to, or because (apparently) some omnipitant God did?

I mean really, all you've proved is that you can't read, you don't even know the meanings of the words you're using and ultimately are really just not smart enough to be arguing about concepts this grandiose. I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just don't think you understand enough to participate. It may be that english is your second language and for that you're having trouble expressing these difficult concepts. But if you're going to argue in english, please learn how the language works first.

Well that was the argument wasn't it? I said that morals do not stem from religion. You once again accepted my point. Why are you arguing? Also, I'm not sure if it was you, but someone said that they couldn't have this argument without atheists breaking down to cursing. I haven't yet used a single vulgar word (with the exception of god and religion), you have. Good day sir.

 

[JenSeven]

My list:

1. Chavs and Posers (pretty much fall into the same category for me).
2. Religious Fanaticism (Okay, I get what religion has done for the world, even though we could have seriously done without the dark ages and the religious persecution back then, and still now, but fanaticism just isn't alright, no matter what religion your going for).
3. R&B and rap music (seriously, R&B used to stand for Rhythm and Blues, I can find neither in what's currently called R&B and rap music, maybe I could understand the existence of that if the lyrics weren't so terrible and going on about doing drugs and treating women as prostitutes. Yeah I know I'm generalizing, but that's what 90% of it sounds like to me).
4. Big Brother, Idols and other shows like that (look, I know Holland invented the format for current Big Brother, and for that I apologize for all of Holland to the world, but it was a terrible idea. Could we please stop making those shows).
5. Democracy (it's the absolute worst way to run a country, and it's flawed on so many levels and continues to prove how bad it is and how much it fails, but I guess until they can think of something better I'd rather be stuck with that instead of a dictatorship I guess).

 

[superbatranger]

1. The Wheel
2. The Engine
3. Language
4. Civilization
5. Sliced Bread

You want us to go back the Dark Ages, don't you!

OT: All I can think of is...the nuclear bomb.

 

[Paksenarrion]

1. The Wheel
2. The Engine
3. Language
4. Civilization
5. Sliced Bread

You want us to go back the Dark Ages, don't you!

OT: All I can think of is...the nuclear bomb.

Much farther than that! We still had Language and The Wheel during the Dark Ages. I'd say, small Hunter-Gatherer Tribes. ^_^

 

[Wintermute_]

the gun. (more accurately the automatic weapon)
Death is now efficient and practical to deal out across the globe! Any nut job with a trigger finger can do it! Buy now!

 

[superbatranger]

1. The Wheel
2. The Engine
3. Language
4. Civilization
5. Sliced Bread

You want us to go back the Dark Ages, don't you!

OT: All I can think of is...the nuclear bomb.

Much farther than that! We still had Language and The Wheel during the Dark Ages. I'd say, small Hunter-Gatherer Tribes. ^_^

Would this be before or after we crossed the Bering Strait?

 

[Feniel]

1. Guns and bombs. Seriously, they are designed for killing other humans, how messed up is that? Even swords can be used for play-fighting (blunt weapons, padded armour and good spirited fun, get these three things and a parnter and away you go).

2. Capitalism. I mean the american kind, where the bottom can't be stuffed working up because of how ridiculously hard it is, and the top don't have to work hard at all because they pay other people to make them more money.

3. Cars (motorbikes are fine). They are multi-tonne pieces of metal travelling in excess of 60km/h, controlled by a bunch of impatient drivers through the use of three pedals and a wheel. I mean seriously, half the people I've met don't even care that they are in control of something that can kill dozens of people with nothing more than a brief lapse of concentration.

Now are there any other major ones I haven't mentioned ... oh yeah, most offense-based inventions. I mean, nuclear power is pretty good, but we had to blow shit up with it; fire is helpful, but we had to burn people with it; bows would be handy for game-hunting, but we had to use it for war. The list goes on but I can't be stuffed listing every invention that has been used for harm when it could have been used for alternative purposes.

based on your current theory you just described mainly anything on earth im pretty sure i could figure out a way to kill someone with just about anything for example ice id hit someone over the head with it the computer your typing on same thing and for real fire i dare you to go one winter with no heat or not being able to eat a hot meal nuff said