Ahhh... My Community

[deoxy99]

NO! It fried.

[atomic7732]

It lied.

[deoxy99]

It pied.

[Naru523]

It sighed.

[Laura]

No. It died.

Also, did the term "meme" come from "mnemonic"?

It's sort of a play on words. Genes are the physical unit of heredity and subject to evolution by natural selection. Memes (sounds similar to genes) are the 'idea units' that arise in a culture and become subject to a kind of natural selection in much the same way. In this case 'nature' is the culture. Some ideas die off fairly quickly. Others experience a boom in 'population' for a while, then die out (i.e. 'lolcats' - still alive, and 'All your base are belong to us' -  pretty much dead, etc.), while yet others become deeply rooted in the culture for a very long time.
A meme is not a real thing in the same sense as a gene, but it does make sense to view ideas in that light.
In any given culture, the ideas that are most fit to survive seem to do so, but it sometimes is counterintuitive why some memes are so strong and long lived even when they seem fairly useless or even harmful to the culture. It's clearly not always ideas that make rational sense that are the most successful.
Similarly, evolution doesn't tend to do the most rational thing, given the end goal. Rather, it has to pass through many small iterations, each of which minutely increases the success rate of the creature, and that leads to a lot of weirdness that would never have been designed in had it been designed from scratch in one go.
In short, there will be a lot of junk and 'poor design'. This seems to happen to the long lived memes as well, i.e. various traditions and religions.

[deoxy99]

No. It died.

Also, did the term "meme" come from "mnemonic"?

It's sort of a play on words. Genes are the physical unit of heredity and subject to evolution by natural selection. Memes (sounds similar to genes) are the 'idea units' that arise in a culture and become subject to a kind of natural selection in much the same way. In this case 'nature' is the culture. Some ideas die off fairly quickly. Others experience a boom in 'population' for a while, then die out (i.e. 'lolcats' - still alive, and 'All your base are belong to us' -  pretty much dead, etc.), while yet others become deeply rooted in the culture for a very long time.
A meme is not a real thing in the same sense as a gene, but it does make sense to view ideas in that light.
In any given culture, the ideas that are most fit to survive seem to do so, but it sometimes is counterintuitive why some memes are so strong and long lived even when they seem fairly useless or even harmful to the culture. It's clearly not always ideas that make rational sense that are the most successful.
Similarly, evolution doesn't tend to do the most rational thing, given the end goal. Rather, it has to pass through many small iterations, each of which minutely increases the success rate of the creature, and that leads to a lot of weirdness that would never have been designed in had it been designed from scratch in one go.
In short, there will be a lot of junk and 'poor design'. This seems to happen to the long lived memes as well, i.e. various traditions and religions.

You type too much.

[Bla]

No. It died.

Also, did the term "meme" come from "mnemonic"?

It's sort of a play on words. Genes are the physical unit of heredity and subject to evolution by natural selection. Memes (sounds similar to genes) are the 'idea units' that arise in a culture and become subject to a kind of natural selection in much the same way. In this case 'nature' is the culture. Some ideas die off fairly quickly. Others experience a boom in 'population' for a while, then die out (i.e. 'lolcats' - still alive, and 'All your base are belong to us' -  pretty much dead, etc.), while yet others become deeply rooted in the culture for a very long time.
A meme is not a real thing in the same sense as a gene, but it does make sense to view ideas in that light.
In any given culture, the ideas that are most fit to survive seem to do so, but it sometimes is counterintuitive why some memes are so strong and long lived even when they seem fairly useless or even harmful to the culture. It's clearly not always ideas that make rational sense that are the most successful.
Similarly, evolution doesn't tend to do the most rational thing, given the end goal. Rather, it has to pass through many small iterations, each of which minutely increases the success rate of the creature, and that leads to a lot of weirdness that would never have been designed in had it been designed from scratch in one go.
In short, there will be a lot of junk and 'poor design'. This seems to happen to the long lived memes as well, i.e. various traditions and religions.

You type too much.

No, it was awesome, very interesting!

[deoxy99]

No, it was awesome, very interesting!

Your country is awesome too.

[deoxy99]

NO!!! It Mobied. 

No, it Tim'd.

[Bla]

Your country is awesome too.

My country is Earth.
So my awesome country includes all of us.

[deoxy99]

Your country is awesome too.

My country is Earth.
So my awesome country includes all of us.

No, it's Denmark.
You know there will always be someone evil, even if there are no borders. So why don't you kill everyone who is evil and then remove borders, although I am against having no borders?

Ja, jeg kan lide Danmark.
Ja, jeg kan lide Jorden også.
Det danske tastatur er god.
Jorden er god.
Danmark og Jorden er god.

[Bla]

Your country is awesome too.

My country is Earth.
So my awesome country includes all of us.

No, it's Denmark.
You know there will always be someone evil, even if there are no borders. So why don't you kill everyone who is evil and then remove borders, although I am against having no borders?

I don't think anyone is born evil. People who become "evil" usually do it because they are taught a religion very strictly. If indoctrination could be prevented, there probably wouldn't be so much evilness.

As for killing everyone who is evil, that pretty much makes you evil as well. I think it's much better to educate people, even though we probably can't do so much to change those who have already become close-minded and hateful. But being badly educated or not having an education at all is probably what allows evil religions to continue.

"Removing borders" wasn't for stopping evil individuals though, more some utopian idea of the countries in the world being united and cooperating... But of course I'd still want my opinions and values being what the society was based on, and everyone else, including hateful, ignorant people want it based on their own opinions, so it's hard to say why my ideas should be the one it would be based for and not just the opinions of the ignorant people who probably make up more than half of Earth's population...

[Laura]

Very few, if any, people consider themselves evil - even when others do.
They tend to be the good guy in their own narrative. That probably holds true even for notoriously evil men such as Hitler and Stalin. Who is really evil? Depends on who you ask, really.
There may be a small minority who actually do consider themselves evil, but I think they are mentally ill.
Even the definition of what an evil act is differs somewhat between cultures, mainly due to religious beliefs.
To speak of absolute good and evil is pointless, as there is no such thing.

[Dan Dixon]

At the risk of commenting outside of the scope of my software product...

I don't think anyone is born evil.

A small percentage of people are born with very unfortunate brain chemistry that makes them psychopathic: unable to feel empathy. This leads some of them to have no guilt in committing horrendous acts which may or may not be inspired by their beliefs about the cosmos. I don't think I'd say they were born evil, but certainly they were born with wiring that makes it much easier for them to do 'evil' things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

It is true, however, that some beliefs will lead otherwise good people to do horrible things.

To speak of absolute good and evil is pointless, as there is no such thing.

I disagree with this. I don't think that morality is relative. This is a common myth that leads people to say things like "Who's to say that they way this culture treats their children is bad?"

In the United States it is legal for school official to physically hit children for punishment. I don't think it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not this is okay. I think you can make a reasoned argument that violence as punishment against children is 'evil' given the research shows that children punished in this way have lower self-esteem and are more likely to be violent in the future. It's wrong because it decreases well-being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Even the definition of what an evil act is differs somewhat between cultures, mainly due to religious beliefs.

Here's another example (not mine):
"What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?"

Would the fact that their reason for plucking out eye was religious and they believed that they were doing good change your opinion of this act?

[Laura]

Naturally, I agree with you that the acts you describe are evil. I think you're misunderstanding moral relativism here. The point is not that we, who belong to roughly the same culture, can't consider anything to be evil or good. The point is that the people belonging to the other cultures may not feel the same way about it.
As it happens, no cultures ritually blind their children, but some do in fact do some pretty horrendous and pointless things. We will find that in each such case, religion is the reason.
Jewish parents in Jewish community do not consider themselves evil because they have their male children circumcised, even though they are participating in a painful and completely unnecessary surgical procedure without anesthesia. Worse than this is the similar custom of female infibulation that is found in some Muslim countries, but the parents do not think they are doing an evil thing. Exceptions, in both cases, come only when there has been exposure to our attitudes toward these customs, generally through media or aid workers.
The people who are subject to those religions, customs, and laws are not evil people because they willingly comply with them. We may think of the particular acts as being intrinsically evil. I certainly do. However, I don't quite feel self-righteous enough to believe that the people performing them are evil. I believe they do what they have been taught is right by their culture.
So, objectively, we are just as right as the people who mutilate the genitals of their infants. Subjectively, however, we are right and they are wrong. Or evil, if you prefer.
Moral absolutism is a sure path to war, which itself could be considered evil.

[Bla]

Naturally, I agree with you that the acts you describe are evil. I think you're misunderstanding moral relativism here. The point is not that we, who belong to roughly the same culture, can't consider anything to be evil or good. The point is that the people belonging to the other cultures may not feel the same way about it.
As it happens, no cultures ritually blind their children, but some do in fact do some pretty horrendous and pointless things. We will find that in each such case, religion is the reason.
Jewish parents in Jewish community do not consider themselves evil because they have their male children circumcised, even though they are participating in a painful and completely unnecessary surgical procedure without anesthesia. Worse than this is the similar custom of female infibulation that is found in some Muslim countries, but the parents do not think they are doing an evil thing. Exceptions, in both cases, come only when there has been exposure to our attitudes toward these customs, generally through media or aid workers.
The people who are subject to those religions, customs, and laws are not evil people because they willingly comply with them. We may think of the particular acts as being intrinsically evil. I certainly do. However, I don't quite feel self-righteous enough to believe that the people performing them are evil. I believe they do what they have been taught is right by their culture.
So, objectively, we are just as right as the people who mutilate the genitals of their infants. Subjectively, however, we are right and they are wrong. Or evil, if you prefer.
Moral absolutism is a sure path to war, which itself could be considered evil.

I don't think it's as subjective as "we're right and they're wrong". Morals could be measured, with Science for example, and thus we must be able to say that the morals which prove to give better results, increase happiness and decrease suffering etc. must be better than those which do the opposite.
I agree that they don't consider themselves evil, and I also think they're just doing as their culture is telling them. The culture/religion is evil, and the things they do are evil.

[Laura]

It's not surprising that your or I, belonging to the same culture, think those acts (and possibly thereby those cultures) are evil. What would be surprising would be for people from that culture, without any outside influence, to consider those acts evil.
Can you see, when you say: "The culture/religion is evil", how that is the sentiment that has fostered countless wars and genocides throughout human history?
It is dangerous for one culture to believe itself to be the absolute judge of good and evil.

Quite apart from that, I agree with you and Sam Harris that the world would be better off if religion were replaced by some sort of scientifically founded spirituality.

[Bla]

It's not surprising that your or I, belonging to the same culture, think those acts (and possibly thereby those cultures) are evil. What would be surprising would be for people from that culture, without any outside influence, to consider those acts evil.
Can you see, when you say: "The culture/religion is evil", how that is the sentiment that has fostered countless wars and genocides throughout human history?
It is dangerous for one culture to believe itself to be the absolute judge of good and evil.

I didn't say our culture was the judge either, I said Science is what can be used to judge it. I agree with you that the people from the culture probably won't see the evilness or harm in it, and I'm not saying other cultures are bad because our culture is superior; I'm saying/agreeing with Sam Harris saying Science can determine many of the good and bad things in the different cultures.

Quite apart from that, I agree with you and Sam Harris that the world would be better off if religion were replaced by some sort of scientifically founded spirituality.

What exactly do you mean with spirituality here? Morals?

[Laura]

The sort of spirituality Sam Harris is suggesting. No, not morals. Morals really have nothing much to do with either religion or spirituality, contrary to what most religious people would say. We have inherited basic morality from the entire process of human evolution; we tend to all have an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong. This can unfortunately be overridden through religious indoctrination. Religion is the means to warp innate morality.
Anyway, what Sam Harris is suggesting is that perhaps a sort of spiritual practice which can provide what people obviously need, but without the dogmatic overhead, could be the answer to how religion can be abolished. He is quite vague about how this would happen, though, and he admits he really doesn't know.

[Bla]

Okay, and no, I'd never equal morals with religion either. I think religion is the most damaging and horrible thing that has ever existed, and that it has only poisoned our morals.
I'd claim that we don't need spirituality if we just look at reality, ask filosophical questions etc. that should provide enough mysteries or whatever it is that people might need, but that could also be a "Scientific" "spirituality".

[Darvince]

wtf happened in this topic

[atomic7732]

wtf happened in this topic

I have NO idea...

[matty406]

It... Lived?

[Darvince]

It died. 

[Darvince]

It died.