Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mack the knife]

[gang ah jee]

[Rteacher]

One can find gold even in a filthy place. South Park nailed it in their recent satirization of Richard Dawkins. Although he was the "founder of worldwide atheism", he learns from his wife ("Mrs. Garrison"...) that mere logic is not enough - "you must also be a dik to all others who disagree with you"... Even with religion out of the picture, different atheist factions fight among themselves. (After all, the Vedas state that this is the "Age of Quarrel and Confusion"...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII

[Grimalkin]

I read thro' the debate but I wasn't particularly impressed.


Part of the reason was that I thought the questions were a little too facile.


Another reason was that I felt you could have predicted the answers both Dawkins (who I'm a big fan of) and Collins would make. I didn't think it really added to the overall debate.


I love to see a really good debate between both sides but with a panel of experts from different disciplines on either side.

[mack the knife]

[Grimalkin]

[mithridates]

[gang ah jee]

[SirFink]

[RACETRAITOR]

God vs science? That makes no sense. God created all scientific phenomena, so the more we learn about it, the closer we get to finding God (whether there even is one).

[mack the knife]

[tomato]

On another thread, someone posted a link to the article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-4,00.html

I was disappointed that Dawkins dodged the question of good and evil.
I am afraid that that passage in the article will reinforce the stereotype of non-theists as beer-guzzling, bed-hopping libertines.

I have made a list of possible sources of evil--or that which is called evil.
For those of you who have already seen this list on the other thread, I apologize for the repetition:

■ violation of instincts

Just as animals of other species establish an orderly society, our prehistoric ancestors established an orderly society. There may have been other animal species which did NOT establish an orderly society, but if there were, those species quickly went extinct.

Most likely, we arrived at the rules of "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shall not steal" long ago. If there was an occasional violation, the rest of the tribe quickly took care of it. This was long before know-it-all preachers started standing at the pulpit and talking down to us.

Heterosexuals are in the majority because heterosexuals can reproduce. Moreover, there is survival value in fear of the unknown, which is why heterosexuals reject homosexuals. Preachers can harp all they want to about homosexuality being "an abomination in the eyes of God," but that doesn't fool us Evolutionists one bit.

■ male instincts

No matter what the police, the court, the legislature, and the criminologists do, men will be more criminal than women for a long time to come. No matter what the preachers and the Sunday School teachers do, men will be more evil than women for a long time to come.

Men are in a double-bind. We carry the same law-and-order instincts as women, but we also carry violent and aggressive instincts which conflict with the law-and-order instincts. Without the violent and aggressive instincts, we could not have been good hunters and warriors.

Most of us do not work as hunters or warriors now, but our inner brains don't know that.

■ disparity between our evolutionary past and modern times

This disparity manifests itself in so many ways that I will have to subcategorize.

▶ disrespectful disagreement

Click onto this forum any day and you will see two parties quarrelling with each other and insulting each other. At first glance, it may seem that they are trying to convert each other. So why do they insult each other? You wouldn't want to agree with someone who calls you a 바보 and a 멍청이!

So why do we insult each other?

Because our inner brains tell us that we are on the battlefield. In prehistoric times, there probably wasn't much intellectual discourse. Whenever there was strife, it was on the battlefield. So even today, every time we click onto this thread, our inner brains tell us that we are on the battlefield.

▶ bad habits

Can you name some things which are attractive but harmful? I can name a few:
alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, illegal drugs, and excessive TV and video.

Now turn it around and name some things which are unattractive but beneficial. Here again, I can name a few: schoolwork, hypodermic needles, dental operations, and medical operations.

All of these items have one thing in common--they weren't around a million years ago. If they were, our instincts would have adapted accordingly.

▶ sex hang-ups

In the extended family system, everyone grew up in an environment with people of all ages and both genders. Now that we live in the nuclear family system, we are not so richly blessed.

I wonder, then, if homosexuality, pedophilia, the sissy boy syndrome, the tomboy girl syndrome, the Oedipus complex, and the Electra complex are inventions of the nuclear family system.

▶ pollution

Why are we so ecologically unwise?

Because we don't love our great-great-grandchildren. In prehistoric times, there was no need to love someone who hasn't even been born yet, so why should we?

▶ abortion

In prehistoric times, we only loved people we could see. We can't see a fetus, at least not without modern technology. So what is the point of loving a fetus?

▶ war

Iran disagrees with us? Kill them! Iraq disagrees with us? Kill them!

This seems like an easy solution, as long as you don't think about the millions of innocent people who are affected. And those people are hundreds of miles away, so it is easy NOT to think about them.

Here again, we are indifferent to people whom we can't see.

▶ international relations

Why do we have so much trouble getting along with Koreans? And why do Koreans have so much trouble getting along with us?

Because in prehistoric times, modern transportation and communication did not exist. There was no need, then, to "love the whole wide world."

Most of the people you knew looked like you and talked like you. But what about those exceptions? If they spoke a different language, you couldn't understand them. Foreign language textbooks and cassette tapes were long in the future. If someone who looked different from you came up to you and said something nonsensical like "안녕 하세요,� you wouldn't know WHAT that meant!

The safest assumption would be that it means "I'm going to tear you limb from limb."

[tomato]

[gang ah jee]

[Grimalkin]