If you could make humanity believe one thing:

[Invictus ChiKen]

You are asking whether people act on their beliefs?

How many Christians do you know that believe in the Bible yet go against it whenever it suits them?

[Rye]

"You must always offer Rye sex if he looks bored."

"Stick with reasoning and evidence in all things."

"Watch both Bill & Ted films at least once in your life and understand them; act in the spirit of what they say."

[Napoleon the Clown]

Please note I never said "bodily" at any point. I said kill or otherwise harm. Psychological attacks are harmful.

Thing is, a directive interpreted that broadly would freeze people like an original series Star Trek android given a logical contradiction. You can't do much of anything without harming people, if harm is defined that loosely. For example you wouldn't be able to discipline a child because that would be traumatizing them; but not disciplining them also harms them, so the command would keep you from doing anything. Stick you in a loop or something of the sort. You need to make judgement call, to choose the path of least long term harm, which an inflexible command won't let happen.

The problem is, a tightly interpreted command like that will be lawyered around, as in Stas Bush's example; a loosely interpreted command will disable people because so much would be forbidden by it.

I wouldn't give ANY command. I'd be too afraid of the results. I guess I've read too many cautionary tales or other fiction where someone made the djinni's wish, gave the robots the command, made the unbreakable law, and had it work out just the wrong way.

Did you read my fucking sentence or just kinda skim over it? How is discipling a kid harming them over idealogical differences?

[hongi]

Think and act with compassion at least one time a day.

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Think and act with compassion at least one time a day.

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

With enough commas and clauses, anything can be grammatically correct.

[Surlethe]

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

The problem is that the longer the sentence, the easier it is to corrupt. So if you've got an ultra-long sentence, it won't take as long to corrupt as a short, sweet, and simple proposition.

[The Guid]

If you think about it, why not make an ultra-long sentence that encompasses everything you want to say? It doesn't have to be grammatically correct does it?

The problem is that the longer the sentence, the easier it is to corrupt. So if you've got an ultra-long sentence, it won't take as long to corrupt as a short, sweet, and simple proposition.

Surlethe: Precisely.

And it's also kind of like, in the context of a thought experiment, wishing for three more wishes.

[Adrian Laguna]

The following are incontrovertible facts which demand a cyclical, low growth society: Oil is finite and will no long be a viable energy resource within four decades and global warming is progressive, a reality, and a threat to human survival.

I have something bigger and more important over the long term, "The exploration and permanent colonization of space is indispensable to the survival of the human species." Even if we do something about PO and GW, we're still all going to die horribly the next time a big rock smashes into the planet.

[Ryan Thunder]

The following are incontrovertible facts which demand a cyclical, low growth society: Oil is finite and will no long be a viable energy resource within four decades and global warming is progressive, a reality, and a threat to human survival.

I have something bigger and more important over the long term, "The exploration and permanent colonization of space is indispensable to the survival of the human species." Even if we do something about PO and GW, we're still all going to die horribly the next time a big rock smashes into the planet.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

[Darth Wong]

I have something bigger and more important over the long term, "The exploration and permanent colonization of space is indispensable to the survival of the human species." Even if we do something about PO and GW, we're still all going to die horribly the next time a big rock smashes into the planet.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

You two are fucking morons. Laguna uses the idiot logic that we shouldn't bother solving environmental problems because something else might destroy us eventually, which is almost exactly the same "logic" employed by people who refuse to quit smoking because they could get hit by a bus. And you throw in your idiot 2 cents that religion is a "petty" concern even though it affects billions of people and is one of the primary driving factors behind social behaviour, particularly in the world's most repressive countries (a coincidence that religionists usually shrug off without explanation).

[Twoyboy]

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

I must admit, I thought of "going after" religion too when I first read the question. I suppose the lure is that by removing religion, we could solve all of the other problems anyway (without the constant fighting, etc). But after thinking about it for a bit, it's quite likely that with a common goal of what the most important thing is for huma kind to focus on, it may bring about the same result, except with a focus on that particular issue.

However, I see myself in no way qualified to decide what the most pressing issue humanity must address currently is.

[Ryan Thunder]

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

[...](without the constant fighting, etc).[...]

You did consider that people might fight not because of religion, but because they're sociopaths, right? For a moment, at least?

[Ryan Thunder]

I have something bigger and more important over the long term, "The exploration and permanent colonization of space is indispensable to the survival of the human species." Even if we do something about PO and GW, we're still all going to die horribly the next time a big rock smashes into the planet.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.

All the problems in the world we have, and you folks decide to go after something as petty as religion? Good grief.

You two are fucking morons. Laguna uses the idiot logic that we shouldn't bother solving environmental problems because something else might destroy us eventually, which is almost exactly the same "logic" employed by people who refuse to quit smoking because they could get hit by a bus.

True. I hadn't actually thought of it in the sense that 'global warming is a stupid concern'. Actually, it scares the shit out of me usually. I'm not sure why it didn't come to mind first.

[Darth Wong]

You did consider that people might fight not because of religion, but because they're sociopaths, right? For a moment, at least?

No. Sociopaths are nowhere near a large enough proportion of the population to provoke the kind of large-scale wars and persecution campaigns typical of religion. Just to cite one example, even in a "secular" western nation like the United States, millions of homosexuals are limited to "second-class citizen" status for reasons which pretty much entirely boil down to religion. And that's a pretty mild concern relative to what's going on in other parts of the world.

[Kuroneko]

Instilling a healthy respect for rational thought and empirical knowledge also alleviates all those other non-religious problems, because it would increase both awareness and willingness to take measures toward solving them. Religion may be the main casualty, but doing this would have secondary effects all across the board, including questions of peak oil, global warming, or whatnot. Even if religion was a petty concern, doing this would be best in the long-term because it increases humanity's ability to recognize and deal with problems in general.

[Ryan Thunder]

Instilling a healthy respect for rational thought and empirical knowledge also alleviates all those other non-religious problems, because it would increase both awareness and willingness to take measures toward solving them.

There you go. So that's what you're after, and that makes perfect sense.

I see no reason why expressly removing religion from the equation would help that at all, however.

I'm Christian (oh noez) can still see that global warming and pollution are terrifyingly real problems. I don't treat homosexuals as second class citizens. I still use scientific method.

I can look at the universe the same way a scientist does, analyze it the same way a scientist does, and act on what I find the same way that a scientist does.

The way I see things, the sciences describe God's creation to me.

In other words, suddenly not believing in God isn't going to change how I look at a problem, or affect how I solve it...

[Darth Wong]

I see no reason why expressly removing religion from the equation would help that at all, however.

It would be a natural side-effect of causing all humans to think logically and objectively.

I'm Christian (oh noez) can still see that global warming and pollution are terrifyingly real problems. I don't treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

So you're a liberal Christian.

I still use scientific method.

No you don't, at least not consistently.

I can look at the universe the same way a scientist does, analyze it the same way a scientist does, and act on what I find the same way that a scientist does.

Unless you have actual training, those statements are false.

In other words, suddenly not believing in God isn't going to change how I look at a problem, or affect how I solve it...

If you actually viewed the universe using the scientific method, you would discard God as a worthless non-theory. People who practice science while simultaneously believing in God simply decide to have two faces, like libertarians with government jobs.

[Ryan Thunder]

I see no reason why expressly removing religion from the equation would help that at all, however.

It would be a natural side-effect of causing all humans to think logically and objectively.

Perhaps, but what I'm trying to say is that merely removing religion isn't going to result in all humans suddenly thinking logically and objectively anyways.

Analogy: You're looking at a situation where you say A => B, but acting as though A <=> B.

I'm Christian (oh noez) can still see that global warming and pollution are terrifyingly real problems. I don't treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

So you're a liberal Christian.

So I am, if that's what you call it.

I still use scientific method.

No you don't, at least not consistently.

Yeah, I guess not. *shrug*

I'll use it for anything else, though.

I can look at the universe the same way a scientist does, analyze it the same way a scientist does, and act on what I find the same way that a scientist does.

Unless you have actual training, those statements are false.

Fair enough. No, I don't have formal training. I'm working on that, however.

I suppose I should have said I'm "capable of" rather than "can".

In other words, suddenly not believing in God isn't going to change how I look at a problem, or affect how I solve it...

If you actually viewed the universe using the scientific method, you would discard God as a worthless non-theory. People who practice science while simultaneously believing in God simply decide to have two faces, like libertarians with government jobs.

Suit yourself. I believe that Science studies God's creation. You do not. Yet, this one issue aside, we'd both end up applying the same rules to solve or understand the same problems...

Could you not settle for that?

[NomAnor15]

-snipped-
If you actually viewed the universe using the scientific method, you would discard God as a worthless non-theory. People who practice science while simultaneously believing in God simply decide to have two faces, like libertarians with government jobs.

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

[wjs7744]

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

In science, things are presumed not to exist unless there is evidence for them. This is a simplification, but I figure it will get the point across. Since there is no evidence for God, according to science he doesn't exist. Therefore any scientists who are also Christian are refusing to apply the scientific method to the question of God's existance.

[Twoyboy]

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

He's not saying Christians can't be scientists, he's saying, if they are, they do not apply their knowledge of the scientific method to all parts of their life. Hence, the "two faces" comment. One face for science work, and another to remain religious.

[NomAnor15]

So Christians can't be scientists, because they believe in God? I am aware, of course, that my question is an extreme simplification (and possibly distortion) of your statement. I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean.

In science, things are presumed not to exist unless there is evidence for them. This is a simplification, but I figure it will get the point across. Since there is no evidence for God, according to science he doesn't exist. Therefore any scientists who are also Christian are refusing to apply the scientific method to the question of God's existence.

Right, I got that. It just seems to me that a person's private beliefs shouldn't be a basis for judging their professional work. If they are intellectually honest in their research, why should they have to apply the scientific method to their personal lives?

[wjs7744]

Right, I got that. It just seems to me that a person's private beliefs shouldn't be a basis for judging their professional work. If they are intellectually honest in their research, why should they have to apply the scientific method to their personal lives?

As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that they should have to, merely pointing out that they don't.

[NomAnor15]

Right, I got that. It just seems to me that a person's private beliefs shouldn't be a basis for judging their professional work. If they are intellectually honest in their research, why should they have to apply the scientific method to their personal lives?

As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that they should have to, merely pointing out that they don't.

Ah, I see. Well then, forget I said anything.

[Darth Wong]

Gotta love the way people always try to twist any anti-religious comment into some kind of imagined persecution.

"Religion is stupid."
"Oh yeah? Who says I can't be stupid if I want to? Huh? YOU? Don't you oppress me!"