BCEmporium, I really know no other way to ask the questions so I'll have to assume you don't know the answers.  That would be the rational thing, I believe.  It certainly fits with this puzzle.

It appears that what you are defining as rational is merely your 'opinion'.  Because what is 'rational' for you is to deny the existence of God.  But for other people who have weighed the evidence, or perhaps believe to have had a supernatural experience, or think they have actually communicated with God, it is rational to believe in Him.

I shouldn't have brought up Stalin and Mao because it was inevitable it would divert the conversation.  But since we're there now, I'll just say that communism is the haunt of those who have put what they think is rational above all else.  They think rationality, science, intelligence (as they define them) are the way to organize a society.  In fact they were so enamoured with their brand of rationality they thought they could organize the economies of the largest, and the most populus nations on earth.  And now we have the rationalists in Brussels trying to do it for the European super state.  And I won't even get into the 'rationality' of eugenics.

Are you actually claiming Stalin and Mao were not atheists?  Then we are stretching our definitions pretty thin.  Three seconds on Google will provide lots of evidence.
I don't know what motivated their actions, but their actions are not inconsistent with a worldview that says 1) I am accountable to no one and 2) nobody has any intrinsic worth (other than just stating so as a matter of opinion).



More semantics.  The substance of the argument is the same, because neither chance nor selection provide an objective basis for the idea that our brains are rational.

I'm not saying humans are not rational, I'm merely asking how an evolutionist can know he is rational, given that the brain he is using to both define rationality and determine if he is rational is itself the product of non-rational forces.

BCEmporium, I am not going to give answers to defend every nutjob who claims to have heard a word from God or publishes a book saying it is from God.  You cannot expect me to do that because I do not share a common worldview with them.  Nor do I expect you to defend the mass murders of Joseph Stalin and Mao, despite the fact they were the leaders of massive atheistic movements.

Let's keep the discussion simple:
1. How do you define "rational" (since you claim this as the basis for your moral decision-making)?
2. How do you know you are rational, when your definition of rational (and your knowledge of its rationality) is coming from a brain that is the product of chance?
 

Looking just at the idea of rationality:

1. How do you define 'rational'
2. How do you know you are 'rational', assuming that the human brain is the result of a series of chance happenings

Does anyone know if NPR has a similar show?

I realize that your athiesm is not a "I do as I please" statement, but I don't know why.  Other than personal opinion, what do you base your morality on?  And if you say "rationality", how do you define rationality, and how do you know we are rational beings?

But why do I need to know whether he is a masochist or not?  If I want to throw the punch, why shouldn't I throw the punch?  (I'm asking from an athiest worldview, not a thiest worldview)

This sounds like justice by majority vote.  And as with defining "evil" and "rationality", where do you get your definitions of "good" or "loses"?

Atlas, you are the most consistently clear-thinking athiest I have ever met.  You are a very rare breed.  All the more impressive given that you are 'only' 17.  Most people haven't thought this through by the time they're 77, let alone 17.


Yes, I agree entirely.  That is exactly my point: we are rational, therefore odds are we were designed that way.

If we are the way we are because of random chance, then there is no reason to believe what we perceive as 'rational' is anything other than arbitrarily decided by a bunch of (generally) white, male philosophers.

I'm certainly not going to defend Islam.  That is for a Muslim to do.  If God exists, then we need to determine which 'religion' He established.  That is one purpose of Christian apologetics.

If you don't believe there is a God, I don't think you can refer to 'rational' morality.  If there is no God, there was no creator.  If everything is random and accidental then we have no reason to believe our brains are configured to operate 'rationally'.  What our accidental brains define as 'rational' is, again, arbitrary.

Your whole argument is based on one critical assumption: that there is no God.
Of course, if there is no God, there is no point in seeking Him or attempting to discern what is His will and obeying it.

But if there is a God then you have a standard for objective morality.  By 'objective' I mean outside of yourself.

Also, you seem to be equating religion with God.  These are two completely different things. 

Exactly.  Wihout being able to appeal to a higher power, all morality becomes subjectively defined.

Thus calling anything 'evil' outside the context of a religious worldview is a self-defeating process.

"Religion is evil"
"Says who?"
"Says me"

So now it comes down to a battle of opinions, which usually results in the person with the most guns dominating.

No God, no objective morality.

Just finished listening to it.  They did a good job, though it's too bad they didn't talk to someone more directly connected with bitcoin.

It's a good introductory podcast to share around.

The Iceland comparison is interesting, I thought it would be interesting to see how they fair.  I suspect they will do extremely well in the coming years since they choose the less interventionist way forward.

Does anyone on here have first hand Iceland experience?  Any bitcoiners in Iceland?  Any bitcoiners in Ireland, for that matter?

"It is not even take it or leave it. It's done. Ireland's only role in this now is to implement the programme agreed with the EU, IMF and European Central Bank. Irish voters are not a party in this process, whatever they have been told," said the diplomat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/8349497/Irelands-new-government-on-a-collision-course-with-EU.html

"We have a hostage, it is called the euro," he said. "The euro is insolvent. The only question is whether Ireland should be sacrificed to keep the Ponzi scheme going. We have to have a Plan B to the misnamed bailout, which is to go back to the Irish Punt."

This is going to fantastic to watch.  Will the Irish stand up to the EU Monster?  They've done it before...

He has a few more tweets on this topic.  Seems the prospective tenant is Russian, looking to set up a mining operation.

Maybe.  On the other hand if someone with no legal standing falsely accused me of something like this I wouldn't dignify it with a denial either.  Certainly in this case the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence.

BTW, who is the Third Baron you refer to?  I am a native English speaker, but it hasn't been obvious to me.

Not that he is accountable to this thread in any way, but it would be helpful to Baron's standing here on the forum if he would respond to Jed's post saying that he (Jed) has been trying to contact Baron by phone without any luck.

I think I have read nearly every post on this thread, but the two Wagnerian summaries that were just proffered highlighted two things I hadn't reflected on much:

1) the unknown victim who supposedly lost 9000 BTC knew the address to which they were sent (obviously this was in his mtgox summary), and yet the supposed thief took no efforts to launder them but sent them to his own mtgox account directly?

2) the theft took place more than a month ago and was just reported mid-February after the value of bitcoin trebled?  And the "stolen" coins were still in the "thiefs" account???

If this was a theft, this is surely the most incompentent crime in the history of bitcoin.

True, but in the meantime some guy allegedly cannot access his own $45K.  It has now been 12 days that this investigation has been going on.  How long is he expected to wait? 

And if he is accused of stealing 9000BTC, why is $45K in USD under lockdown?



He's not denying your choice.  Can he only express outrage if he is a customer?  First go the property rights, then the free speech rights...

And, ceasing to do business with mtgox is no simple task - if you have several thousand to withdraw.

This whole matter would be a lot easier for most of us to stomach if mtgox had a simple TOS posted saying he can freeze our accounts when he is so inclined.  The problem is this is happening retroactively, without notification.  Sure, you can say when we hand our assets over to someone we are under the expectation that they will do what they want with them.  Then I guess you could also say that if you lose control of your password you can expect to lose your assets as well.  Not the kind of system most of us would want to be a part of.

Gee, the guy is maybe out $45000.  Let's hammer him on his use of English.