Religions and business

[BCEmporium]

«Removing religion issues from marketplace»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Mythology my ass...

Mythology it is. And thus that isn't an attempt to prove any existence of God, but the existence of Jesus. As you may see there isn't even sure the prophet existed, let alone God.
Muslims have an advantage here, at least they've evidence of their prophet existence; just a "tiny issue", if that "Allah thing" is God than the Devil is probably a much better guy than such "God".

OTH, does religion matters on business? Strangely, yes. Very/Extremely religious people have "lots of morals", except their morals applies only "to the others", themselves as "chosen by god" abide by a random twisted morality. Not much from Christians, or to lesser degree, but much part of "belief" on Judaism and Islam. Jews believe themselves to be "chosen", put to radical view and this means all others are their slaves up to contempt the "master's will". Muslims are even more upfront, as the Quran and the Hadeeth supports that rob a non-Muslim is perfectly legit and right.

But in the end, Religion exists in an attempt to control people's dos and don'ts, is a mind-control machine, not much more than that. Even if you put to chance that one of them is right, that ain't good news, as the Gods they carry aren't that nice fellows, but dictators and erratic avengers, bloodthirsty, with ego issues, demanding to be worshiped, etc... like an "Eternal Gaddafi". Whatever such thing creates could be called many things, but "Heaven" isn't one of them.

[1715542810]

1715542810

[Anonymous]

*prepares for shitstorm

[ribuck]

...Whatever such thing creates could be called many things, but "Heaven" isn't one of them.

Religion can do something that no business can do: invite payment now, with the promise of a reward after death.

But if there was a heaven after death, who would want to be there? Seriously, how could you enjoy heaven, hearing all the howls of torment from those in the other place? Or, as is perhaps more likely, hearing all the fun parties happening at the other place.

[BCEmporium]

Religion can do something that no business can do: invite payment now, with the promise of a reward after death.

As I said before; you gotta give credit to the scammer who came up with this one. It's the ultimate scam; one just finds out to be scammed after die. And once after dead he can't speak or witness anything, this "joke" goes on and on forever.

The other part of being "joying heaven" ignoring the others' suffering is one of the engines or demonstrations why normally very-religious people live in dual-moral standards. One to point at the others, where nothing is excusable and anything leads them to Hell, other to their own as "being a true believer" makes everything excusable because God is love (for them, for others is Wrath).

[Anonymous]

Religion is more primal than it is a scam. People need an emotional crutch to go on about their lives. They need something to believe in. Religion provides that at a price.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

«Removing religion issues from marketplace»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Mythology my ass...

Mythology it is. And thus that isn't an attempt to prove any existence of God, but the existence of Jesus. As you may see there isn't even sure the prophet existed, let alone God.
Muslims have an advantage here, at least they've evidence of their prophet existence; just a "tiny issue", if that "Allah thing" is God than the Devil is probably a much better guy than such "God".

OTH, does religion matters on business? Strangely, yes. Very/Extremely religious people have "lots of morals", except their morals applies only "to the others", themselves as "chosen by god" abide by a random twisted morality. Not much from Christians, or to lesser degree, but much part of "belief" on Judaism and Islam. Jews believe themselves to be "chosen", put to radical view and this means all others are their slaves up to contempt the "master's will". Muslims are even more upfront, as the Quran and the Hadeeth supports that rob a non-Muslim is perfectly legit and right.

But in the end, Religion exists in an attempt to control people's dos and don'ts, is a mind-control machine, not much more than that. Even if you put to chance that one of them is right, that ain't good news, as the Gods they carry aren't that nice fellows, but dictators and erratic avengers, bloodthirsty, with ego issues, demanding to be worshiped, etc... like an "Eternal Gaddafi". Whatever such thing creates could be called many things, but "Heaven" isn't one of them.

Sorry, I really don't have the time to discuss this.
Let's say I show my love for all creation by letting you win this thread, OK ?

[Anonymous]

«Removing religion issues from marketplace»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Mythology my ass...

Mythology it is. And thus that isn't an attempt to prove any existence of God, but the existence of Jesus. As you may see there isn't even sure the prophet existed, let alone God.
Muslims have an advantage here, at least they've evidence of their prophet existence; just a "tiny issue", if that "Allah thing" is God than the Devil is probably a much better guy than such "God".

OTH, does religion matters on business? Strangely, yes. Very/Extremely religious people have "lots of morals", except their morals applies only "to the others", themselves as "chosen by god" abide by a random twisted morality. Not much from Christians, or to lesser degree, but much part of "belief" on Judaism and Islam. Jews believe themselves to be "chosen", put to radical view and this means all others are their slaves up to contempt the "master's will". Muslims are even more upfront, as the Quran and the Hadeeth supports that rob a non-Muslim is perfectly legit and right.

But in the end, Religion exists in an attempt to control people's dos and don'ts, is a mind-control machine, not much more than that. Even if you put to chance that one of them is right, that ain't good news, as the Gods they carry aren't that nice fellows, but dictators and erratic avengers, bloodthirsty, with ego issues, demanding to be worshiped, etc... like an "Eternal Gaddafi". Whatever such thing creates could be called many things, but "Heaven" isn't one of them.

Sorry, I really don't have the time to discuss this.
Let's say I show my love for all creation by letting you win this thread, OK ?

What an anti-climax.

[SmokeTooMuch]

Religion is by fact evil and should be avoided at all cost.

[Anonymous]

Religion is by fact evil and should be avoided at all cost.

Implying evil can be objectively defined.

[BCEmporium]

OK... but if religions were to be kept out of business (which I would agree to such) then some should had think about it before print that «In God we trust» in each USD bill.
Nevertheless I think it was a typo, they really meant «In goLd we trust», taken I don't see Americans or the treasure giving them away based in "God's love or trust"  

But also makes sense, as there's nothing to second or hold the value of USD (or any other current currency for that matters), it's value derives from "God" (or any other imaginary friend's) trust. «Hey pal, no, this has no gold or silver, you can't redeem it for nothing. But do you trust God? Then you must trust this.»

I agree to your emotional point also Atlas. But that's the user point of view, the "religious leader" is taken advantage of such need to scam the user.

[Anonymous]

I think restricting religion will only produce a more negative result than letting people surrender their freedom on their own.

[SmokeTooMuch]

I think restricting religion will only produce a more negative result than letting people surrender their freedom on their own.

Sure, but it should be avoided/restricted in education and politic and all other "opinion/decision making" bodies.

[BCEmporium]

I think restricting religion will only produce a more negative result than letting people surrender their freedom on their own.

I oppose restriction or any coercive means to stop it. Anyone must still be free to believe in Santa, aliens, God, fairies, Mickey, Bamby...
However is a subject that must be open to discussion and rational arguments either. I know it's more convenient to the religious scammers (leaders) that religion doesn't get targeted by criticism, but in a free and cult World, everything is up and open to criticism.

[Anonymous]

I think restricting religion will only produce a more negative result than letting people surrender their freedom on their own.

Sure, but it should be avoided/restricted in education and politic and all other "opinion/decision making" bodies.

Education isn't something that should be subject to restriction from your supposed "opinion/decision making" bodies. My preference is to see it as another voluntary independent enterprise.

We can pick-and-choose what we don't want schools to teach but in the end the oppressive majority is going to choose what everybody is going to be taught. It's a flawed system to begin with, in my view.

[Anonymous]

I think restricting religion will only produce a more negative result than letting people surrender their freedom on their own.

I oppose restriction or any coercive means to stop it. Anyone must still be free to believe in Santa, aliens, God, fairies, Mickey, Bamby...
However is a subject that must be open to discussion and rational arguments either. I know it's more convenient to the religious scammers (leaders) that religion doesn't get targeted by criticism, but in a free and cult World, everything is up and open to criticism.

Sure. I honestly don't see what's preventing that now. We have almost completely decentralized communication at the moment. There's little hindering such free criticism besides the people who don't have access.

[BCEmporium]

We can pick-and-choose what we don't want schools to teach but in the end the oppressive majority is going to choose what everybody is going to be taught. It's a flawed system to begin with, in my view.

The major flaw in the system is that more often the "loudest" group is heard, being or not the majority.

Say a majority don't want Creationism to be part of regular school, because it's little more than a fairy tale. But such majority has good cultural standards and aren't up to go on a Crusade for it, try to argue but not engage savage behaviors.
On the opposing you've a minority of fanatics starting right away to shout and burn buildings on the way.
In the end this minority of ignorants gets what they want and the majority is silenced.

[Anonymous]

We can pick-and-choose what we don't want schools to teach but in the end the oppressive majority is going to choose what everybody is going to be taught. It's a flawed system to begin with, in my view.

The major flaw in the system is that more often the "loudest" group is heard, being or not the majority.

I don't see that as a flaw but the fact that the most motivated group usually gets their way. Somebody is always going to get fucked over in a democracy.

[Bimmerhead]

Religion is by fact evil and should be avoided at all cost.

Implying evil can be objectively defined.

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.

[Anonymous]

Religion is by fact evil and should be avoided at all cost.

Implying evil can be objectively defined.

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.

Well, of course one could argue that life is in our best-interest and what destroys it could be considered "bad". Ayn Rand tried to make that argument but then the battle turns into what truly destroys life and what doesn't? In the end, that's left to the subjective whims of the individual.

[BCEmporium]

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

This is as valid as:

«Religion is good»
«Says who?»
«Says me»

Anything ending in "says who?/says me" is ultimately irrational!

And this:

No God, no objective morality.

is a fallacy.
God doesn't emanate "objective morality", but biased morality. As we can see on religions one way or another "God" is used to grant more privileges to its "followers", put to the correct term is the "followers" who builds "God's will" and not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

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

This is as valid as:

«Religion is good»
«Says who?»
«Says me»

Anything ending in "says who?/says me" is ultimately irrational!

And this:

No God, no objective morality.

is a fallacy.
God doesn't emanate "objective morality", but biased morality. As we can see on religions one way or another "God" is used to grant more privileges to its "followers", put to the correct term is the "followers" who builds "God's will" and not the other way around.

Biased morality, eh? You have yet to define the actual morality.

[BCEmporium]

Biased morality, eh? You have yet to define the actual morality.

At least the actual morality derives from rational base and not grant any group special privileges because they're "God's best chumps".
I guess you're mistaken "actual morality" with "lack of morality". There're more people with lack of morality (there's also more people in gross number than ever before so more chance for morality absent people also), but social non-religious morality itself is way strong also.
It was the "non-religious morality" which bring us to condemn things as pedophilia for an instance.

[Anonymous]

Biased morality, eh? You have yet to define the actual morality.

At least the actual morality derives from rational base and not grant any group special privileges because they're "God's best chumps".
I guess you're mistaken "actual morality" with "lack of morality". There're more people with lack of morality, but social non-religious morality itself is way strong also.
It was the "non-religious morality" which bring us to condemn things as pedophilia for an instance.

You can't define that as morality at all but just evolutionary instinct mixed with societal factors. It's just a matter of preference.

The only fact is that we are and certain things exist. Societal structure cannot be objectively defined. It can only be based on preferences. If there were to be an all-mutual preference for life, maybe we could get somewhere close to objective; however, that remains to be seen.

[BCEmporium]

There's no absolute morality, and even things found out to be moral today may be or become immoral tomorrow due to several factors; economic, social...
But there's no point in pick up one "arbitrary power" based on a non-existent thing as "God" who just speaks on behalf of those who claim to "follow him" like a puppet. And there's even less sense to call such as "objective morality".

[Anonymous]

There's no absolute morality, and even things found out to be moral today may be or become immoral tomorrow due to several factors; economic, social...
But there's no point in pick up one "arbitrary power" based on a non-existent thing as "God" who just speaks on behalf of those who claim to "follow him" like a puppet. And there's even less sense to call such as "objective morality".

I agree with you as long as you mean "preference" when you say "moral and immoral".

[Bimmerhead]

There's no absolute morality, and even things found out to be moral today may be or become immoral tomorrow due to several factors; economic, social...
But there's no point in pick up one "arbitrary power" based on a non-existent thing as "God" who just speaks on behalf of those who claim to "follow him" like a puppet. And there's even less sense to call such as "objective morality".

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. 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't even need to be limited to a God. One could derive objective morality from just an idea that its aura "embraces our universe in essence" or something similar. In the end, it's all extremely improbable.

[BCEmporium]

Bimmerhead,

What are religions but an attempt to "put a face in God"?
Yes, could be a God, but being silent all the times from that God derives no morality, objective or not, whatsoever.

Rational morality doesn't emanate from individuals also, emanates from «me and the other»; what are MY rights, what are the OTHER rights and what must be done to prevent collision of such rights. Keep mine and grant the others'. It's a global concept with much of common-sense, not an "I do as I please".
I guess many people like to look towards atheists and agnostics as self-moralizers, that ain't the case at all.

Selfishness are way more common in religious people, as I stated before many tend to think «they're God's chumps» so they're "over God's law", which happens to be just applicable for "the others". Best example of such to be on Islam, as Muhammad keeps dictates rules when himself gets "exempt" of such rules - prize for being Allah's chump.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

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

+ 1

Moving to IT terms (what i like to do very much, because I'm a geek), if God is the hardware, then the religions are the drivers required to access God (and so, people are the software).
Of course, the drivers need maintenance and require tech support (monks, priests etc).

Things can get out of control very quickly because of:
- Buggy drivers (Bad/destructive religions)
- Bad tech support (corrupt priests, abuse of power in religious organizations etc.)
- Incompatibile software (atheists, unbelievers, wrongdoers etc)

Religions != God. These are different layers.

PS.
I know i said i won't join this discussion, but i couldn't stop myself.

PS2.
Also, if you are "technical" enough, nothing stops you from writing your own drivers & accesing God your own way , just as the geeks do with "normal" hardware.

[Anonymous]

Bimmerhead,
What are religions but an attempt to "put a face in God"?
Yes, could be a God, but being silent all the times from that God derives no morality, objective or not, whatsoever.

Absolutely, when you consider the minuscule possibility that such a god or entity with that morality exists.

Rational morality doesn't emanate from individuals also, emanates from «me and the other»; what are MY rights, what are the OTHER rights and what must be done to prevent collision of such rights. Keep mine and grant the others'. It's a global concept with much of common-sense, not an "I do as I please".
I guess many people like to look towards atheists and agnostics as self-moralizers, that ain't the case at all.

It can only emanate from the individuals for the choice lies within them. It takes voluntary cooperation for a universal-morality to work, which is highly unlikely. People do as they please because that's all they can do.

Selfishness are way more common in religious people, as I stated before many tend to think «they're God's chumps» so they're "over God's law", which happens to be just applicable for "the others". Best example of such to be on Islam, as Muhammad keeps dictates rules when himself gets "exempt" of such rules - prize for being Allah's chump.

Honestly, I don't like playing games of superiority. If that floats your boat, go right ahead.

[Anonymous]

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

+ 1

Moving to IT terms (what i like to do very much, because I'm a geek), if God is the hardware, then the religions are the drivers required to access God (and so, people are the software).
Of course, the drivers need maintenance and require tech support (monks, priests etc).

Things can get out of control very quickly because of:
- Buggy drivers (Bad/destructive religions)
- Bad tech support (corrupt priests, abuse of power in religious organizations etc.)
- Incompatibile software (atheists, unbelievers, wrongdoers etc)

Religions != God. These are different layers.

PS.
I know i said i won't join this discussion, but i couldn't stop myself.

PS2.
Also, if you are "technical" enough, nothing stops you from writing your own drivers & accesing God your own way , just as the geeks do with "normal" hardware.

In the end, it's all just a set of ideas, no matter how complex you make the system. You could say I could gain enlightenment and spiritual immortality by eating a McDouble, while listening to Muse and watching obscure silent movies but what is it worth in the end?

[Bimmerhead]

Bimmerhead,

What are religions but an attempt to "put a face in God"?
Yes, could be a God, but being silent all the times from that God derives no morality, objective or not, whatsoever.

Rational morality doesn't emanate from individuals also, emanates from «me and the other»; what are MY rights, what are the OTHER rights and what must be done to prevent collision of such rights. Keep mine and grant the others'. It's a global concept with much of common-sense, not an "I do as I please".
I guess many people like to look towards atheists and agnostics as self-moralizers, that ain't the case at all.

Selfishness are way more common in religious people, as I stated before many tend to think «they're God's chumps» so they're "over God's law", which happens to be just applicable for "the others". Best example of such to be on Islam, as Muhammad keeps dictates rules when himself gets "exempt" of such rules - prize for being Allah's chump.

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.

[Anonymous]

Bimmerhead,

What are religions but an attempt to "put a face in God"?
Yes, could be a God, but being silent all the times from that God derives no morality, objective or not, whatsoever.

Rational morality doesn't emanate from individuals also, emanates from «me and the other»; what are MY rights, what are the OTHER rights and what must be done to prevent collision of such rights. Keep mine and grant the others'. It's a global concept with much of common-sense, not an "I do as I please".
I guess many people like to look towards atheists and agnostics as self-moralizers, that ain't the case at all.

Selfishness are way more common in religious people, as I stated before many tend to think «they're God's chumps» so they're "over God's law", which happens to be just applicable for "the others". Best example of such to be on Islam, as Muhammad keeps dictates rules when himself gets "exempt" of such rules - prize for being Allah's chump.

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.

To say the inception of our universe was random and accidental is just as improbable of a thought as saying our inception is due to a determined deity. The only rational truth is that we don't know.

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.

Again, we have no reason to believe our brains are accidental, sporadic masses either.

[BCEmporium]

If we weren't rational, discussions like these couldn't take place. Don't you think? «Cogito ergo sum»

Then God isn't hardware, at best qualifies for Virtual hardware. Hardware once installed says "I'm here", God never said that, you install the drivers blindfolded and hope or expect the hardware to be there. That's all you got.

It's not also a matter of superiority to state the normal religious folks behavior, and thus is a common attack on "non-believers" to imprint a sort of behavior more common within them to the others.

[Anonymous]

If we weren't rational, discussions like these couldn't take place. Don't you think? «Cogito ergo sum»

Then God isn't hardware, at best qualifies for Virtual hardware. Hardware once installed says "I'm here", God never said that, you install the drivers blindfolded and hope or expect the hardware to be there. That's all you got.

It's not also a matter of superiority to state the normal religious folks behavior, and thus is a common attack on "non-believers" to imprint a sort of behavior more common within them to the others.

Rational is an arbitrary term. It has little meaning besides what we give it.

If god is hardware, it's a server in the cloud that doesn't ping when we hit the supposed IP. We might get random inconclusive noise every once in awhile but for all intents and purposes, it probably isn't there.

[BCEmporium]

The only rational truth is that we don't know.

Plenty agree with it.

[Anonymous]

The only rational truth is that we don't know.

Plenty agree with it.

The majority of the world does not. They are still very primal.

[Anonymous]

Also, to elaborate on the rational argument. I don't know if you gentlemen are free-thinking entities. Through the eye of my conscious, I am but as far as I'm concerned you can only be truly known as an extension to my perspective.

One could go as far as to deny the existence of oneself but the belief in myself is not a faith I will let go of easily. To consider the possibility that one's own conscious is an illusion is quite a paradox and would also require a belief in the even more improbable.

[Bimmerhead]

Also, to elaborate on the rational argument. I don't know if you gentlemen are free-thinking entities. Through the eye of my conscious, I am but as far as I'm concerned you can only be truly known as an extension to my perspective.

One could go as far as to deny the existence of oneself but the belief in myself is not a faith I will let go of easily. To consider the possibility that one's own conscious is an illusion is quite a paradox and would also require a belief in the even more improbable.

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.

If we weren't rational, discussions like these couldn't take place. Don't you think? «Cogito ergo sum»

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.

[BCEmporium]

It's not that random or arbitrarily!

I know how I would feel on one situation, and I by knowing it I also know (or at least try to know) how you would feel under the same situation.
From this point; know each other and the ability we've to put ourselves into others' shoes, we get a wider sense of justice, of what can be good or not to the other and who loses more in a determinate situation.
This have some flaws and can be misinterpreted, as say I like potatoes and you like rice; so I must think you like potatoes and not rice. This would be fallacious! The correct way would be to go on principle I like food X, so if you claim to like more food Y I must assume that food Y is as good to you as food X is to me.

[Anonymous]

It's not that random or arbitrarily!

I know how I would feel on one situation, and I by knowing it I also know (or at least try to know) how you would feel under the same situation.
From this point; know each other and the ability we've to put ourselves into others' shoes, we get a wider sense of justice, of what can be good or not to the other and who loses more in a determinate situation.
This have some flaws and can be misinterpreted, as say I like potatoes and you like rice; so I must think you like potatoes and not rice. This would be fallacious! The correct way would be to go on principle I like food X, so if you claim to like more food Y I must assume that food Y is as good to you as food X is to me.

The Identity Traps

There are two Identity Traps: (1) the belief that you should be someone other
than yourself; and (2) the assumption that others will do things in the way you would.
These are the basic traps, of which many others are variations. In the first trap,
you necessarily forfeit your freedom by requiring yourself to live in a stereotyped,
predetermined way that doesn’t consider your own desires, feelings, and objectives.
The second trap is more subtle but just as harmful to your freedom. When you
expect someone to have the same ideas, attitudes, and feelings you have, you expect him
to act in ways that aren’t in keeping with his nature. As a result, you’ll expect and
hope that people will do things they’re not capable of doing.

- Harry Browne

[Quip]

I'm an athiest and what is this?

[BCEmporium]

Atlas,

Those are fallacies you're up to fall into if you get in to those guidelines strictly.
You can know the other by experience, by asking and readjust it for your feelings comprehension.

you may not like to get a punch in the face, a masochist however may love it... you just need to know if he's masochist prior to draw the punch.

[Anonymous]

Atlas,

Those are fallacies you're up to fall into if you get in to those guidelines strictly.
You can know the other by experience, by asking and readjust it for your feelings comprehension.

you may not like to get a punch in the face, a masochist however may love it... you just need to know if he's masochist prior to draw the punch.

What fallacies, again? I'm lost.

You can only true another individual with enough time. Even then, people change. I can't know if most people are masochists or not at first glance.

[Bimmerhead]

Atlas,

Those are fallacies you're up to fall into if you get in to those guidelines strictly.
You can know the other by experience, by asking and readjust it for your feelings comprehension.

you may not like to get a punch in the face, a masochist however may love it... you just need to know if he's masochist prior to draw the punch.

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)

I know how I would feel on one situation, and I by knowing it I also know (or at least try to know) how you would feel under the same situation.
From this point; know each other and the ability we've to put ourselves into others' shoes, we get a wider sense of justice, of what can be good or not to the other and who loses more in a determinate situation.

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

[BCEmporium]

Atlas;

Those you pointed out, of expect others to act or react according to your own actions.

Bimmerhead

You're talking from an anarchist point of view, not from an atheist point of view. Atheism is not a morality-less statement nor an "I do as I please" statement.
Or the only thing restrain you from go postal is an «almighty punisher»?!

[Bimmerhead]

Atlas;

Those you pointed out, of expect others to act or react according to your own actions.

Bimmerhead

You're talking from an anarchist point of view, not from an atheist point of view. Atheism is not a morality-less statement nor an "I do as I please" statement.
Or the only thing restrain you from go postal is an «almighty punisher»?!

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?

[BCEmporium]

I've to go to post office in 10 minutes, but let's see if I understand you want to know how, within rationalism, one can see the difference between "good" and "evil". Right?

Well, starting from scratch:
Analise the situation without jump into swift judgments.
Gather all possible data and evidence.
Check if it makes sense - "arguments" such as "that guy is right because if of my team/religion/party/country..." are naturally void. Those are irrational.
Does? No?
Check it over, gather more data... repeat.

For things you can't know: Make no assumptions, you can't tell what's right so don't come up with stories: this however doesn't mean you can't know what's wrong either. Evidence may put some probabilities out of the scene even without giving a conclusive hint on what is right. A good example to be Creationism, is simple senseless. God made a 7 day party trick.... blah blah blah... that's notoriously a story an ignorant could come up with when someone made him that existential question.

bbl

[Bimmerhead]

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

[BCEmporium]

Let's start then by a simple rule;

«Any piece of evidence can be either endogenous (related to) or exogenous (casual, unrelated).» - This means that such evidence can be either relevant or purely irrelevant to whatever you're seeing. Applying exogenous arguments to support any cause are irrational by definition. It doesn't take me or Oprah or who so ever to say it.
Put to the example: «that guy is gay because he drives a Ford» - pure non-sense. One is gay because likes men, not because drives brand A or B cars.

Rationalism implies that all "blocks" have to fit flawlessly (or to the best flawless point possible). Anything that aren't verifiable isn't up to account and/or is a fallacy.
As being your team mate doesn't make anyone automatically right. Not even being yourself makes it right, unless you lack totally any sense of justice.

Careful, there is a lot of data and evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

As there's the opposite. And again, that evidence goes towards it simple existence, not implies nothing on the remaining context, including the "party tricks".

Being part of chance happenings, therefore accidents, doesn't add or subtract nothing to our intellectual level. Those are "existential questions" as valid as ask who comes first "the chicken or the egg". The right and only possible answer is I don't know.

If you want to take in the word of a potential scammer who claims to have the answer "directly from God", it's your choice. Also if you notice God have quite a few oddities; just speaks to the scammer (guess is for not have his cellphone nr. rolling around, no?), at certain point - conveniently since we can record audio e video - he just vanished.
The last scammer was John Smith for the Mormons and again a marvelous «party trick», stones with sayings that just John Smith and his accomplices could see. Why didn't God left the stones there then? Was in need of them? «Hey, let me lend this stones to this scammer... ooops!... "prophet" and them take them back for nobody else to see it»... always too convenient, isn't it?

[BitterTea]

Theists often convince themselves that their morality is derived from their favorite holy book, but this is very rarely the case. For example, Christians, how do the following passages from the bible make you feel? Do you agree that slavery is acceptable as long as they are non-Israelites? Do you agree that women and children should become your property when you defeat an enemy? Do you agree that rape victims should be stoned to death because they did not cry out loud enough?

If you answered any of these questions in the negative, you should see that you apply your own morality to choose what is good and bad from your holy books.

⁴⁴ Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

⁴⁵ Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

⁴⁶ And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

¹⁰ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

¹¹ And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

¹² And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

¹³ And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

¹⁴ But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

²⁸ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

²⁹ Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

[Bimmerhead]

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?
 

[BitterTea]

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 whose actions can quite easily be demonstrated to be consistent with their worldview.

Citation please? In what way were Stalin and Mao atheists, and in what way were their actions motivated by their lack of belief in a supreme being?

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?

This is a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Our brains are not a product of chance, but selection. The environment in which we evolved had at least one niche for an animal with a large brain capacity. We filled that niche. Mutations are random, but which survive or thrive is not random, instead due to the process of selection.

[Bimmerhead]

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 whose actions can quite easily be demonstrated to be consistent with their worldview.

Citation please? In what way were Stalin and Mao atheists, and in what way were their actions motivated by their lack of belief in a supreme being?

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).

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?

This is a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Our brains are not a product of chance, but selection. The environment in which we evolved had at least one niche for a being with a large brain capacity. We filled that niche. Mutations are random, but which survive or thrive is not random, instead due to the process of selection.

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]

How do you know if a piece is part of a jigsaw? If it fit, right. If it doesn't or is misplaced or part of another jigsaw.
Rationalism aims to prevent some folks to hack their way into solve jigsaws by randomly put the pieces and hammering it to fit there.
The origin of our rationality, doesn't add or subtract nothing from the equation. Be it by whatever rational or random factor.

Like saying you are English, now whether you know there were a guy named Henry VIII or not, you'll not be more or less English due to such. And what you're pulling is "if you don't know the "history" (dna-history in this matter) of rational abilities evolution you can't be rational" - or hurt the sense of rationalism under such.

Also about Communism it would be good to note they weren't atheists, they simply replaced God with some guy (personality cult). Makes a difference and makes Communism a religion by itself!
Communism has the normal issues of "one-size-fits-all" solution. Trying to solve everything on its own, ends up creating more issues than actually solving whatsoever.

[Bimmerhead]

How do you know if a piece is part of a jigsaw? If it fit, right. If it doesn't or misplaced or part of another jigsaw.
Rationalism aims to prevent some folks to hack their way into solve jigsaws but randomly put them and hammering it to fit there.
The origin of our rationality, doesn't add or subtract nothing from the equation. Be it by whatever rational or random factor.

Also about Communism it would be good to note they weren't atheists, they simply replaced God with some guy (personality cult). Makes a difference and makes Communism a religion by itself!
Communism has the normal issues of "one-size-fits-all" solution. Trying to solve everything on its own, ends up creating more issues than actually solving whatsoever.

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.

[BCEmporium]

BitterTea,

You pointed out one of the major issues I found on religion;

It's normal that almost everybody wants to fit in (we're a group animal - live in cooperative societies) and to be a good person.
Objectively we then seek philosophies and principles to seek out primary objective of be "a good fellow" and "part of the group".
We've quite a lot of accumulated experience through History, that helps us to know the outcome of behavior A or behavior B. Each behavior that puts us closer to our primary objective is then "good" any that drives us away of it is then "bad".

We by now, with the experience of humanity up to the XXI Century, assume that killing, raping, robbing, enslave others are "bad". Whereas equality, aid others, cooperation are "good".
Fair enough, sounds simple up to so far. If you want to be a good fellow there isn't much requirements. As for bad people we'd always had them, and yes, bad people does bad things (or things to be bad) and such is transversal to whatever society or religion.

But you want to be part of the group either, you're a sort of simian and as all other simians you live in groups you call "societies". But this group happens to abide by some twisted logics, they "have God" and "God tells them to do this and that" (actually "God" says nothing, but a scammer...ooops! prophet says he does). Within these rules it's acceptable you rape, rob, kill or enslave others as long as they're of other group.

So in the end you give expression to the sentence: «Bad people does bad things, but takes religion to put good people doing bad things».

[BCEmporium]

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.

You assumed it wrong! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, whatsoever dictator weren't fruit of any rationalism. They weren't rational, because it isn't rational to put your will above all others.
Try to give me a good stand why YOUR rational abilities should be put over MINE? Or someone else's? You would easily run out of rational arguments for such job. 
They were little more than autocratic dictators as many others; an "abide by my will or else..." sort of thing not much different than "believe on my God or else..." sort of thing. The only difference between those created Gods and those dictators is that the "dictator" is fictional and lives over the clouds (when we managed to dominate flight he moved up to the space, now we can go to space he moved even deeper into it... it's a runaway God) while the other one can be seen around.

Within rationalism things that affects society or others are meant to be dealt by speaking and reasoning among those who are somehow affected by it and not by imposition of a single individual. Obviously would be also irrational (and Fascist - correct term) to attempt to dictate how one must do something that has no effect whatsoever to any other person but himself; like the wonderful "anti-masturbation" regulations from religions.

[genjix]

Religion or no religion who cares. I think the idea is pretty crazy myself but who am I to judge? I believe some outlandish things myself.

This is a pointless argument for people with too much time on their hands. We live in a free world.

[BitterTea]

This is a pointless argument for people with too much time on their hands.

As long as some individuals are subjugated, abused, or killed in the name of a sky fairy, this argument will never be pointless.

[Bimmerhead]

They weren't rational, because it isn't rational to put your will above all others.

Again, you are just stating an opinion.  Please tell me why this opinion of yours is rational.  Because, there are many examples I can think of where it appears VERY rational to put your will above others.

For example, if an 8 year old kid wants to put his hand on the stove it seems rational, not to mention moral, for me to stop him.

But let's not get distracted by arguments about those too young to make their own decisions.

Let's say my 40 year old friend wants to kill himself because he has heard his wife is cheating on him.  I hope you would agree with me that it is rational and moral for me to stop him, not least because the rumour about his wife was a lie.

And then of course you might say "yes, but your friend's decision was based on a lie".  And that brings us back to the heart of the matter: "what is truth"?  And that leads to "who says it is true", and even "so what if it is true, why should I live my life as if certain facts were true?"

And inevitably, if two people have two different views about what is true, there will be a collision at some point.  And at some point there will need to be a standard against which their differing definitions of truth must be measured.  And if your standard is "rationality", then you need to define rationality, and tell us how we can know our brains are in fact rational.

Try to give me a good stand why YOUR rational abilities should be put over MINE? Or someone else's? You would easily run out of rational arguments for such job.  Wink

Once again, I'm not saying my rational abilities should be put over yours.  I am merely asking you to tell me how you know you are rational since your brain, by your worldview, is the result of non-rational processes.

[Bimmerhead]

This is a pointless argument for people with too much time on their hands.

As long as some individuals are subjugated, abused, or killed in the name of a sky fairy, this argument will never be pointless.

This canard is the biggest lie going.  More people have been subjugated, abused, and killed in the name of atheistic communism in the 20th century alone than have died in all the religious wars in all the centuries of human history.

Yes, I have a source: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

[BitterTea]

This canard is the biggest lie going.  More people have been subjugated, abused, and killed in the name of atheistic communism in the 20th century alone than have died in all the religious wars in all the centuries of human history.

Yes, I have a source: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Please. That is not a source. I don't see any examples of what you want to show.

Show me one instance of a group of people being killed where the killers were motivated by their lack of belief in a god. I can show you many examples where the killers are motivated by their belief in a god.

[Bimmerhead]

Show me one instance of a group of people being killed where the killers were motivated by their lack of belief in a god.

The great lie being perpetrated is that if religion went away, war would go away:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Most wars having nothing to do with religion, unless you're going to define lebensraum, racism, need for oil, communism as religious motivations.

[BitterTea]

Most wars having nothing to do with religion, unless you're going to define lebensraum, racism, need for oil, communism as religious motivations.

I never said war would go away, you are avoiding my challenge to you.

Show me one instance of a group of people being killed where the killers were motivated by their lack of belief in a god.

[Bimmerhead]

Most wars having nothing to do with religion, unless you're going to define lebensraum, racism, need for oil, communism as religious motivations.

I never said war would go away, you are avoiding my challenge to you.

Show me one instance of a group of people being killed where the killers were motivated by their lack of belief in a god.

I don't accept your challenge, because it makes no sense.

I never said Stalin and Mao were motivated by their lack of belief in God.  In fact I can't think of anybody who was ever motivated to do anything by their lack of belief in anything?  Can you?

I'll tell you what, I'll give you a list of atheist mass murderers, and you explain how their behaviour was inconsistent with atheism.

You give me a list of Christian mass murderers, and I'll explain how their behaviour was inconsistent with Christianity.

Ready?

[BCEmporium]

Let's say my 40 year old friend wants to kill himself because he has heard his wife is cheating on him.  I hope you would agree with me that it is rational and moral for me to stop him, not least because the rumour about his wife was a lie.

Leave alone the infants, because it's an obvious duty of the older ones to look after them.
You can tell and try to demote your friend from his intents, and I would hold such "duty" of demotion even if the rumors checked out, because it's "moral" to defend "life" however you couldn't prevent him from doing it. That's something beyond your control.

Once again, I'm not saying my rational abilities should be put over yours.  I am merely asking you to tell me how you know you are rational since your brain, by your worldview, is the result of non-rational processes.

You really knocked at the wrong door here! If a rational being has to be created by another rational being, then who created God? And what other intelligence created the intelligence that created God? and so on...

(The first answer is however easy; Men. Men created God... but now who created men? God? There would be a time gap unsolvable that way!)  

[Bimmerhead]

Once again, I'm not saying my rational abilities should be put over yours.  I am merely asking you to tell me how you know you are rational since your brain, by your worldview, is the result of non-rational processes.

You really knocked at the wrong door here! If a rational being has to be created by another rational being, then who created God? And what other intelligence created the intelligence that created God? and so on...

As implausible as a rational creature coming from a rational creator must seem, I would say that a rational creature coming from an irrational force is even more implausible.  And hence, a more irrational solution to the problem.

Alas, I know of no other alternatives.  Do you?

Please see the video: http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/who_created_the_creator/

[BCEmporium]

Been watching the video.
Obviously the man is English and starts with a very relief sentence: «One argument...» With Arguments (other than "Argumentum Baculinum or Belicum") we're already within civilization, so he start with the right foot there.  

However he sums up to those who created the "Gypsy God", anytime someone gets close, he packs up and move to another stop. Was energy always here? Probably yes, probably not. Was mass too? Probably yes, probably not.
As in God and everything else there's little more up for us to do than speculate.
Is it OK that you speculate God exists and I speculate otherwise? Sure. As long as I don't grab a mob of fanatic Atheists nor you a group of fanatic Theists to pick in a fight for that and therefore force-convert the other to the winner, it's OK.

Still his arguments does nothing, and are as valid as mine and anyone else who asks who created the "creator". He just assumes it is a "spirit" who exists in all the time and space at the same time; would be like saying "God's energy" - but we don't know yet much about black holes.

And even so "this God" emanates no morality, no nothing (electric discharges maybe).

[Bimmerhead]

Is it OK that you speculate God exists and I speculate otherwise? Sure. As long as I don't grab a mob of fanatic Atheists nor you a group of fanatic Theists to pick in a fight for that and therefore force-convert the other to the winner, it's OK.

And so we're right back to the start: "I'm ok, you're ok as long as you don't do this/that".  But, as always the question is "who decides who can do this/that".  

That is why, waaaaay back near the start of this thread, Atlas pointed out that it is Just. Your. Opinion.

Unless you can point to an external source of morality.

I'm done.

[BitterTea]

Unless you can point to an external source of morality.

I've already shown that your "external source of morality" isn't actually so.

See this post.

[BCEmporium]

And so we're right back to the start: "I'm ok, you're ok as long as you don't do this/that".  But, as always the question is "who decides who can do this/that".

If for you it's OK to force-convert people, than I can't see your issue with Soviets or Maoists in "force-desconvert". Both stand on the same moral level.
As for "who decides", ever heard of common sense? As long as one doesn't attempt by violence to force the other to his views we're in civilization, if we go by "Argumentum baculinum" we're on wilderness and there is just one simple rule; there're no rules.

As for external sources of morality, how about you start with Seneca and Stoicism?
Issues because of the philosophers to be white? So were the prophets of the religions of the desert; Semitics are white.

[Anonymous]

God created  stalin and mao and any number of serial killers and  human depravity yet he burns you in hell for all eternity for masturbating.

 

[fornit]

why does anybody need an external source of morality anyway?
its not like anybody ever acts in accordance with the rules. as soon as their specific ruleset conflicts with their needs and wishes, people break the rules. then they either justify it with some other contradicting part of the ruleset or they bask in self-contempt, whichever they like better.
well, maybe its just personal preference. some people like to do what they want, others like feeling guilty about doing what they want 

[genjix]

yeah why argue about things you cannot change. it's just wasting your time and making yourself angry over nothing. we live in the world. this is how it is. work with what you have instead of trying to reform it, and if you can cause concrete changes then that's great.

[ribuck]

work with what you have instead of trying to reform it, and if you can cause concrete changes then that's great.

And by helping Bitcoin to get established you may find that you make more concrete change to the world than you ever imagined!

Just to bring my post back on-topic: I wonder when the first mainstream church will start accepting Bitcoin donations. There will be no turning back for Bitcoin then!

[Anonymous]

work with what you have instead of trying to reform it, and if you can cause concrete changes then that's great.

And by helping Bitcoin to get established you may find that you make more concrete change to the world than you ever imagined!

Just to bring my post back on-topic: I wonder when the first mainstream church will start accepting Bitcoin donations. There will be no turning back for Bitcoin then!

Maybe the quakers would like bitcoin considering its potential to stop the funding of wars.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

God created  stalin and mao and any number of serial killers and  human depravity yet he burns you in hell for all eternity for masturbating.

 

This is only church's stupid interpretation.
Nowhere in new testament it says that masturbating is bad or is a sin /whatever.

Those drivers are buggy...

[Anonymous]

God created  stalin and mao and any number of serial killers and  human depravity yet he burns you in hell for all eternity for masturbating.

 

This is only church's stupid interpretation.
Nowhere in new testament it says that masturbating is bad or is a sin /whatever.

Those drivers are buggy...

I was being sarcastic. I well know religion is just a tool to control the people.

[BCEmporium]

yeah why argue about things you cannot change. it's just wasting your time and making yourself angry over nothing. we live in the world. this is how it is. work with what you have instead of trying to reform it, and if you can cause concrete changes then that's great.

Why play chess if in the end the pieces return to original position? 
It does change, slowly, but does. At least lately we don't have people being burning in the plazas for heresy.

[Bimmerhead]

Why play chess if in the end the pieces return to original position? 
It does change, slowly, but does. At least lately we don't have people being burning in the plazas for heresy.

Well in Canada they don't burn them physcially for heresy, but the liberals have something called the CHRC with which they burn Christians financially for heresy for violating secular orthodoxy.  You should check it out, quite scary.  So I'm not sure how you think we have 'advanced'. 

[BitterTea]

Well in Canada they don't burn them physcially for heresy, but the liberals have something called the CHRC with which they burn Christians financially for heresy for violating secular orthodoxy.  You should check it out, quite scary.

Oh! You poor Christians are so oppressed!

"The 2001 Canadian census reported that 77% of Canadians claim adherence to Christianity, followed by no religion at 16%."

So I'm not sure how you think we have 'advanced'.

This is how: [1]

"With Christianity having once been central and integral to Canadian culture and daily life, it has been recently suggested that Canada has come to enter a post-Christian or secular state, where practice of the religion has "moved to the margins of public life", and irreligion is on the rise."

But more in general, this is an excellent video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada

[Bimmerhead]

So are you arguing Canada is Christian or post-Christian?

If you are saying the establishment (CHRC and their minions) is more post-Christian than the populace, we are in agreement. 

[BCEmporium]

Well in Canada they don't burn them physcially for heresy, but the liberals have something called the CHRC with which they burn Christians financially for heresy for violating secular orthodoxy.  You should check it out, quite scary.  So I'm not sure how you think we have 'advanced'. 

If you mean Canadian Human-Rights Commission may put one "out of commission" to practice "group-oriented and restricted goodness" I don't see what's the problem with it.
You see, unlike the monolithic view of religions and their primal state and condition, the intentions of secularism doesn't go on make it more acceptable that you hire, taken an example on employment, atheists or agnostics instead of Christians, Muslims or Hindus.
The statement about secularism and proper lay states is that religion isn't up to account on such matters (which is then considered exogenous), therefore you are meant to seek and hire people by their qualification to the job you're offering. Unless you are looking for a priest of some religion, whether your employee is Muslim, Christian or neither has nothing to do to his job.
On the other hand, for this to work out, the employee himself must abide by the same sense. You could refuse to employ a Muslim because he wants 5-pray breaks each day and you'll not see him one whole month during Ramadan. But in this subject is the Muslims himself who's make religion a part of his job and hereby makes it endogenous to the function.
Also wouldn't make much sense in a accountant job to have to pray for Jesus... probably a boss could come up with this sort of idea, but his costumers would have the creeps to be interrupted for a some sort of medieval ritual to be performed.

But in the end you can't blame secularism to force people to non-religion, because all it does is to prevent religions to be the center of social life, as they were by the times referred on the video posted by BitterTea.

[Bimmerhead]

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

So he argues one possible reason for the decline in violence is because of the rise of leviathan.  Is this what you are advocating?

Interesting that he points out a significant decline in the number of pogroms in Europe after WWII.  Gee, I wonder why that was?

Of course in measuring the decline of violence it helps to have a very narrow definition of violence.  For example, by excluding over 1 million abortions/year in the US alone is an interesting approach.  Whether you are pro or anti abortion, there is no doubt that 'violence' is taking place during an abortion (lesbian libertarian feminist Camille Paglia has an honest view of what an abortion is, articulated here.

Really though to deny the positive impact of true Christianity on raising the status of women, children, immigrants, the poor and others from the time of Rome to the present day displays a significant ignorance of history.  Also, Pinker should investigate Elliott Wave theory before declaring the death of violence in society.

[genjix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IH4iLhhL7k&t=6m30s
And part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_A_NIDjM0 (until 2 mins in)

This puts it all in perspective for me.

[BCEmporium]

Bimmerhead,

Don't make or take for assumption that atheists and agnostics are a sort of "organized mono-thinking" religion. They aren't! There's "one rule", but a enormous set of arguments and counter-arguments in the seek of the best outcome. What we'd been doing so far as humanity, in case you hadn't notice, is an endless "try and fail" chain of events. We try what we may think to be best, but we just happen to know the outcome after a while, and if it ends up to be for the worse we have to change what went wrong and try again.
Speaking for myself I see abortion a plain murdering and punishable as such. Specially late-time abortion.

[Bimmerhead]

Bimmerhead,

Don't make or take for assumption that atheists and agnostics are a sort of "organized mono-thinking" religion.

Then surely you have considered that there is a difference between people who claim to be Christians, and the actual teachings of the Bible?

Speaking for myself I see abortion a plain murdering and punishable as such. Specially late-time abortion.

That is refreshing.  And pretty rare amongst atheists, I would guess.  Congrats on standing outside the mainstream on this issue.

[BCEmporium]

Then surely you have considered that there is a difference between people who claim to be Christians, and the actual teachings of the Bible?

Thanks... God for that one!
Ever saw the Old Testament?! That's probably the worse more horrific manual of torture created by man!
As for JC, I can't see nothing "that bad" on it, thus I would like to know which drug was the guy who wrote Apocalypse on, but I see him as philosopher for simple life things. He also didn't went by regulating markets or loans and alike (unlike Islam, which is a typical "Mercantile Religion").

That is refreshing.  And pretty rare amongst atheists, I would guess.  Congrats on standing outside the mainstream on this issue.

Not quite, not being a group we've no "group statements". I found most of the pro-abortion arguments to be fallacious, because they're based on things that are no more. Most of them would just make sense if we were still on Middle Ages and by fallacy the only thing they end up to support is irresponsibility and at expenses of another human life.

[BitterTea]

So he argues one possible reason for the decline in violence is because of the rise of leviathan.  Is this what you are advocating?

I'll have to watch that again, I must have missed that quote. Does he actually say "leviathan"? What does that mean to you?

Interesting that he points out a significant decline in the number of pogroms in Europe after WWII.  Gee, I wonder why that was?

Care to enlighten the rest of us?

there is no doubt that 'violence' is taking place during an abortion

Yes, there is in fact doubt. Up until the point that a fetus can survive outside of the mother's body, it is essentially a parasite. Once the fetus is externally viable, any "abortion" procedure should be limited to removing the fetus from the mother's body, not intentionally killing it. Until that point, I consider the mother's rights to outweigh those of the fetus.

Really though to deny the positive impact of true Christianity on raising the status of women, children, immigrants, the poor and others from the time of Rome to the present day displays a significant ignorance of history.

Please. Without Christianity we would be at least a few hundred years more technologically advanced. Thanks for the dark ages, bro. Science has brought humanity out from the grip of religion.

Then surely you have considered that there is a difference between people who claim to be Christians, and the actual teachings of the Bible?

There is no such thing as a true Christian. Everyone interprets the bible differently. You are just as Christian as those in Africa who burn children as witches, and no more.

I once again point out to you that the bible is full of examples of behavior that is completely unacceptable by today's standards. I'm sure you agree that these things are horrible, yet you claim to derive your morality from this "holy" book. How can you not see the ridiculous nature of that assertion? You derive your morality from yourself, and using that tool you pick and choose which parts of the bible are good, and those that are not.

[Bimmerhead]

Interesting that he points out a significant decline in the number of pogroms in Europe after WWII.  Gee, I wonder why that was?

Care to enlighten the rest of us?

Because the Europeans had just murdered 6 million Jews.  No one was left to pogrom.

[BCEmporium]

Interesting that he points out a significant decline in the number of pogroms in Europe after WWII.  Gee, I wonder why that was?

Care to enlighten the rest of us?

Because the Europeans had just murdered 6 million Jews.  No one was left to pogrom.

There's ALWAYS people to pogrom, if not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, «put your religion here» and so on...
The question lies if the society is or wants to be violent or not.

[fornit]

Of course in measuring the decline of violence it helps to have a very narrow definition of violence.  For example, by excluding over 1 million abortions/year in the US alone is an interesting approach.  Whether you are pro or anti abortion, there is no doubt that 'violence' is taking place during an abortion (lesbian libertarian feminist Camille Paglia has an honest view of what an abortion is, articulated here.

there is also violence taking place during kidney transplantations. so what?

Really though to deny the positive impact of true Christianity on raising the status of women, children, immigrants, the poor and others from the time of Rome to the present day displays a significant ignorance of history. 

yeah, thanks for the no true scotsman.