Religions and business

[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.

[1713487970]

1713487970

[1713487970]

1713487970

[1713487970]

1713487970

[1713487970]

1713487970

[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.