Religions and business

[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

[1715054389]

1715054389

[1715054389]

1715054389

[1715054389]

1715054389

[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.