Religions and business

[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.

[1715232933]

1715232933

[1715232933]

1715232933

[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.