Habits of the Wealthiest People

[LC]

animals do exhibit actions higher than murder theft cheating etc. compassion, teamwork, remorse & forgiveness, as well as exclusion from social structures for violating norms...it has been documented. i'm not exactly sure what separates "us" from "the animals" (other than human's egocentric perspective...), but i doubt it's religion.

[stylized_fact]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfenW43EY-E

[writser]

I'm totally calling bs to the extreme if you are saying that theism is not connected to morality, at least in an objective manner. Even honest atheists, like Dawkins, admit to this. And you are also setting up a strawman argument about killing a kitten. I never said you "couldn't" feel bad. I implied that you "shouldn't." Once you realize the bad feeling is simply a rush of a chemical concoction based on something that happened to our ancestors millions of years ago, we can ignore it. With enough practice, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

You imply that I shouldn't feel bad. I disagree with that. You arrive at that viewpoint because you think that there is no morality without religion.

 

I think morality is defined in our genes and by the society we live in. Richard Dawkins refers to this second influence as the 'moral zeitgeist'. As he pointed out, hunting whales and slavery were commonly accepted a few hundred years ago and racial / gender equality wasn't. Not anymore. The moral viewpoint on stuff changes - the bible doesn't. How is that possible? Has a deity suddenly inserted a new set of rules in our mind? Not to mention that different societies have different moral viewpoints. In some societies adultery is perfectly acceptable. In other societies wearing a burqa is the correct thing to do and you risk being stoned if you are unfaithful. I guess these societies are 'wrong'? They will say the same thing about you. Whose god is correct?

 

You can only accept one absolute version of morality that is defined by your specific god. You think that if we don't believe in him we could (even imply we should) ignore our moral compass. I disagree. Why should we? Because there is no punishment in hell anymore? Sure, I could do terrible things. But so can you! The only difference being that you would risk burning in hell for a while in addition to what would happen to me (and I don't even think that stronger punishments will always lead to better behavior). But why would we? It would make us and our friends feel bad and society would become a worse place to live in. I don't need a guy in the sky to point out what's right and what's wrong. I can decide that by myself and by interacting with other people.

 

If you can accept this viewpoint of morality there's no need to believe anymore. Like Parsad, you can evolve to the next evolutionary plane :D .

[Guest hellsten]

animals do exhibit actions higher than murder theft cheating etc. compassion, teamwork, remorse & forgiveness, as well as exclusion from social structures for violating norms...it has been documented. i'm not exactly sure what separates "us" from "the animals" (other than human's egocentric perspective...), but i doubt it's religion.

 

+1

[Guest]

animals do exhibit actions higher than murder theft cheating etc. compassion, teamwork, remorse & forgiveness, as well as exclusion from social structures for violating norms...it has been documented. i'm not exactly sure what separates "us" from "the animals" (other than human's egocentric perspective...), but i doubt it's religion.

 

Perhaps this is answered and I've never found it, but why are we the only animals that have a consciousness?

[Guest]

I'm totally calling bs to the extreme if you are saying that theism is not connected to morality, at least in an objective manner. Even honest atheists, like Dawkins, admit to this. And you are also setting up a strawman argument about killing a kitten. I never said you "couldn't" feel bad. I implied that you "shouldn't." Once you realize the bad feeling is simply a rush of a chemical concoction based on something that happened to our ancestors millions of years ago, we can ignore it. With enough practice, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

You imply that I shouldn't feel bad. I disagree with that. You arrive at that viewpoint because you think that there is no morality without religion.

 

I think morality is defined in our genes and by the society we live in. Richard Dawkins refers to this second influence as the 'moral zeitgeist'. As he pointed out, hunting whales and slavery were commonly accepted a few hundred years ago and racial / gender equality wasn't. Not anymore. The moral viewpoint on stuff changes - the bible doesn't. How is that possible? Has a deity suddenly inserted a new set of rules in our mind? Not to mention that different societies have different moral viewpoints. In some societies adultery is perfectly acceptable. In other societies wearing a burqa is the correct thing to do and you risk being stoned if you are unfaithful. I guess these societies are 'wrong'? They will say the same thing about you. Whose god is correct?

 

You can only accept one absolute version of morality that is defined by your specific god. You think that if we don't believe in him we could (even imply we should) ignore our moral compass. I disagree. Why should we? Because there is no punishment in hell anymore? Sure, I could do terrible things. But so can you! The only difference being that you would risk burning in hell for a while in addition to what would happen to me (and I don't even think that stronger punishments will always lead to better behavior). But why would we? It would make us and our friends feel bad and society would become a worse place to live in. I don't need a guy in the sky to point out what's right and what's wrong. I can decide that by myself and by interacting with other people.

 

If you can accept this viewpoint of morality there's no need to believe anymore. Like Parsad, you can evolve to the next evolutionary plane :D .

 

I define morality as something that is truly "good" or immorality as something truly "bad." That means that even if everyone in the world thought something was good but it were bad, it would still be bad. As an example, if the Nazis would have won WWII, we'd all be "thankful" for their contributions to the world. We'd rationalize their evil behavior as something that was overall good - we'd be conditioned to do so. Granted, I might be totally incorrect, but I think it's possibly that "goodness" exists outside our beings. Something can be bad even if everyone things it's good and vice versa. That's the moral absolute.

 

On another note, I never mentioned any specific text here. And, admittedly, I do have some issues with religious texts because, like you and Sanj rightly said, they haven't changed and some (okay, quite a bit of the stuff) is pretty wild. They are, at the very least, questionable.

 

As far as dress and other things, personally, I don't think God cares too much about that stuff. I think he probably goes by the heart and not dogma. So, even if you guys are filthy atheists (messing with ya on the filthy part), you're still following your moral compasses. To me, that moral compass is God's way of talking to us. We can do right or wrong and, I think anyway, that each of us know what's truly right and wrong -with the things that matter. I find it wild that God would punish someone like Sanj who still follows his heart while, let's say a Christian does the complete opposite.

 

In other words, if we accept what our compass says, we are following him. Obviously, we all have the ability to reject him, too.

 

As far the moral zeitgeist Dawkins talked about (I believe that one is in the God Delusion), I don't see our changing values as something that man did all on our own. People tend to have a stubborn ability to not changing the status quo. Rather, perhaps that is God planting seeds of virtue in our consciousness over time so that, depending on our abilities, be closer to his goodness.

 

By the way, which societies is adultery considered perfectly acceptable?

[writser]

As said before, let's end this discussion. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I think the concept of a deity planting seeds in our minds is quite a far-fetched explanation of a change in moral values over time. Yet I cannot disprove it and you can't prove it. By my reasoning you also imply that if ISIS is following their moral compass by slaughtering innocent people in Iraq apparently god thinks that's ok. You will feel insulted by this and say that they are following a false prophet or are misleading themselves - your god would never approve. Again, I can't disprove that and you can't prove it. Pointless discussion. Believe whatever you want as long as you don't let it interfere with the state, science or education.

 

One example of accepted adultery: it was fine for Roman men to have sex with their slaves.

 

And why would humans be the only counscious species? Maybe consciousness is not as simple as a yes/no question. Are humans always conscious? Are animals sometimes conscious? Yet again, you will probably come up with a definition of consciousness that I can't disprove and you can't prove - pointless discussion :) .

[Guest]

Remember writser,

 

If God doesn't exist, it is okay for them to slaughter people. It's their opinion vs yours. There is no higher power to determine it. Reason, too, is biased (and arbitrary).

 

Roman men having sex with their slaves...do you really think their wives were okay with that? I'd love to know of a culture where adultery (ie both spouse) are perfectly cool with it.

 

by the way, two last questions (hopefully!). What religious apologetic books have you read to challenge your view? And two, what would you need to see to change it?

 

[writser]

I do not feel the urge to read books that try to convince me to believe in UFO's, garden gnomes, gods, homeopathy or other stuff I consider nonsense. I feel that would be a waste of my time. People believe a lot of different things. The burden of proof is on them - and writing a book is no proof.

 

So what would I need? A miracle. Literally :) .

[bobp]

Do the world's wealthiest make it a habit to go on a message board looking for BAC info and spend twenty minutes reading about morality?  Because that's what I've just done. And it has been interesting.

 

At the top of the page I can click on an ad for the Manual of ideas while at the bottom Profiles of 1000 single asian woman are vying for my attention. I swear it's not because of my browsing habits. If I click on it will my computer explode? I'm really tempted. But these women are surely being exploited. Is it immoral for me to just click on it?

Sorry, I've gone a little off topic.

 

[writser]

The Chinese girls pop up surprisingly often here. Sanjeev probably receives a 'management fee' from them. A modest one, obviously.

[rkbabang]

So what would I need? A miracle. Literally :) .

 

My typical response is: If you are correct then your god knows where I live and he's welcome to come over anytime to introduce himself.  If he doesn't I'll just assume he either doesn't want me to believe in him, or he can't pay me a visit because he doesn't exist.  If he does exist and wants me to worship him (and will punish me if I don't) without any hard evidence of his existence, then he's a @$$hole and I wan't nothing to do with him.  Even if it could be proven that he does exist, he'd have to also prove to me that he is worthy to be worshiped.  I don't take lightly to threats.  I'm not going to worship something just because this creature is threatening to punish me if I don't.

 

 

[writser]

Your own version of the 'Holocaust' argument. Three possibilities:

 

1. Gods didn't know about the holocaust -> they are clueless.

2. Gods did know about the holocaust but didn't want to interfere -> they are assholes.

3. Gods did know about the holocaust and wanted to interfere -> they are powerless.

 

Classic trick in the atheist handbook.

[rkbabang]

Your own version of the 'Holocaust' argument. Three possibilities:

 

1. Gods didn't know about the holocaust -> they are clueless.

2. Gods did know about the holocaust but didn't want to interfere -> they are assholes.

3. Gods did know about the holocaust and wanted to interfere -> they are powerless.

 

Classic trick in the atheist handbook.

 

Not really a trick.  In my example above, for instance, any being that would punish someone for not taking something on faith really is an asshole.  Why would you worship such a being?  The common answer is that he is all powerful, but do you really simply worship power?  I don't care how powerful it is if it's an ass.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Your own version of the 'Holocaust' argument. Three possibilities:

 

1. Gods didn't know about the holocaust -> they are clueless.

2. Gods did know about the holocaust but didn't want to interfere -> they are assholes.

3. Gods did know about the holocaust and wanted to interfere -> they are powerless.

 

Classic trick in the atheist handbook.

 

Not really a trick.  In my example above, for instance, any being that would punish someone for not taking something on faith really is an asshole.  Why would you worship such a being?  The common answer is that he is all powerful, but do you really simply worship power?  I don't care how powerful it is if it's an ass.

 

rkabang,

Your willingness to stand with your convictions will be what saves your soul.  There is not much room in heaven, so an elaborate test has been set up to see who has true courage of conviction.  You pass.

 

Those who worship out of fear will be judged as cowards, as sycophants, and thus fail the test.

 

It's entirely possible.  Maybe, maybe not.  Nobody really knows.

[Dustin T]

I always find religion a fascinating subject and fun to discuss when people put their agenda's aside and just discuss what they believe and why. Too often people want to push there views whether it's a specific religion or atheism. Which just usually causes people to entrench and belittle.

 

It is also a subject on which I don't believe you can ever definitively prove much, at least not in this lifetime. I haven't heard many arguments from either side that didn't have substantial holes in them. I do after spending a stint as an atheist subscribe to the notion that there is a higher power and this is all some sort of test. I don't think anyone will be checking to see what religion everyone is at the pearly gates but I do think there is more to this existence then the 5 senses can detect.

 

 

[Guest]

I do not feel the urge to read books that try to convince me to believe in UFO's, garden gnomes, gods, homeopathy or other stuff I consider nonsense. I feel that would be a waste of my time. People believe a lot of different things. The burden of proof is on them - and writing a book is no proof.

 

So what would I need? A miracle. Literally :) .

 

I look at that as confirming your bias. You don't want to believe or else you'd read things that would challenge your convictions. I've read both a ton of atheistic and theistic material -to find the best explanation. While I can't say that I'm 100% in the theistic camp, to me at least, it seems to make more sense out of the world.

 

As far as miracles go, how do you define that? I'd guess that many atheists would agree that us being here is a miracle (as in an incredibly, incredibly low probability of an event). I've heard that the chances of us being here and the fine-tuning of the universe is something like 1 in something more than a trillion. In order to get around that the fine tuning we have the multiverse. The universe only "looks" fine tuned because we happen to be in the one, out of the trillions, that set up for life.  Granted, there isn't next to no evidence for that either.

[Guest]

Your own version of the 'Holocaust' argument. Three possibilities:

 

1. Gods didn't know about the holocaust -> they are clueless.

2. Gods did know about the holocaust but didn't want to interfere -> they are assholes.

3. Gods did know about the holocaust and wanted to interfere -> they are powerless.

 

Classic trick in the atheist handbook.

 

How do you know that God didn't act? Perhaps Germany would have won if he didn't intervene?

[merkhet]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

[rkbabang]

Your own version of the 'Holocaust' argument. Three possibilities:

 

1. Gods didn't know about the holocaust -> they are clueless.

2. Gods did know about the holocaust but didn't want to interfere -> they are assholes.

3. Gods did know about the holocaust and wanted to interfere -> they are powerless.

 

Classic trick in the atheist handbook.

 

Not really a trick.  In my example above, for instance, any being that would punish someone for not taking something on faith really is an asshole.  Why would you worship such a being?  The common answer is that he is all powerful, but do you really simply worship power?  I don't care how powerful it is if it's an ass.

 

rkabang,

Your willingness to stand with your convictions will be what saves your soul.  There is not much room in heaven, so an elaborate test has been set up to see who has true courage of conviction.  You pass.

 

Those who worship out of fear will be judged as cowards, as sycophants, and thus fail the test.

 

It's entirely possible.  Maybe, maybe not.  Nobody really knows.

 

That would be ironic.  I'll certainly have a good laugh if I end up in some Heaven/Paradise/Hashamaim/Shamayim/Nirvana/Jannah/etc after spending my life telling people that god(s) probably don't exist and there is likely nothing after this life, while all the "good", "god fearing" people end up in some purgatory.  Funny, but I doubt it.  Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary I think dead is likely dead.

 

 

 

[rkbabang]

I do not feel the urge to read books that try to convince me to believe in UFO's, garden gnomes, gods, homeopathy or other stuff I consider nonsense. I feel that would be a waste of my time. People believe a lot of different things. The burden of proof is on them - and writing a book is no proof.

 

So what would I need? A miracle. Literally :) .

 

I look at that as confirming your bias. You don't want to believe or else you'd read things that would challenge your convictions. I've read both a ton of atheistic and theistic material -to find the best explanation. While I can't say that I'm 100% in the theistic camp, to me at least, it seems to make more sense out of the world.

 

As far as miracles go, how do you define that? I'd guess that many atheists would agree that us being here is a miracle (as in an incredibly, incredibly low probability of an event). I've heard that the chances of us being here and the fine-tuning of the universe is something like 1 in something more than a trillion. In order to get around that the fine tuning we have the multiverse. The universe only "looks" fine tuned because we happen to be in the one, out of the trillions, that set up for life.  Granted, there isn't next to no evidence for that either.

 

That's really the point.  We don't know the answers to these questions.  It is the religious who pretend that they do.  Look at this from a primitive-man historical point of view.  Primitive peoples frequently made up stories to "explain" things they didn't understand, especially those things they were afraid of (like death, floods, or thunderstorms).  Also religion can be a methodology for some people to control others.  There are many reasons that religion would be invented by humans over the years, but still no proof of its validity.  Of all the possible answers to the "big questions":  "god did it" is to me the least satisfying.    I much prefer "I don't know".

 

Why do I prefer "I don't know", because I don't. And neither do you.

[writser]

I look at that as confirming your bias. You don't want to believe or else you'd read things that would challenge your convictions. I've read both a ton of atheistic and theistic material -to find the best explanation. While I can't say that I'm 100% in the theistic camp, to me at least, it seems to make more sense out of the world.

 

Funny that you mention that your belief seems to make 'more sense' of the world. Yeah - that's one of the reasons people turn to faith. It's much harder to accept that maybe the world doesn't make sense. It just happens to be the way it is.

 

With regards to my confirmation bias: suppose this thread was about the Loch Ness monster instead. You believe it exists and you point out that I should read books about it. If I don't, I am suffering from 'confirmation bias' and I don't want to believe. I think that that is a ridiculous line of reasoning. Why should I read speculative nonsense? If you think the monster exists, catch it and show me! Only way to convince me. But to me it looks like that's the line of reasoning you are using. You would probably agree with me about the Loch Ness monster but you have decided a priori that your specific religion is very important (why? because lots of other people believe in it!) and that I therefore should read about it. That's no valid argument either to me. Actually I do read some stuff about theism - I just wanted to point out that that was irrelevant to this discussion.

 

And how to define a miracle? Show me a portal to hell. Or an immortal garden gnome. Capture an UFO. Proof that you can heal cancer by praying. Make reliable predictions of the future. Something like that. Tangible stuff. No fuzzy feelings.

 

And with regards to the hypothesis that some gods did actually interfere in WWII: they'd be huge assholes if they did it this way ... Enough to make me an atheist.

[Guest]

rk, I also don't know for sure either. However, it seems to make more sense to me. It explains why there is good vs evil, why there is life, why the universe doesn't collapse and why people have an innate desire for a deity - regardless of time and culture.

 

None of these offer definitive proof, mind you. Not having definitive proof is what we do with investing all the time though. They point to that direction. And yes, I'm well aware that as science advances we may have a more accurate understanding off all of these. As we gain more knowledge, I too, may change my view point (ie god of the gaps).

 

I do find it odd though that in so much of our lives we must provide evidence of something for us to believe it. However, lack of  (harmful) evidence is fine in certain areas - like the safety of genetically modified food. I believe talks about that in Antifragile. Why must we have concrete evidence of a deity but not concrete evidence of the safety of our food supply?

 

I'm not a guy saying that "if you don't believe in God that you're going to hell." However, I do think that if we do things that we know are "bad" that's a fitting punishment. We aren't following God's will (in my view, our conscious) and, as a result reject God. The rejection of God leads to Hell (or something along those lines).

 

[Guest]

I look at that as confirming your bias. You don't want to believe or else you'd read things that would challenge your convictions. I've read both a ton of atheistic and theistic material -to find the best explanation. While I can't say that I'm 100% in the theistic camp, to me at least, it seems to make more sense out of the world.

 

Funny that you mention that your belief seems to make 'more sense' of the world. Yeah - that's one of the reasons people turn to faith. It's much harder to accept that maybe the world doesn't make sense. It just happens to be the way it is.

 

With regards to my confirmation bias: suppose this thread was about the Loch Ness monster instead. You believe it exists and you point out that I should read books about it. If I don't, I am suffering from 'confirmation bias' and I don't want to believe. I think that that is a ridiculous line of reasoning. Why should I read speculative nonsense? If you think the monster exists, catch it and show me! Only way to convince me. But to me it looks like that's the line of reasoning you are using. You would probably agree with me about the Loch Ness monster but you have decided a priori that your specific religion is very important (why? because lots of other people believe in it!) and that I therefore should read about it. That's no valid argument either to me. Actually I do read some stuff about theism - I just wanted to point out that that was irrelevant to this discussion.

 

And with regards to the hypothesis that some gods did actually interfere in WWII: they'd be huge assholes if they did it this way ... Enough to make me an atheist.

 

Keep in mind that I didn't mention any specific religion. I'm simply questions the validity of your moral reasoning.

 

As far as the Loch Ness monster goes, does this specific monster appear as a human longing that all cultures in all parts of the world in every time period attempt to worship in some way or another?

 

Assuming "the gods" did intervene, why are they "assholes"? Because they didn't intervene sooner? Remember, true evil doesn't exist with your worldview.

 

 

[coc]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

 

Well, one could argue a habit of the wealthy is to sit around and argue about religion.