jpahmad

I'm sorry, but when I lost as a kid, and still got a trophy, I still felt like I lost. I think we should give kids a little more credit than Alfie does.

O.K., just curious. What would you prefer?

Does it make a difference to you whether your reasoning is valid or not? If I said, "it is valid", would you then accept that the human species should perish?

So by your reasoning, everyone should stop reproducing and start adopting. What happens when everyone has already been adopted? Is it permissible to then reproduce? I don't see how life risks to a new-born would ever be eliminated. Since life-risks can not be eliminated, according to your sense of morality, we would all have to end of the human race in order to be moral.

And what if you want to have a kid?

I agree. It is a very useful tool I really wasn't planning on using UBP to reach out to religious people. I am also certain it would be ineffective. Yes. Strong emphasis on "work." True. Which is why we need to work on those people who would otherwise raise their children non-peacefully. Ideally yes, however, as odd as it seems, it is possible to be peaceful but not rational This is true. But, could it be possible to be religious yourself but not raise your children religiously? Or, would this be a contradiction? Not necessarily true. It depends on how you interpret the scriptures. Unfortunately, most people don't bother interpreting scripture at all. Well, I would certainly make a point to define "religion" before I made that claim. I'm not sure that someone's irrational beliefs, which may just add up to being "spiritual", would negate the possibility of freedom and peace. He did mention quite a few other positive things as well. Let's just say, much more than just one thing. You're preaching to the choir (no pun intended) We "should" be able to, but that is not reality. Really, has throwing facts at religious people made one bit of difference? Maybe .01% of the time. I'll take that to mean that you do not like your parents.

Do you not see the parallel between children who can't reason and adults who can't reason? I think you are really hanging on to the term that I used, "manipulate." That's why I asked you if you thought there was a better word for what I was trying to get across. ?? I'm not sure why you are taking such offense to my stream of thought in this thread. This is a conversation isn't it. Honestly, no one else has gone on the attack like you have. Everyone knows that manipulate can mean more than one thing. But you seem to want to just hang on to a particular definition of it for the sake of lashing out at me. I've already defined the term in the way I think suits my use of it. But, you are incredulous, you don't believe me. By the way, there is no proof that manipulating is not UPB. Actually, it sure as hell can be universalized. This is because only observable behavior can be considered when deciding whether or not something is ethical under the UPB framework. "Manipulating" is not an observable behavior. For god's sake, I could manipulate someone by just standing still and doing nothing. That behavior, standing and doing nothing, is certainly able to be universalized. The act of manipulating doesn't pre-suppose that harm is being done. It may cause harm, or it may not. I can only assume that you didn't consider this at all, nor did you bother even to go through the proof in your head. If you did go through the proof, then type it out and show it to me. Show me how "manipulating" can't be universalized. I'm calling your bluff. I honestly think that you just wanted someone to yell at. Maybe you have some kind of chip on your shoulder. I don't know. Anyway, your lack of deductive reasoning, with your proof outlined, in any subsequent response in this thread, will be taken as you conceding my point. Best of luck.

SWMA, don't wee "manipulate" or "skilfully direct" our young children before they are able to use reason? If you don't like the word "manipulate", what word would you use instead?

It wasn't reason that drove people to religion. It was emotion; some driven by fear, others driven by the need for purpose in life. Shirgall, Stefan appeals to emotion all the time in his podcasts (as well as logic). Some of his most inspiring podcasts have a large emotional component.

No, this is not my goal. I don't think I stated that at all. You're paraphrasing it seems, but that certainly is not my goal. My goal is to work more quickly towards a free society by using the tools at hand. Reason being one of them of course, but emotion being another. You can't appeal to irrational people using reason, but you can using emotion. Emotion is sort of a universal language. Why not use it?

Honestly Shirgall, that question never came up at family discussions. We were pretty secular in our behavior. Religion played no role. We were all too busy growing up and living life. That wasn't the question they were addressing. I was remembering a specific time when I had asked my mother something along the lines of "what happens when you die." Perhaps. I know I am lucky, having the kind of up-bringing that I did. So, by your tone of voice, textually speaking, it seems as though you are not fond of your parents. Is this correct?

Well, they were referring to the truth about what happens when you die. Nobody knows. Which is the truth.

They told me that nobody really knows what the truth is. So you don't believe me. It really was of no relevance to my life as a child. So, I didn't "neglect" anything. Endorse? I guess the whole purpose of this post has either just blown over your head or you are choosing to ignore it. I stated in my first post and in subsequent posts what I am seeking to achieve.

what's a yinsez?

I don't recall there being a monarchy in 19th century America. Do you? Did I say stateless? I said "minimal state." It was the progeny of Martin Luther's personal revelations that started the "freedom club" and led to the new world. All these people, who laid the foundation for the industrial revolution, were irrational people. "Irrational" minded people, in the form of protestants and other post-Luther Christian secs. They were the ones who forged ahead through all the barbaric medieval ruins of the old world and started something promising. There isn't evidence of religious movements forming a stateless society, but there certainly is evidence of religious movements forming the most free societies the world has ever known. There is empirical evidence to the contrary. My mother endorsed religion (Catholicism). She married a Muslim and gave birth to me and my siblings. I never went to church/mosque nor was asked to. I was raised peacefully. I'm an atheist/anarchist. My mother is still a Christian as far as she is concerned. My father claims he is still Muslim. The subject of religion never comes up in any discussions because it seems to have no relevance in our family life. Try to figure that out. Maybe you would argue that neither of them really "endorse" their religions. Or, you could say that they just threw out the bad and kept the good. I would argue the latter. And how has this technique worked out for you?

I enjoy it. Great fun. Just call into the show man.

Basically yes. And, just to re-iterate the intention of this post, approaching the problem from a pragmatic standpoint, I would like to see a regression to the state of affairs the United States experiences throughout the later half of the 19th century; minimal government, solid family structure, and work ethic. Believe it or not, Christianity was a big part of that structure. Then, of course, we could eventually eliminate superstition all-together. But, pick your battles. Stefan is right. We're all going to hell in a hand basket as long as the family unit continues to degenerate. I propose to join forces with Christianity in order to fight the state.

That's the case I'm trying to make

True, I don't know if it would be worth the effort. But I do know many "Christians" who interpret things in their own way, to the point of being very complimentary to my own values. Since Martin Luther, this seems to be the progression of things.

Yes, I am making a pragmatic argument. Irrationality can not be reconciled with rationality. But, given the options, and in accordance with one of Stefan's recent podcasts (An atheist apologizes to Christians) I think it would be well worth while to perhaps explore a different interpretation of the scripture. What harm could be done? Interpretation of scripture has been evolving since the middle ages. Why not just keep going until it aligns as closely as possible with philosophical principles? Pretty soon the Pope will endorse all sorts of things that were previously considered devious or sinful. Given enough time, everything will be permissible under scripture. Let's just speed up the process.

SWMA, why the condescension and hostility? anyway, ma·nip·u·late məˈnipyəˌlāt/ verb 1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner. "he manipulated the dials of the set" synonyms: operate, work; More Agree, I think we you could convince any Christian, using the scripture, and interpreting it "allegorically", of the value of peaceful parenting and the NAP. Here's the best part, you don't have to even use reason. You can't go wrong as long as you can convince them that it's "sanctioned" by scripture. Why not?

I never claimed I was trying to reason with them. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing this up. I would be only appealing to emotion. Why can't I interpret the Bible differently and peddle that to people who are too traumatized to give up the fairy tale that is Christianity? By the way, thankfully this happens all the time. If it were not for different interpretations of the Bible, most Christians would still be taking it literally and slaughtering everyone who is not a Christian. Hey, who is to say what parts of the scripture are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken allegorically? I say it's my turn to interpret it. Depends on how you define "manipulate." We "manipulate" our children for their own good all the time before they are able to reason. Religious people are kind of like children. Due to mental/emotional blocks, they can't reason.

I not trying to reason with them. I'm trying to manipulate them.

If everything in the Bible is "allegorical", then can't we fashion an FDR interpretation of the bible and start peddling our ideas to Christians? Here's an example: "Spare the rod spoil the child" FDR interpretation: The "rod" is not literally a physical rod, but symbolic of firmness in stating your needs as a parent. This would translate to not giving in to the inevitable whims of the child and making sure you hold the child to his/her word. When your kid doesn't want to brush his/her teeth, "sparing the rod" would be to let them do whatever they want; kind of like the "un-parenting" trend that is going on currently. Everything in the bible can have an "FDR twist" therefore making the NAP and UPB in line with Christianity. Is it possible?

I'm not saying I think animals can do abstract reasoning. I'm saying that you can't observe what it's like to be an animal. Therefore we have no way of knowing how "unique" our conscious experience is.