Getting Christianity on our side!

[shirgall]

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. 

 

 

I was trying to boil "what happens when you die" to what the real underlying question is, which is "what do you feel when you can't feel anymore." I went too far, and it was unclear. Sorry.

 

I seldom talked about religion with my parents as well... but we did get into things like "how can i tell if what I experience is the same as what you do" and things like that. (Only now do I realize what a request for empathy that was.)

[jpahmad]

 

Your stated goal is to make ethical proofs more palatable to irrational people. 

 

 

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?  

[shirgall]

Emotion is sort of a universal language.  Why not use it?  

 

 

Because emotion is what is manipulated to give others control of our lives. It is a useful tool but a fearful master.

[jpahmad]

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.  

Because emotion is what is manipulated to give others control of our lives. It is a useful tool but a fearful master.

 

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.

[WasatchMan]

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

 

Well if you think you are better at manipulating people than priests and the whole system of religion that have kept people under their yolk of the church for millennia, then go for it.  Sounds like a waste of time to me.  I have no interest in building a cult, I want to find a community of people that know how to think, no that are easily manipulated.

[Better Future]

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?

 

Of course. That is called eisegesis, the interpretation of text that expresses the interpreters own ideas and biases. It is why religion splits off into so many branches.

 

I would say that the solution to statism and religion is time. Government and religion will continue to prove themselves to be irrational and destructive. I think we would be very impressed by the human species if we were to come back in 50,000 years.

[Donnadogsoth]

Defining "creativity" as an otherwise undefinable aspect of the Creator is not a reasoning belief.

 

Saying that humans create, in the realm of principle, as does the creativity at the origin of the universe, is certainly reasonable.  To deny such is to say either that humans are not creative, or the universe is not creative, or both.

[shirgall]

Saying that humans create, in the realm of principle, as does the creativity at the origin of the universe, is certainly reasonable.  To deny such is to say either that humans are not creative, or the universe is not creative, or both.

 

This is incomprehensible in that you are claiming two concepts are congruent because they share the same root word.

 

Human beings have amazing pattern matching engines, called brains, that have been tuned over billions of years to recognize changes in the environment and identify them as threats or opportunities. A side-effect of amazing pattern matching capability, and the ability to manipulate our environment, leads to the ability to create objects that evoke reactions in others by communicating with those patterns or that solve real-world problems.

 

Equating this ability with the creation of the universe is not a logical step. That the universe churns and creates things is not at all congruent with human action.

[jpahmad]

 

If you disagree with my assessment then please allow me to rephrase:

How would you define "to manipulate another human being" in a useful(!) way which can be universalized as something not morally wrong.

 

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?

[SWMA]

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?

"Young children before they are able to use reason" are different to the group of people you advocate manipulating. I see what you're trying do to, but no thanks. If you want to talk about how we should treat "young children before they are unable to use reason" then that's a different thread now, is it not?

 

What you want to do here, what you advocate in this thread, is immoral. I have already stated what I think is the moral way to interact with someone who does not subscribe to reason, in my very first post. I thought that maybe you had some curious idea of what "manipulate" would mean and asked you to clarify, but all you are answering with is anti-intellectual demagogy. So I have to conclude that you indeed do know that what you are advocating (manipulating a certain group of people in a way explicitely excluding reason to get them to "our" side) is immoral. And I see that you are even trying to do it here, you are trying to manipulate people here in this forum for your goals when you state it as bringing "them" to "our" side.

[MMX2010]

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?

 

Push harder, JP. 

 

We not only manipulate children, we also manipulate adults and adults expect other adults to manipulate other adults. 

 

Simple example: If you think part of being a good scientist is communicating complicated truths in easily-digestible format for the masses, then you think manipulation is part of being a good scientist.  (The manipulative part of this argument is that no one argues that the masses are responsible for their relative inability to understand complex scientific truths.  But this argument is still a call for manipulation, rather than a call for the clarion expression of truth.) 

[jpahmad]

"Young children before they are able to use reason" are different to the group of people you advocate manipulating. I see what you're trying do to, but no thanks. If you want to talk about how we should treat "young children before they are unable to use reason" then that's a different thread now, is it not?

 

 

Do you not see the parallel between children who can't reason and adults who can't reason?  

 

 

What you want to do here, what you advocate in this thread, is immoral.

 

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.  

 

 but all you are answering with is anti-intellectual demagogy.

 

??

 

 And I see that you are even trying to do it here, you are trying to manipulate people here in this forum for your goals when you state it as bringing "them" to "our" side.

 

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.

[Matt D]

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.  

 

I think we can learn a lot from Christianity in terms of community and emphasis on family values. I wonder how we can implement some of their tried and true methods, without the contradictions.

 

What is the evidence that joining forces with Christians will help win the fight against the state? It's possible that atheists who are on the fence about statism will look at our efforts and say, These guys don't really believe what they're saying because they're willing to compromise on fundamental truths about reality. Metaphysics is the first branch of philosophy, and philosophy is the first in a series of steps that leads to successful outcomes. I think the "wouldn't it be great if...[we could dress philosophy up and serve it to Christians]" statement is a temptation which ought to be avoided. The Christians will come to us, not the other way around.

[J. D. Stembal]

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?  

 

That seems like a reasonable goal to me, but we have many effective tools in the tool box already. One of the important tools is free and independent media. This is what allows us to spread the message of non-violence, peaceful parenting, and such.

 

Using SM's proof of secular universal ethics to reach out to the religious is counterproductive. I don't want to make an argument with adjectives so let me elaborate.

 

1. Our goal is to work toward a free society.

2. This process cannot be achieved quickly because it requires raising future generations peacefully.

3. In order to raise a rational and peaceful generation, we teach our children logic, philosophy, ethics, and reason.

4. Raising a child in religion requires domination, manipulation, violence, and fantasy. (See my last reply for evidence, it was a bit of a TL;DR.)

5. Religion contradicts philosophy, especially where raising children is concerned.

6. Therefore, in a free and peaceful society, philosophy supplants religions by default. Religion will cease to exist outside of a textbook.

 

The one redeeming value of religion, that SM has trotted out a lot in the past year, is that men, and especially women, are shamed into being less promiscuous, which results in better outcomes with raising children. Shaming children with the wrath of God or threat of damnation doesn't actually teach anything rational. With the facts in hand, we should be able to demonstrate virtues without resorting to the promotion of insanity.

 

So, by your tone of voice, textually speaking, it seems as though you are not fond of your parents.  Is this correct?

 

Who on Earth would trust people who lie and mutilate an infant's genitals?

[Donnadogsoth]

This is incomprehensible in that you are claiming two concepts are congruent because they share the same root word.

 

Human beings have amazing pattern matching engines, called brains, that have been tuned over billions of years to recognize changes in the environment and identify them as threats or opportunities. A side-effect of amazing pattern matching capability, and the ability to manipulate our environment, leads to the ability to create objects that evoke reactions in others by communicating with those patterns or that solve real-world problems.

 

Equating this ability with the creation of the universe is not a logical step. That the universe churns and creates things is not at all congruent with human action.

 

It is if the universe creates material things based on creating physical principles, and we create things based on discovering physical principles.  We're not ants, we discover.

[shirgall]

It is if the universe creates material things based on creating physical principles, and we create things based on discovering physical principles.  We're not ants, we discover.

Overlooking the driving forces of creation that I already listed to drop to least common denominator is just as incoherent as the statement I first critiqued.

[jpahmad]

That seems like a reasonable goal to me, but we have many effective tools in the tool box already. One of the important tools is free and independent media. This is what allows us to spread the message of non-violence, peaceful parenting, and such.

 

 

 I agree.  It is a very useful tool

 

 

 

 

 

Using SM's proof of secular universal ethics to reach out to the religious is counterproductive. I don't want to make an argument with adjectives so let me elaborate.

 

 

I really wasn't planning on using UBP to reach out to religious people.  I am also certain it would be ineffective.  

 

 

 

 

 

1. Our goal is to work toward a free society.

2. This process cannot be achieved quickly because it requires raising future generations peacefully.

3. In order to raise a rational and peaceful generation, we teach our children logic, philosophy, ethics, and reason.

4. Raising a child in religion requires domination, manipulation, violence, and fantasy. (See my last reply for evidence, it was a bit of a TL;DR.)

5. Religion contradicts philosophy, especially where raising children is concerned.

6. Therefore, in a free and peaceful society, philosophy supplants religions by default. Religion will cease to exist outside of a textbook.

 

 

 

1. Yes.  Strong emphasis on "work."
2. True.  Which is why we need to work on those people who would otherwise raise their children non-peacefully.
3. Ideally yes, however, as odd as it seems, it is possible to be peaceful but not rational
4. This is true.  But, could it be possible to be religious yourself but not raise your children religiously?  Or, would this be a contradiction?
5. Not necessarily true.  It depends on how you interpret the scriptures.  Unfortunately, most people don't bother interpreting scripture at all.  
6. 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.

 

 

The one redeeming value of religion, that SM has trotted out a lot in the past year, is that men, and especially women, are shamed into being less promiscuous, which results in better outcomes with raising children.

 

 

He did mention quite a few other positive things as well.  Let's just say, much more than just one thing.

 

 

Shaming children with the wrath of God or threat of damnation doesn't actually teach anything rational. 

 

 

You're preaching to the choir (no pun intended)

 

 

 With the facts in hand, we should be able to demonstrate virtues without resorting to the promotion of insanity.

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

Who on Earth would trust people who lie and mutilate an infant's genitals?

 

I'll take that to mean that you do not like your parents.  

[Duart]

I personally prefer the Ayn Rand quote "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

It describes accurately what's going on, on several levels.

 

 

Really great quote. Having spent the last hour arguing with people on YouTube comments I think I'll take up this advise and save the effort!

 

If re-contextualising scripture helps stop a parent from abusing a child then why not. It may be impossible to make someone rational but, 'spare the advice to save the methodology' seems equally damaging. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Overlooking the driving forces of creation that I already listed to drop to least common denominator is just as incoherent as the statement I first critiqued.

 

Seems perfectly coherent to me.  Eternity creates as do we.  We are, among all animals, made in its image.  View that as a small part of a larger hologram if you like.  All this talk of evolution and brains is just materialism run amok.