Furd Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 So what's your point in this thread? 1389037[/snapback] I think that it goes something like this: Someone who believes in a supernatural being, and who believes in an afterlife, and who fears reprisals in the afterlife for misdeeds, and who might modify his/her behavior based on this fear, is more trustworthy than an atheist, theorectically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 If you know anyone who wonders why 99.9% of the population doesn't understand economics and economists, show them this thread. 1389053[/snapback] Then call me ignorant as a catholic extremist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I think that it goes something like this: Someone who believes in a supernatural being, and who believes in an afterlife, and who fears reprisals in the afterlife for misdeeds, and who might modify his/her behavior based on this fear, is more trustworthy than an atheist, theorectically. 1389066[/snapback] who's side do you take?... someone who has nothing to lose, but is up front with being a realist?...or someone who can potentially be using something as a crutch to gain your trust and take advantage of you?.. with all of these priest's that molest children nowadays...people are leaning towards the opposite direction more and more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Of course, that doesn't explain why some "Christian" businesses engage in the same cut-throat, low-ball tactics as secular ones. 1388681[/snapback] Isn't that the old saying, cut throat and ruthless 6 days a week and a Christian on sunday. This probably goes to a perception that you have to be religious to be moral, a mistaken one as many Christians still believe what you do(works) doesn't mattter if you are "saved". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Isn't that the old saying, cut throat and ruthless 6 days a week and a Christian on sunday. This probably goes to a perception that you have to be religious to be moral, a mistaken one as many Christians still believe what you do(works) doesn't mattter if you are "saved". 1389078[/snapback] What?!?!? Are youy saying that some religious people misinterpret or twist the teachings of the bible for their own gain and/or satisfaction? I can't believe it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Isn't that the old saying, cut throat and ruthless 6 days a week and a Christian on sunday. This probably goes to a perception that you have to be religious to be moral, a mistaken one as many Christians still believe what you do(works) doesn't mattter if you are "saved". 1389078[/snapback] Nobody's a Christian that only goes to church on Sunday. That's silly. A Christian is someone that follows the teachings of Christ and He was pretty specific about people that were not committed and acted the part for show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) I actually agree. I think that most atheists probably behave as ethically as most theists. However, I'm not sure if this is tenable in the long-run. It only takes a few people to screw things up and start acting opportunistically. If I am a theist and somebody takes advantage of me, I still might not take advantage of him back because it isn't the right thing to do. But if I am an atheist and people around me start to break the "social contract" that we have with one-another, I will have a greater incentive to break the "contract" myself and not treat other people in a good way. In other words, regardless of religion, if everyone is cooperating, it might make sense for me to cooperate too. But if people stop cooperating, then I will have much less incentive to cooperate either. And if people stop cooperating, society will not function as well. (note: "cooperate" could be taken to mean "behave ethically") 1388867[/snapback] Why do you keep insisting that atheists and economists are sociopaths? Why is it impossible for you to accept that people perhaps have the ability to choose ways that help society without needing the guidance of religion? You talk a good talk about being open and wanting to understand, but it seems to me you made your mind up long ago. Edited March 27, 2006 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Well, I don't trust overtly religious people. 1388653[/snapback] sums it up well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Why do you keep insisting that atheists and economists are sociopaths? 1389108[/snapback] All I'm suggesting is that people are utility-maximizers subject to constraints. Some constraints can be formal (such as written laws) and some can be informal (such as "rules" based on religious beliefs or cultural norms). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 who's side do you take?... someone who has nothing to lose, but is up front with being a realist?...or someone who can potentially be using something as a crutch to gain your trust and take advantage of you?.. with all of these priest's that molest children nowadays...people are leaning towards the opposite direction more and more... 1389074[/snapback] I think you'll find Furd was summarizing rather than opining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 no, I'm not saying that at all But I do have a hard time figuring out why an atheist would behave in an ethical fashion if they could get away with acting unethically. (And I have a hard time figuring it out because for years I have been asking this question and no one has ever satisfactorily answered it. Saying that people feel good when they act good doesn't explain why they might feel good about acting good.) 1388742[/snapback] It is called empathy. You feel good while doing good for others, as you can imagine yourself on the receiving end of it. That is pretty basic, what is hard to understand there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 All I'm suggesting is that people are utility-maximizers subject to constraints. Some constraints can be formal (such as written laws) and some can be informal (such as "rules" based on religious beliefs or cultural norms). 1389115[/snapback] Some of those constraints can be hardwired too, based on survival of the species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Some of those constraints can be hardwired too, based on survival of the species. 1389118[/snapback] this is true--there is actually some suggestion that there might be a "cooperation" gene in humans (or at least Nobel Prize winning economist Douglass North suggests as much in his most recent book Understanding the Process of Economic Change ). There is other evidence though that this cooperation might not extend to people who are not part of our immediate "group". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 All I'm suggesting is that people are utility-maximizers subject to constraints. Some constraints can be formal (such as written laws) and some can be informal (such as "rules" based on religious beliefs or cultural norms). 1389115[/snapback] Very well, then you must also recognize the existance of self-directed and established norms and rules. So if you truly believe in what you say, you must accept that people are able to set thier own societally-supportive rules as well as selfish ones. Otherwise you cannot make a case either way. If the atheist is free to choose his selfish route, then he is also just as free to choose an ethical one. Your inability to understand this is telling. It seems either A ) You have a very poor view of people in general or B ) you are playing some sort of long game to place religious structure over non-religious, without having the balls to come out and say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 It is called empathy. You feel good while doing good for others, as you can imagine yourself on the receiving end of it. That is pretty basic, what is hard to understand there? 1389117[/snapback] thats jebuss tickling youre ribs when u do good stuff ... its a reward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 It is called empathy. You feel good while doing good for others, as you can imagine yourself on the receiving end of it. That is pretty basic, what is hard to understand there? 1389117[/snapback] My question is: Why would somebody feel good about doing something for others? That is what is hard to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 If the atheist is free to choose his selfish route, then he is also just as free to choose an ethical one. 1389120[/snapback] absolutely--but if the person can make himself better off by acting unethically (which is likely the case), why would he choose to be ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 It seems either A ) You have a very poor view of people in general or B ) you are playing some sort of long game to place religious structure over non-religious, without having the balls to come out and say it. 1389120[/snapback] Actually, it's neither. I'm just applying basic economic reasoning to the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Seriously, what is so hard to understand about the logic that if somebody thinks they will go to hell if they do something then they will be less likely to do that thing than would be somebody who has no such fears? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 absolutely--but if the person can make himself better off by acting unethically (which is likely the case), why would he choose to be ethical? 1389123[/snapback] Better off by what measure? Each person's measure is self-determined, whether you allow yours to be defined by a book written by men claiming to channel a divine spirit or given to you by Sam, or even (gasp) of your own creation. If you would have the ability to murder someone without repercussion for a buck (or even a penny, or to get a good parking spot all of which may make you "better off") you are intonating you would do it. I certainly would not, and not because I am deluded to think would rot in hell. My hell would be the knowlege I had robbed someone of being able to experience happiness, and thier life. I simply will not make my way based on causing misfortune to others. And not because some giant guy in a terrycloth bathrobe is going to smite me from on high with his thunderbolts. It has been said before, religion does not own morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Seriously, what is so hard to understand about the logic that if somebody thinks they will go to hell if they do something then they will be less likely to do that thing than would be somebody who has no such fears? 1389132[/snapback] It's not that its hard to understand, but perhaps just not a good predictor of behavior. Its very difficult to guage, externally, someone's particular belief system, therefore even more difficult to predict any type of behavior based upon said belief system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Seriously, what is so hard to understand about the logic that if somebody thinks they will go to hell if they do something then they will be less likely to do that thing than would be somebody who has no such fears? 1389132[/snapback] If that is true, let's apply your logic to it. Say this person who thinks they can go to hell is also told, he can sin, as long as he confesses that sin before dying, and still go to heaven. So why would this person not better himself by being unethical, now that the repecussion is removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Better off by what measure? Each person's measure is self-determined, whether you allow yours to be defined by a book written by men claiming to channel a divine spirit or given to you by Sam, or even (gasp) of your own creation. If you would have the ability to murder someone without repercussion for a buck (or even a penny, or to get a good parking spot all of which may make you "better off") you are intonating you would do it. I certainly would not, and not because I am deluded to think would rot in hell. My hell would be the knowlege I had robbed someone of being able to experience happiness, and thier life. I simply will not make my way based on causing misfortune to others. And not because some giant guy in a terrycloth bathrobe is going to smite me from on high with his thunderbolts. It has been said before, religion does not own morality. 1389140[/snapback] I am in no way insinuating that you or anyone will get utility (happiness) from murdering someone. You can think of better off by innumerable measures, but a logical one to think about would be material comfort (such as might be obtained by buying things with money (like a bigger house, better food, etc.) It is very likely that a person could get more of this stuff if he behaved unethically when he could get away with it. Edited March 27, 2006 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) If that is true, let's apply your logic to it. Say this person who thinks they can go to hell is also told, he can sin, as long as he confesses that sin before dying, and still go to heaven. So why would this person not better himself by being unethical, now that the repecussion is removed? 1389145[/snapback] there is no reason to think that he wouldn't behave unethically (unless he is worried that he might die before he could confess or that he was worried that God might not count his confession in this situation as being valid). But if the person has no such fears and thinks that heaven will be his as soon as he dies regardless of his behavior on earth, then he has no incentive to behave ethically while he is alive. (Edit to add: I basically made this exact same logical point in the thread from a year ago that I linked to earlier in this thread) Edited March 27, 2006 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 2000 households were surveyed.... i am very curious about the population taken. what percentage were christian? while it was chavez that mentioned jeebus, i don't think it's a stretch to infer it's validity. 1388670[/snapback] well it's reasonable to infer that most americans are christians, because we have reliable data indicating that is the case. but the survey said, roughly, americans are fine with other (non-jeebus) religions, they just don't much trust strident atheists. so in fact the survey says something that differs in very important and notable ways from "i don't trust nobody who don't love jesus". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.