4 ms·

Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not? Yeah, some religious people do tend to say silly things like "

Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not? Yeah, some religious people do tend to say silly things like "Atheists are less moral, they can't make moral decisions without religion" << but I think this is because they miss another aspect of life: society defines morals, not just religion. Religion is a shaper, but there's only so much defined in religion. Example: Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading. It's not exactly the "stealing" talked about in the bible, because hey nobody loses anything, just potential profit. There's no exact matching scenario in the bible...you kind of extrapolate. Where does the rest of your morality regarding such matters come from? Oh yah, your brain! Your common sense. Oh, what's that? Right, common sense is based on society -- norms and outside influences. Now sure, religion is a big part of people. It has strong ties with society, helping to shape the morality found in societies. Remember how parts of the bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to support slavery anymore? Psh. But hey, if your religion says you can kill people, you wouldn't (logically speaking) just do so in any country today, because you make the decision in your brain "I won't do it or I'll go to jail." Society says no." Same with stuff like gay marriage. Some Christians learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change. Regardless, in 100 years, it's a nonissue and virtually everyone agrees, morally speaking. Society wins. It happened with segregation, it happened with gender barriers, it'll happen again. Disclaimer: I am religious, I'm a Christian to be exact. But yeah, I don't claim that Christians are any more moral than anyone else. Morality is relative from a perspective that doesn't assume existence of God. ^ if you're a Christian, do know that I believe in moral absolutes. But that's only assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined by the nature of God.

petewailes 17y ago
Stealing isn't taking financial value from someone else, it's taking advantage of someone else's work without providing some form of recompense. When you pirate a film, you're saying to all the actors, director(s), all the people involved in making the film, all the people who backed it financially, and all the people who pushed it from idea to finished product that whilst you think they did a good enough job to warrant spending two hours of your time watching and enjoying it, you don't value the (often) years of their lives and the huge sums of money they put in to bring you that two hours of experience. If it was worth watching, then you should give something in return. Otherwise it's theft. Not financial theft, as as you noted, it's potential profit they've lost. But it's still theft nonetheless. That aside, I agree with the rest.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  That's nowhere near the consensus definition of "theft". It's no more legitimate than declaring you an arsonist, because you've deprived them of a mansion they could have had built. Information age scarcity through copyright as a tool to compensate creators brings a uniquely complex mix of benefits and drawbacks. Arguments about how and when to apply them best should stand on their own, rather than being disguised as millenia-old emotional baggage about survival.
gizmomagico 17y ago
There's no limit to the greed and selfishness of man, so to get most people to behave nicely towards others, you need to approach the idea through their selves. For example, you could tell them that if they're nice to others, after they die, they'll go to an awesome place that's just like whatever they really want the most, and that in this wonderful place they can partake in as much beer and 17-year-old virgins as they want. That could work! But it's still about everyone's personal gain. Yes, religion. I don't remember the details though, since it's been more than 20 years since my last brainwashing session at school. Around the age of 10, I gave it some thought and figured that it would be impossible to prove it either way, so I just wouldn't believe in God unless he showed himself to me. Some people are more capable of thinking about things from someone else's perspective than others, but even the compassion-impaired among us can reach the right conclusion through themselves. "Would I like it if someone stabbed me in my face? Hmm.. No. That would definitely be unpleasant, so maybe I shouldn't stab anyone..", or the less favorable option you referred to: "If I stab that guy in the face, the police will probably catch me and I'll get locked up. Being in jail restricts my ability to grab women's asses on a crowded subway train, which is my favourite hobby, so I'll just have to not stab him then". Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not? I hope so! But religion sure tells people what they can and can't or shouldn't do. For example that if a woman is adulterous, she should be stoned to death. Sure, that's a different, much more harmful set of fairytales, but it's a religion. You could say that religion is a system of enriching and empowering a group of people, letting them strut around in capes, acting all high and mighty, and making sure they get away with fucking little boys or girls (<-Islam). Of course, maintaining this system requires a vastly larger group of people that's kept mired in a lower level of consciousness, doubting, hating, and rejecting anything and everything that hasn't been deemed good and proper by the former group. Example: Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading. True, they'd have to update their fairytales once again, which would be difficult at this point. Remember how parts of the bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to support slavery anymore? Religion was used to the advantage of that small group of people, who just happened to like having slaves. I've only been to one city in South-Korea, but that one was full of little churches, and the general populace believed that as good little Christians (more than half of them), they should give around 10% of their salaries to their churches. Kind of shocking, actually. Some Christians learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change. They just dislike anyone who's different from them and they're insecure about their own sexuality. I believe in moral absolutes. But that's only assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined by the nature of God. What does that even mean? See, that's what happens with religion. You try to adapt your own reasoning to the fairytales, and the result is hand-wavy at best. What if there is no God? How "would" you view morals then?

petewailes 17y ago

Stealing isn't taking financial value from someone else, it's taking advantage of someone else's work without providing some form of recompense. When you pirate a film, you're saying to all the actors, director(s), all the people involved in making the film, all the people who backed it financially, and all the people who pushed it from idea to finished product that whilst you think they did a good enough job to warrant spending two hours of your time watching and enjoying it, you don't value the (often) years of their lives and the huge sums of money they put in to bring you that two hours of experience. If it was worth watching, then you should give something in return. Otherwise it's theft. Not financial theft, as as you noted, it's potential profit they've lost. But it's still theft nonetheless. That aside, I agree with the rest.

prodigal_erik 17y ago
That's nowhere near the consensus definition of "theft". It's no more legitimate than declaring you an arsonist, because you've deprived them of a mansion they could have had built. Information age scarcity through copyright as a tool to compensate creators brings a uniquely complex mix of benefits and drawbacks. Arguments about how and when to apply them best should stand on their own, rather than being disguised as millenia-old emotional baggage about survival.

gizmomagico 17y ago

There's no limit to the greed and selfishness of man, so to get most people to behave nicely towards others, you need to approach the idea through their selves. For example, you could tell them that if they're nice to others, after they die, they'll go to an awesome place that's just like whatever they really want the most, and that in this wonderful place they can partake in as much beer and 17-year-old virgins as they want. That could work! But it's still about everyone's personal gain. Yes, religion. I don't remember the details though, since it's been more than 20 years since my last brainwashing session at school. Around the age of 10, I gave it some thought and figured that it would be impossible to prove it either way, so I just wouldn't believe in God unless he showed himself to me. Some people are more capable of thinking about things from someone else's perspective than others, but even the compassion-impaired among us can reach the right conclusion through themselves. "Would I like it if someone stabbed me in my face? Hmm.. No. That would definitely be unpleasant, so maybe I shouldn't stab anyone..", or the less favorable option you referred to: "If I stab that guy in the face, the police will probably catch me and I'll get locked up. Being in jail restricts my ability to grab women's asses on a crowded subway train, which is my favourite hobby, so I'll just have to not stab him then". Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not? I hope so! But religion sure tells people what they can and can't or shouldn't do. For example that if a woman is adulterous, she should be stoned to death. Sure, that's a different, much more harmful set of fairytales, but it's a religion. You could say that religion is a system of enriching and empowering a group of people, letting them strut around in capes, acting all high and mighty, and making sure they get away with fucking little boys or girls (<-Islam). Of course, maintaining this system requires a vastly larger group of people that's kept mired in a lower level of consciousness, doubting, hating, and rejecting anything and everything that hasn't been deemed good and proper by the former group. Example: Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading. True, they'd have to update their fairytales once again, which would be difficult at this point. Remember how parts of the bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to support slavery anymore? Religion was used to the advantage of that small group of people, who just happened to like having slaves. I've only been to one city in South-Korea, but that one was full of little churches, and the general populace believed that as good little Christians (more than half of them), they should give around 10% of their salaries to their churches. Kind of shocking, actually. Some Christians learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change. They just dislike anyone who's different from them and they're insecure about their own sexuality. I believe in moral absolutes. But that's only assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined by the nature of God. What does that even mean? See, that's what happens with religion. You try to adapt your own reasoning to the fairytales, and the result is hand-wavy at best. What if there is no God? How "would" you view morals then?