4 ms·

Even though I'm an atheist, the more I see this kind of shit, the more I see wisdom in traditional religious values. Thousand years ago they (the people that "

Even though I'm an atheist, the more I see this kind of shit, the more I see wisdom in traditional religious values. Thousand years ago they (the people that "created" religions) already knew that humanity left to it's own wouldn't grow in a positive way. I'm not far from opting out completely from this inhumane society.

setquk 8y ago
Random crazy rant there. Even as a militant atheist, this is nothing to do with religious values. It’s the ethic of reciprocity. But bastards are just bastards and that’s life. Holding people accountable for being a bastard and saying “no that’s not ok” is what we should be doing, not try substituting value systems trying to find a less cruel one.
- arethuza 8y ago
  Speaking of "bastards are just bastards" - ever heard of the sociopath|clueless|losers categorisation: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - setquk 8y ago
    I hadn't heard of that at all. Brilliant read. Thanks for posting this.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      The one problem with that categorisation is that once you learn it, it is is pretty much impossible to stop applying it...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > this is nothing to do with religious values. It’s the ethic of reciprocity. This is an odd thing to say. The ethic of reciprocity is a value. What do you think religious values are?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Religious values are values which already existed but proponents of religion decided to take credit for.
  - setquk 8y ago
    The ethic of reciprocity is a simple logical construct which defines a survival advantage for the adherents to it. Religious values are merely an abstraction over that which define a lot of specific super-rules, some based on faith and some on opinion but rarely on logic. Fundamentally the only reason there are "religious values" is so that the idea survives as well as the people. It's difficult separating the two concepts. To note I have no problem with people believing what they want but I think the universe is simpler than we like to make it out to be. That might be a little scarier than god though.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Animals understand reciprocity. These vales transcend human societies let alone religious.
dgzl 8y ago
Hey, we'll be alright friend.
lordnacho 8y ago
> Thousand years ago they (the people that "created" religions) already knew that humanity left to it's own wouldn't grow in a positive way. You could make a decent argument that religion itself has been problematic. This is a massive can of worms, but everyone's heard all the pieces: - Gets in the way of progress - Intolerant of alternative authorities - Tramples human rights And so on.
- CathyWest 8y ago
  What these arguments have in common is that they are great tools of discernment in solving specific questions, but completely useless at saying anything at all about the general case. > - Gets in the way of progress Which is a bad or good thing depending on whether you are progressing towards something good or bad, respectively. > - Intolerant of alternative authorities As is every other belief system, given some time including even the most tolerant form of liberalism, as per Popper's paradox. > - Tramples human rights This suffers from the same paradox. Say someone has had their right to life, freedom or property insulted. What other recourse is there but take the life, freedom or property of the perpetrator? You always have to make a trade-off between justice and human rights. Or perhaps one should instead talk about human licenses, since not everyone adhere to rights as a moral imperative that exists absolutely and independently of society.
mikekchar 8y ago
I literally think that some cults are formed for exactly this purpose. "If I could only get people to do what I want, then the world would be a better place!" How do you get people to do what you want? Convince them that there is a higher power that compels them to do that. It's that benevolent dictatorship kind of thing. If you have a very smart, very selfless and very altruistic leader, then everybody marching to the same drum is a good thing, right? Everyone knows that humans are fallible, so this is the incentive to have an infallible god that knows how to do everything correctly and who is willing to tell your leader what to do. Why have just one leader? Well, it's a matter of trust, of course. If anyone could speak directly to the infallible god, how would we know the tricksters from the true prophets? (I suppose we could ask the infallible god, but it's possible the god is too busy to respond to every request). Better to have only one true prophet, if possible. Even better if they are a god themselves (might as well cut out the middle man). But even being sarcastic, I think it's really true. It's hard to sway people's opinions because especially in this day and age there are so many opinions vying for your attention. If you are absolutely certain that you could do good in the world, if only people would listen and you were willing to do anything... I seriously think that there would be no more effective strategy than to start your own religion/cult. Of course, these things get corrupted. Maybe you even start out doing good, but then someone drugs you and stuffs you in your bedroom for years on end and uses you as a puppet figure head because the cult is a good money making opportunity. Maybe, some influential and charismatic person takes your flock away from you (splitters!). Maybe you're not as smart as you thought you were. Maybe after you die, your appointed leaders become more and more corrupt until the organisation you built is just a mockery of what it was supposed to be. So I think you can't really go that way in the long run. "Just do as I say and believe that it is right", can only lead to corruption because it focuses power too much and there is a limit to what one person can accomplish. Instead, I think you have to create a culture of good. A small post like this is too small to describe how to do it (and besides I have to get some sleep because I have to fight a dual tomorrow -- err just joking... it's really because I don't know how to do it). Anyway, I'm convinced it's about building a culture with a small network of people and growing that culture so that treating people well is a kind of common sense. Strangely, despite the challenges in today's world of instant communications, I think there is more opportunity to build that kind of global common sense than there ever was. YMMV.
selimthegrim 8y ago
I hope you’re not implying any permanent solutions to temporary problems.
throwaway2048 8y ago
Religion is as much a societal construct as any other value or system, such as exploitative corporate systems that heavily incentivize this kind of behavior.
hrktb 8y ago
That’s a bit of a rose tainted view I think. Just as any “wisdom” system there is superb and horrible things. Traditional religions were aimed at preserving a specific culture, things in line with that were nice, anything falling out of that would be shafted.
iicc 8y ago
Check out humanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism >Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Sounds very adorable, but I'll take secular misanthropy instead, thank you very much.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504592 and marked it off-topic.

setquk 8y ago

Random crazy rant there. Even as a militant atheist, this is nothing to do with religious values. It’s the ethic of reciprocity. But bastards are just bastards and that’s life. Holding people accountable for being a bastard and saying “no that’s not ok” is what we should be doing, not try substituting value systems trying to find a less cruel one.

arethuza 8y ago
Speaking of "bastards are just bastards" - ever heard of the sociopath|clueless|losers categorisation: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- setquk 8y ago
  I hadn't heard of that at all. Brilliant read. Thanks for posting this.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    The one problem with that categorisation is that once you learn it, it is is pretty much impossible to stop applying it...
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> this is nothing to do with religious values. It’s the ethic of reciprocity. This is an odd thing to say. The ethic of reciprocity is a value. What do you think religious values are?
- ionised 8y ago
  Religious values are values which already existed but proponents of religion decided to take credit for.
- setquk 8y ago
  The ethic of reciprocity is a simple logical construct which defines a survival advantage for the adherents to it. Religious values are merely an abstraction over that which define a lot of specific super-rules, some based on faith and some on opinion but rarely on logic. Fundamentally the only reason there are "religious values" is so that the idea survives as well as the people. It's difficult separating the two concepts. To note I have no problem with people believing what they want but I think the universe is simpler than we like to make it out to be. That might be a little scarier than god though.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Animals understand reciprocity. These vales transcend human societies let alone religious.

dgzl 8y ago

Hey, we'll be alright friend.

lordnacho 8y ago

> Thousand years ago they (the people that "created" religions) already knew that humanity left to it's own wouldn't grow in a positive way. You could make a decent argument that religion itself has been problematic. This is a massive can of worms, but everyone's heard all the pieces: - Gets in the way of progress - Intolerant of alternative authorities - Tramples human rights And so on.

CathyWest 8y ago
What these arguments have in common is that they are great tools of discernment in solving specific questions, but completely useless at saying anything at all about the general case. > - Gets in the way of progress Which is a bad or good thing depending on whether you are progressing towards something good or bad, respectively. > - Intolerant of alternative authorities As is every other belief system, given some time including even the most tolerant form of liberalism, as per Popper's paradox. > - Tramples human rights This suffers from the same paradox. Say someone has had their right to life, freedom or property insulted. What other recourse is there but take the life, freedom or property of the perpetrator? You always have to make a trade-off between justice and human rights. Or perhaps one should instead talk about human licenses, since not everyone adhere to rights as a moral imperative that exists absolutely and independently of society.

mikekchar 8y ago

I literally think that some cults are formed for exactly this purpose. "If I could only get people to do what I want, then the world would be a better place!" How do you get people to do what you want? Convince them that there is a higher power that compels them to do that. It's that benevolent dictatorship kind of thing. If you have a very smart, very selfless and very altruistic leader, then everybody marching to the same drum is a good thing, right? Everyone knows that humans are fallible, so this is the incentive to have an infallible god that knows how to do everything correctly and who is willing to tell your leader what to do. Why have just one leader? Well, it's a matter of trust, of course. If anyone could speak directly to the infallible god, how would we know the tricksters from the true prophets? (I suppose we could ask the infallible god, but it's possible the god is too busy to respond to every request). Better to have only one true prophet, if possible. Even better if they are a god themselves (might as well cut out the middle man). But even being sarcastic, I think it's really true. It's hard to sway people's opinions because especially in this day and age there are so many opinions vying for your attention. If you are absolutely certain that you could do good in the world, if only people would listen and you were willing to do anything... I seriously think that there would be no more effective strategy than to start your own religion/cult. Of course, these things get corrupted. Maybe you even start out doing good, but then someone drugs you and stuffs you in your bedroom for years on end and uses you as a puppet figure head because the cult is a good money making opportunity. Maybe, some influential and charismatic person takes your flock away from you (splitters!). Maybe you're not as smart as you thought you were. Maybe after you die, your appointed leaders become more and more corrupt until the organisation you built is just a mockery of what it was supposed to be. So I think you can't really go that way in the long run. "Just do as I say and believe that it is right", can only lead to corruption because it focuses power too much and there is a limit to what one person can accomplish. Instead, I think you have to create a culture of good. A small post like this is too small to describe how to do it (and besides I have to get some sleep because I have to fight a dual tomorrow -- err just joking... it's really because I don't know how to do it). Anyway, I'm convinced it's about building a culture with a small network of people and growing that culture so that treating people well is a kind of common sense. Strangely, despite the challenges in today's world of instant communications, I think there is more opportunity to build that kind of global common sense than there ever was. YMMV.

selimthegrim 8y ago

I hope you’re not implying any permanent solutions to temporary problems.

throwaway2048 8y ago

Religion is as much a societal construct as any other value or system, such as exploitative corporate systems that heavily incentivize this kind of behavior.

hrktb 8y ago

That’s a bit of a rose tainted view I think. Just as any “wisdom” system there is superb and horrible things. Traditional religions were aimed at preserving a specific culture, things in line with that were nice, anything falling out of that would be shafted.

iicc 8y ago

Check out humanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism >Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature.

mmirate 8y ago
Sounds very adorable, but I'll take secular misanthropy instead, thank you very much.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504592 and marked it off-topic.