|
Oh dear me posted:The number three is 'literally immaterial', but I'm not going to chuck arithmetic out of the window. And while I would concur that a conscious commitment towards material good is a good basis for ensuring materially good actions, the context of the initial question was whether or not someone who does materially good things is a good person or not, based on their method of arriving at those actions. Which, again, is a profoundly silly way of looking at it from a materialist point of view.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:02 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 06:38 |
|
OwlFancier posted:And while I would concur that a conscious commitment towards material good is a good basis for ensuring materially good actions, the context of the initial question was whether or not someone who does materially good things is a good person or not, based on their method of arriving at those actions. The obvious issue is that if the positive intent of the person doing good things is based entirely on an intellectual construct and not inherent empathy, that necessarily implies that if that construct were to change or be dismantled, the person would be capable of monstrous acts. If a homicidal sociopath has created an intellectual strategy for dealing with their condition, it's entirely fair to remain extremely wary around them. They may become a "good person", until their strategy lapses or changes and all hell breaks loose. They are not inherently good. They are evil, wallpapered over. quote:Which, again, is a profoundly silly way of looking at it from a materialist point of view. Literally nobody is arguing from a materialist point of view, and you're not using this term correctly in any case. Stop arguing against outdated, irrelevant constructs.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:16 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:The obvious issue is that if the positive intent of the person doing good things is based entirely on an intellectual construct and not inherent empathy, that necessarily implies that if that construct were to change or be dismantled, the person would be capable of monstrous acts. If a homicidal sociopath has created an intellectual strategy for dealing with their condition, it's entirely fair to remain extremely wary around them. They may become a "good person", until their strategy lapses or changes and all hell breaks loose. They are not inherently good. They are evil, wallpapered over. That's completely absurd, if I took your mind apart and replaced your values with other values then you would also become destructive... Unless you believe in some sort of good or evil soul that's assigned to you at birth then people are as they affect the world.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:21 |
|
Oh dear me posted:The number three is 'literally immaterial', but I'm not going to chuck arithmetic out of the window. Wait so if they did it because they beleive that its a good thing in their service to higher power its bad because they must fear.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:22 |
|
France, America and Turkey. All governments run explicitly on a philosophy of logical positivism. Good to know. I learned something new today.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:22 |
|
OwlFancier posted:the context of the initial question was whether or not someone who does materially good things is a good person or not, based on their method of arriving at those actions. Yes, and since 'good' when applied to people means virtuous, having a virtue, such as benevolence or generosity or courage, the intent matters. This is completely consistent with materialism, unless you want to claim that their intentions arise from something other than their brains. It would be different if we were talking about 'beneficial'. Good people can sometimes have terrible effects.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:32 |
|
Oh dear me posted:Yes, and since 'good' when applied to people means virtuous, having a virtue, such as benevolence or generosity or courage, the intent matters. This is completely consistent with materialism, unless you want to claim that their intentions arise from something other than their brains. It really doesn't mean that unless you subscribe to virtue ethics.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:34 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:It's literally the opposite of what you just said. If god parted the clouds and farted, his existence would become a secular belief because we could use the scientific method to confirm his existence. What would convince a Christian that Muhammad is the messenger of God without them converting to Islam or logical reasoning and observation (because that would be the secular method of proving or disproving that Muhammad is the messenger of God)? Magic, the answer is magic. There are plenty of Christians who become convinced that Muhammad is the messenger of God, they are called converts. They don't convert to Islam and then become convinced. No one converts to Islam unless they believe that is is true, or at least, that's how it works in theory, ruling out bad faith converts.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:46 |
|
This is dumb. Anyone who thinks actions are good is going to want more good actions and less other actions. People directly valuing good actions over other actions is a clearly more scalable mechanism over people valuing good actions only because they fear an outcome worse than performing the effort to do good actions. So people valuing good actions and spreading the value of valuing good actions is itself good. And that's without getting into whether having a bunch of people living under irrational fears is itself good regardless of whether it spurs them to perform good actions.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:48 |
|
Shbobdb posted:France, America and Turkey. All governments run explicitly on a philosophy of logical positivism. Turkey not so much since Erdogan is slowly consolidating power and introducing elements of theocracy.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:49 |
|
OwlFancier posted:That's completely absurd, if I took your mind apart and replaced your values with other values then you would also become destructive... Unless you believe in some sort of good or evil soul that's assigned to you at birth then people are as they affect the world. Which part of this is confusing for you? Empathy as an inherent, evolved human trait, or the concept of sociopathy as an aberrant condition?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:52 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Which part of this is confusing for you? Empathy as an inherent, evolved human trait, or the concept of sociopathy as an aberrant condition? What?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:55 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It really doesn't mean that unless you subscribe to virtue ethics. Yes it does. Here is just one example of someone equating altruism with being good, for example.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:58 |
|
twodot posted:This is dumb. Anyone who thinks actions are good is going to want more good actions and less other actions. People directly valuing good actions over other actions is a clearly more scalable mechanism over people valuing good actions only because they fear an outcome worse than performing the effort to do good actions. So people valuing good actions and spreading the value of valuing good actions is itself good. And that's without getting into whether having a bunch of people living under irrational fears is itself good regardless of whether it spurs them to perform good actions. Yes so you should insult those people who do so out of what you believe is evil.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:02 |
|
Oh dear me posted:Yes it does. Here is just one example of someone equating altruism with being good, for example. I would be reluctant to classify that ream of intellectually vacuous, touchy feely drivel as virtue ethics I suppose. But equally I don't think it is sufficiently coherent to function as a counter to my position.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:03 |
|
twodot posted:This is dumb. Anyone who thinks actions are good is going to want more good actions and less other actions. People directly valuing good actions over other actions is a clearly more scalable mechanism over people valuing good actions only because they fear an outcome worse than performing the effort to do good actions. So people valuing good actions and spreading the value of valuing good actions is itself good. And that's without getting into whether having a bunch of people living under irrational fears is itself good regardless of whether it spurs them to perform good actions. Okay, but empirically religious people donate more of their time and money to charity than non-religious people, so religious belief in fact leads to more good actions.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:21 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:Okay, but empirically religious people donate more of their time and money to charity than non-religious people, so religious belief in fact leads to more good actions.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:26 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Turkey not so much since Erdogan is slowly consolidating power and introducing elements of theocracy. Uhhh, I mean, it's true that Edogan is upping the religious element in Turkey, but as a reply to my statement you're pretty wrong.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:28 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:Okay, but empirically religious people donate more of their time and money to charity than non-religious people, so religious belief in fact leads to more good actions. Empirically, religious people donate more of their time and money to churches, which are less efficient than secular charities and often use those resources to campaign against human rights.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:31 |
|
Shbobdb posted:Uhhh, I mean, it's true that Edogan is upping the religious element in Turkey, but as a reply to my statement you're pretty wrong. I sincerely doubt a state actively jailing large amounts of their opposing parties members in a quest to consolidate a growing dictatorship are still practicing logical positivism.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:33 |
I'm a communist, and maybe leaning toward what someone might call an "ultra" because I'm all about Marx and historical materialism, and especially materialist analysis and critique of so-called existing communist movements/states. That said I personally don't understand how someone can have metaphysical faith and call themselves Marxist, it seems like a silly contradiction. I'm fine with Catholic/Christian socialists, distributive leftists who have faith, etc. just don't be all tradical about it and try to be prescriptive about non-negotiable subjects (LGBTQ rights, abortion, etc) and we can be comrades, and this is generally the sentiment I find amongst peers as well, and I have peers of faith. Out-loud atheism and being hostile to religion is mostly a reactionary position and even conservative at times. Loving Life Partner fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 20:56 |
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Out-loud atheism and being hostile to religion is mostly a reactionary position and even conservative at times. Thank you for summarizing in one easy sentence why we'll never have a livable or just society.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:00 |
|
zh1 posted:Thank you for summarizing in one easy sentence why we'll never have a livable or just society. What? He's right, there is in fact a very large conservative and reactionary subset of atheists out there.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:04 |
Religion and religious extremism is a product of the people's material conditions, their material conditions are a product of the capitalist society in which they live (or in the case of the ME, American/capitalist imperialism is a huge factor). Want to diminish the necessity for faith based tribalism and prescriptive/arbitrary rules on people's lives? Liberate the proletariat and see to their material needs, i.e. kill all the bourgeoisie Focus on the disease, not the symptom
|
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:09 |
|
A very noisy subset at least, if not large.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:09 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Empirically, religious people donate more of their time and money to churches, which are less efficient than secular charities and often use those resources to campaign against human rights. In the united states, people who also donate to religious charities also donate an average of $1,001 dollars to secular charities. People who only donate to secular charities donate an average of $651. Source This of course ignores all the good that individual churches do with regards to soup kitchens, addiction services, English language classes etc. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 7, 2017 |
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:13 |
|
OwlFancier posted:A very noisy subset at least, if not large. Some of the bloggers and youtubers have thousands of followers. They aren't a majority, but they aren't insignificant either.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:46 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:In the united states, people who also donate to religious charities also donate an average of $1,001 dollars to secular charities. People who only donate to secular charities donate an average of $651. Unfortunately, a close look at that study bends what "charitable donations" are that gives an edge to religious based donations. Here's a breakdown of why those numbers are misleading. Churches running soup kitchens is definitely a good thing, but donating to them to feed the hungry is a very inefficient use of their money. Churches are notoriously bad with their money. They pay no taxes and have no oversight. That soup kitchen is a generally planned monthly/weekly, and if there is extra money donated to run the soup kitchen most churches don't improve or expand soup kitchen service. Instead the pastor gets a car upgrade, the church gets some fancy drapes, or some shiny new bibles get printed to preach to the poor and vulnerable kids in developing nations. Churches run 12 step programs because they will bring in zealous converts to their congregations. They say "The 'higher power' doesn't have to be God, but we all know its Yahweh and god helped us stay off drugs." It's a hell of a lot of influence on faith when people are at the bottom of the barrel and desperate. The same conversion pressure and indoctrination comes when many churches teach English to the little African kids too. Alternatively you could just donate to Action Against Hunger, the Amy Winehouse Foundation, or any other secular charities that will do more to combat these issues than the church will. But thinking about how the median pastor income is nearly $100,000 and that 47% of church donations go to just salaries, and another 22% goes to the church property, 5% goes to conversion missions, and only 10% of the budget goes to actual programs makes churches much more of a community organization business than an actual charity. (source) But nope giving to a church is equally charitable to giving to Habitat for Humanity.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 21:52 |
|
You misunderstand. The numbers I quoted were of religious donations to secular charities. They are not counting church donations.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 22:56 |
|
Ultimately, religion is just another social institution which typically serves as a community gathering place and often becomes a vehicle for community traditions. Many leftists don't realize that, and therefore blame the community traditions they don't like on religion without realizing the role it plays in the overall cultural framework. Many of the more naive leftists look at people citing religion in favor of conservative beliefs and assume that the conservative beliefs were inspired by the religious reasoning, even though the truth is that it's the other way around - religion changes to fit the beliefs and principles of the society that holds it.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 23:25 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:You misunderstand. The numbers I quoted were of religious donations to secular charities. They are not counting church donations. Except that the paper itself contradicts that claim in the next paragraph. The religious people give more to secular causes number was a result from an article from a charity networking group, Independent Sector, while actual researchers at the University of San Fransisco found that there wasn't a difference in secular charity giving. I will say though that higher attendance to church is highly correlated with doing more volunteer work, so that is a good thing.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2017 23:27 |
|
RasperFat posted:Except that the paper itself contradicts that claim in the next paragraph. The religious people give more to secular causes number was a result from an article from a charity networking group, Independent Sector, while actual researchers at the University of San Fransisco found that there wasn't a difference in secular charity giving. They only found that to be true for Californians, and most importantly, they didn't find that there was no difference, they found that when you controlled for other variables the difference disappears. Which is consistent with the argument of the paper overall that what matters is less the ideology of the particular organization and more the level of social integration and opportunities for charity available. Which neatly explains why this relationship might exist nationally but not specifically in California- there are large parts of the country where religious organizations are the primary means through which exposure to charitable organizations occur, including secular ones, but this is not as true for the most highly urbanized parts of the country.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:11 |
|
CommieGIR posted:I sincerely doubt a state actively jailing large amounts of their opposing parties members in a quest to consolidate a growing dictatorship are still practicing logical positivism. I think a logistical positivist could go either way, honestly. But have you stopped beating your wife?
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:15 |
|
I always like the whole "religion is literally magic" line of attack because of how transparently rigged it is. After all, what is "magic", in this context? The inclusion of a supernatural phenomenon? Then science is a religion right now and has been off and on one for as long as it has existed. The veneration of a supernatural phenomenon? That leads into the question of what "veneration" is, and you'd have to create quite the twisted definition to include all religions in it. But perhaps magic, since transubstantiation is magic but not other parts of Catholicism, apparently, simply refers to attributing symbolic natures to objects, in which case magic is everywhere. In the end, "magic" in this context is simply "religious claims we find unlikely" and thus it is tautological.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:21 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:They only found that to be true for Californians, and most importantly, they didn't find that there was no difference, they found that when you controlled for other variables the difference disappears. Which is consistent with the argument of the paper overall that what matters is less the ideology of the particular organization and more the level of social integration and opportunities for charity available. Which neatly explains why this relationship might exist nationally but not specifically in California- there are large parts of the country where religious organizations are the primary means through which exposure to charitable organizations occur, including secular ones, but this is not as true for the most highly urbanized parts of the country. I completely agree. In smaller towns especially, the main church is a focal point for gathering and events that are not religious in nature. They are networking centers for businesses as well. I was just arguing against the narrative that being religious means you are more charitable, that's a disputed claim at best. Brainiac Five posted:I always like the whole "religion is literally magic" line of attack because of how transparently rigged it is. After all, what is "magic", in this context? The inclusion of a supernatural phenomenon? Then science is a religion right now and has been off and on one for as long as it has existed. The veneration of a supernatural phenomenon? That leads into the question of what "veneration" is, and you'd have to create quite the twisted definition to include all religions in it. But perhaps magic, since transubstantiation is magic but not other parts of Catholicism, apparently, simply refers to attributing symbolic natures to objects, in which case magic is everywhere. Now this here is a load of poo poo. Empirical science studies phenomenon, which is not the same thing as supernatural phenomenon. We call it "magic" because outside the context of your own religion, it is magic with no explanation. Converting wine into blood and bread into body is transubstantiation and the mechanism is by god power. Jesus walking on water and doing spontaneous healing and raising the dead is all done by mechanism of god power. Reincarnation is done by magic. Gaia provides life force by mechanism of god power. It's "rigged" because mysticism has no basis in reality and is magical thinking. Saying something is a metaphor for the human experience or symbolism for nature is a cop out. There has to be some level of truth to the spiritual claims that the believer accepts, even if it is just "God exists and I'll meet him when I die. Most the stuff is just symbolic and lesson teaching." Even this level posits, with no evidence, that people have an immortal soul that can leave the body after death and retain the feelings/memories/consequences of their life, and that a singular powerful entity had a direct link to that soul. This is again, all done by mechanics of god power. The problem isn't that "magic" is rigged against religion, it's that literally all spiritual claims are magic. RasperFat fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 8, 2017 |
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:27 |
|
The left isn't hostile to religion, but it is wary of it like a person with a mental illness who carries a gun.Brainiac Five posted:I always like the whole "religion is literally magic" line of attack because of how transparently rigged it is. After all, what is "magic", in this context? The inclusion of a supernatural phenomenon? Then science is a religion right now and has been off and on one for as long as it has existed. The veneration of a supernatural phenomenon? That leads into the question of what "veneration" is, and you'd have to create quite the twisted definition to include all religions in it. But perhaps magic, since transubstantiation is magic but not other parts of Catholicism, apparently, simply refers to attributing symbolic natures to objects, in which case magic is everywhere. The definition of supernatural is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" so it is by definition impossible for science to include supernatural phenomenon because if it was included within science theories it would no longer be supernatural. If you're trying to make reference to either the scientific consensus or individual scientists believing incorrect stuff in the past, that is very different from a belief system founded on the acceptance of of claims incompatible with observable reality. "Oh but aren't religion and science really the same when you think about it" doesn't really work when you take two seconds to think about it and realise "No, they really aren't".
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:31 |
|
team overhead smash posted:The left isn't hostile to religion, but it is wary of it like a person with a mental illness who carries a gun. Right, it's a rigged proposition. If there was proof for religion, it would thus no longer be religion and so religion is that which is inherently unbelievable for many atheists. That is, if they were to encounter an asura, many atheists would assume that Buddhism and Hinduism are thus no longer religions, but instead branches of science. But the point is actually that there are concepts like quantum gravity which are outside of scientific understanding and operate by laws that are not understood, which would be "supernatural" in the first definition I offered and the one you offered. Clearly, this is not a good definition. I do enjoy you immediately leaping to an uncharitable slander, though, really sets the tone of the conversation, lol.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 00:39 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Right, it's a rigged proposition. If there was proof for religion, it would thus no longer be religion and so religion is that which is inherently unbelievable for many atheists. That is, if they were to encounter an asura, many atheists would assume that Buddhism and Hinduism are thus no longer religions, but instead branches of science. It's not a rigged definition so much as it is the basic definitions of the concepts we are talking about. Here you concede that religion inherently contains magical handwavy bullshit and cannot contain proof - yet in your previous post you are defensive over the suggestion that people might actually point this out. Make your mind up which side you are arguing. Also the quantum gravity thing is a torturous straining try try and draw an equivalency on your part and it doesn't work. Gravity is observably and testable part reality that we know obeys the laws of nature, much of which are understood to the point where we can model a whole host of scenarios and have our models be completely right, even if we don't currently understand every single aspect of it when it gets to the observable level. Hence not supernatural. All quantum gravity works on is trying to work how gravity, a very obviously and easily provably real phenomenon, works at a very very in depth level. The only valid comparisons would be stuff where we don't know it exists, don't have proof to think it does exist but people believe it does anyway. So basically the only level your comparison works at is with conspiracy theories.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 01:06 |
|
I was raised catholic, but I also had a decent public education and as I got older, and continued learning, there was no room for religion. The concept of believing in a god became a foolish self-delusion to me. And for a long time now I've been an atheist, but I don't seek out atheist belief systems. I'm of the opinion that there is no great order, no superior way to live and be a human being. However, I have no anger for any religion. I don't look down on religious folks or scorn them. Deep down, religions can foster hate and fear, but also kindness and compassion. Someone preaching tolerance and and compassion in the name of God isn't going to catch any flack from me. I don't consider the zealots, extremists, and narrativists that claim to fight for god to be representing Catholicism or Christianity. The same thing goes for extremists that exist in all religions. But I don't feel weird or out of place saying 'Grace' at the table. It's more of a customary thing than a religious thing from my perspective. I guess it's never felt out of place to me.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 04:27 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 06:38 |
|
team overhead smash posted:It's not a rigged definition so much as it is the basic definitions of the concepts we are talking about. Here you concede that religion inherently contains magical handwavy bullshit and cannot contain proof - yet in your previous post you are defensive over the suggestion that people might actually point this out. Make your mind up which side you are arguing. Ah, so now we're defining religion as the unprovable. So now a significant fraction of political science and philosophy is now religion. Your definitions are not very good at defining things in such a way as to quarantine religion safely into a place where it can be destroyed at your whim and religious people continue to exist on sufferance. And your defense of the proposition that your previous definition was a good and rigorous one is that religion doesn't offer any explanations for the observable world. Which is contemptibly false. Like, I assume most of the people insisting religion is evil are clash-of-civilizations motherfuckers like TheImmigrant or suffering evangelical-induced trauma like zh1, but you seem to have never actually encountered religion even on the level of movies with devout characters. loving Blues Brothers represents a greater, infinitely subtler grasp of religion and theology than you have, and you propose that your opinions on the subject are worth anything.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2017 04:32 |