Non-Agenda-Oriented Solutions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Orion and SteelyD: I’m not defending governments as if such an institution has a better chance of bringing about the change we need, but I’m not as naieve as orion to think big business has the inclination to do this instead.
[/quote]

Well, they want my money.

If they do not solve a problem for me they do not get it.

Government takes it and if does a shitty job it takes more.

So, who will be more inclined not to fuck things up?

[/quote]

They will take your money by forming cartels, price-agreements, pushing-out the little guy, monopolise, use false advertising, lobby politicians for taxcuts and fewer regulations and if something blows up… fuck you.

You still think in a polarised way orion; as if there are two sides to this story. For someone as intelligent as you appear to be, I find that odd.

84

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Orion and SteelyD: I’m not defending governments as if such an institution has a better chance of bringing about the change we need, but I’m not as naieve as orion to think big business has the inclination to do this instead.
[/quote]

Well, they want my money.

If they do not solve a problem for me they do not get it.

Government takes it and if does a shitty job it takes more.

So, who will be more inclined not to fuck things up?

[/quote]

They will take your money by forming cartels, price-agreements, pushing-out the little guy, monopolise, use false advertising, lobby politicians for taxcuts and fewer regulations and if something blows up… fuck you.
[/quote]

If government were not legitimizing these practices in the first place it could never happen.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Yeah, preach morality and set the example for others to follow…

[/quote]

Coming from an atheist this is downright laughable.
[/quote]

Why do I need to be superstitious in order to know morality?

I have reason. Reason tells me it is the right thing to do because I understand what is in a man’s nature.

What’s laughable is your arrogance.

86

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hogwash. I could make the point that civilizations have been created and even thrived precisely because of violence.
[/quote]

Only until those civilizations ran out of other people’s stuff to steal.

88

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why do I need to be superstitious in order to know morality?

I have reason. Reason tells me it is the right thing to do because I understand what is in a man’s nature.

What’s laughable is your arrogance.

[/quote]

I won’t derail this thread other than to interject that atheism, in its essence, allows only amorality.
[/quote]

Given that I have a solid ethical framework on which I base my morality how can I at the same time be considered amoral?

90

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

They will take your money by forming cartels, price-agreements, pushing-out the little guy, monopolise, use false advertising, lobby politicians for taxcuts and fewer regulations and if something blows up… fuck you.
[/quote]

If government were not legitimizing these practices in the first place it could never happen. [/quote]

How are governments legitimizing these practices?

91

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Given that I have a solid ethical framework on which I base my morality how can I at the same time be considered amoral?

[/quote]

No, you have a sheer, floating, subjective ethical framework.

  • Don’t drag this out, LIFTI. We aint a-gonna git anywhar with it and you know it.

[/quote]

I recall from the “highest crime in the Bible belt” thread seeing a list of inmates broken down by percentage of religion. The atheist percentage was nearly on the bottom. It was very much smaller the percentage of atheists in the population at large, whereas the percentage of Catholics and Christians in the Bible belt was actually lower than the percentage of incarcerated Catholics and Christians in that same area.

Therefore, it can only be concluded from the data that a religion does not contribute to humans acting in a way that is considered more moral by their society than atheists. In fact, the opposite seems to be indicated by this example.

What I’d hate to see is this conversation continue on with a bunch of “should’s and cant’s” without one shred of evidence to support the claim. That’s an agenda right there and it gets in the way of making a logical conclusion.

For this thread, if you’re going to make a claim that something works to improve society, you need to show how based on solid evidence, not rhetorical theory.

92

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
None.

People who come up with original solutions to age old problems are usually bat shit crazy.[/quote]

Thomas Edison was batshit crazy?

Is bat shit crazy the same thing as analytically creative with extra determination? If so, we need more bat shit crazy people.[/quote]

Well he was a coke head.[/quote]

You have to get your endurance from something.

93

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
None.

People who come up with original solutions to age old problems are usually bat shit crazy.[/quote]

Thomas Edison was batshit crazy?

Is bat shit crazy the same thing as analytically creative with extra determination? If so, we need more bat shit crazy people.[/quote]

First, Edison usually found solutions for problems nobody knew he had before Edison invented something to solve it.

Second, I was referring to things like drugs, poverty, prostitution, etc…
[/quote]

You’re right that drugs, poverty, and prostitution will never go away, although they might change over time to be less harmful (people living in poverty in the US are much better fed than they were a century ago, the drugs are worse, and the prostitution is getting better from the standpoint of the politically active prostitute. lol)

Edison solved the problem of not being able to see well at night, which I’m sure other people knew existed. Candles are crappy, in case you never noticed. This allowed people to work longer hours, among other things.

He also allowed people to talk through long distances, which, again, I’m sure people noticed was a problem.

He didn’t solve the never-ending issues. But he did think deeply and improve a few things that had a domino effect on life as we know it. That’s all I’m suggesting.

94

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Given that I have a solid ethical framework on which I base my morality how can I at the same time be considered amoral?

[/quote]

No, you have a sheer, floating, subjective ethical framework.

  • Don’t drag this out, LIFTI. We aint a-gonna git anywhar with it and you know it.

[/quote]
I meant “solid” in the fact that my ethical framework is definable. It is still subjective but my point stands.

Don’t hurt people. Mind my own business. Keep my word. Lead by example.

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am of like mind in my personal life but I harbor no allusions that atheism was the instrumental force in the development of my framework nor in the lives of others who happen to share it.

History, man. Youz gotz to know it. It’s integral, dude.[/quote]

You keep saying this but I think it is being misinterpreted by most people.

We weren’t there to witness it so we can only know it by logic (or take someone else’s word for it).

97

Okay, I have to post this for the lols. The real reasons why atheists aren’t all behind bars:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/588-atheists-in-jail

Here is another source I found regarding prison inmate numbers by someone who wanted to investigate the original super-low percentage of atheists claimed by another source:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

These numbers look much less nice for our argument. It shows non-religious being the fastest growing group in the population and making up 31.5%. That may be about equal to the number of non-religious people in the general population over there but I don’t have that statistic handy. The bulk of that growth is amongst young offenders which makes sense and the non-religious prisoners have the shortest average sentences.

Page 16 is interesting. It shows a breakdown of that 31.5% as .1% agnostic, .2% atheist and the remainder simply not religious. So it is possible that we who are declared atheists tend to be more morally aware than those who just don’t give a damn about whether or not gods exist.

Anyway, if we can’t find a reliable source for this claim, we’d better stop making it. I would love to be able to back the claim up but until we can, we risk being called hypocrites for using hearsay to support our case while chastising Christians for believing an entire philosophy based on hearsay. So can anyone find a decent source?

98

Some more sources regarding the statistics on religious VS non-religious or atheist inmates:

"Excellent question. I’d like to know whether it’s accurate or not as well. I’d first read the stat on a YouTube video meant to refute claims of amorality among atheists.

I haven’t had a chance to look at these yet, but here are the links he provided when I asked about his sources:

http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/cols2005/051113.htm

I think the low crime rates of more secular nations at least speak for the idea that religion isn’t a requirement for civilized behavior, and still others reveal it as a hinderance."

100

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ironcross, you’re missing the point. I mean you are running pell mell down the wrong hill.

The point is not that atheists don’t have moral frameworks but rather that their frameworks, take LIFTI’s for example, are not based on foundations that have arisen via atheist philosophy. They, the frameworks, are typically and almost always I would surmise, borrowed from the Judeo-Christian ethic especially in regards to Western civilization.

  • Crap, I did not want to get drawn into this as I have been over this so many times on other threads.[/quote]

Have we seen examples of atheists raised without the influence of Judeo-Christian or other religions (for the sake of your argument, let’s not leave out only those who were exposed to Buddhists)? What’s going on with those examples?

I’m asking with honest curiosity because I’ve never looked into the data on this one and I can see where you’re coming from. It’s possible that you’re right.