351. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111820 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:36 pm

The only way for Randism to be perfectly consistent within itself is a world of letting the poor die in the streets, and having your kids have to be Batman to earn their inheritance.

Oh wait is this in reference to Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"? I was confused because I thought "Randism" referred to The Amazing James Randi...which made sense to me somehow in the context of this thread because he and Shermer are colleagues/friends. My mistake. heh.

Side Note: Batman was born of extreme financial privilege.

352. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111815 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:23 pm

These "insights" are not new, I'm not trying to tear down Shermer...he seems like a nice enough guy I suppose. However, this is the third or forth thread about his homo economicus theories.

I think there are a lot of threads and articles here recently mainly because he has a new book out. No offense to Shermer, he is a cool guy, but he regularly returns the favor for Dawkins and the rest of the "Anti-God-Squad" in Skeptic Magazine. heheh.

I'm not trying to say there is any sort of conspiracy going on, I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of (understandable) cross-pollination of ideas and marketing in the rationalist/atheist cause ;)

353. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111812 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Yep, the old inheritance paradox.
I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

I'm not sure I understand this (or anything presented so far in this thread) as an either/or situation. What are we bickering about exactly?

354. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111810 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm

My personal assumption on the hypothetical posed by Shermer here is that it's not 'EVERYONE earns 25k and you earn 50k etc.' it could just mean 'AT the job you're working at now, you earn this much and that much. blah blah'

Screw that. I don't care where I am working or who is making what, I'd go for Shermer's alternative hypothetical scenario where I was making 100K and everyone else was making 250K. Granted, 100K is not a fortune, but it's not chump change.

BUT, I also would use my 100K to figure out how to make 500K ;)

355. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111807 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Hey welcome back Diacanu! :)

(I didn't even know you were away)

356. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111799 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

That's always a nice stalling tactic to do nothing and perpetuate the injustice and suffering.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking an honest question in order to have a polite and rational conversation. I see that is not the case.

You also may note, if you read my previous posts, that I wasn't (entirely) disagreeing with you. I also agree with some of the things you raised in your previous post. My only question was as to the methods to achieve those goals. But nevermind that.

*Goes back to oppressing the poor and taking advantage of various third-world countries*

357. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111794 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Rtambree
I'm not sure that I have a problem with the fundamental concept of the redistribution of wealth. I think the problem I have is with what amount of wealth redistribution is fair, and who decides what that amount is. Historically, at least in the US, it seems that it is often the case that most of the people who are most adamant about the need for others to submit to wealth redistribution are themselves quite well-off, or are immune to it.

In my experience, it always seems that the middle class are the ones who get to eat the brunt of this kind of economic theory. The middle class are not rich enough to be insulated from the punitive effects of wealth redistribution, and they are not poor enough to benefit from the benevolent effects of wealth redistribution. They just get stuck with the high tax bill.

The problem with wealth redistribution in modern societies in general is that it does not often seem to fairly address what "wealth" is (since the concept of wealth is entirely relative to each society). It also doesn't seem to ever take into account the positive influences the "greedy rich people/companies" have on those societies, such as creating new jobs and industries which in turn often lead to more opportunities for wealth-creation among the general populace (especially the middle class).

358. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111788 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm

BTW - Huckabee just announced he's going to win South Carolina - I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!

EDIT: Here's a nice and frightening article I read today in regard to Hickabee. It would be funny if he wasn't doing so well in the primaries.

From the article:
Asked by reporters later if he thinks only Christians will go to heaven, Huckabee refused to say. He often says that as a minister, he joked that he doesn't even believe all Baptists are going to heaven.

Well at least he's right on that! Hahahah.

359. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111783 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I think justice is an overarching, and foundational but also non-empirical reality

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but where is the overarching justice in a star going supernova in some corner of a galaxy and obliterating dozens of other stars and planets around it (some of which may or may not have advanced lifeforms on them who are equally as concerned about their concept of "justice" as you are)?

Where is the overarching justice in a black hole getting a little too close to our solar system and disrupting the gravitational pull that our sun has on Earth just enough so that it eventually pulls us into an orbit that destroys our climate...or ejects us from the solar system entirely and turns Earth into dead ice cube?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, and I'm not saying I disagree with the concept of justice, but I think all concepts of "justice" are both human inventions, and only relative and meaningful to the situations those humans are applying it to. Saying there is an "overarching justice" built into the fabric of the universe is like saying there is an "overarching sense of humor" built into the fabric of the universe.

360. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #111770 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 5:47 pm

On the other hand if your hypothesis is wrong God is probably a huge fan of reality TV shows.

Yes. Very, very, very, very small reality tv shows. hahah.

361. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #111760 by Don_Quix on January 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm

@FitzRoy
That's an excellent way of putting it. It would be as if the world's largest stage were built solely for the purpose of observing the day-to-day lives of a microscopic colony of bacterium in a tiny drop of condensation on the floor somewhere near the back of stage-left. And even that analogy does not come close to accurately describing the differences of scale, nor the entirely lethal conditions outside of our "drop of condensation", that we actually find ourselves facing. Such an undertaking would be utterly illogical, a tremendous waste of time and effort, and not give a "designer" any real insight into what was actually happening ;)

362. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #111505 by Don_Quix on January 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm

RE: Comment #110693 by Steve Zara

I understand and agree with you that the universe as a whole may appear to be fine-tuned for the existence of complex lifeforms (we are here after all, aren't we?). I also understand that the anthropic principle (or argument, rather) has everything to do with the actual physical constants of the universe being the way they are, and little or nothing to do with the conditions of the universe in respect to the ability of lifeforms on Earth to naturally survive in those conditions.

However, my point was that I think it is worth stressing the idea that if we are "designed" as theists claim, then the "designer" did a piss-poor job of preparing us AND the rest of the universe for our arrival. I believe this is a particularly valid point because almost all life we know of is only capable of existing naturally in an incalculably small portion of the universe...that is, here on Earth (and not even in all places on Earth!).

For the record, I don't disagree with what I believe I have seen you post previously...that being that it is a valid scientific question to ask why the universe is the way it is, and why its "constants" are the way they are. I find this to be a very important and interesting question as well. I intended my post to more loosely address some of the biological and practical aspects of that type of argument, rather than the purely fundamental physics aspects of it.

I personally find the "argument from an inhospitable environment" to be a pretty damning case against a designer in light of the fact that human beings are supposedly the most important and special things that exist in the universe ;)

363. The Mind of the Market

Comment #110673 by Don_Quix on January 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I don't mean to be callous, but anyone who is a citizen of the United States who is starving to death either is too stupid to help themselves, or the people in charge of their welfare are negligent and should be criminally prosecuted.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone in the US should suffer or die from hunger. The federal government provides vouchers called Food Stamps to anyone below a specific income level which can be exchanged at almost any grocery store in the country for food. This is in addition to any food programs that individual states may also have (and if I am not mistaken, all of them do). Anyone who is unwilling to go through the simple process of applying for state or federal food aid can always go to the nearest soup kitchen or homeless shelter and get 3 meals a day, every day (there are dozens of such places in almost every city).

True hunger and poverty in underdeveloped countries is a lot different than the kind of poverty that exists in the United States, of course. But that kind of true poverty has a lot less to do with Western market capitalism and a lot more to do with the actions of specific greedy tin-pot despots, warlords, and (surprise!) religious zealots.

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

That being said, while I agree that market capitalism may not be a "perfect" economic system, it is by far the most equitable and successful system that humans have yet devised to ensure an equal chance of prosperity for all parties involved. Coincidently, no one who rants against capitalism ever seems to be able to provide a better alternative. All they can say is "Capitalism BAD Capitalism BAD!!!!111".

OK, let's assume capitalism is fundamentally bad (which it isn't). What are some more equitable economic alternatives? Socialism? The barter system? Blood sacrifice? Wife swapping? Seriously.

364. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110669 by Don_Quix on January 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm

what the heck is the rest of the universe FOR if it was created for the purpose of housing us humans

The stars are God's daisy chain, silly.

That is funny, but I think a lot of theists literally believe something along these lines and never even consider how incomprehensibly huge, inconceivably violent, and instantaneously lethal the universe actually is to almost all forms of Earth-based life .

Even if every star we could see in the night sky harbored at least one Earth-like planet that humans could survive on (which, so far, modern cosmology shows is certainly not the case), that still leaves 99.99999999999999999999999% of the rest of the universe where a human being (or just about any other modern Earth creature) would die a horrific and, thankfully, nearly-instant death.

The universe as a whole is truly about as far as it can get from being "fine-tuned" for any kind of complex life as we know it on Earth.

365. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #110568 by Don_Quix on January 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Please, present it.

It says so right in the bible. Case closed.

;)

366. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110555 by Don_Quix on January 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm

A third argument against the 'fine-tuning' of physical laws by God, aka the anthropomorphic argument, is that no matter how unlikely you estimate these conditions to be, all you have to do is allow enough time (or enough space) for diverse universes to occur naturally, and it becomes inevitable that this particular combination will come up sooner or later.

And a fourth argument could be that, since no one really knows what the Universe actually is, who is to say that it is even physically possible for the seemingly "fine-tuned" constants to have values different from what they are. It could be that the Universe is the way it is because it is impossible for it to be any other way, for reasons that we are as yet unable to objectively discern.

367. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109789 by Don_Quix on January 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Good luck getting this silly law abolished. I'm actually kind of surprised that such a thing still exists in the UK. It almost seems like everyone just kind of forgot about it until recently.

I don't think any kind of "blasphemy" law like this could ever pass legal muster in the US for the same reason that British-style libel laws would never fly in the US...the first amendment.

Of course, with the amount of power that has been grabbed by the federal government in the past 60+ years, there's always a chance some crazy president *coughuckabeecough* could declare a "national emergency" and try to impose his vision of a theocratic utopia. But I also suspect that this may be exactly why the amendment regarding the right to bear arms was placed immediately after the one about the freedom of speech in our constitutional bill of rights ;)

368. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108898 by Don_Quix on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Obama's campaign is looking up, but I'm not sure if it's because of him or because everyone is just tired of the Clintons and the status-quo ;)

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't know much about Obama, but if it came down to a choice between him and Huckabee (which I doubt will happen) I know exactly who I'd vote for:

RICHARD DAWKINS!

Just kidding... (but only because he can't legally be our president) ;)

America is at somewhat of a crossroads right now because this is the first time since the early 20th century when an incumbent president or vice-president was not campaigning for the next presidency. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

369. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #108897 by Don_Quix on January 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I find this article interesting, and I'm somewhat surprised by some of the reactions here. I don't really think it's a "waste of time" to conduct such experiments. At the very least it helps to contribute to the effort of discrediting pseudoscientific ideas like ESP for the unwashed masses. That seems like a worthy endeavor to me ;)

And there is always the extremely unlikely possibility that through such experiments they may stumble across and be able to scientifically explain some new and as-yet unknown natural phenomena that people perceive or describe as ESP (again very unlikely, but possible).

Also, it IS very, very simple to prove a negative:

2 + 2 IS NOT EQUAL TO 5.

There, I proved it. Eat that D'Souza!

370. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107645 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm

As I said, it was just an analogy (and I thought it was a mildly amusing one). I don't think it has to be taken beyond that. But debating people about why their particular sports team is not greater than all other sports teams does strike me as similar to the GOD vs Other God(s), and God(s) vs No God(s) discussion. I think a lot of the same emotions and prejudices are present in most of those conversations, depending on how much of a "believer" you are. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT: You were a cheerleader in HS? That is HOT! Pix plz. ;)

371. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107641 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I just think that taking a rationalist approach towards team sports under the guise of atheism is carrying it on a bit too far. =) I'm not a huge sports fan, but I could see why some people might think that this is just plain ridiculous. =)

You've obviously never been to an NCAA Championship, the World Cup, the World Series, the Super Bowl, or especially any Chicago Cubs or Manchester United game. This is not even to mention high school football in the rural USA ;)

372. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107635 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Maybe it's just me, but rooting for a team at a game or whatever...that's just fun. Trying to break it down into what makes sense or doesn't makes sense on a rational basis is just plain stupid, in my opinion

I dunno. I thought the analogy that Teratornis presented was pretty good. It made sense to me. And I'm not even a Red Sox fan ;)

373. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107633 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Read the book of the Dalai Lama 'The Art of Happiness' it's not about Buddhist doctrine but about really positive thinking

As I mentioned a little bit earlier, I think even the Dalai Lama would technically be considered an "atheist" by most of the adherents of the Abrahamic religions (especially the Westernized versions).

I'm not saying that the Dalai Lama doesn't believe in some kind of magical supernatural force that exists beyond him and affects his life and all other lives directly (Karma/Dharma, etc), but he certainly doesn't believe in a singular "God" in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic sense.

Buddhism, although it is in no sense harmless, is demonstrably less harmful than most of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions, IMHO.

374. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107626 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Thanks Rtambree. I will do that. :) I just recently read The Varieties of Scientific Experience, which was based on Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford Lectures (edited by Ann Druyan and published posthumously). Although somewhat dated, it still seemed to carry the same forward-looking themes and ideas for which Carl Sagan was best known. I wish there were video of that lecture, because while reading Sagan is still great, listening to him and watching him is even better.

375. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107622 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:51 pm

This guy is a moron.

Which guy?

376. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107614 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:28 pm

etny

I think you may:

A) Have not read anything Sam Harris has written either in book form or online.

Or

B) Have misunderstood what you have read by Sam Harris regarding his opinions on how it is scientifically valid to scientifically investigate the metaphysical claims that religious people make.

Or

C) Be a troll.

377. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107603 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm

etny: If Sam Harris were to proclaim that he is a Buddhist (which he isn't), would that make any of his points any less valid? Or are you just another troll?

378. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107602 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm

even when he says something like Mormonism is just Christianity plus - a bunch of really stupid ideas.

Agreed. The thing I like most about him is his delivery, I think. Even when he says something like that, it comes across as a valid point (when taken in context) and a charming joke (as it was clearly intended). It doesn't come across as him being the Evil-Militant-Atheist-Who-Hates-Mormons. ;)

379. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107599 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I bet he follows a Buddhist "teacher" or master. Probably a Tibetan one.

A lot of true "Tibetan Buddhist teachers" would probably meet the criteria for being atheists by Western standards. LOL.

That being said, Sam Harris is not a Buddhist any more than he is a Mormon or a Pastafarian.

380. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107587 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm

I'm only about 1/4 of the way through this video, but I find myself impressed (as I often am) by the calm, rational, and compassionate way in which Sam Harris conducts himself in every debate in which I have seen him.

Sam truly comes across as not only someone who cares about finding genuine answers to the deep truths of life, but also as someone who cares about helping other people to understand those truths.

Sam Harris is a great asset to the cause of reason, and I hope that he is with us for a long time.

381. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105547 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 11:52 pm

If I was ever in a position to need the help of anyone for any reason and I was unable to help myself then I would rather that help come from a "swearing, cursing, bloody heathen" who genuinely wanted to help me out of the kindness of their heart than from any theist who believed they were earning god-points in the afterlife by helping me.

Helping each other out in this life is all that matters now, regardless of what may or may not come afterwards. HAPPY 2008 HEATHENS!

382. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105505 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 6:47 pm

*waves magic wand*

383. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105500 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Oh so THIS is where the circular argument thread is tonight. I thought I was on the wrong site for a minute ;)

we can have eternity with God after this life, so therefore I am willing to give up this life for the next.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why irrational beliefs such as religion are so extremely dangerous. *sigh*

being one of God's children, cannot physically make myself deny my faith, and can only pray for you

You aren't a "child" of anyone except your parents. You can and should deny your faith because it is false and dangerous. And, while you are busy praying for me, I will think for you.

384. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105013 by Don_Quix on December 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

Isn't the "moral code" of the Christian bible remarkably similar to the moral codes of almost every civilization throughout history? Starting with the Sumerians and Egyptians thousands of years before the bible was written, and probably extending thousands of years into pre-history before them in one form or another?

This is not even to mention the Chinese, who likewise existed as a cohesive society many thousands of years before the bible was written, and had a very sophisticated and moral culture.

Morality does not come from any so-called holy book. Morality evolved from and continues to evolve within humanity itself.

385. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #104800 by Don_Quix on December 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Why is it that some theists just simply can't understand that not only does posting ad nauseum from a book of fairy tales do absolutely nothing to support their arguments, but it makes them look completely daffy duck insane to most people? Non sequitur after non sequitur after non sequitur...

386. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #104584 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:00 pm

I would like to know of at least one situation where increased knowledge has lead to less freedom

Well, one example would be when honest scientists living in Soviet Russia realized that Lysenko was full of shit. Because of this they got executed or sent to the Gulag.

Sorry, I'm just being a smart ass ;) Sadly though, it's true.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and Galileo vs Catholicism didn't turn out so well for Galileo.

387. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104581 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Downunder

You seem to be fairly thoughtful, and you may be making some valid points. However, I can't be sure of this because I skip over most of your posts. The reason I do this is because I find your posting style to be very dense and difficult to read. This is not a criticism, just an observation (or perhaps a constructive criticism).

May I suggest that you begin to separate your posts into paragraphs (with spaces between them), and that when you quote people you use the "blockquote" feature recommended in the Comment Posting Guidelines, which you can find at the top of every comment posting box.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just genuinely find everything you post to be so hard to read that I often find myself not reading it, but I would like to :)

388. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104574 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Paine

I'm not entirely disagreeing with your last post, but I think you need to look at it more from a dispassionate historical perspective. I think we need to disassociate the ideas the men of the revolution put forth from the men themselves (which I think you would agree with). Just because the actual people involved do not stand up to all of our modern standards of progressive morality does not mean that they were bad people by definition. If that were the case, anyone born before about 1950 could be considered to be a sinister evil-doer.

When Americans get all uppity and teary-eyed about the revolution, they are generally having an emotional reaction towards the ideas that the founders represent, not the founders themselves. The founders just provide a convenient symbolic and literary altar to rest those ideas upon. I'm confident that no U.S. citizen literally worships the founders of our country like the citizens of North Korea involuntarily are forced to worship their "GREAT LEADER(s)".

If you take into account what the average person thought back at the end of the 1700s, the FF don't look so bad. You have to remember that this was almost a century before Darwin or even the Germ Theory of Disease, for Zeus' sake! They were only a few decades past burning witches! Seriously! WTF?

All things being equal, the founders were actually quite liberal and progressive in their social and political opinions for their time...in fact, they were REVOLUTIONARY! LOL.

That being said, every nation is allowed to have its myths and heroes. Granted, the FF were certainly flawed, and racist (by our modern definition), and some of them may have even been in it for their own gain to some degree...but that doesn't change the fact that their actions ultimately changed the world for the better (in my, and I hope most peoples', opinion).

If the American Revolution had not succeeded, we would be living in a much different world right now. It is possible it could be better or worse, but I like to believe that it is better than it would have been otherwise. This is due in no small part to the imperfect, selfish, slave-owning bigots known collectively as the Founding Fathers. Regardless of their personal flaws, I think we have to recognize that all of us (including people living outside the US) owe our existence and much of our current societies to them, at least to some degree.

EDIT: I have heard no hypothesis ever brought forth as to how the world may have been had the American Revolution never succeeded, although such a hypothesis would be quite interesting to consider. I'm actually a fan of alternative reality fiction, so I would be quite interested in hearing how this may have turned out ;)

389. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104562 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Well, yes Don, I think people would find other things to be greedy about. Coveting thy neighbor's wife or ass kind of thing.

Well, depending on what arrangement you have between thy and thy neighbor and thy neighbor's wife regarding thy neighbor's wife's ass, it may not be so bad. hahah. But I digress...

Eliminating poverty and allowing everyone's material needs to be met more or less equally (which is essentially what we are talking about) would go a long way towards improving the human condition. It would literally transform all human societies. There would still be jealousies and envy and all that jazz, but I don't think they would be quite as severe or damaging as they are now. The elimination of poverty would likely cause a cascading effect that would eliminate many other remaining problems, as well as likely causing a complete sea-change in human understanding and attitudes that would make the Renaissance look like the Dark Ages.

390. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104550 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm

This is too serious a question merely to speculate about...

Surely. But the answers to all questions begin with speculation, don't they? Plus, it's a fun thought experiment ;)

391. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104545 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm

If everybody had everything they wanted? I think that would be impossible due to mutual exclusivity.

Hypothetically, do you think that if everyone owned (or had access to) a machine that was able to create any physical item they desired (including food) out of basic raw materials at an atomic level (in other words, out of thin air), that they would find other non-material things to be selfish about?

I'm not arguing for or against selfishness, or any other behavior that is traditionally "frowned" upon by a lot of people. I just find it interesting to speculate about what the possibilities would be if a major root cause of the majority of strife in the world (the disparity of wealth and lack of access to basic material needs) were to suddenly not be an issue anymore.

392. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104535 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm

There has to be some room for moderately anti-social behaviors like selfishness -- isn't there?

By anti-social, I meant things that are generally considered to be more damaging to society such as theft, murder, etc. We may never rid ourselves of things such as selfishness, but selfishness is not necessarily damaging to individuals or societies at large in all cases...at least when it's only in mild amounts. In fact, for the person being selfish, it's a good thing in the short term.

But who knows, maybe in the future it'll be like Star Trek and our technology will have advanced so far that there is no rational reason to be selfish since everyone's basic material desires are all met at little or no cost ;)

393. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104534 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Countries with least religious belief tend to have better lifestyles and less crime. Correlation is not causation, I know, but this is suggestive that reason can be a more convicing source of morality than faith.

As you say, correlation is not causation, but these same countries also tend to have higher standards of living and better education across all economic and social groups. I can't prove it, but I speculate that it may be somewhat of a positive feedback loop in action. More Education = Less Religion = Higher Living Standard = More Education and so on...

...or something like that ;)

394. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104524 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I think though that it is going to take more than this to transform humankind. Teaching on how to behave in schools, for example, has not eradicated bullying, nor has it stopped people shop-lifting, for example.

Very true. Just telling someone that something is wrong and they shouldn't do it is not going to stop them if they really want to do it. Religion has been doing this for centuries and people (even religious people) still continue to lie, cheat, steal, etc. Clearly, despite common claims to the contrary, religion has had no better track record than anything else towards inducing people to be moral.

I think what Steve is saying is that without the interference of the religious, we would be able to more openly discuss and come to agreements upon what truly is and is not "moral" behavior, based solely on reasoning, logic, and compassion rather than ancient dogma. We would be able to base our morals on reality and those things that genuinely improve the human condition and alleviate suffering.

Ultimately, I think the continued advance of technology and our ever-increasing understanding of how and why the human brain works the way it does will help to transform the "conversation" and the methods we utilize to deal with undesirable and anti-social behaviors. Possibly within our lifetimes.

395. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104506 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Theist or atheist, we don't seem to be able to transcend these.

Yet.

396. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104482 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Now I'm sure you know that is a bit simplistic and strawman-ish. Among believers only monks would say human relationships are not supremely important.

Actually that isn't entirely true among a large number of theists, especially American Christians (and more especially American Evangelicals). I have heard them describe their "relationship" with God, and how it is the most important "relationship" in their life. I don't think some of them are simply using this statement rhetorically or metaphorically. I am convinced that many of them quite literally believe that without their imaginary friend to talk to and comfort them constantly, they would be unable to deal with even the most trivial of life's daily challenges.

397. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104379 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:55 am

The US power system was designed to support the cause of commerce and trade. In short, to make rich businessmen even richer.

There are countless contemporary and historical examples of "rich businessmen" in the United States whose lives and careers started out with them being quite the opposite of rich. So it would appear that both "rich businessmen" and "poor businessmen" have an opportunity to become "even richer". This system seems to have worked out pretty well for us, so far.

398. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104360 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

The wisdom of the founding fathers is real, the effects are real, their motives, however, were not the least bit altruistic.

So what exactly were their motives, then? Could you provide some sources?

I've done a fair bit of reading on both the American revolution and the principal individuals involved from a wide range of historical and biographical sources, not just in history class. Although they were all men of their times and were far from perfect, I don't recall the parts about them being greedy robber barons solely out to enrich themselves and enslave people.

If the revolutionary war had not been successful, every single one of them would have been summarily executed as traitors. After the war was won, all of them (especially Washington) deserved a nice cushy retirement. Although hardly any of them had such a retirement, since they were too busy creating and administrating a totally new system of government.

399. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104317 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 10:16 am

Fighting Falcon: You forgot to mention that he is also a firm supporter and admirer of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. ;)

Seriously, great article. The way he leads his life is how most people I know who aren't trapped in the web of religion try to lead their lives. They do the best that they can for themselves and those around them, because they know this life is all they get.

400. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104065 by Don_Quix on December 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Why are people so hung up on Founding Fathers?
They are Just hypocrites who wanted freedom while having slaves themselves.So Called democratic country with only few rich men could vote at that time.
While they may make a good political discussion ,it is just garbage to while away time

This is just about the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying a lot.