(June 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm)wallym Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 11:50 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Kinda sounds like the whole original sin thing~

I agree.  This is why I'm not worried about being good.  The impetus for everyone to behave is your guys' thing.  I'm interested in behaving in my own self-interest.  Which can overlap with 'being good', but is a very different motivation.

Being what society calls "good" is almost always in your own best interest. When is the last time you axe murdered some asshole who you felt was overly aggressive with your child? When is the last time you raped someone to satisfy an urge? When is the last time you robbed someone because you couldn't afford your favorite fancy drink? I know, I know but it's so cool to be extreme and hardcore. Being "good" is just too mainstream. I get it, you're going against the grain. Sticking it to the man. Don't let anyone try to control you by telling you you're good. But until you pummel some little old lady for the last box of cocoa puffs or kill your coworker to make sure you get the promotion, I'm not buying it. 

(June 2, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 6:26 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm listening to the latest Atheist Experience, and Tracey gives a short talk at the start about morality which I think is very relevant to this discussion. As usual she's kicking names and taking ass.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/archiv...-05-24.mp3

The calls are really interesting too.

---

If you go to 47:45 you will hear one of the sickest things ever from a Christian. He wants people who commit morality to be lashed or put to death. It shows what biblical "morality" can do to a person. I'm not saying this is representative but I am saying the bible was involved in this person's decision to think this way. He also eventually says that he is fine with slavery. His mind has been totally rotted.

All this sick guy has to do to justify his opinion is to quote the bible. That is my problem. It says these things. It's just that nicer Christians find excuses as to why those rules don't apply anymore (God only used to be immoral) or never applied (denying the very things it says on the pages). Good for you though nice Christians, keep ignoring this immoral horseshit. Ignore as much as possible. Whatever it takes to say that this stuff is wrong, keep doing it. I want to live with nice people. There's a moral compass inside you which tells you these things are wrong. That makes you better and more moral than your God.

Rob-

I didn't listen, but based upon your description, I would have no problem condemning the guy, either.

You do realize that the majority of Christians are as put off by this type of thing or the nuts at Westboro Baptist as you are, right?

You DO understand that this is not orthodox Christianity, right?

I'm very glad to hear you condemn him

Yes, I realize that. See the part I underlined above in my quote.

Let's have some more. The best Penn a man can get does a great video about morality.

He takes apart that beardy duck fundamentalist crazy guy so badly that he shows duck is actually making the atheist secular morality argument for us! Very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rCs_JQNy3s

I think we pretty much covered all basis on this thread of why you pretty much should be good ./lock

(June 3, 2015 at 1:08 am)Losty Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm)wallym Wrote: I agree.  This is why I'm not worried about being good.  The impetus for everyone to behave is your guys' thing.  I'm interested in behaving in my own self-interest.  Which can overlap with 'being good', but is a very different motivation.

Being what society calls "good" is almost always in your own best interest. When is the last time you axe murdered some asshole who you felt was overly aggressive with your child? When is the last time you raped someone to satisfy an urge? When is the last time you robbed someone because you couldn't afford your favorite fancy drink? I know, I know but it's so cool to be extreme and hardcore. Being "good" is just too mainstream. I get it, you're going against the grain. Sticking it to the man. Don't let anyone try to control you by telling you you're good. But until you pummel some little old lady for the last box of cocoa puffs or kill your coworker to make sure you get the promotion, I'm not buying it. 

Bummer that you're getting the vibe I'm trying to come across as some sort of hip bad boy Donnie Wahlberg type.  One of my bigger motivating factors is cowardice.  And I'm driven by the always thrilling 'practicality.'  I don't think NKOTB would be accepting me for my 'too cool for school' attitude.

You are very correct in that what society calls 'good' is almost always in my own best interest.  On top of the sociological/psychological stuff, society also has laws with fines and jail.  There's also the issue of retribution.  I ain't going to jail or having some crazed grandson coming after me because I wanted some cocoa puffs. 

But again, the key here is motivation.  The motivation is not to be good, but to act in my own interest.  It's in my interest to avoid jail and not be attacked.  There's also enough conditioning that it'll take more than cocoa puffs for me to go around axe murdering people.  I think the extreme examples of post-apocalyptic or nazi germany type scenarios just help illustrate the points by looking at extremes, because for me, it'd take a non-insignificant bit for me to start killing folks.

Real world applications:
So lets say I want to watch HBO, but don't want to pay for HBO.  I could watch an illegal stream.  I consider that blatant stealing.  But with no ramifications, I'll just do it.  I use this example because there was a big long thread on here about whether or not this is 'immoral' or not, and people were doing all sorts of crazy rationalizations to try and conclude that it was not 'bad.'  But I'm saying who cares if it's 'considered' bad.  It's good for me.  I'm getting something I want without having to pay for it with no ramifications.  Good or bad doesn't really need to factor in.

And a weird side effect, is that I'm invested in other people being good.  Because I need them to keep giving enough money to the cable companies so they keep producing high quality stuff/don't do anything serious about the illegal streams.   I guess this is an example of Rhythm and team dogood bailing me out.  Thanks!

Given our status of living in the times of Cheesecake Factory and Sex, the examples of choosing self-interest over 'good' are going to be minor like this.   I don't give to charity because I'd rather I have the money.  I don't volunteer my time, because I'd rather play video games than feed the homeless.  I certainly wouldn't join the military.  That one hits just about all my major points of fuck being 'good' and look out for myself.

And again, with Rhythm's point of the rest of the people picking up the slack, it has to be done.  Because if everybody thought like this, we'd have no military or charity, and then we'd have to set up a system where it is mandatory.  So really, I'm happy everyone else is trying to be good, and hope they continue to do so.  It is in my best interest for other people to continue to want to be good, because that allows me to continue to act in my own self-interest.  Which definitely qualifies as life philosophy that is 'not good' I think.  But not in some malicious violent axe murdering spree way, but just a general despicable sort of way.  Like the character in the movie everybody cheers when they die.  

Christianity, in its basic form, isn't a lot different to Santa really. Be good, and you get good stuff. Be bad, and you don't get good stuff. However the Santa proposition is more believable because you get tangible rewards every year, rather than this ridiculous idea of getting your rewards after you're dead. Talk about the perfect con...

Wallym: are you only here talking to us because you benefit from it?

Enlightened self-interest doesn't bother me. But I've never trusted missionaries for any cause.

That said, I've always enjoyed experiences which transport me out of my narrow self-interested concerns.

(June 3, 2015 at 11:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Wallym: are you only here talking to us because you benefit from it?

Yes. I posted for a couple months a year ago as I was trying to work something out in my head.  This forum makes a fairly good sounding board to bounce ideas off from.  I got what I wanted, and left for a year or so.  Then I had some new stuff I wanted to bat around, and I'm here again for a bit.

Well, I appreciate your honesty!

You seem fully aware that you probably would behave differently if you did have empathy. Does that give you any pause for thought? Do you see the lack of empathy as... I'm not sure what the word is... a justification, or an excuse maybe, to act differently to how you would if you had it? It's a genuine question, I'm interested. I'm not judging you. I'm just noting your brain set up isn't the norm, and you are aware of this.

It's hard to get my head around really, because I can't get in the state of mind where I have no empathy, my imagination adds it on even when I've just assumed I don't have it anymore.

(June 3, 2015 at 11:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Christianity, in its basic form, isn't a lot different to Santa really. Be good, and you get good stuff. Be bad, and you don't get good stuff. However the Santa proposition is more believable because you get tangible rewards every year, rather than this ridiculous idea of getting your rewards after you're dead. Talk about the perfect con...

Wallym: are you only here talking to us because you benefit from it?

Santa is more believable?

Grown-ups know that they are Santa. Kids who are older know that their parents are Santa. Parents eventually tell their kids that they were Santa. If you go to the North Pole, can you find Santa's workshop? Can NORAD track Santa's sleigh every Christmas eve?

No?

How does this work with Christianity?