What does a group spewing incorrect non-sense about reality have to do with morality?
Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachment from reality. For example there is a huge correlation in people who don't care about the suffering global warming causes and religion. Its not really hard to understand either, many modern day american think Jesus will come in their lifetime, so why bother caring about 100 years from now.
It even works for things directly against rules in the book. Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books.
I am not saying all religious people are bad, just that religion does not filter out bad people or bad behavior effectively.
It's tough to say things like this in public, because so many people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs (I'm sure if I had any I'd feel strongly about them too).
But, the idea that morality is tied to or because of religion is, erm, pure applesauce. To me, morality appears to be the moving zeitgeist of opinions on what makes a proper society.
At the risk of derailing this topic, the concept we have of privacy as a moral issue is likely to change as well. The common current idea (which I hold as well, please don't misunderstand) is that one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct.
But, in a world where it's getting easier and easier to just not give a shit about that and (generally, for 99.9% of the population's personal lives) have no ill effects, people are going to care less and less about data privacy and security, and the zeitgeist will shift.
I think that it will be the defining issue of the 21st century, and I have no idea how things will look coming out the other end.
If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too.
Because in a world with no privacy, the only people who are going to be squeaky clean are thoae whose lives have been curated from day 1, either through privilege and iron-fisted parent s or through single-mindedness verging on psychosis.
> If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too.
Most countries aside from the USA are pretty blase about their politicians' personal behavior and morality. It's this silly idea that politicians should be paragons of personal virtue, independent of their public and political virtues, that gets the US in such hypocritical binds.
Not really. There's a threshold where the outcome of an algorithm isn't predictable by the programmer. That threshold is much lower than mildly strong AI. As an example of a comparatively simple algorithm, Notch didn't know where the mountains, caves, oceans would be in the billions of Minecraft worlds - only some of their properties and distribution.
If AI programmers determined the AIs' decisions, that would negate the point of AI.
I can easily write a bunch of code you can't readily predict the outcome to but I can predict with 100% certainty. The easiest way is to cheat and inject code you don't readily see: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack
> one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct
Privacy is a fairly modern invention. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it assumes too much to take the concept of sacrosanct privacy as axiomatic.
My whole point is that it is not axiomatic, or fundamental, in any way. Instead, it's a consequence of the zeitgeist :) and because of that, I see it disappearing over the course of the coming century.
Given that you made a link between killing and abortion, it was pretty obvious that you were against abortion. Pro abortion people do not believe abortion is killing anyone.
If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well. (Hint, they aren't always dead when they come out. Recently (2 years ago IIRC) even nurses who work with this day in and day out started objecting to the practice because as they said; it is completely crazy that on one room they are fighting to save the life of a premature child and on the next they are throwing a towel over an equally old babys face so their mom won't hear it crying before they finally bleed out/and or suffocate.)
Also : we are way off topic and I don't want to continue this thread.
These episodes could only happen in late-stage abortions which are very rare. You can call it murder but that doesn't inform the debate about abortion in general.
The way I read it the parent comment portrayed all abortions to be of this type. ("If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well.") To me there is a big difference between the original "abortion is murder" and your "this rare form of abortion is murder."
>> The way I read it the parent comment portrayed all abortions to be of this type.
Clarification since there is a misunderstanding about my understanding: No, I know most of them are not this type. I also think there is a difference between late and early although I personally would advice against both. I am not a lawmaker though.
A little background: yes, I grew up in a pro life family and while I was always personally against I didn't really start bothering until that piece of news struck me from one of the major newspapers that day. Knowing this kind of cruelty actually happens on a more or less regular basis (well known by nurses even in the small country I live in) and on the scale of 88/day * botch_factor it is now hard not to care.
That said, yes, from a pragmatic perspective just getting rid of most of those 32000 late ones would be mighty good. I would believe a number of you could agree with that.
There is now and has been for some time a somewhat healthy debate around death penalty. Unfortunately IMO it seems that the right to kill innocent children before (or, if necessary because procedure failed, after ) birth is somehow sacred and cannot be discussed publicly.
On the other hand, people who go to the church are more likely to give to charity, or participate in their community… It seems religion is doing some things right.
Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.
It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes.
It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.
How bigoted I am is completely irrelevant as to how terrible the Salvation Army is. I'd much rather learn why you think my beliefs about the Salvation Army are wrong, or why you think my beliefs about what constitutes "good" are wrong.
Well, I'm a Christian, so that probably answers your question. If you want to talk more specifically, I'd be happy to.
But while I'm sure I don't agree with everything the SA does or all of its methods (keeping in mind that it's a huge organization, spread around the world, with many different chapters, people, etc--so it's not like a monolithic organization where everyone walks and talks the same), I certainly recognize the enormous good they have done throughout their history.
For you to say that their work is a net-negative is quite shameful.
First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative.
Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do.
Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs.
Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Christ commanded his followers to go into the world and make disciples, teaching them everything that He commanded. Paul wrote that people have different gifts, lending some to teaching and such more than others, but making disciples and spreading the good news is more than knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets; quietly living a faithful life is also a form of evangelizing. After all, you know that they are Christians, so I suppose they aren't keeping it entirely to themselves, right? However, Jesus said that, those who are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of. So I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by keeping to themselves.
Well, if what's written in the Bible is true--if God is real, and Jesus did come and die for all people, and there is an afterlife coming for everyone, and those who have not washed their sins away will not enter into eternal life--then it's the most relevant thing in the world.
And Jesus did not tell his disciples, "If someone asks you about me, tell them." He said to go and teach. Paul didn't walk into the agora and wait for someone to ask him, "Excuse me, just curious, but which god do you worship?" He started conversations with people and sought those who would hear.
For some people it might involve door-knocking or handing out pamphlets. For others it might mean living a faithful, godly life on a daily basis, in all interactions with people--or to put it in biblical terms, being salt and light, and being in the world but not of it--setting an example that will pique others' interest and provide opportunities to share the gospel. It might mean volunteering for charity work, helping those in need. It might mean traveling to a foreign country and doing mission work.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12 about spiritual gifts and the members of the body each serving their own function. We're not all called to be preachers or teachers or missionaries, etc. We are all called to use the gifts we're given. The parable of the talents in Matthew 25 is an example of this as well.
Jesus was the new kid on the block when he said that, but in most modern western countries the "good news" isn't news.
People who stand on street corners with "ask me about Jesus" signs are passive, different from actively knocking on doors; people don't even like when corporate salespeople do that.
I'm not going to discuss the other things here, a general discussion on religion is beyond the scope of this thread I think, but needless to say, there's a great variation of interpretation between the group labelled "Christian".
> needless to say, there's a great variation of interpretation between the group labelled "Christian".
Yes, there certainly is. But the question is, are they following Christ? Just because they say they are or think they are doesn't necessarily mean that they are. One must look to what Christ said and taught. He said, among many things, that a tree is known by its fruit, and a good tree does not bear bad fruit; and that, in the judgment, many will say, "Lord, didn't we do great things in your name?" and he will say to some of them, "Away from me, I never knew you."
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, and not everyone who believes in Christ is following him. It's up to each person to study the scriptures and follow Christ to the best of their understanding.
"Going to church" can be said to be a form of "Participating in their community", so this looks like it might be a tautology presented to paint church-goers in a positive light.
"Giving to charity" is not necessarily a good thing. Before giving to a charity, a person ought to skeptically evaluate the charity. Many charities exist to exploit our desire to feel good about ourselves while benefiting those who run the charity. People who don't apply skeptical thinking are easy targets.
If our goal is to use our money to make the world a better place, in some cases it may in fact be better to invest in a local small business than to give to charity.
Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachment from reality. For example there is a huge correlation in people who don't care about the suffering global warming causes and religion. Its not really hard to understand either, many modern day american think Jesus will come in their lifetime, so why bother caring about 100 years from now.
It even works for things directly against rules in the book. Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books.
I am not saying all religious people are bad, just that religion does not filter out bad people or bad behavior effectively.