The Glade 4.0

Rynar (on Atheism):
Something else I'd like to point out: condemning Atheism as a belief on the grounds that "look what it did in Communist Russia!" is flawed reasoning known as appeal to consequence. "There must be a God, because if there is no God, there is no point to life." Even assuming that a lack of a God means that there's no point to anything and no hope (an assumption I do not share), this statement is not relevant. The relevant points are not "what are the consequences if such a belief is true?" but rather, "is this belief true?" One could illustrate it this way.

Two people are in a desert.

"I believe we are out of water."
"That cannot be. If we're out of water, we will die of dehydration."

The negative consequences associated with a lack of water do not miraculously cause water to appear. The merits of a belief system are in its veracity, not in its consequences.

Now, with that said, It is true that it is not scientific or rational to believe that there is no "God." It is also not scientific or rational to believe that God exists. The rational, scientific approach is to simply try to figure out how things work and how they got there, and evaluate any proposal or theory on the evidence available. For instance, a rational thinker will scoff at the concept of young earth creationism, because it is in direct conflict with observable facts. When they encounter someone who says that "God initiated the big bang, created the first life and set evolution on its course," they may not have an opinion on the statement at all, because it is not in conflict with observable evidence, but there is also no verifiable or falsifiable evidence to support it. It is outside the jurisdiction of rationality, but that doesn't make it an irrational statement either. The same approach will be taken with the man who says "The first building blocks of life came together by a roll of the dice (or actually, a nearly infinite number of rolls), and so here we are today. God doesn't exist." As Stephen Hawking so eloquently put it, such a statement is once again outside the purview of science until such time as one can present it in a scientific way. We simply do not know. Science is agnostic this way, but it is also apathetic, until the question an evidence can be framed in a way that is relevant to the scientific process.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I have evidence enough for personal proof as far as the existance of God goes. I won't argue it here, as I'm not trying to sell my God to you, or anyone else.

That said, I'm not speaking to what you think I am. Communist Russia didn't collapse because they were atheist, and I neer implied it did. They did, however, persecute Christians and people of other religions because they were atheist, however.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

And I'm saying, whether or not Atheists persecute christians, does not change whether or not God exists.

It should be obvious, however, that "Christians" (if such a group can ever be considered homogenous -- no more than atheists can, anyway) have (both historically, and presently) persecuted people of other belief systems (some of them simply because they were the wrong flavor of "Christian.") You are seeing a difference there where none exists. The problem, again, is with institutionalized ideology. All organized religions are guilty of this to varying extent.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Why do you keep making the same point I made, in a continued effort to try to argue with me, when we are basically saying the exact same thing?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think the point I'm trying to make is that while U.S. law may treat this as a binary divide (you're either non-profit or for-profit) the reality is more of a continuum that depends on the aims and goals of the corporation's owners and management.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

My point is that not-for-profits really aren't businesses in so much as they are charities.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

This goes out the window once the corporation is publicly traded. When a for-profit corporation goes public, stock exchange rules basically force them to put company value and profits above all other considerations other than the law itself. In fact, a company executive officer or board member who could verifiably have been shown to have intentionally placed personal ethical concerns or values above the company's bottom line could be criminally accountable.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I was completely with you that entire time until you said that Science is agnostic. Agnosticism states that the existence of god cannot be known. I don't think Science is agnostic. I think it's rational about it.

Also, I don't think they persecuted religious people because they were atheists. They persecuted religious people because, well, they could. They might have made excuses for it, but atheism didn't cause them to persecute. Human nature did.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

There's an undercurrent here of the idea that profit motive is somehow automatically aligned in opposition to responsible behavior. I think that the present situation is that there's far too much collusion between business and government (an inevitable consequence of vesting too much power in government), and that this mucks up the natural way of things. Suffice to say, if it weren't for protectionist government policies, raping and pillaging wouldn't be the best strategy for maximizing profit.

Even as things are, you can find examples of publicly-traded companies "doing the right thing" because doing so helps their bottom line. I believe Khross brought up the example of Suburu's environmental policies being well in excess of government requirements. If what you're saying about publicly-traded companies is true, then it stands to reason that under the right circumstances, profit motive can be harnessed for good.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Actually, raping and pillaging is best so long as it makes you the most money, according to corporate philosophy. Corporate influence on government is an inevitable consequence of an unchecked profit motive. Profit motive is not necessarily aligned in opposition to responsible behaivor, but I think it's far fetched to blame government for the choices that corporate individuals make in order to maximize their profit margins. The profit motive cannot be trusted. If a certain action will result in profit, you must take that action, or you are failing in your duty to your shareholders. No matter what that action is. It's all about cost-benefit analysis. Look at the speech in the beginning of Fight Club for one of many, many examples.

Desiring to make a profit is not evil. But that's a straw man. Desiring to make a profit no matter what the cost to the environment, or people, or the economy as a whole? That's a different story all together. You will note that corporate profits are way up, despite the fact that the economic collapse *caused* by big business is still kicking the **** out of the little guy. That was caused by the profit motive.

The real problem is that we consider corporations to be persons, and we allow them to influence the law via campaign spending and big dollar contributions. Not only do we let the foxes guard the hen house, but we subsidize their expenses. So long as we allow corporations to influence congress via campaign donations and PACs, we will continue to see government help corporations exploit people for gain. Hell, our military is used to protect corporate interests abroad and has been for a very long time.

Government needs to sit over and above corporate interest.

I don't deny that some companies really do the right thing. But they're rare. And ultimately, when faced with a choice between profit and people, they generally choose profit. Case in point are the tobacco companies. They used their money and influence in congress to hide and suppress the scientific data linking their products to cancer.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."


I was going more for the "unknown" angle than "unknowable." Although with current science, it does seem rather "unknowable."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Fair enough. So, little "a" agnostic, not big "A" agnostic. In which case, I pretty much agree with you.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Well, yes and no. Directors and Officers are required to serve the interests of the corporation's shareholders, and the default assumption is that maximizing profits is the shareholders' primary interest. However, the shareholders can specify in the company's Certificate of Incorporation that some other purpose/interest (e.g. environmental protection) should be considered and pursued as well, in which case, the Board and Officers would be required to do so. Also, even within the default paradigm, Directors and Officers are protected by something called the Business Judgment Rule, which basically says that if their decision is even remotely reasonable from a business perspective, the courts won't second-guess them. So for example, if the Directors of XYZ, Inc. decide to use environmentally-friendly manufacturing practices, even though doing so eats into profits, as long as they can articulate a reasonable business reason for doing so (e.g. enhancing reputation of company for longer term benefit, reducing the likelihood of government regulatory action, etc.), that's fine.

The thing that infuriates me is when a company decides to do the right thing in terms of the environment, or compensation for their employees, and the courts require them to be bastards. It's crazy.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Your post amuses me because you are expressing your own belief that this is a "problem". Their beliefs in favor of persecution are equally valid.

Rynar identified the "problem." Whether or not i consider it a problem is irrelevant, I was pointing out it had nothing to do specifically with atheism.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But did this philosopher wear her head as a hat across three states?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut