Uh, so do sloppy lack of links?

Loose shit, pal.

The preferred spelling is actually "dammit."

Oh. You were referring to the Scientology post below. This was merely a "reset" post, to cleanse the palate. I see now what you were doing here.

BTW, I'm still shocked-- SHOCKED!-- that you didn't know how financially culty the Scientologists were. I mean, that stuff's been around forever.

It was, if you will, "old."

;-).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Ace, to quote an Illinois Nazi-- "I've always loved you."

Well, I still think you were right about the "herd-mentality". Sometimes people are right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons.

Oh, clearly the Scientology post was written just so Ace could dwell upon Kelly Preston's hotness in order to purge his thoughts of a naked Hugh Jackman. The rest was just filler.

Later,
bbeck

Your even-handedness does you credit, Ace. I actually find it comforting that you aren't just piling on without giving it some thought. I often find myself in the position of defending Christians and Christianity even though I'm an atheist myself (long story), so I know where you're coming from.

Were it not for the uniquely-harmful aspects of Scientology, I'd find it no more objectionable than any other religious creed. Sure, you can bust on them for the whole alien angle, but you can say the same about Christianity:

"You mean to say you worship some guy that Romans nailed to a tree two thousand years ago who supposedly rose from the dead three days later? So, he's kind of a zombie, right? You worship a zombie?"

You have an open Italics tag somwhere in your Scientology post.

Monty, Monty Monty.

I'm an athiest too.
That post is gonna draw the believers out with red faces and pitchforks, babycakes.

I can take those naked Hugh Jackman thoughts if need be Ace.

Monty, Sam Kinnison used to say that the amazing thing about Jesus wasn't that he came back from the dead. The amazing thing was that he came back from the dead without scaring the sh!t out of everybody.

Engrams have caused some loose shit italics at the end of the "I'm not a Scientologist" post.

Kelly Preston? I'd bang her like a dump truck full of unsold copies of Battlefield Earth.

Well, except for being dead and all.

Not only a zombie, but a fast-moving zombie with super powers. And instead of being scared of water, he walked on it. Jesus rules.

lauraw:

I'm just sayin'. Any religious creed sounds silly if you state the basic tenets in a certain way. (And I'm a veteran at dealing with offended Christians; I have a great aunt who hasn't spoken to me in twenty three years because I'm a heretic.)

lol@Chad and Utron. I'm SO stealing that Kinison line.

And Monty, I wouldn't put all the religions in the same basket just as I don't lump all atheists together. There are degrees of everything.

Later,
bbeck

This is such an interesting group of people who hang out here. The sort of people I'd drink with on Saturday and pray for on Sunday. :)

Bush lied.

Ooops, wrong thread.

Kelly's hot/cute (cute/hot?) and smart, too. As soon as Charlies Sheen shot her, she got the hell out.

NickS:

The sort of people I'd drink with on Saturday and pray for on Sunday.

Where I come from, it was high praise indeed when someone said, "He's the same person Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning."

(I think Zell Miller said this of George W. Bush during the presidential campaign last year, and it made me smile because I remember hearing it so often when I was growing up.)

Well, except for being dead and all.

Are we talking about the same Kelly Preston? Are we talking about her career?

Monty - Christ is a zombie? Do you know how hard it is to dodge lightening strikes and fireballs while laughing hysterically?! Stop it! That tickles!

I appreciate that atheists can be as moral as the most devout Christian but honestly I do not see the logic in it.

You know the thing that struck me in the intial post, Ace? The amount of impact that Travolta/Cruise as representative "good people" had on shading your impressions of Scientology in general.

The worship of celebrity is one of Scientology's key PR tools, and your post illustrates what a powerful tool it can be when even a savvy guy like you glosses over the cult's abuses because a couple of stars seem really cool with it.

Sadly, it's the same thing that happens when these jokers testify on Capitol Hill. Scientology enjoys a religious tax-exemption today largely due to the "public good will" enjoyed by their spokesmen, which pulls the wool over peoples eyes.

Of course, it didn't hurt that a Hollywood obsessed Clinton administration was in power at the time the tax exemption was granted either.

Then again, am I really calling you to task for your earlier post or is it simply my body thetans imprinting themselves again?

I appreciate that atheists can be as moral as the most devout Christian but honestly I do not see the logic in it.

Heh, it's pretty simple, Dman. Humans are social animals capable of acting beyond our instincts, and as such there must be rules in place to prevent certain behaviors harmful to human society from being practiced.

Later,
bbeck

Ace, I think when you mentioned "herd mentality" you were hinting at a very important topic -- the concept of collective guilt (or collective punishment).

The concept of collective guilt is insidious -- it creeps up on you unexpectedly.

Of course, it's hard to talk about groups that are deliberately and discretely organized, where its members are self-selected (like Scientologists, or bloggers, or Democrats) without being able to make generalizations about that group, or at least the characteristics that define them as a group.

But when you get into areas of harm, or wrongdoing, or bad acts, you have to be very careful. The kind of group-think that underlies collective guilt is perhaps one of the most destructive tendencies in history.

(Or, in the case of Cedarford, it's just his normal way of looking at the world.)

You know, I was thinking of the bad light Cruise's actions have placed on Scientology recently, and have begun to wonder...
Before he began his acting career, Cruise was in a Catholic Seminary. Could Cruise actually be a deep penetration agent from the Church? Acting either consciously, or more likely unconsciously(with deep spiritual programming), working his way up through the organization until he reached a position where he could do the most damage in one fell swoop.
I wouldn't put it past the Catholics, because they were founded by Jews!

Heh, it's pretty simple, Dman. Humans are social animals capable of acting beyond our instincts, and as such there must be rules in place to prevent certain behaviors harmful to human society from being practiced.

bbeck,
The problem with that logic is, if there is no supreme law giver, then that leaves you as an individual to decide what is harmful/not harmful to society. After all, if there is no supreme being, that means that you are as "supreme" as it gets, and who better to decide right from wrong than you?

Iblis, that's brilliant. This whole Jooo thing has more layers than an onion, doesn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind the Scientologists too--since it's all about money--playing some kind of deep, double-sided game. We're through the looking glass, people...

The problem with that logic is, if there is no supreme law giver, then that leaves you as an individual to decide what is harmful/not harmful to society.

You don't NEED one. Certain behaviors that are harmful for society to properly function are obvious.

After all, if there is no supreme being, that means that you are as "supreme" as it gets, and who better to decide right from wrong than you?

Uh, talk about a lack of logic! ~I~ am not Supreme, period. I am a part of the human society. I do not have the authority to dictate to others, and in fact my personal behavior can be detrimental to society.

Later,
bbeck

US Soldier,

Read this article for an example of an answer to your question.

Utron, if it wasn't for Cedarford opening our eyes to this where would we be? I mean between the aliens possessing our bodies and the Joooooos taking our money, is there anything a man truly call his own? Hell we only rent beer damnit!

As a Christian, I gotta admit, bbeck is right... There are plenty of examples of "society" being perfectly able to create laws that didn't require a Supreme being to set the example. Let's face it, that's what civilization is all about, the realization that, based on gaming theory, it makes sense to have laws that may not benefit ME directly.

BTW, my point is to show that altruism (bbeck approach) or not (my "rational person" economic approach), any modern society will form proper laws

You are as "supreme" as it gets.

Unless you are too just fucking great to be merely "supreme."

Interesting article, Hubris, but the author neglected to discuss moral relativism which is the bottom line, real life result when you deny the existence of a moral truth.

Uh, talk about a lack of logic! ~I~ am not Supreme, period. I am a part of the human society. I do not have the authority to dictate to others, and in fact my personal behavior can be detrimental to society.

The point I was trying to make is simply this: Man is fallible, and as such, any rule created by man (i.e. human, not "men") is subject to the question of validity by any other man.
As you said, your personal behavior can be detrimental to society. But by whose definition? Everyone's definition of what is detrimental is obviously quite different (as evidenced by some of the debate on this site), therefore, who has the final say in what is right?

Hubris, thanks for the link, I'm reading it right now.

Oh, and by the way for everyone, this is all very lighthearted and good natured. I won't be trying to breathe fire or anything, and I quite enjoy the other viewpoints.

JFH,

I think we all agree societies can and do have the ability to make laws. The issue is if society allows you to beat your wife is it ok to do it? And if not, why?

Monty, Monty Monty.

I'm an athiest too.
That post is gonna draw the believers out with red faces and pitchforks, babycakes.

Not me. I'm a Christian and Monty makes a good point -- it doesn't get any wierder than Christianity, which is why Ace's original point about religious tolerance resonates with me (although misapplied to Scientology).

How can you get any wierder than a cult that practices cannibalism? The vast majority of Christians (e.g., Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox) maintain the traditional view that when they celebrate the Eucharist they are actually, in some mystical way, eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.

So, my hat is off to Ace for his basic reflex. We need to be careful about judging others on the basis of their seemingly bizarre religious beliefs.

As an athiest, I'll kinda side with Soldier, at least to the extent I'd prefer to live in a society of believers.

If there's a kid standing next to my parked car, holding a rock, weighing whether or not to pitch it through my window and steal my crappy radio, I'd prefer that he genuinely belive there's an all seeing being that's gonna do bad stuff to him oneday if'n he does.

If all that's stopping people from doing profitable harm is a practical minded risk/reward analysis, then we're screwed. Besides living in a dangerous world, we're gonna be paying out our ass for insurance and cops.

Religion IS the opiate of the masses, but I prefer the masses sedated, thank you.

Ray,

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your comment. FWIW, I think atheists and believer's common ground is their ability to exercise great faith.

:)

Heh. I can remember a time when Infidels.org was All That to me too.

Hubris, thanks so much for setting Ace straight about the word, "dammit." It has bugged me for a while, but when you can rant and rave with the clarity of Ace, well, lesser mortals like myself dare not correct him. You have the grammar chops to do so, however...plus the right name for that sort of stuff.

Can't have loose shit when it comes to swearin', but we all try to give Ace lots of margin since he's a big podcast celebrity and all that.

Heh. I can remember a time when Infidels.org was All That to me too.

Yeah, but when the very same arguments come round the eleventy-seventh time, you start getting a little tired of it.

You do get the occasional fun, like the guy who was sure that the story of Noah's Ark was literally true in every respect, and provided photos to prove it...

Damn, I got truncated!

Divine retribution, Pixy! :)

As far as non-religious ethical systems go, there is exactly one that produces the greatest benefit for society (a result that can be proven logically):

- behaviors and transactions that are beneficial for all involved are to be permitted (e.g., non-harmful solitary activities, and mututally beneficial non-zero-sum transactions, such as A and B cooperating for mutual benefit);

- behaviors and transactions that are unilaterally beneficial but also carry a commensurate harm to the other participant(s) are prohibited (i.e., zero-sum transactions such as A stealing from B) (And, incidentally, benefits and relative merits of competing benefits are measured subjectively, but harms are measured objectively.)

This simple distinction essentially dictates an ethical and/or political system that prohibits aggressive force in all forms, but permits (or even necessitates) defensive uses of force, together with a healthy respect for rights in private property.

Simple.

So, Phinn, based on
"And, incidentally, benefits and relative merits of competing benefits are measured subjectively"
the 64K dollar question: given human nature, is it possible to implement this simple system? Nice theory, though.

Actually, yes, it would be simple. All I meant about the subjective/objective thing is that value (i.e., marginal utility) is an inherently subjective quality, and changes depending on a wide variety of complex and unpredictable factors, like personal preference, the ranking of priority of needs, etc. People choose what they find "beneficial" for themselves, and that choice will continuously change as circumstances change.

Harm, however, is the dividing line between permissible (i.e., defensive) and impermissible (i.e., aggressive) uses of force. Since all force is inherently zero-sum, its permissible uses must be confined to objectively-determined criteria, such as cognizible invasions of liberty and property rights, etc.

I was being facetious when I said it was simple, but it's fundamental principles are simple.

After reading all these posts and comments, I think I am going to find the Scientology center in Austin, go in there, put the "whatever conservatives frown upon i'm going to do " liberal act, and then when they start describing the religion, react as if that is the dumbest set of ideas I have ever heard, and raise f'n hell.

it's all philosophy in my mind... scientology has its own philosophy based on certain assumptions, as does christianity, judaism, islam, the moonies, atheists, the confused, etc. scientology is a relatively new religion and obviously has had an impact because just look at how many people embrace it. there's obviously something there. so i wouldn't disparage the religion or the people but rather just look at those who take it to extremes. i don't think L Ron had it in mind for his followers to stalk critics of the religion or to go all mafia on them. I could be totally wrong, but i feel the intentions of the founders of most religious movements get distorted by the adherents and then even more distorted after they die. I wonder what Jesus would say about Christianity today. Or what Joseph Smith would say about modern mormonism, or what any other founder would say about the state of their church today.

Even if L Ron founded scientology based on a bet, or a story, would it matter to those who've gained a lot from it? It works for them. Same with mormonism, catholocism, etc.

Phinn, I appreciate the thought you have given this and the time you've taken to kick this around.
"Since all force is inherently zero-sum, its permissible uses must be confined to objectively-determined criteria"
IMHO, this is the fly in your ointment; your objectivity in determining the criteria is not my objectivity in determining the criteria. But if you and I accept the same religion-based moral agent we've got a chance. Has any society/culture anywhere ever existed for any appreciable amount of time without agreeing on that religion-based moral agent? None that I know of. The religion is not important as long as the society/culture agrees that the wisdom of the religion supercedes the wisdom of man and on that basis create a moral code.

Chris: There seems to be a disconnect in the two parts of your post. On the one hand you seem to be saying that we should judge Scientology based on what Hubbard intended, not what his followers turned it into. On the other you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what Hubbard intended after all, but we should judge Scientology by what his followers get out of it.

Religion the meatware equivalent of a computer virus.

BrewFan, the problem you are having is not with the system I have described, but with the existence of any ethical system at all. There is no such thing as an ethical system that permits 100% subjectivity. That isn't an ethical system at all. The very existence of any ethical strictures necessarily means that someone, somewhere will find that his subjective preferences will conflict with the dictates of ethics (be they genuine ethics, morals, laws, etc.).

All ethical systems, by definition, are various rule-sets (or modes) of inhibiting (or mandating) certain types of behavior.

The question is: which set of such rules yields the greatest benefit? The best answer I have found is the one I described, based on a fundamental distinction between aggressive and defensive force.

"I wonder what Jesus would say about Christianity today"

Well, He said "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." I think we've established here at AOSHQ that some people do some pretty vile things in His name and this is why.

"Even if L Ron founded scientology based on a bet, or a story, would it matter to those who've gained a lot from it"

And about this He would say "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold"

Phinn:

I gotta love a guy who throws the concept of marginal utility into a conversation about religion. So God is Pereto-efficiency?

Bad news, partner. The wrath of God against a rebellious and fallen creation has nothing to do with making us feel better. It has nothing to do with the maximazation of utility. It's not even a zero sum game. It's way worse.

"People choose what they find "beneficial" for themselves, and that choice will continuously change as circumstances change."

Yup, they will. And they will pay the price, unless they resort to God for forgiveness. You need to stop confusing economics with religion.

"The question is: which set of such rules yields the greatest benefit? "

One last quote from Jesus to answer your question and then I'm done bible-thumping:
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This is my ethical system, although I will be the first to admit I'm not very adept at implementing it. But you have to agree it's pretty simple, no? :)

Nicholas: I'm not sure what L Ron intended with his religion. And in many ways his intentions are irrelevant now. What's relevant are the actions of his followers: whether the actions are good or bad. If they aren't harming me or my fellow man, all the power to them. If they are, we need to take notice (and it appears people have based on some events).

My belief is live and let live, so long as one's actions aren't to the detriment of another. For those people who consider scientologists nutjobs for believing what they do or for proselytizing their beliefs, I think they're afraid of something. Someone who believes in aliens or who street preaches doesn't frighten me. Someone who suicide bombs a cafe does.

I appreciate that atheists can be as moral as the most devout Christian but honestly I do not see the logic in it.

Posted by Dman at June 29, 2005 05:32 PM

Sorry to have posted and then departed but the school bell rang. In anyevent, I was thinking of simple examples such as finding a wallet with $1000. What would be the logic in turning in that money? Some say that it may be someone's money who needs it thus its good for society as a whole to return it. I say what if its Bill Gate's wallet and it is you that really needs it. Logic would demand you keep it. Belief if God should have the opposite effect.

Dman - have you ever lost something or had anything stolen from you? How did you feel?

I believe that there are certain moral truths written in our hearts and in our minds. You don't need a supreme being to live virtuously or to know how to behave.

Look at most animals in the world. It's probably safe to say they don't know of any supreme being. Yet they live by certain laws as well.

People tend to choose to beliefs that allow them to do the things they want while still claiming to believe in God. Even if you take God out of the equation, there are still certain truths we simply know. Murder, theft, adultery are wrong. Why. Because of the consequences.

Are there consequences for your example above? Yes. One is someone has lost something valuable and is counting on the altruism of someone else. If it's not returned, this person will lose that much more faith in his fellow man. Two is that if one can't do what one knows is right in the first place, how can one ever hope to live a virtuous life?

You need to stop confusing economics with religion.

I disagree. I believe that the two are not so very different as people often think.

A major problem in the world today is that many modern economists adhere to inherently immoral economic theories, which advocate what amounts to stealing from A for B's benefit, or committing wholesale fraud on the entire country. Many of them are Keynesians.

See, there are two modes of argument in economics -- the utilitarian (which economic rules are the most efficient and productive), and the moral (which are the most fair and equitable).

After researching these issues, I believe there is a principle (discovered by others first, of course, I did not make any of this up) that unites both the utilitarian-prosperity aspect and the moral aspect of human relationships and interactions.

It is rooted in the idea that aggression is both:
(a) a fundamental affront to human dignity (i.e., immoral), and
(b) inherently economically destructive (i.e., inefficient and wasteful) because of the fact that it enriches the aggressor at the expense of the victim (zero-sum), as opposed to cooperation, which is mutually beneficial (non-zero-sum).

Are destructive acts immoral or are they counter-productive? The answer is: they are both. They are merely two ways of expressing the same idea.

Thus, peaceful economic cooperation is both (a) moral in that it evidences a respect (i.e., "love") for others that is equivalent to the respect one shows for oneself, and (b) economically productive.

The relationship between (or rather, the essential identity of) these two modes of analysis (the moral and the economic) can be expressed by the concept: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I believe that this idea perfectly sums up both Christian morality and rational, prosperity-creating economics as well.

The difference between those who can steal and then sleep at night, and those who can't, is not belief in a higher power.

The difference between those who can steal and then sleep at night, and those who can't, is not belief in a higher power.

Not belief per se, but nonetheless it is the mark of the Divine on the corner of one's soul.

Compos Mentis, you assume Bill Gates knows that someone took his money and not that his wallet simply remains lost and never to be found. Why would he lose faith in his fellow man because of that. Again, the question is not whether atheists can be as moral as anyone else, they can and are, its whether it is logical to be 'moral ' in every scenario. It is not logical to perform an action that would not be beneficial to you. You may still do it but that does not make it logical. By the way, animal laws are generally based on finders keepers.

PHINN
You and I need to get together and create our own religion. I think it would work!
/serious

I'm a little off the beaten path in my beliefs, but I've always believed that Christianity is remarkably utilitarian.

In fact, I would argue that even one who didn't believe in God or an afterlife would still be well served by following and practicing the teachings of Christ.

An example:

Forgiving one's enemies is often viewed as something one must do for the benefit of THEM, butwho does this forgiveness really benefit? I would argue that it benefits the one who forgives by bringing him peace and acceptance.

Everyone here has harbored hatred toward an enemy. Who does this hatred truly harm? Does your enemy lose sleep tossing and turning over your anger? Does your enemy lose his focus on what truly matters due to this blinding rage?

Or do you?

Resent Etymology: French ressentir to be emotionally sensible of, from Old French, from re- + sentir to feel, from Latin sentire --

When you harbor a resentment, what you are really doing is reliving an injury over and over. Letting this resentment go has immediate earthly benefits.

Sometimes I think Christianity would be more successful if it placed as much emphasis on the immediate earthly effects on spirituality as it did on the afterlife. Of course, for many Christians that isn't the point. The point is to be saved and enter heaven.

finders keepers lol - alright : )

What if Bill Gates lost his wallet and didn't expect it to be found. Would he not be happy if someone were to surprise him and return it? Might he possibly reward the finder for his honesty? I know, I know, that's not really your point. But it does expand upon your thinking a little.

It is not logical to perform an action that would not be beneficial to you. Please clarify whether or not you are stating that to be an atheist is to be logical, whereas not to be is illogical. Further, an example: Someone's child is in a burning house. You stand to benefit nothing by saving that child yet you do it anyway. Where is the logic in that? My point is this, it is difficult at best to try to place logic in matters of the heart, of morality, of virtue.

The fella (and others who followed him) who ran into the bloody ocean water to retrieve that girl who had been bitten by a shark; do you think he sat there and wondered what Jesus would want him to do?

Do you think his response was what it was, merely because he had internalized Christian values to the point where they initiated an apparently instinctive response to save a child?

Or do you think that we are hardwired to protect children, to the point where we may even risk our own lives?

Ace

You're often funny. That will excuse a lot.

Yeah, until the next morning when you wake and the liquor has worn off!