Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Or employers can just not be dicks to their employees for stupid reasons.

Are you calling God stupid?

Mattman154 wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Or employers can just not be dicks to their employees for stupid reasons.

Are you calling God stupid?

Believe our Keeper of Secrets, Cannerus, is talking about God not existing, and thus saying that God told them is stupid... but I could be wrong. Far be it from me to know what a daemon prince of slaanesh is up to.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Believe our Keeper of Secrets, Cannerus, is talking about God not existing, and thus saying that God told them is stupid... but I could be wrong. Far be it from me to know what a daemon prince of slaanesh is up to.

To be fair, there are a fair number of religious scholars who believe that a person claiming to have spoken to God is most likely either a liar, or insane.

 Easy E wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Well, we do have the right to health care.

Maybe in the UK. Sadly, this opinion is not Universal.

Article 25 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Article 25 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

Further proof that Obama intends to turn over US sovereignty to the UN, and usher in a New World Order.



On a more serious note, the UDHR is a GA resolution, and is therefore not binding.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Well, we do have the right to health care.

Maybe in the UK. Sadly, this opinion is not Universal.

Article 25 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

Just so we're clear it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's about as binding as my Declaration of AustonT Supremacy I wrote on a napkin at McDonalds.

We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Well, we do have the right to health care.

Maybe in the UK. Sadly, this opinion is not Universal.

Article 25 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

I think other posters have made my point.

'Merica.... Hurra

 d-usa wrote:
We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

Is that UN the "United Nations" or the "University of Nebraska"

University of Nottingham. Okies don't cotton to the English.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Or employers can just not be dicks to their employees for stupid reasons.

Are you calling God stupid?

God told me to tell you to give me $20.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Or employers can just not be dicks to their employees for stupid reasons.

Are you calling God stupid?

God told me to tell you to give me $20.

Then here's 20 God Dollars, you can believe in it all you want, but it won't affect anything.

 d-usa wrote:
We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

They should stop wasting their time.

UN dealings are done by the federal government.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

They should stop wasting their time.

UN dealings are done by the federal government.

They passed an amendment not to listen to them either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

They should stop wasting their time.

UN dealings are done by the federal government.

methinks you need to read up States vs Federal rights.

Basically, OK said "Feth off!".

The only way that changes is if the US Congress ratifies a treaty stating as such (which it ain't).

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...

They should stop wasting their time.

UN dealings are done by the federal government.

methinks you need to read up States vs Federal rights.

Basically, OK said "Feth off!".

The only way that changes is if the US Congress ratifies a treaty stating as such (which it ain't).

Basically Oklahoma wasted their time. Here is the thing about these kind of voter initiatives: most of them don't mean jack and get thrown out the first time they are challenged in court.

In 2010 it was a state question about "international law is not valid in Oklahoma and Sharia law is not valid in Oklahoma" (despite the fact that any international law ratified by the US is the law in Oklahoma. They also had a state question about voter ID, a state question about "the official language in Oklahoma (english)" and a law forbidding the State from enforcing ObamaCare.

In 2012 we had questions about banning affirmative action, lowering property taxes, exempting things from property taxes, and abolishing the Department of Human Services.

These questions were put on the ballot by a Republican controlled legislature and you can probably see pretty clearly which people think all these are great ideas. And that is the point of these state questions. Quite often they are not meant to be actual real laws that stand the test of time. Their main purpose is to make the masses go "I'ma gonna vote to make them Mexicans speak English and keep the Muslims out of our courts and stick it to ObamaCare" because they know that once the conservative voters are in the polling places to stick it to Mexicans/Muslims/Obama they are going to go ahead and vote for the Republican candidates since they are already there. People might not be passionate enough to go out of their way to vote for a candidate, but these kind of issues appeal to them enough to make the drive to fill out a ballot. States with Democratic controlled legislatures do the same thing.

You don't put ballot initiatives up for a vote because you think they will all pass, you put them on the ballot to make your base come and vote.

Yeah, that idea totally blew up in Repub faces in Minnesota thsi year when the Repub Legislature added a Gay Marriage and Voter ID Amendment to our ballot.

Turns out it didn't drive any more Conservatives to the ballot, but it sure did mobilize the Democrats. They were completely swept out of the State Legislature.

I almost felt bad, but then I figured "you reap what you sow", or something.

Been thinking about it more and I want to clarify, I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion. When people let practicality fall to the wayside or go out of their way to inconvenience others, that's an issue for me. I'm sure most of these people would rather have someone willingly choose not to use the morning after pill, so why not give them the choice? Why not allow propaganda posters in pamphlets in the employee break room while following the law, which has been proven to be supported by scripture, in this thread? I don't know why finding a middle ground ahs to be the end of the world for one group and that's okay while if another group tried to not compromise on the same issue, they would be shot down. People should (generally) be able to make their own choices, and a wage-slaver (anywhere that pays less than $10/hr in my book) already has too much control over a person's life in terms of scheduling and stress level for them to have even more power.

One thing about Hobby Lobby though, and remember that I think they should face the full amount of the fines for the current situation here:

All other things considered they are a pretty decent company. Their starting pay is $9 for part time workers, and $13 for full time workers. Benefits are pretty decent, vacation times, you are actually off every Sunday (even if you are not going to church it is nice to have a weekend day off), and the insurance is decent (and does cover birth control). The majority of people I know that work for them are pretty happy.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion.

Why shouldn't we call it stupid? Yes, they're doing the right thing, but for a bad reason. It's entirely coincidental that their flawed decision-making process happens to lead to a good outcome in those cases, and it's not at all necessary to use that flawed process to come to the right conclusion. Consider an analogy: if you're mad at your boss and decide to shoot him, but at the last second he ducks and the bullet hits a serial killer (who you didn't see) standing behind him about to shoot an innocent person and kills the would-be murderer you don't deserve praise. Morally speaking you're still guilty, you just happened to benefit from blind luck and do the "right" thing.

God is no different.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion.

Why shouldn't we call it stupid? Yes, they're doing the right thing, but for a bad reason. It's entirely coincidental that their flawed decision-making process happens to lead to a good outcome in those cases, and it's not at all necessary to use that flawed process to come to the right conclusion. Consider an analogy: if you're mad at your boss and decide to shoot him, but at the last second he ducks and the bullet hits a serial killer (who you didn't see) standing behind him about to shoot an innocent person and kills the would-be murderer you don't deserve praise. Morally speaking you're still guilty, you just happened to benefit from blind luck and do the "right" thing.

God is no different.

Except that shooting people and not raping them is not even close to the same. Thanks for failing. If you think you can control what everyone thinks OR if you think only your way is the appropriate way, you are set up for major dissappointment. You are going to do things that you will later realize were for stupid reasons and you'll want some slack.

Also note that I think most people would be happier not believing in god and making peace with themselves, but I don't give a gak one way or the other. If we shame them for thinking that way, they are justified in shaming us back for the same thing. The easiest route is just not to care.

Gnnnnnnaaahhhhh.... It's somewhat different, in the sense that the beleiver didn't actually have an evil aim by worshipping God. He doesn't ''miss'' his aim, he just happens to hit a target he beleived was pointed at him by someone who doesn't exist.

A better analogy would be : Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if most of those decisions are good anyhow?

Or

Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if those decisions end up being the same as what a rational being would make anyhow?

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Except that shooting people and not raping them is not even close to the same.

You missed the point of the analogy. You didn't shoot someone, you stopped a horrible crime and just happened to use a gun shot as the method for stopping it. The result is clearly a good thing under pretty much any ethical system (one dead murderer, one about-to-be-victim not dead), but the motivation behind the act was wrong and it's only coincidence that it happened to cause a good result. We can simultaneously be glad that the serial killer is dead and the victim is still alive, but also convict the "hero" of the story for attempted murder in trying to kill their boss and just happening to fail in a way that benefited society.

God is no different because the reason for not killing and raping is a bad one. The supposed "word of god" that you're obeying has no credibility, and you're obeying out of nothing more than obedience to perceived authority. So we can say that it's good that you don't behave in certain evil ways but also say that obeying god is a stupid act. You shouldn't avoid raping and murdering because god told you to, you should refrain from doing those things because they're wrong.

In short: doing good things for bad reasons doesn't change the fact that your reasons were bad.

If you think you can control what everyone thinks OR if you think only your way is the appropriate way, you are set up for major dissappointment.

Where did you get the idea that it's possible, or even desirable, to control what everyone thinks? I never said that, I just said that the fact that people sometimes do good things out of religious belief doesn't negate criticism of that belief.

You are going to do things that you will later realize were for stupid reasons and you'll want some slack.

Since when does my selfish interest in getting favorable treatment from society mean that I'm not justified in criticizing others, no matter how bad their motivations are?

If we shame them for thinking that way, they are justified in shaming us back for the same thing.

How exactly are they justified?

 Peregrine wrote:

Why shouldn't we call it stupid?

Why should we call it "stupid" in the first place?

Kicking the can does not make for a stronger argument.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Gnnnnnnaaahhhhh.... It's somewhat different, in the sense that the beleiver didn't actually have an evil aim by worshipping God. He doesn't ''miss'' his aim, he just happens to hit a target he beleived was pointed at him by someone who doesn't exist.

Except that the lack of "evil aim" was pure coincidence. The believer's motivation is "god told me to do this", it's just coincidental that in a particular case "this" is "don't murder anyone" instead of "murder everyone who believes in the rival god". The exact same motivation leads very easily to the latter.

A better analogy would be : Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if most of those decisions are good anyhow?

Yes, we should call them stupid. Or, to mirror the original statement better, we should consider their actions stupid, since overall they might be a fairly intelligent person who just happens to have this one stupid belief.

Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if those decisions end up being the same as what a rational being would make anyhow?

See above about attacking the belief, not the person. And yes, we should say that their actions are stupid because it's blind luck that they're the same as what the rational being would do. Betting your life and all of your money on a single roll of the dice is a stupid act, even if you happen to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Why should we call it "stupid" in the first place?

Ask the person who I quoted. I'm not sure where the whole "stupid" comment originated and I'm not going to bother digging through a 9-page thread to find out, I'm just objecting to their criticism of it.

 Peregrine wrote:


You missed the point of the analogy. You didn't shoot someone, you stopped a horrible crime and just happened to use a gun shot as the method for stopping it. The result is clearly a good thing under pretty much any ethical system (one dead murderer, one about-to-be-victim not dead), but the motivation behind the act was wrong and it's only coincidence that it happened to cause a good result. We can simultaneously be glad that the serial killer is dead and the victim is still alive, but also convict the "hero" of the story for attempted murder in trying to kill their boss and just happening to fail in a way that benefited society.

God is no different because the reason for not killing and raping is a bad one. The supposed "word of god" that you're obeying has no credibility, and you're obeying out of nothing more than obedience to perceived authority. So we can say that it's good that you don't behave in certain evil ways but also say that obeying god is a stupid act. You shouldn't avoid raping and murdering because god told you to, you should refrain from doing those things because they're wrong.

The practicality is that some people don't do lots of bad things because they believe in god/karma/whatever. Whether that''s a good reason or not, again, I could give a gak. I can't control what they think (possibly outside of influencing my circle of friends), so what can I really do about it? Whine? I agree it's a terrible reason. many people think lots of what I do is for terrible reasons. I also agree that it can lead to really horrible extremes (though many belief systems/philosophies have the same fate).

Where did you get the idea that it's possible, or even desirable, to control what everyone thinks? I never said that, I just said that the fact that people sometimes do good things out of religious belief doesn't negate criticism of that belief.

If one criticizes people who already aren't going to listen, what purpose does the criticism serve if not to attempt to curb that behavior? Maybe blowing off steam, but that only goes so far.

Since when does my selfish interest in getting favorable treatment from society mean that I'm not justified in criticizing others, no matter how bad their motivations are?

All I'm saying is whining creates either noise or change, and I prefer quiet. You're making me feel dirty for defending them, stop it

How exactly are they justified?

The same way you feel justified. See how that works?

How about we stop the religion bashing argument that we have every other week around here before this thread gets locked?

 Peregrine wrote:

Ask the person who I quoted. I'm not sure where the whole "stupid" comment originated and I'm not going to bother digging through a 9-page thread to find out, I'm just objecting to their criticism of it.

No, I'm more than capable of seeing through that weak attempt at deflection.

I don't care where it originated, I care about the specious argument you made by way of it. If you are going to make a comment, you should at least understand what you intended in doing so. And you very clearly made a comment questioning why we should refrain from calling decisions made according to a belief in God stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except that the lack of "evil aim" was pure coincidence. The believer's motivation is "god told me to do this", it's just coincidental that in a particular case "this" is "don't murder anyone" instead of "murder everyone who believes in the rival god". The exact same motivation leads very easily to the latter.

That's awfully reductive. You don't know what's the beleiver's motivation in beleiving, just that he beleives. His motivation might be that he thinks God gave us moral intuitions to guide us, it might be a respect of the scripture, or it might be simply that it's his need of 'goodness' in the world that oriented him toward beleiving in the first place.

See above about attacking the belief, not the person. And yes, we should say that their actions are stupid because it's blind luck that they're the same as what the rational being would do. Betting your life and all of your money on a single roll of the dice is a stupid act, even if you happen to win.

Maybe it's not blind luck? Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.

Philisophical poetry, good sir.

But my way of thinking is better!