In response to Mike Arrington: Why you should start living your life again. | Hacker News Reader

In response to Mike Arrington: Why you should start living your life again.

tylerdmace.squarespace.com

19 pointstylerdmace29 comments

I hope me posting this isn't a problem. Just thought some of you would appreciate it.

Awesome post and I kinda see where he is coming from. Don't be a dick to others and be true to yourself and the world will be a much better place. Solid advice but unfortunately there are always powerful interests at work that have a stake in shaping your views and opinions. The church, the government, corporations, etc. Each of these things has a stake in an ideology that creates the conditions for their well being at the expense of the well being of others and people are extremely bad at untangling all those influences and getting to the bottom of who they really are. I even suspect some people are really uncomfortable with not being influenced and told what to do since they think chaos is sure to ensue. Every time I tell people I'm an atheist they act like they are seeing me for the first time and their immediate next question is "How do you make moral decisions without religion?". I have yet to find an answer to this question.

Really? I meet so many atheists on the internet and in California that I have the urge to take up a religion just to spite them.

I honestly don't care if people are religious or not because in my experience it makes absolutely no difference to how the person acts. In my time I've know many intolerant and unkind religious assholes and I've also known many that have been religious and kind and caring. So if you're gonna take up religion you should do it for yourself and not to spite me.

I didn't quite mean it that way. In line with the author's thoughts, popular beliefs that everyone is "supposed" to hold annoy me. I grew up in a very religious area and became an atheist. In my current environment atheism is the default position and religious people are given strange looks, so I sympathize with the religious people.

"How do you make moral decisions without religion?"

- By using your own brain and common sense? How about: "Would you go around killing people if there was no Bible to tell you it's bad mm'kay?"

Agreed. Religion doesn't give you a sense of morals.

I've tried that answer but the people that ask me that question do not link intelligence, common sense, decency and morality. To them intelligence has nothing to do with it. They think in the absence of fear nobody does the right thing willingly.

Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not? Yeah, some religious people do tend to say silly things like "Atheists are less moral, they can't make moral decisions without religion" << but I think this is because they miss another aspect of life: society defines morals, not just religion.

Religion is a shaper, but there's only so much defined in religion. Example: Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading. It's not exactly the "stealing" talked about in the bible, because hey nobody loses anything, just potential profit. There's no exact matching scenario in the bible...you kind of extrapolate. Where does the rest of your morality regarding such matters come from? Oh yah, your brain! Your common sense. Oh, what's that? Right, common sense is based on society -- norms and outside influences.

Now sure, religion is a big part of people. It has strong ties with society, helping to shape the morality found in societies. Remember how parts of the bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to support slavery anymore? Psh. But hey, if your religion says you can kill people, you wouldn't (logically speaking) just do so in any country today, because you make the decision in your brain "I won't do it or I'll go to jail." Society says no." Same with stuff like gay marriage. Some Christians learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change. Regardless, in 100 years, it's a nonissue and virtually everyone agrees, morally speaking. Society wins. It happened with segregation, it happened with gender barriers, it'll happen again.

Disclaimer: I am religious, I'm a Christian to be exact. But yeah, I don't claim that Christians are any more moral than anyone else. Morality is relative from a perspective that doesn't assume existence of God.

^ if you're a Christian, do know that I believe in moral absolutes. But that's only assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined by the nature of God.

Stealing isn't taking financial value from someone else, it's taking advantage of someone else's work without providing some form of recompense. When you pirate a film, you're saying to all the actors, director(s), all the people involved in making the film, all the people who backed it financially, and all the people who pushed it from idea to finished product that whilst you think they did a good enough job to warrant spending two hours of your time watching and enjoying it, you don't value the (often) years of their lives and the huge sums of money they put in to bring you that two hours of experience.

If it was worth watching, then you should give something in return. Otherwise it's theft. Not financial theft, as as you noted, it's potential profit they've lost. But it's still theft nonetheless.

That aside, I agree with the rest.

That's nowhere near the consensus definition of "theft". It's no more legitimate than declaring you an arsonist, because you've deprived them of a mansion they could have had built.

Information age scarcity through copyright as a tool to compensate creators brings a uniquely complex mix of benefits and drawbacks. Arguments about how and when to apply them best should stand on their own, rather than being disguised as millenia-old emotional baggage about survival.

There's no limit to the greed and selfishness of man, so to get most people to behave nicely towards others, you need to approach the idea through their selves.

For example, you could tell them that if they're nice to others, after they die, they'll go to an awesome place that's just like whatever they really want the most, and that in this wonderful place they can partake in as much beer and 17-year-old virgins as they want.

That could work! But it's still about everyone's personal gain. Yes, religion. I don't remember the details though, since it's been more than 20 years since my last brainwashing session at school. Around the age of 10, I gave it some thought and figured that it would be impossible to prove it either way, so I just wouldn't believe in God unless he showed himself to me.

Some people are more capable of thinking about things from someone else's perspective than others, but even the compassion-impaired among us can reach the right conclusion through themselves. "Would I like it if someone stabbed me in my face? Hmm.. No. That would definitely be unpleasant, so maybe I shouldn't stab anyone..", or the less favorable option you referred to: "If I stab that guy in the face, the police will probably catch me and I'll get locked up. Being in jail restricts my ability to grab women's asses on a crowded subway train, which is my favourite hobby, so I'll just have to not stab him then".

Don't you use your brain and common sense to make all decisions, whether you're religious or not?

I hope so! But religion sure tells people what they can and can't or shouldn't do. For example that if a woman is adulterous, she should be stoned to death. Sure, that's a different, much more harmful set of fairytales, but it's a religion. You could say that religion is a system of enriching and empowering a group of people, letting them strut around in capes, acting all high and mighty, and making sure they get away with fucking little boys or girls (<-Islam). Of course, maintaining this system requires a vastly larger group of people that's kept mired in a lower level of consciousness, doubting, hating, and rejecting anything and everything that hasn't been deemed good and proper by the former group.

Example: Religion doesn't say anything about illegal downloading.

True, they'd have to update their fairytales once again, which would be difficult at this point.

Remember how parts of the bible were once used to justify slavery? Does anyone try to use the bible to support slavery anymore?

Religion was used to the advantage of that small group of people, who just happened to like having slaves. I've only been to one city in South-Korea, but that one was full of little churches, and the general populace believed that as good little Christians (more than half of them), they should give around 10% of their salaries to their churches. Kind of shocking, actually.

Some Christians learn to adapt to having members of the homosexual community in their congregations. Others can't deal just yet cause people dislike change.

They just dislike anyone who's different from them and they're insecure about their own sexuality.

I believe in moral absolutes. But that's only assuming the existence of God, because in that sense morals are defined by the nature of God.

What does that even mean? See, that's what happens with religion. You try to adapt your own reasoning to the fairytales, and the result is hand-wavy at best.

What if there is no God? How "would" you view morals then?

"Do you take the bible literally? Would you stone your rebellious son to death?" - "[something about only using parts of the bible]" - "How do you make that judgement?" - q.e.d.

And in case they reply "Yes, I would stone my son", call the police.

What ridiculous ramblings. You presuppose that the only problem in the world is intolerance. Well what if my "true self" is touching kids in the naughty place, would you tolerate that?

Everyone is intolerant of others, the question is just who is drawing the line.

I don't think I ever said it was the only problem in the world. I simply stated that it's a problem. And a big one. Grumpy oldgregg is grumpy. Relax, friend.

umm... I wouldn't tolerate that because you touching kids is imposing your needs and desires onto someone that is not qualified to consent to that kind of imposition and I don't think this is what the author of the post is saying.

Because they are 12 yrs old? 14? 16? 18? Who gets to draw the "qualified to consent" line?

Their parents I would think or until they are able to provide and sustain themselves on their own. Anyway, this is a really weird kind of argument you've gotten yourself into. It completely misses the intent of the post.

Fortunately when people can look at issues rationally not emotionally we can debate under what conditions (age, development, maturity etc.) a person is able to give their consent.

Once everybody in the world is considering issues rationally the first guy that starts debating emotionally is going to have a hell of a big influence. Half the population has an IQ below 100.

But if everyone in the world considered issues rationally, then everyone would be smarter, no?

Ridiculous straw man retort. If tolerance, in the form the author argues for ("recognition and respect (of) differences in opinions or beliefs" from an impartial viewpoint), was more widely adopted we would be able to have reasonable debates on issues like censorship and individual liberties without people like you appealing to people's emotional biases with pathetic fear-inducing examples.

It's not a straw man, see the very frequent example below. The problem is the definition of "impartial viewpoint."

>"But my plea to you all is to stick up for what you believe in - despite knowing that you will undoubtedly encounter hardships as a result. Yeah, it's hard. But believe me, it's worth it."

Why is it worth it? Because you say so? A person who holds a minority belief may risk personal and professional alienation if he expresses that belief without restraint. How do you know that self-expression is worth it for him?

Isn't this post an example of the pathology it describes? "Being true to yourself" is something you're supposed to believe in post-1960s American culture. The author offers nothing but emotion-based arguments for a popular ideal.

I agree that the word 'worth' was poor choice. That's opinion.

My only argument was that it seems beneficial for an individual, even if only in the long run, to exercise open and honest self-expression. Emotion-based? Sure. But that doesn't negate any validity, does it?

>Emotion-based? Sure. But that doesn't negate any validity, does it?

For me - yes. I try not to believe things on the basis of emotion alone.

And you shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't dismiss validity because it's emotion-based.

A society in which people are not willing to trust each other and express their opinion is in a very real sense broken. No politician on capitol hill is willing to express their real opinion and look at where that has lead us. Special interests dominate every aspect of law making and every deal happens behind closed doors. This is truly a sad state of affairs and it is so mostly because nobody is willing to say what is really on their mind. All we get now are ideological shouting matches because just like muscles atrophy when not used so does the mental faculty of thinking for yourself.

If people said what was really on their mind, wouldn't we have more ideological shouting matches?

Perhaps. But ideas wouldn't be getting ignored simply because they're different or unpopular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com