GS523523

Was going to reply the same. These authours don't spend enough time thinking their fantasies through.

Hasn't a rich oligarchy been the status quo for most of humanity? It seems to me most of humanity has had quite a future to look forward to, historically speaking.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement, just "speaking" past each other a bit. That the reward originates from God doesn't matter for the purpose of the argument, only that it is immeasurably desirable. If we lived in a science fiction fantasy where such a non-profit organization as you described existed then it would effectively be the same.

I want to clarify about "chasing a reward": people don't do serious things "just because". People expect a return. Jesus taught that those who do good expecting a tangible earthly return "have already received their reward". In this context, that's whether that is because you expect the person you're taking care of to repay you in the future, or you just enjoy his company, or it makes you feel like a good person, or it maintains your social status, or whatever it is. Jesus taught that those who do good not expecting a tangible worldly return will receive a reward in Heaven. In the Gospels He makes this same argument repeatedly using different words. Another one that comes to mind: "sinners are also kind to those who are kind to them, but if you will be kind to those who hate you then your reward in Heaven will be great." So I deliberately added that note in parenthesis to make the distinction that religious people (should) expect nothing in return from others, they should expect a reward from God only.

The effective difference is that the reward is immeasurably desirable. Whereas the reward of "common decency", for example, is low in comparison, and so the cost of taking care of someone can easily outweigh it - in which case there is no rational reason to continue taking care.

You're missing the point. I "latched onto" common decency because that is what the user before you brought up as a valid reason. It was only typed for demonstrative purposes.

So the other reasons you've given are similar - it's in your best interest, and in your community's, and in the world's. Notice that that is exactly what was argued in my comment before: "Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?"

Right, the desire of religious believers to help others is also self-interest. But the difference is that the expected reward comes from God, not from others. That makes it more resolute, because for the secular person if the cost of the care greatly outweighs the benefit of "common decency", then there is no reason to continue. Whereas, for a religious believer, the benefit of carrying out God's will is immeasurable.

As for your last point - we're all sinners and we're not perfect. The calculation is there, but the individual's faith and/or abilities might be lacking.

That's exactly His argument - you're telling yourself "it's the decent thing to do" but it's actually "doing this makes me feel like a decent person."

How do you make decisions without calculations? we're all calculators, aren't we?

Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?

The author argues that the reason America is sad is because of global trade and the interest rate policy. Perhaps having a culture that equates happiness with the economy is the real reason America is sad.

The difference is, like Jesus taught, religious people will care for others expecting nothing in return (reward is from God), but secular people will, even if it's as small as the narcissistic satisfaction of "look at me I'm such a good person." As soon as the cost-benefit of caring for family goes deeply negative, there's no reason to keep doing so.

I'm sure a lot of people assume it's immoral rather than impossible.

> Either way, Proton didn't help the FBI.

> Proton Mail complied with a legal demand they had no choice but to comply with

Are you forgetting how the Americans blocked Stormfront and Silk Road? They don't have full access to the Internet either, they're just not so obviously totalitarian about it as the Europeans.

Property taxes are the most evil of taxes because they force you out onto the street if you're unable to pay them. Qualifying it with the words "very valuable" to solve the problem creates an arbitrary two-tier system that is inherently unfair.

>Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.

The government didn't create the land either.

> "Do what we say or lose your income" does require blind faith in the correctness of the hierarchy.

That just describes anyone who worked under management. Recognizing that you may be fired for disobeying orders != believing that your manager is physically special.

How do you define blind faith and informed faith? Can't you conceive of someone who follows orders without blindly believing in them?

You seem to have this caricature of an XSXJ in your mind but your definition is so broad it lumps the majority of the world into it, and that's what I'm calling you out on.

That's better, but it's still wrong, because there are plenty of organized belief systems whose leaders don't demand blind loyalty. To say that these don't qualify as religions is absurd.

You could say that one of the elements of religion is having faith in something that is not provable via the scientific method and I'd agree. But then you'd lose generals, managers, politicians, etc... from the list above in which case the comment has lost its meaning.

> To me religion isn't Christianity or Islam. It's following orders of arbitrary leaders who give themselves titles via narrative. Priest, Minister, CEO, General... just words.

Religion = doing what your boss told you. Got it, that makes sense why so many people are religious.

> Why? Is this just an isolationist dream?

Imagine if Russia produced their own technical components - how much of an effect would sanctions have on them? If Russia relies on our computer chips, we have leverage over them. If we rely on Asian factories and silicon, they have leverage over us. President Biden wouldn't have had to go begging to Prince Mohammad for oil if we had enough production at home. It's the way the world works.