Atheism and irreligion thread

[Malvolio]

One of many things that offend me about these ghosts hunters is they always find a "demon" or something equally bad. They never meet Casper rather they always meet Gozer. I suppose the worse the haunting the better the potential ratings.

I used to watch Ghost Hunters every week, and it wasn't always "bad" ghosts. Sometimes, it was just someone who was there and didn't mean to scare anyone. I mean, a lot of these places use their "hauntings" as selling points and guests are often disappointed if they don't have any supernatural encounters.

[Celgress]

I used to watch Ghost Hunters every week, and it wasn't always "bad" ghosts. Sometimes, it was just someone who was there and didn't mean to scare anyone. I mean, a lot of these places use their "hauntings" as selling points and guests are often disappointed if they don't have any supernatural encounters.

Here is an interesting thought experiment -

Assuming ghosts exist is it right to use them for monetary gain? Once they were mortal people. I say no.

[Malvolio]

Here is an interesting thought experiment -

Assuming ghosts exist is it right to use them for monetary gain? Once they were mortal people. I say no.

But if they exist, and you can communicate with them, then you can ask the ghosts for their permission.

[Kirby101]

Does Casper get royalties?

[Adam Allen]

Here is an interesting thought experiment -

Assuming ghosts exist is it right to use them for monetary gain? Once they were mortal people. I say no.

Well, from a utilitarian moral perspective, the two questions you'd have to ask, to discern if exploiting their existence for profit is wrong, would be, 1) As no-longer-mortal beings, are they still able to experience (new) harm? And, 2) Does inviting people over to gawk at them cause harm, if they are able to experience it?

If they are just stuck reliving how they died or whatever, and never really aware of new people in the picture, then exploit away, I say. Or even if they are aware of new people, but are dead and stuck in this place, so any interactions with new people can provide some kind of distraction from endlessly haunting some decrepit old place, then again, invite the gawkers as you like.

But yeah, if they would be more or less like regular humans, just without a physical body any more, then yeah, inviting people over to exploit their existence would be about the moral equivalent of a circus sideshow ...

[Celgress]

Well, from a utilitarian moral perspective, the two questions you'd have to ask, to discern if exploiting their existence for profit is wrong, would be, 1) As no-longer-mortal beings, are they still able to experience (new) harm? And, 2) Does inviting people over to gawk at them cause harm, if they are able to experience it?

If they are just stuck reliving how they died or whatever, and never really aware of new people in the picture, then exploit away, I say. Or even if they are aware of new people, but are dead and stuck in this place, so any interactions with new people can provide some kind of distraction from endlessly haunting some decrepit old place, then again, invite the gawkers as you like.

But yeah, if they would be more or less like regular humans, just without a physical body any more, then yeah, inviting people over to exploit their existence would be about the moral equivalent of a circus sideshow ...

Thanks for a well-thought-out answer.

I agree with you, it is situational. But yeah, if they are self-aware it is wrong.

[Moon Ronin]

I think homosexuality can be part of this discussion. I find the Bible confusing, because it seems ancient humans could sleep and procreate with their children or sisters/brothers, or Abraham could sleep with another woman to be able to have a child. But two men sleeping together was more bad? I don't understand that.

In some religions, men (it's always males..) can have more than one woman, but women can't.. That pisses me off so much! lol

Leviticus states also that it is a sin for some one to sleep with their children or sisters/brothers. Its funny about the many wives thing. I was working with a grad student from Nigeria once and he asked me how many wives can people in America have. I said only one. He told me that in Nigeria a man can only have as many wives as he is able to please. I responded that then in America no one would be married.

[Kirby101]

leviticus states also that it is a sin for some one to sleep with their children or sisters/brothers. Its funny about the many wives thing. I was working with a grad student from nigeria once and he asked me how many wives can people in america have. I said only one. He told me that in nigeria a man can only have as many wives as he is able to please. I responded that then in america no one would be married.

ha! Rofl

Edit, won't show in all caps?

[Kirby101]

Reading lately about Jesus being mythical. I usually come down in the camp of Yeshua was a real person, but a myth was created around him, based on various other religions of the day. I don't trust any of the Gospel stories to be real events. But there really isn't any good evidence for him existing. Even Josephus and Tacitus mentions are suspect.
I also think about how this has happened in modern times, They have canonized Juan Diego from Mexico as a Saint. More than likely he never existed. But here we have a whole history created for this likely mythical figure. If it is happening today, why not 2000 years ago? All I am certain of is the uncertainty.

Thoughts?

[Jack Dracula]

Reading lately about Jesus being mythical. I usually come down in the camp of Yeshua was a real person, but a myth was created around him, based on various other religions of the day. I don't trust any of the Gospel stories to be real events. But there really isn't any good evidence for him existing. Even Josephus and Tacitus mentions are suspect.
I also think about how this has happened in modern times, They have canonized Juan Diego from Mexico as a Saint. More than likely he never existed. But here we have a whole history created for this likely mythical figure. If it is happening today, why not 2000 years ago? All I am certain of is the uncertainty.

Thoughts?

We discussed the existence of Jesus recently at our local Beer and Philosophy group. One of the people made the comment that 2000 years from now, historians will have the same problem deciding whether Superman was a real person.

[Kirby101]

We discussed the existence of Jesus recently at our local Beer and Philosophy group. One of the people made the comment that 2000 years from now, historians will have the same problem deciding whether Superman was a real person.

He's not?

[myownlittleusername]

Reading lately about Jesus being mythical. I usually come down in the camp of Yeshua was a real person, but a myth was created around him, based on various other religions of the day. I don't trust any of the Gospel stories to be real events. But there really isn't any good evidence for him existing. Even Josephus and Tacitus mentions are suspect.
I also think about how this has happened in modern times, They have canonized Juan Diego from Mexico as a Saint. More than likely he never existed. But here we have a whole history created for this likely mythical figure. If it is happening today, why not 2000 years ago? All I am certain of is the uncertainty.

Thoughts?

There seems to be a consensus among actual historians that he existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Tim O'Neill also have a series of posts on this subject that I personally found illuminating.

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

[Starter Set]

But there really isn't any good evidence for him existing

Indeed there is none. The only direct mentions of Jesus are in the Bible and as you said, Josephus' text on the subject is highy suspect.

[Kirby101]

There seems to be a consensus among actual historians that he existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Tim O'Neill also have a series of posts on this subject that I personally found illuminating.

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

True, but most biblical scholars are Christian. I agree that the majority agree there was a person, Yeshua, who the Gospels later used as the base for the mythology of Jesus. But it is really all an argument of logic. There is no real evidence for him. The mythical Jesus camp also haves some very good logical arguments that he was a myth based on other religious traditions. I find the both camps have interesting things to say. I think the best we can say is there is no definitive answer. Though in the end it is like asking if all the tall tales of Paul Bunyan were based on some lumberjack of that name from Minnesota.

[JackDaw]

Well, from a utilitarian moral perspective, the two questions you'd have to ask, to discern if exploiting their existence for profit is wrong, would be, 1) As no-longer-mortal beings, are they still able to experience (new) harm? And, 2) Does inviting people over to gawk at them cause harm, if they are able to experience it?

If they are just stuck reliving how they died or whatever, and never really aware of new people in the picture, then exploit away, I say. Or even if they are aware of new people, but are dead and stuck in this place, so any interactions with new people can provide some kind of distraction from endlessly haunting some decrepit old place, then again, invite the gawkers as you like.

But yeah, if they would be more or less like regular humans, just without a physical body any more, then yeah, inviting people over to exploit their existence would be about the moral equivalent of a circus sideshow ...

But surely if ghosts are incapable of some degree of thought they can’t really answer questions, relate to the living, etc...and then the “ghost trade” is still immoral because the gullible living bereaved are being exploited?

So I’d argue trade can only be moral in effectively the second of your scenarios: they want to communicate for reasons of their own (including, but not limited to being bored).

I guess spirtualists would argue that get the equivalent of informed consent, or maybe don’t worry too much about the fine details of morals.