I am finally realizing that further discussion is futile.
If the purpose is to bring everyone to your own point of view (or to do the same to you), then, of course, its always been futile. If the purpose of the discussion is to imagine other possibilities, to see the other point of view, then no, it's not.
When you start with the premise that GOD is unjust -anything He does automatically becomes suspect.
Strawman alert! No one has started with that premise. However, the god described in the bible could certainly be described that way, if the records are true.
If you either 1- distrust GOD or 2- don't believe in GOD trying to explain Him by use of scripture is useless since those scriptures have already been rejected or distorted.
Well...the thread is called "assume for a moment that there is no God". In a discussion where both sides do not agree on either the existamce of this god, or in the writings that supposedly reveal him, you can't use those writings as the basis of settling an argument.
In order for those perceptions to change --perception of God would have to change --but GOD has already been tried and found guilty precluding any perception change.
If one side is using the bible as a source of truth, then its fair game for the other side to use that same bible to point out inconsistancies.
There can be a perception of the divine that differs from what the bible says.
TO be alone in this world dependent on the whim of your fellow man with no comfort when he betrays you I find very sad--But that is ME-- and for those who have chosen the path without God I wish you well
To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad.
When you start with the premise that GOD is unjust -anything He does automatically becomes suspect.
And yet, how much of religion is based on that very same kind of suppositionalism? Ie., the idea is considered, presupposed to be the truth, and all arguments, facts, evidence, conclusions, etc. are to line up with that presupposition, regardless of any kind of countering argument and valid facts that might say otherwise. And of course, you throw in a good dose of a guilt trip in viewing the bringing up of countering arguments and facts as a kind of sinful arrogance. Reprobates even, as a few here would put it. <_<
... Why, I believe that pretty much sums up faith now, doesn't it?
And, as Oakspear points out, it is a strawman argument, particularly when a good number of atheists/agnostics/unbelievers were once believers themselves, and sooner or later the bull&$*# factor just becomes too much for them to honestly ignore and 'just have faith in'.
Sounds all to familiar to what happened to us when we decided to adios TWI.
To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad.
\
Okay I'll "Bite"
I would like to know First person accounts of how He betrayed you.
Not the generic, well he lets there be wars, He killed people in the OT. Children die--But honest First person accounts of How God has betrayed you. I know there must be some for so many of you to be so disillusioned.
I think what this comes down to is two ancient views of man. One being that man is inherently good, the other being that man is inherently bad. Mo you seem to have the view of the later. Personally, I have the view that a human can be either. Of course there are genetics to throw into the mix, which isn't entirely understood yet, but it seems that in terms of personalities those genes are more like triggers, which can be set by environment (nurture). I think that the vast majority of the time a child brought up in a loving family will, without future jading, exhibit loving qualities like empathy, sympathy, and compasion. I know it is this way with my young (godless) children. Then on the other hand, a child raised in a hateful environment, without future love, will exhibit hateful qualities like bitterness, malace, and indifference toward the wellfare of others. There have been many many studies done confirming this.
So it really starts with your genetics and then your upbringing, then as you get older society plays more of a role in how those early values stick. Reality takes hold for each individual. Then that nature and nurture kicks in again in determining how you react to the stimuli of reality. You see it everywhere, people in dire circumstances overcoming and rising above what was for them a challenge and for others an impossibility. Then you see people like many of us here in the US who have what much of the world only dreams of yet are unable to get past the littlest of things. This is all with or without a god or gods (pick your favorite flavor).
What I am saying is that empathy, sympathy, and compassion are not qualities that descended from on high. They are values that come out of or are in responce to love. So then comes the arguement of "love- huh, good God, where did it come from?" Well, we could look at the cold hard facts of chemistry or we could speculate. Check out the lastest National Geographic for some interesting articles on the "science of love." Remember speculation does not make it so.
Without getting too evolutionary on your a$$e$ it basically comes down to this: The selfish "me and mine" concept (really just the ME concept) has evolved over time and evolves with each individual starting with survival and if nurtured in a loving way ends up with a genuine care and value of life and love. The multifarious variables that change and occur differently for everyone change the outcome in an equal number of variant, ranging from the extreme to the near identical and everything in between.
THIS INCLUDES the three lastest changes in our discussion
1- Helping your enemy may turn them from an enemy to a friend. (The real lesson in the parable or whatever it was, not specifically food or water.) This could be called negotiation or a smart pre-emptive act of good will to save you and your people as well as them and their people.
2- Helping those in need regardless of your personal gain. 1) There is no such case in which you do something good for someone else and you get nothing of benefit in return. There is always a reward, be it physical or mental (even if it is the elitist satisfaction of having the "higher standard." There is ALWAYS a reward. Plus, if you have empathy, sympathy, and compassion you both genuinely care and get the plessure of upholding a value you hold dear.
This is for the theist and atheist alike. When was the last time you watched a person you didn't know get killed and felt nothing or maybe pleasure? Never? Hopefully. Me neither. When is the last time a man watched another man get kicked in the Bo Jangles and didn't wince in pain? If there is such a man, he clearly was born without testicles. So again these are not feelings granted us by a god. Sympathy is a small step from empathy.
3- "Going without, for those outside the group" Each person's milage will vary with this one but it comes out of the same motivation as #2. If someone feels strongly enough or is compelled enough- they will do the unthinkable both for the good and the bad. Plus, people's ideas of a need vary as well. We humans can run on very little at times.
Clearly there are things we need in this country, even in spite our many excesses. Yet we take funding that can be used for those needs and help with the needs of our allies. This is not a strinctly "Godly" notion, but wise governing, as I have said earlier. If you say they are still "in the group" then anything else would fall into catagory 1 and/or 2.
4-(Added by me) 1-3 fall into the catagory of "moral elitism" when used the way they have been here. Good morals are good morals. We started out with "how can you have morals without God" and ended up with "yeah but mine are better." This in and of itself has questionable moral implications. I'm not pointing fingures just pointing it out. Doing good unto others will fall under a reasonable umbrella for most of the world. If everyone could just hang out under it a little more we would all be in a better place. Nit picking about who's moral standard is higher than the other doesn't do any good at all especially when most people (as you said, MO) don't even live up to it. I would even say that many people are unable to live up to it given their perticular cocktail of nurture and nature when mixed with their perticular reality. Or perhaps, just maybe, we could all get there some day, but the bar starts a little lower.
Lastly...
As Oak and Garth said one way or the other, the non-theists on this board have not always been such and come from a "have nothing to loose" stand point. So to say that we are starting with the presupposition that God is unjust, just isn't likely. What is more likely is that those that have much more to loose, like say ones faith in a loving God and eternal life, might start with the presupposition that God is always just and always loving. If God is unjust then that could mean that for any reason, he might not let you live forever or might for any reason not answer your prayer, or if he prehaps wakes up on the wrong side of his infinite bed tomarrow he may not allow you to live or may not forgive you. A lot hangs on him being loving and just 24/7 +/- time. So I would say you have it backwards. You see, we "assume for a moment that God doesn't exist" every moment of every day. It is a logical position for us agnostics to start with the assumption that if there is a god that it starts in a neutral postion and make observations before jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Since there are no observations to be made except on the beliefs of others, we tend to notice and accept discrepancies a little more readily than the already believing believer. We have no reason not to.
I would like to know First person accounts of how He betrayed you.
*sigh*
As Lindy pointed out, I am not saying that God betrayed me. I was taking your remark: "TO be alone in this world dependent on the whim of your fellow man with no comfort when he betrays you I find very sad", and turning it around with: "To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad." A figure of speech, if you will (or even if you won't)
Your initial remark makes some unwarranted (IMHO) assumptions:
1. Without (your) god, we are alone
2. We are dependent upon the whim of man (at least more so than a God-believer)
3. We are without comfort if we don't believe in your god
Your conclusion, that the state of those who are without your god is "sad", is based on premises that I believe are false.
My remark was ironic, or maybe just sarcastic , in that I feel that some are as dependent upon on god's whim, as you accuse others of being dependent on man's whim. The betrayal is generic, not specific. Since I don't believe in or worship your god, how can I believe that he has personally betrayed me?
Not the generic, well he lets there be wars, He killed people in the OT. Children die--But honest First person accounts of How God has betrayed you.
Throughout this thread, Templelady, you have attempted to define the boundaries of how others should view the world and divinity. Naturally, you are free to continue to do so, but I for one, won't be playing along.
I know there must be some for so many of you to be so disillusioned.
Ah, you know that. :wacko: Choosing to believe in something other than the biblical god, or to believe in no god at all is not dissillusionment. It is a choice.
If God is unjust then that could mean that for any reason, he might not let you live forever or might for any reason not answer your prayer, or if he perhaps wakes up on the wrong side of his infinite bed tomorrow he may not allow you to live or may not forgive you.
All the above outcomes are called "life" Saying God is unjust because He lets us experience life both the good and the bad and the consequences thereof is disingenuous at best.
Throughout this thread, Templelady, you have attempted to define the boundaries of how others should view the world and divinity. Naturally, you are free to continue to do so, but I for one, won't be playing along.
More accurately I refuse to stay in the boundaries of the world and Deity view that says there isn't a Deity
More accurately I refuse to stay in the boundaries of the world and Deity view that says there isn't a Deity
And I agree -I am through "playing along"
That's what I mean (and I beleive that I was quite accurate
The point hasn't been to deny that there is a god, or get you to do so, but to demonstrate that morality and ethics are not the unique province of those who believe in God.
"If God is unjust then that could mean that for any reason, he might not let you live forever or might for any reason not answer your prayer, or if he perhaps wakes up on the wrong side of his infinite bed tomorrow he may not allow you to live or may not forgive you."
All the above outcomes are called "life" Saying God is unjust because He lets us experience life both the good and the bad and the consequences thereof is disingenuous at best.
Disingenuous at best? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you here, or you me. I was not calling God unjust. I was explaining to you that it is more likely that you and other theists would be the ones starting with a presupposition that is biased- not the non-theists, at least not all of us. I say this again because your belief system and therefore your life, or your perseption of life (this one and the next), have so much hanging on God being just and loving.
How is deciding not to give you eternal life when you have done everything your God tells you to do- "life"? I think you were thinking I was talking about me. I was not talking about "outcomes." No, I was talking about God not doing things he promises a believer- granting eternal life, forgiving, answering prayer,etc. just because he might feel like it that day, being unjust, which it would be. If you go according to the "laws" He has set down, then judging you justly would entail granting you his promises (or not withholdig them- however you want to look at it). So if God was unjust, He would not be fair, loving, and one to be trusted really. As would be a belief system that hinges on these tenets and you may or may not get a "promise" on anygiven day based on the whim of said god. So it would be the direct opposite of what you now hold to be THE truth. As an agnostic, I don't hold many if any things as THE truth and so the good or bad things of a supposed god would not threaten my beliefs in anyway, therefore it wouldn't be likely that I would presuppose that a god I don't believe in to be just or unjust. Calling that disingenuous is what is called...being disingenuous or to be more fair, just totally not understanding what I was saying.
So what about the rest of my post? If we are no longer playing along can we at least admit that there are other sources of morality and that good morality is a good thing regardless of who things theirs is better and that you and others have other personal reasons for believing in a god that we can't touch and just leave it at that? I mean we did seem to make some progress by going from "if there is no God and no eternal life, then why morality" to "well God's morality is a higher standard." So can we move on to "good morals can exist without a god?"
How is deciding not to give you eternal life when you have done everything your God tells you to do- "life"?
If I did everything I was supposed to He wouldn't decide that.
As for morality, of course there are good morals without God or a belief in one. There is not a purely altruistic morality without God, As you pointed out everything we do has it's reward. Morality that is truly altruistic where the practicer gets no "return" is attributable and comprehensible only with God. That isn't to say that mankind practices it--we don't as a 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% rule of thumb, but at least there is the concept.
If I did everything I was supposed to He wouldn't decide that
Not at all the point I was making. Well, perhaps it is making my point. You are UNABLE to come to this discussion with a neutral POV to start from.
Anyways.
As for morality, of course there are good morals without God or a belief in one. There is not a purely altruistic morality without God, As you pointed out everything we do has it's reward. Morality that is truly altruistic where the practicer gets no "return" is attributable and comprehensible only with God. That isn't to say that mankind practices it--we don't as a 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% rule of thumb, but at least there is the concept.
This concept isn't true. Is there no "reep what you sow" with your god? Are there no eternal rewards? Is there no satisfaction in doing what you believe is right and true? There are NO truly altruistic acts, with or without a god. NONE. Everything good has it's reward. You know this whether you know it or not.
only two pages ago:
If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality?
Why morality with God? Perhaps the rewards of eternity? Perhaps the rewards in this life as well.
As for morality, of course there are good morals without God or a belief in one.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
There is not a purely altruistic morality without God,
Can you expand upon why you believe this to be true?
It looks like we agree that there can be morality with or without God, but disagree on the depth of that morality, namely that altruism can only come from God. We also agree that the existance of a moral standard is no guarantee that anyone follow it.
As you pointed out everything we do has it's reward.
If you include "a warm feeling that I've done something good", then maybe that's right. But I dispute whether that kind of "reward" would fall outside the definition of altruism, or could even honestly be called a reward. (I know you didn't say "everything we do has it's reward" first, but you're using it as a point of discussion)
Morality that is truly altruistic where the practicer gets no "return" is attributable and comprehensible only with God.
Again, why do you say that? When I put a $50 bill in the Salvation Army kettle, I get nothing in return, not even recognition from the bell ringer if I palm the bill before putting it in.
That isn't to say that mankind practices it--we don't as a 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% rule of thumb, but at least there is the concept.
Agreed, there is that concept among religious people....just as there is among non-religious people.
Edited by Oakspear
If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining some personal benefit, then it is not an altruistically motivated act. There are several different perspectives on how "benefit" (or "interest") should be defined. A material gain (e.g. money, a physical reward, etc.) is clearly a form of benefit, while others identify and include both material and immaterial gains (affection, respect, happiness, satisfaction etc.) as being philosophically identical benefits.
According to psychological egoism, while people can exhibit altruistic behavior, they cannot have altruistic motivations. Psychological egoists would say that while they might very well spend their lives benefitting others with no material benefit (or a material net loss) to themselves, their most basic motive for doing so is always to further their own interests. For example, it would be alleged that the foundational motive behind a person acting this way is to advance their own psychological well-being ("good feeling"). Critics of this theory often reject it on the grounds that it is non-falsifiable; in other words, it is designed in such a way as to be impossible to prove or disprove - because immaterial gains such as a "good feeling" cannot be measured or proven to exist in all people performing altruistic acts. Psychological egoism has also been accused of using circular logic: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment". This statement is circular because its conclusion is identical to its hypothesis (it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment).
In contrast to psychological egoism, the empathy-altruism hypothesis states that when an individual experiences empathy towards someone in need, the individual will then be altruistically motivated to help that person; that is, the individual will be primarily concerned about that person's welfare, not his or her own.
In common parlance, altruism usually means helping another person without expecting material reward from that or other persons, although it may well entail the "internal" benefit of a "good feeling," sense of satisfaction, self-esteem, fulfillment of duty (whether imposed by a religion or ideology or simply one's conscience), or the like. In this way one need not speculate on the motives of the altruist in question.
Humans are not exclusively altruistic towards family members, previous co-operators or potential future allies, but can be altruistic towards people they don't know and will never meet. For example, humans donate to international charities and volunteer their time to help society's less fortunate.
It strains plausibility to claim that these altruistic deeds are done in the hope of a return favor. The game theory analysis of this 'just in case' strategy, where the principle would be 'always help everyone in case you need to pull in a favor in return', is a decidedly non-optimal strategy, where the net expenditure of effort (tit) is far greater than the net profit when it occasionally pays off (tat).
According to some, it is difficult to believe that these behaviors are solely explained as indirect selfish rationality, be it conscious or sub-conscious. Mathematical formulations of kin selection, along the lines of the prisoner's dilemma, are helpful as far as they go; but what a game-theoretic explanation glosses over is the fact that altruistic behavior can be attributed to that apparently mysterious phenomenon, the conscience. One recent suggestion, proposed by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, was initially developed when considering the problem of so-called 'free riders' in the tragedy of the commons, a larger-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma.
In game theory terms, a free rider is an agent who draws benefits from a co-operative society without contributing. In a one-to-one situation, free riding can easily be discouraged by a tit-for-tat strategy. But in a larger-scale society, where contributions and benefits are pooled and shared, they can be incredibly difficult to shake off.
Imagine an elementary society of co-operative organisms. Co-operative agents interact with each other, each contributing resources and each drawing on the common good. Now imagine a roguefree rider, an agent who draws a favor ("you scratch my back") and later refuses to return it. The problem is that free riding is always going to be beneficial to individuals at cost to society. How can well-behaved co-operative agents avoid being cheated? Over many generations, one obvious solution is for co-operators to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them. Then, the canonical free rider response is to evolve a more convincing disguise, fooling co-operators into co-operating after all. This can lead to an evolutionary arms races, with ever-more-sophisticated disguises and ever-more-sophisticated detectors.
In this evolutionary arms race, how best might one convince comrades that one really is a genuine co-operator, not a free rider in disguise? One answer is by actually making oneself a genuine co-operator, by erecting psychological barriers to breaking promises, and by advertising this fact to everyone else. In other words, a good solution is for organisms to evolve things that everyone knows will force them to be co-operators - and to make it obvious that they've evolved these things. So evolution will produce organisms who are sincerely moral and who wear their hearts on their sleeves; in short, evolution will give rise to the phenomenon of conscience.
This theory, combined with ideas of kin selection and the one-to-one sharing of benefits, may explain how a blind and fundamentally selfish process can produce a genuinely non-cynical form of altruism that gives rise to the human conscience.
Critics of such technical game theory analysis point out that it appears to forget that human beings are rational and emotional. To presume an analysis of human behaviour without including human rationale or emotion is necessarily unrealistically narrow, and treats human beings as if they are mere machines, sometimes called Homo economicus. Another objection is that often people donate anonymously, so that it is immpossible to determine if they really did the altruistic act.
Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place.
Okay this is one section from a lenghty articel on altruism. It seems the "professionals" are as confused as us
From my perspective I say that true altruism is done neither , with expectation of future reward or present reward -even if that reward be only a good feeling
How about for the purposes of this discussion we define more than one type of "altruism"?
1. Actions taken with no expectation of reward, including "warm feelings", let's call that "pure altruism"
2. Actions taken with no expectation of material reward, but can include "warm feelings", pats on the back, etc., let's call that simply "altruism"
What do ya say?
Okay
So does society practice Pure altruism as a whole or are we pretty much just altruistic when we do something--confining ourselves to those acts that we can, at the very least, expect warm fuzzies from?
Sorry to say for myself, the warm fuzzy altruism, when I practice altruism, is the sort I go for. At the very least I feel good about making the "sacrifice" doing something I really don't want to
According to psychological egoism, while people can exhibit altruistic behavior, they cannot have altruistic motivations. Psychological egoists would say that while they might very well spend their lives benefitting others with no material benefit (or a material net loss) to themselves, their most basic motive for doing so is always to further their own interests. For example, it would be alleged that the foundational motive behind a person acting this way is to advance their own psychological well-being ("good feeling"). Critics of this theory often reject it on the grounds that it is non-falsifiable; in other words, it is designed in such a way as to be impossible to prove or disprove - because immaterial gains such as a "good feeling" cannot be measured or proven to exist in all people performing altruistic acts. Psychological egoism has also been accused of using circular logic: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment".
So I guess I am a phycological egoist. I don't think I use it in a circular way and I hope ya'll can see that and I don't think that this view is totally non-falsifiable. First while we may not be able to measure "good feeling" quantitatively across the board for everyone, we all do have our own internal gauge of a good or a bad feeling and at least the the lack of one or the other. I also don't esspecially like the term "good feeling" in this regard. I am not talking about strictly things that make you feel good but things that don't make you feel bad, or a satisfying of a value you have. It may not be able to be measured but it can not be ignored.
For example, some of the tenets of the Christian faith are: "Do unto others as they would do unto you" (note the command to do this in a selfish fashion) , "you reep what you sow," and "love your neighbor." If someone believes these things it is apart of their psyche. You can't ignore it when considering their motivation for doing a good deed. Even if they don't feel like it or it doesn't put a smile on their face it is still satisfying their belief and within that belief, satisfying their "father.'' It is the same with a kid who does what their parent tells them to do when they don't want to. They may not feel good about it, but on some level they feel better than they would if they had not done it and recieved the consequences. So even if the motivation is out of fear, it is still self serving. All the religions I can think of have similar tenets and we cannot ignore this when considering one's motives.
I am not saying this is neccessarily a conscious desicion either. I think it can be something learned early in life and can become second nature without special feelings attached. That said I do think most people are like you, Mo, and perform altruistic acts for the warm fuzzy side effects. No apology needed. It is a natural thing to do.
I should not have said that your concept is not true, sorry for that. I do not percieve it to be true and I would very much enjoy an example of a truly selfless act with absolutely no reward whatsoever, be it material, psychological, eternal, spiritual, whatever. This has been a concept I came up with by way of observation and personal honesty. It is good to see that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion.
I thought the wiki-article gave a good example of conscience (and then morals) evolving out of selfish origins but I think that it may not be such a conscious decision on a personal level but almost a survival instinct. Although, on a social level I would say the "psychological barriars" the article spoke of is similar to what I said earlier about a god being an invention to both explain the unknown and enforce moral obligation and causing people to be more "cooperative agents" in society.
So Oak,
What is your motivation for dropping a 50 in the Salvation Army bin?
I would not put "expectaion" in the altruism definition. Altruistic acts and other good acts are not always performed with an expectation but rather as a reation to internal "triggers." By acting out of empathy or sympathy I quell the feelings or beliefs that trigger that responce. "I feel your pain." That expression can be quite literal. By soothing the pains of others we soothe our own. Again I don't see this as a bad thing but as a win-win situation, as a very healing experience for all involved and that is always a great situation to be apart of.
So does society practice Pure altruism as a whole or are we pretty much just altruistic when we do something--confining ourselves to those acts that we can, at the very least, expect warm fuzzies from?
If by "as a whole" you mean that pure altruism is the general rule of behavior across the board, then, no. Do some individuals practice it, at least occassionally? Yes, I believe so.
So Oak,
What is your motivation for dropping a 50 in the Salvation Army bin?
They do a lot of good in our community, and I had $50 that I wouldn't miss at the time.
If so-called "pure" altruism excludes any sort of personal feeling of wellbeing, even "warm fuzzies," then I doubt that it even exists. Whether or not it does, Christianity does not espouse that sort of "pure" altruism. Nor is the love (or acceptance) it propounds unconditional.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." All of those scriptures, plus many more, include conditions and a self-interest motivation. And that's fine. Just don't spout off the nonsense that Christianity doesn't include self-interest as a motivation for love or good deeds.
Christianity does not espouse that sort of "pure" altruism.
Actually it does-failure to live up to that expectation in no way negates the expectation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." All of those scriptures, plus many more, include conditions and a self-interest motivation
I guess that depends on how you interpret those verses (interpretation in and of itself is not bad no matter what piffle said ) If you look at them in the sense pf "I'm doing this so that they will be that nice to me in return" or if you look at them in the light of "no matter if they reciprocate or not that is how I must treat them"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 4
18
Jan 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Oakspear
There can be a perception of the divine that differs from what the bible says.
To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad.Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And yet, how much of religion is based on that very same kind of suppositionalism? Ie., the idea is considered, presupposed to be the truth, and all arguments, facts, evidence, conclusions, etc. are to line up with that presupposition, regardless of any kind of countering argument and valid facts that might say otherwise. And of course, you throw in a good dose of a guilt trip in viewing the bringing up of countering arguments and facts as a kind of sinful arrogance. Reprobates even, as a few here would put it. <_<
... Why, I believe that pretty much sums up faith now, doesn't it?
And, as Oakspear points out, it is a strawman argument, particularly when a good number of atheists/agnostics/unbelievers were once believers themselves, and sooner or later the bull&$*# factor just becomes too much for them to honestly ignore and 'just have faith in'.
Sounds all to familiar to what happened to us when we decided to adios TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay I'll "Bite"
I would like to know First person accounts of how He betrayed you.
Not the generic, well he lets there be wars, He killed people in the OT. Children die--But honest First person accounts of How God has betrayed you. I know there must be some for so many of you to be so disillusioned.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, for what it is worth... one more go.
I think what this comes down to is two ancient views of man. One being that man is inherently good, the other being that man is inherently bad. Mo you seem to have the view of the later. Personally, I have the view that a human can be either. Of course there are genetics to throw into the mix, which isn't entirely understood yet, but it seems that in terms of personalities those genes are more like triggers, which can be set by environment (nurture). I think that the vast majority of the time a child brought up in a loving family will, without future jading, exhibit loving qualities like empathy, sympathy, and compasion. I know it is this way with my young (godless) children. Then on the other hand, a child raised in a hateful environment, without future love, will exhibit hateful qualities like bitterness, malace, and indifference toward the wellfare of others. There have been many many studies done confirming this.
So it really starts with your genetics and then your upbringing, then as you get older society plays more of a role in how those early values stick. Reality takes hold for each individual. Then that nature and nurture kicks in again in determining how you react to the stimuli of reality. You see it everywhere, people in dire circumstances overcoming and rising above what was for them a challenge and for others an impossibility. Then you see people like many of us here in the US who have what much of the world only dreams of yet are unable to get past the littlest of things. This is all with or without a god or gods (pick your favorite flavor).
What I am saying is that empathy, sympathy, and compassion are not qualities that descended from on high. They are values that come out of or are in responce to love. So then comes the arguement of "love- huh, good God, where did it come from?" Well, we could look at the cold hard facts of chemistry or we could speculate. Check out the lastest National Geographic for some interesting articles on the "science of love." Remember speculation does not make it so.
Without getting too evolutionary on your a$$e$ it basically comes down to this: The selfish "me and mine" concept (really just the ME concept) has evolved over time and evolves with each individual starting with survival and if nurtured in a loving way ends up with a genuine care and value of life and love. The multifarious variables that change and occur differently for everyone change the outcome in an equal number of variant, ranging from the extreme to the near identical and everything in between.
THIS INCLUDES the three lastest changes in our discussion
1- Helping your enemy may turn them from an enemy to a friend. (The real lesson in the parable or whatever it was, not specifically food or water.) This could be called negotiation or a smart pre-emptive act of good will to save you and your people as well as them and their people.
2- Helping those in need regardless of your personal gain. 1) There is no such case in which you do something good for someone else and you get nothing of benefit in return. There is always a reward, be it physical or mental (even if it is the elitist satisfaction of having the "higher standard." There is ALWAYS a reward. Plus, if you have empathy, sympathy, and compassion you both genuinely care and get the plessure of upholding a value you hold dear.
This is for the theist and atheist alike. When was the last time you watched a person you didn't know get killed and felt nothing or maybe pleasure? Never? Hopefully. Me neither. When is the last time a man watched another man get kicked in the Bo Jangles and didn't wince in pain? If there is such a man, he clearly was born without testicles. So again these are not feelings granted us by a god. Sympathy is a small step from empathy.
3- "Going without, for those outside the group" Each person's milage will vary with this one but it comes out of the same motivation as #2. If someone feels strongly enough or is compelled enough- they will do the unthinkable both for the good and the bad. Plus, people's ideas of a need vary as well. We humans can run on very little at times.
Clearly there are things we need in this country, even in spite our many excesses. Yet we take funding that can be used for those needs and help with the needs of our allies. This is not a strinctly "Godly" notion, but wise governing, as I have said earlier. If you say they are still "in the group" then anything else would fall into catagory 1 and/or 2.
4-(Added by me) 1-3 fall into the catagory of "moral elitism" when used the way they have been here. Good morals are good morals. We started out with "how can you have morals without God" and ended up with "yeah but mine are better." This in and of itself has questionable moral implications. I'm not pointing fingures just pointing it out. Doing good unto others will fall under a reasonable umbrella for most of the world. If everyone could just hang out under it a little more we would all be in a better place. Nit picking about who's moral standard is higher than the other doesn't do any good at all especially when most people (as you said, MO) don't even live up to it. I would even say that many people are unable to live up to it given their perticular cocktail of nurture and nature when mixed with their perticular reality. Or perhaps, just maybe, we could all get there some day, but the bar starts a little lower.
Lastly...
As Oak and Garth said one way or the other, the non-theists on this board have not always been such and come from a "have nothing to loose" stand point. So to say that we are starting with the presupposition that God is unjust, just isn't likely. What is more likely is that those that have much more to loose, like say ones faith in a loving God and eternal life, might start with the presupposition that God is always just and always loving. If God is unjust then that could mean that for any reason, he might not let you live forever or might for any reason not answer your prayer, or if he prehaps wakes up on the wrong side of his infinite bed tomarrow he may not allow you to live or may not forgive you. A lot hangs on him being loving and just 24/7 +/- time. So I would say you have it backwards. You see, we "assume for a moment that God doesn't exist" every moment of every day. It is a logical position for us agnostics to start with the assumption that if there is a god that it starts in a neutral postion and make observations before jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Since there are no observations to be made except on the beliefs of others, we tend to notice and accept discrepancies a little more readily than the already believing believer. We have no reason not to.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't think that Oak was saying that God had betrayed him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As Lindy pointed out, I am not saying that God betrayed me. I was taking your remark: "TO be alone in this world dependent on the whim of your fellow man with no comfort when he betrays you I find very sad", and turning it around with: "To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad." A figure of speech, if you will (or even if you won't)
Your initial remark makes some unwarranted (IMHO) assumptions:
1. Without (your) god, we are alone
2. We are dependent upon the whim of man (at least more so than a God-believer)
3. We are without comfort if we don't believe in your god
Your conclusion, that the state of those who are without your god is "sad", is based on premises that I believe are false.
My remark was ironic, or maybe just sarcastic
, in that I feel that some are as dependent upon on god's whim, as you accuse others of being dependent on man's whim. The betrayal is generic, not specific. Since I don't believe in or worship your god, how can I believe that he has personally betrayed me?
Throughout this thread, Templelady, you have attempted to define the boundaries of how others should view the world and divinity. Naturally, you are free to continue to do so, but I for one, won't be playing along. Ah, you know that. :wacko: Choosing to believe in something other than the biblical god, or to believe in no god at all is not dissillusionment. It is a choice.Lindy: good post (the long one)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
More accurately I refuse to stay in the boundaries of the world and Deity view that says there isn't a Deity
And I agree -I am through "playing along"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The point hasn't been to deny that there is a god, or get you to do so, but to demonstrate that morality and ethics are not the unique province of those who believe in God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Disingenuous at best? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you here, or you me. I was not calling God unjust. I was explaining to you that it is more likely that you and other theists would be the ones starting with a presupposition that is biased- not the non-theists, at least not all of us. I say this again because your belief system and therefore your life, or your perseption of life (this one and the next), have so much hanging on God being just and loving.
How is deciding not to give you eternal life when you have done everything your God tells you to do- "life"? I think you were thinking I was talking about me. I was not talking about "outcomes." No, I was talking about God not doing things he promises a believer- granting eternal life, forgiving, answering prayer,etc. just because he might feel like it that day, being unjust, which it would be. If you go according to the "laws" He has set down, then judging you justly would entail granting you his promises (or not withholdig them- however you want to look at it). So if God was unjust, He would not be fair, loving, and one to be trusted really. As would be a belief system that hinges on these tenets and you may or may not get a "promise" on anygiven day based on the whim of said god. So it would be the direct opposite of what you now hold to be THE truth. As an agnostic, I don't hold many if any things as THE truth and so the good or bad things of a supposed god would not threaten my beliefs in anyway, therefore it wouldn't be likely that I would presuppose that a god I don't believe in to be just or unjust. Calling that disingenuous is what is called...being disingenuous or to be more fair, just totally not understanding what I was saying.
So what about the rest of my post? If we are no longer playing along can we at least admit that there are other sources of morality and that good morality is a good thing regardless of who things theirs is better and that you and others have other personal reasons for believing in a god that we can't touch and just leave it at that? I mean we did seem to make some progress by going from "if there is no God and no eternal life, then why morality" to "well God's morality is a higher standard." So can we move on to "good morals can exist without a god?"
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
If I did everything I was supposed to He wouldn't decide that.
As for morality, of course there are good morals without God or a belief in one. There is not a purely altruistic morality without God, As you pointed out everything we do has it's reward. Morality that is truly altruistic where the practicer gets no "return" is attributable and comprehensible only with God. That isn't to say that mankind practices it--we don't as a 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% rule of thumb, but at least there is the concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't know how to say it any other way.
Not at all the point I was making. Well, perhaps it is making my point. You are UNABLE to come to this discussion with a neutral POV to start from.Anyways.
This concept isn't true. Is there no "reep what you sow" with your god? Are there no eternal rewards? Is there no satisfaction in doing what you believe is right and true? There are NO truly altruistic acts, with or without a god. NONE. Everything good has it's reward. You know this whether you know it or not.
only two pages ago:
Why morality with God? Perhaps the rewards of eternity? Perhaps the rewards in this life as well.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It looks like we agree that there can be morality with or without God, but disagree on the depth of that morality, namely that altruism can only come from God. We also agree that the existance of a moral standard is no guarantee that anyone follow it.
If you include "a warm feeling that I've done something good", then maybe that's right. But I dispute whether that kind of "reward" would fall outside the definition of altruism, or could even honestly be called a reward. (I know you didn't say "everything we do has it's reward" first, but you're using it as a point of discussion)Again, why do you say that? When I put a $50 bill in the Salvation Army kettle, I get nothing in return, not even recognition from the bell ringer if I palm the bill before putting it in. Agreed, there is that concept among religious people....just as there is among non-religious people. Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay this is one section from a lenghty articel on altruism. It seems the "professionals" are as confused as us
From my perspective I say that true altruism is done neither , with expectation of future reward or present reward -even if that reward be only a good feeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And of course, for the Ayn Rand followers, "true altruism" is a sin all by itself...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Templelady:
How about for the purposes of this discussion we define more than one type of "altruism"?
1. Actions taken with no expectation of reward, including "warm feelings", let's call that "pure altruism"
2. Actions taken with no expectation of material reward, but can include "warm feelings", pats on the back, etc., let's call that simply "altruism"
What do ya say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ahhh --Ayn Rand.
Who can forget *Atlas Shrugged*?
And --- Who is John Galt!?
:)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay
So does society practice Pure altruism as a whole or are we pretty much just altruistic when we do something--confining ourselves to those acts that we can, at the very least, expect warm fuzzies from?
Sorry to say for myself, the warm fuzzy altruism, when I practice altruism, is the sort I go for. At the very least I feel good about making the "sacrifice" doing something I really don't want to
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Thanks Mo,
So I guess I am a phycological egoist. I don't think I use it in a circular way and I hope ya'll can see that and I don't think that this view is totally non-falsifiable. First while we may not be able to measure "good feeling" quantitatively across the board for everyone, we all do have our own internal gauge of a good or a bad feeling and at least the the lack of one or the other. I also don't esspecially like the term "good feeling" in this regard. I am not talking about strictly things that make you feel good but things that don't make you feel bad, or a satisfying of a value you have. It may not be able to be measured but it can not be ignored.
For example, some of the tenets of the Christian faith are: "Do unto others as they would do unto you" (note the command to do this in a selfish fashion) , "you reep what you sow," and "love your neighbor." If someone believes these things it is apart of their psyche. You can't ignore it when considering their motivation for doing a good deed. Even if they don't feel like it or it doesn't put a smile on their face it is still satisfying their belief and within that belief, satisfying their "father.'' It is the same with a kid who does what their parent tells them to do when they don't want to. They may not feel good about it, but on some level they feel better than they would if they had not done it and recieved the consequences. So even if the motivation is out of fear, it is still self serving. All the religions I can think of have similar tenets and we cannot ignore this when considering one's motives.
I am not saying this is neccessarily a conscious desicion either. I think it can be something learned early in life and can become second nature without special feelings attached. That said I do think most people are like you, Mo, and perform altruistic acts for the warm fuzzy side effects. No apology needed. It is a natural thing to do.
I should not have said that your concept is not true, sorry for that. I do not percieve it to be true and I would very much enjoy an example of a truly selfless act with absolutely no reward whatsoever, be it material, psychological, eternal, spiritual, whatever. This has been a concept I came up with by way of observation and personal honesty. It is good to see that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion.
I thought the wiki-article gave a good example of conscience (and then morals) evolving out of selfish origins but I think that it may not be such a conscious decision on a personal level but almost a survival instinct. Although, on a social level I would say the "psychological barriars" the article spoke of is similar to what I said earlier about a god being an invention to both explain the unknown and enforce moral obligation and causing people to be more "cooperative agents" in society.
So Oak,
What is your motivation for dropping a 50 in the Salvation Army bin?
I would not put "expectaion" in the altruism definition. Altruistic acts and other good acts are not always performed with an expectation but rather as a reation to internal "triggers." By acting out of empathy or sympathy I quell the feelings or beliefs that trigger that responce. "I feel your pain." That expression can be quite literal. By soothing the pains of others we soothe our own. Again I don't see this as a bad thing but as a win-win situation, as a very healing experience for all involved and that is always a great situation to be apart of.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
If so-called "pure" altruism excludes any sort of personal feeling of wellbeing, even "warm fuzzies," then I doubt that it even exists. Whether or not it does, Christianity does not espouse that sort of "pure" altruism. Nor is the love (or acceptance) it propounds unconditional.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." All of those scriptures, plus many more, include conditions and a self-interest motivation. And that's fine. Just don't spout off the nonsense that Christianity doesn't include self-interest as a motivation for love or good deeds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I guess that depends on how you interpret those verses (interpretation in and of itself is not bad no matter what piffle said
) If you look at them in the sense pf "I'm doing this so that they will be that nice to me in return" or if you look at them in the light of "no matter if they reciprocate or not that is how I must treat them"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I've been wanting to jump into this thread but haven't read it all yet. Do I need to, or is there a good starting point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Seriously, don't bother...it's pretty well played out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.