Existence of god

[wegs]

Why do you need to care for your fellow man?

Why does it matter to you if people die as a result of the bombing campaign in Iraq by America?

jan.

Because as we (most people) see ourselves as vulnerable, we can see/sense it in others. It is called, compassion. Compassion is not necessarily a byproduct of having faith in a god, although, it can be for some people. It stems from our own vulnerabilities perhaps, and we see others with those same needs, wants and vulnerabilities. This doesn't mean all atheists will respond to others' needs with compassion, or concern. It simply answers your question as to how an atheist is capable of finding compassion for others, despite the fact that he/she doesn't believe in a god. Stripping away the labels -- we have more in common than not.

 

[Seattle]

Why do you need to care for your fellow man?

Why does it matter to you if people die as a result of the bombing campaign in Iraq by America?

jan.

Why, exactly, does it matter to you?

 

[Write4U]

Firstly, I didn't, and don't equate atheism with evil, I am using the exact meaning of ''atheist'' (a person who does not believe in God).
Secondly, I didn't make an argument, I simply asked questions regarding ''why?'', if a person doesn't believe in God, is there a need to care for those people. Maybe other animal species would care if their fellow species were being killed mercylessly in a different part of the world. I don't know. But I doubt it. Why does it matter to an atheist?

I'm not saying that all theists automatically care, but there is scope to connect with ones fellow man through compassion, and empathy, which can be directly understood through God, not only for our fellow man, but for all forms of life. To what degree do atheists care about peopl,e who are not only thousands of miles away, but are not related in anyway to their life and life patterns, and why should they care??

This is a serious question, with no implication or judgement.

You partly answered your own question by admitting that believing in God does not in any way alter the fact that religious people are killing each other.
But your non-judgmental statement that atheists have no "foundation" to be moral, similar to other animals, sounds very much to me like an implication that you equate atheism with amorality (lack of moral standards).

This is wrong on several levels.

a) Moral behavior is not exclusive to scripture. Many animals clearly show moral behaviors. Examples of this abound in domesticated animals, like dogs, apes, elephants, whales, dolphins. This clearly proves that even in the wild morality emerges along with social structures in the animal world.
b) atheism does NOT make a person amoral. Many atheists are actively involved in the Humanities.
c) And last but not least, informed atheists have no way to absolve himself from any sins (intentional or unintentional), unlike confession and absolution from a "holy" person) and have to carry their burden of guilt themselves. "Personal Responsibility"!

OTOH,

d) scripture instructs the "obedient servant" to commit all sorts of crimes, as long as they are committed in the name of God and sanctioned by a religious leader (Crusades, KKK, Jim Jones, Fatwas, Jihads). It is the very exclusivity of organized religions which makes immoral behavior against the "infidels' or atheists, or anyone who is "different from us" a morally "negotiable" activity.

e) More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause, especially in the non-existent cause of Atheism.

common criticism which atheists raise against religion is how violent religion and religious believers have been in the past. People have slaughtered each other in large numbers either because of differences in religious beliefs or because of other differences which are further justified and intensified through religious rhetoric. Either way, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No, because atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology....
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismKills.htm

It appears that atheism itself has nothing to do with moral behavior. There are atheists who commit immoral acts, but NOT in the name of Atheism. But to commit immoral acts in the name of Theism seems to me the height of hypocrisy, especially when cloaked with such terms as Truth, Love, Compassion.

IMHO, the truth of "apparent spiritual connectedness" may be found in the function of our "mirror" neural network, through which we experience emotions such as Empathy, from which compassion springs, from which the "golden rule" emerged as a Virtue. The same evolutionary process results in the concepts of Love, Compassion, Respect.
But we are by no means the only animal with mirror neural networks, though they may be adapted to their specific environment. Have you ever watched "field trials'

A field trial is a competitive event at which hunting dogs compete against one another. There are field trials for retrievers, pointing dogs and flushing dogs.

The mental connection of long distance communication between the hunter and his dog is truly astounding. These dogs are trained for mirror responses to a series of visual or auditory commands. The amazing part is that the dog LOVES it, and in addition their performance will be rewarded with approval and a tasty tidbit.

Those are all equivalent to the promises made in scripture. We just wrote it down and then made people subscribe to it, or else. But it was all said with Love in the name of God. Do we ever hear words like this in Atheism?

 

[(Q)]

What I am having trouble with is that science has not found the soul. That means we are just soulless animals. That bothers me significantly.

Yes, many believers are bothered with reality, that's why they embrace fantasies and wishful thinking.

Many years ago, when I was young, when I was a soldier, I had walked up the street to the local convenient store for a snack. As I approached, there was a young lady who was being attacked by a man (her date). Back then, I felt honor, I felt bravery, and I felt compassion, I felt all those things that were part of me, part of my spiritual nature, and so I acted. I charged the man (I had no idea if the man had a gun or not); I charged and he withdrew to his car and drove away. We called the cops, I attended to the woman's wounds, and walked her home. I did these things because I believed that there was God and good acting in the world. I believed in virtues and moral duty.

LOL. So what? There are indeed atheists in foxholes, and they do things like that out of compassion and empathy, not because they have a belief in gods, you seriously have your priorities warped.

But the world has changed. Science is killing religion, culture and the soul of America. Science tells us to have values like expediency, not compassion, not love, not bravery, not honor. What atheists would risk their life for a stranger? Please answer me that question?

LOL. Sorry, but your assertions are complete nonsense and ignore reality.

 

[Mazulu]

Because as we (most people) see ourselves as vulnerable, we can see/sense it in others. It is called, compassion. Compassion is not necessarily a byproduct of having faith in a god, although, it can be for some people. It stems from our own vulnerabilities perhaps, and we see others with those same needs, wants and vulnerabilities. This doesn't mean all atheists will respond to others' needs with compassion, or concern. It simply answers your question as to how an atheist is capable of finding compassion for others, despite the fact that he/she doesn't believe in a god. Stripping away the labels -- we have more in common than not.

wegs,
You still sound like a Christian, like a spiritual/religious person. If you're going to be a proper atheist, you have to let your heart grow cold like Baleron's. u have to make callous and dehumanizing statements to the effect of: if you're not happy, it's because you're stupid and weak. That's what atheism is all about. Just listen to the other atheists. Listen to Q and spidergoat. They make similar statements. Remember that atheism is about destroying the God within, calling it evil. That's the only way to make your heart go cold. To be an atheist is to become...well...a nazi. Atheism is about killing your humanity and becoming an expression of pure logic, like Baleron. To be an atheist, you have to dispense with human feelings.

 

[spidergoat]

What I am having trouble with is that science has not found the soul. That means we are just soulless animals. That bothers me significantly. Many years ago, when I was young, when I was a soldier, I had walked up the street to the local convenient store for a snack. As I approached, there was a young lady who was being attacked by a man (her date). Back then, I felt honor, I felt bravery, and I felt compassion, I felt all those things that were part of me, part of my spiritual nature, and so I acted. I charged the man (I had no idea if the man had a gun or not); I charged and he withdrew to his car and drove away. We called the cops, I attended to the woman's wounds, and walked her home. I did these things because I believed that there was God and good acting in the world. I believed in virtues and moral duty.

But the world has changed. Science is killing religion, culture and the soul of America. Science tells us to have values like expediency, not compassion, not love, not bravery, not honor. What atheists would risk their life for a stranger? Please answer me that question?

I think you are lying. You didn't protect that woman as a result of belief in god. It's a normal human response to someone vulnerable in trouble. You might have been bolder due to being a soldier with training and a uniform that can be intimidating. Atheists do in fact feel honor and compassion, they are soldiers too.

 

[Mazulu]

I think you are lying. You didn't protect that woman as a result of belief in god. It's a normal human response to someone vulnerable in trouble. You might have been bolder due to being a soldier with training and a uniform that can be intimidating. Atheists do in fact feel honor and compassion, they are soldiers too.

You think I'm lying? You don't think there are bold and courageous people in the world who are willing to risk their life to protect others? It's sure as hell not a human response in atheist China where people are routinely afraid/unwilling to help others. A lot of it has to do with a belief in God and a moral instinct for right and wrong. Remember that atheists are not courageous people; atheists are mechanically logical like Baleron. Atheists experience no passion or feelings of any kind. Feelings only get in the way of atheist logic.

There is something inherently wrong with atheists. They're like intellectual zombies trying to pass for human, but they're not. They have no feelings, only logic. They're more like machines, they're not human beings with a soul

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Yes, even more so. While theists may be depending on God to provide for them, atheists don't have that recourse, and have to rely on other people much more.

Not every theist is at the stage where they depend on God, but there is scope, so the situation regarding reliance on other are the same.

"Compassion, and empathy, which can be directly understood through God" -?? What do you mean?
In what way is any consideration (or belief in God) necessary in order to experience compoassion and empathy?

I said, or implied that through God on can develop these characteristcs, universaly, instead of picking and choosing, at least the scope is there.

There's probably an element of innate, automatic empathy, compassion for other beings of one's own kind, esp. if those beings are experienced in a more abstract way (such as via news reports on tv). It's easy to feel empathy, compassion for people who are on the other end of the world.

I agree, but to what extent?

Secondly, there is probably an element of concern over cosmic justice and victim mentality in an atheist's caring about strangers - as if to say "Look, people are suffering all over the world, innocent people. This is just further proof that God either doesn't exist, or doesn't care or is evil."

What does it matter if people other than yourself, loved ones, community, even broader community, aren't suffering?
I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm just asking why it matters.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

You think I'm lying? You don't think there are bold and courageous people in the world who are willing to risk their life to protect others? It's sure as hell not a human response in atheist China where people are routinely afraid/unwilling to help others. A lot of it has to do with a belief in God and a moral instinct for right and wrong. Remember that atheists are not courageous people; atheists are mechanically logical like Baleron. Atheists experience no passion or feelings of any kind. Feelings only get in the way of atheist logic.

There is something inherently wrong with atheists. They're like intellectual zombies trying to pass for human, but they're not. They have no feelings, only logic. They're more like machines, they're not human beings with a soul

There are plenty of Christians and religious people in China. Anyway, I guess you never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? One guy stood down a fucking tank. Morality doesn't come from religion, religion comes from innate human morality. Altruism is logical. The rest of your screed is insane and based only on ignorance. Feelings actually support atheism. I feel like it would suck being under the control of judgmental and vengeful god, who's vanity must be constantly stroked through constant praise, and who doesn't lift a finger to actually help people in need. And I'm happy there is no evidence for him.

 

[wynn]

Not every theist is at the stage where they depend on God, but there is scope, so the situation regarding reliance on other are the same.

Maybe externally, but not in terms of intention. Atheists don't think they can turn to anyone or anything else but to people; theists, on principle, also have recourse to God, not just people.

I said, or implied that through God on can develop these characteristcs, universaly, instead of picking and choosing, at least the scope is there.

Sure, depending on the kind of theist one is. The "Those who are not with us are against us" kind of theists have a smaller scope for compassion than those who believe all beings are God's children.

I agree, but to what extent?

To some, depends on the individual.

What does it matter if people other than yourself, loved ones, community, even broader community, aren't suffering?
I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm just asking why it matters.

When one relies on others for one's emotional, philosophical, material wellbeing, then it is important that others be in good shape so that they can provide one with emotional, philosophical, material food. If they suffer, they can't do that, or only poorly.
Someone with such an outlook will starve for love among suffering people, for example.


(This actually explains how come theists on principle don't care so much about the quality of interpersonal interactions - or don't feel like they need to care about this quality. They feed off not of people, but of another source.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Write4U,

But your non-judgmental statement that atheists have no "foundation" to be moral, similar to other animals, sounds very much to me like an implication that you equate atheism with amorality (lack of moral standards).

I was saying that I doubt animals care about their own species dying, espesially thousands of miles away, meaning that it is a human trait, as opposed to being an evolutionary one. I'm not saying that atheists lack morals, and I'm not making any judgements on them, I'm just asking why should they care about people who are of no real importance to them.

Is ''love thy enemy'' something that an atheist would embrace at any level?

This is wrong on several levels.

a) Moral behavior is not exclusive to scripture.

I didn't say it was.

Many animals clearly show moral behaviors. Examples of this abound in domesticated animals, like dogs, apes, elephants, whales, dolphins. This clearly proves that even in the wild morality emerges along with social structures in the animal world.
b) atheism does NOT make a person amoral. Many atheists are actively involved in the Humanities.
c) And last but not least, informed atheists have no way to absolve himself from any sins (intentional or unintentional), unlike confession and absolution from a "holy" person) and have to carry their burden of guilt themselves. "Personal Responsibility"!

You don't have to defend yourself or others. However you are with regards to caring for someone is natural to you, and not for me to judge. I'm simply asking, Why based on the atheist ideology which includes ''evolution'' as the basis for the origin of man, coming from an unguided, natural process where such attributes are the product of evolution through natural selection and gene mutatio. Not from God, or any other intelligence-based process.

d) scripture instructs the "obedient servant" to commit all sorts of crimes, as long as they are committed in the name of God and sanctioned by a religious leader (Crusades, KKK, Jim Jones, Fatwas, Jihads). It is the very exclusivity of organized religions which makes immoral behavior against the "infidels' or atheists, or anyone who is "different from us" a morally "negotiable" activity.

Actually, Jim Jones was an atheist, and he's a good example of what may well have been happening for a long time in institional religions.

e) More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause, especially in the non-existent cause of Atheism.

We're talking about ''theism''.

It appears that atheism itself has nothing to do with moral behavior.

Neither does ''theism''. They are simply names that give a ball park explanation of where we stand with regard to belief in God.

There are atheists who commit immoral acts, but NOT in the name of Atheism.

Likewise with theist's and theism.

But to commit immoral acts in the name of Theism seems to me the height of hypocrisy, especially when cloaked with such terms as Truth, Love, Compassion.

You can't commit acts in the name of theism, anymore than you can atheism.
I'm suggesting that being a theist offers scope, not that theists are endowed with these attributes.
Through God there is the hope of understanding and coming to know things as they ar. But without some kind of belief, or even leaning towards God, it can't happen. So those for whom it can't happen, use their attributes according to their own understanding of life, the world, and their own experience, until such time they decide to allow themself a chance.

IMHO, the truth of "apparent spiritual connectedness" may be found in the function of our "mirror" neural network, through which we experience emotions such as Empathy, from which compassion springs, from which the "golden rule" emerged as a Virtue. The same evolutionary process results in the concepts of Love, Compassion, Respect.
But we are by no means the only animal with mirror neural networks, though they may be adapted to their specific environment. Have you ever watched "field trials'
The mental connection of long distance communication between the hunter and his dog is truly astounding. These dogs are trained for mirror responses to a series of visual or auditory commands. The amazing part is that the dog LOVES it, and in addition their performance will be rewarded with approval and a tasty tidbit.

You're right. I remember watching a documentary about a couple who were left stranded in the Caribean Sea. They went out on a scheduled snorkeling trip, and stayed in the water too long. The captain didn't notice they weren't in the boat with the other passengers, and sailed off back to port. When the couple emerged, they found themselves alone, way out in the sea. Eventually they attracted the attention of sharks who were circling them. Suddenly, (to cut a long story short) a group of dolphins formed an inner-circle between them and the sharks, and protected them. It was amazing.

jan.

 

[Great Old One]

wegs,
You still sound like a Christian, like a spiritual/religious person. If you're going to be a proper atheist, you have to let your heart grow cold like Baleron's. u have to make callous and dehumanizing statements to the effect of: if you're not happy, it's because you're stupid and weak. That's what atheism is all about. Just listen to the other atheists. Listen to Q and spidergoat. They make similar statements. Remember that atheism is about destroying the God within, calling it evil. That's the only way to make your heart go cold. To be an atheist is to become...well...a nazi. Atheism is about killing your humanity and becoming an expression of pure logic, like Baleron. To be an atheist, you have to dispense with human feelings.

This is not the case. The only requirement for atheism IMO is to consciously or unconsciously determine that the metaphysical underpinnings of reality, whatever they are, do not warrant the title 'God' nor a religion devoted to it. Simply IMO it requires recognizing that the word God refers to the absurd and unknowable, or else inexpressible in any coherent way.

Then, it is clear IMO you are free to go about your business whatever it is. Call yourself spiritual or not, humanist or not...you can be a callous shallow person with no care for your fellow man if you don't care about spending your fleeting time in this way or you can sacrifice yourself and well-being at your discretion and at whatever level you want.

It is completely up to you because you recognize there is no cosmic force anybody can coherently describe as 'God'. Religion is seen little more than a giant group hug with social thought-forms/constructs directing people in ways not logically or emotionally required in any way (which may indeed be deleterious to society in various respects, as well as beneficial).

IMO...it is the affirmation of saying it is a good idea to call BS when you see it and admit despite personal anxiety that we will not know by evidential means (or at least be able to describe it given evidence) or logically whatever the underpinnings of reality are and to go one more step and say: recognizing this I DO NOT CARE.

 

[spidergoat]

Is ''love thy enemy'' something that an atheist would embrace at any level?

"Love thy enemy" isn't theism, it's religion. Theism is like atheism, it contains no particular tenets about how to behave. A god can behave any way, it can demand the death of the human species, for instance.

 

[wynn]

Is ''love thy enemy'' something that an atheist would embrace at any level?

Is ''love thy enemy'' something that a theist would embrace at any level?

 

[wynn]

"Love thy enemy" isn't theism, it's religion.

No, it's silly idealism that those who profess it don't take seriously and don't practice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Maybe externally, but not in terms of intention. Atheists don't think they can turn to anyone or anything else but to people; theists, on principle, also have recourse to God, not just people.

The level on which atheists rely, is the same level theists rely upon.
There is no difference between the atheist and theist, other than what they believe. Other than that
there are no discriminatory favours which are enjoyed by one, and not had by the other.
Theists looking for that God on tap type of religious get out of jail free card, usually end up being atheists because
there is nothing to gain materially from believing in God. Theists accept that. If you're in the shit, you're in the shit. How we
deal with it, will determine our true state of mind.

When one relies on others for one's emotional, philosophical, material wellbeing, then it is important that others be in good shape so that they can provide one with emotional, philosophical, material food. If they suffer, they can't do that, or only poorly.
Someone with such an outlook will starve for love among suffering people, for example.

You're making the assumption (again) that theist's don't have the same reliant-ness, on others, as atheists.

jan.

 

[Mazulu]

No, it's silly idealism that those who profess it don't take seriously and don't practice.

That "silly" teaching has probably saved people's lives. That teaching has probably put an end to bitter hostilities, animosities and revenge. I think atheists would be fools to disparage this religious teaching from Jesus. I bet Mohammed didn't say anything like that.

 

[wegs]

That "silly" teaching has probably saved people's lives. That teaching has probably put an end to bitter hostilities, animosities and revenge. I think atheists would be fools to disparage this religious teaching from Jesus. I bet Mohammed didn't say anything like that.

You would lose that bet.

http://www.muslimdebate.org/theological-arguments/islam/69-samiz

 

[Mazulu]

You would lose that bet. http://www.muslimdebate.org/theological-arguments/islam/69-samiz

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.”(5:8)

That's a weak, long-winded verbose commandment. Can you imagine being on a hijacked airplane and asking a Muslim terrorist for ... justice? You'd get shot for sure.

 

[wegs]

That's a weak, long-winded verbose commandment. Can you imagine being on a hijacked airplane and asking a Muslim terrorist for ... justice? You'd get shot for sure.

Islam is actually a religion of peace. Your view is a bit…narrow, Mazulu. Expand thy mind. Read the Qur'an and Muhammad's words, known as hadith, some time. Be prepared to be amazed. (and you didn't read the entire page in that link )