Religions > Atheism > Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2006 11:31:50 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are decent,
friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good conduct to
others? Obviously because human nature, when not poisoned by evil
experiences and irrationality, is naturally benevolent. I don't
suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous generosity, but
nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe that they will be
rewarded in the afterlife. On the otherhand if I, a godless heathen,
have a generous impulse towards someone, I get no reward other than the
(fully adequate) reward of an enjoyable feeling that I have assisted my
neighbor's happiness and well-being. For this reason it seems to me
that atheist generosity is more authentic than the so-called "Christian
charity".
Logically, atheists have more reason to be good to others. If a theist
has a neighbor suffering misfortune, the believer has an option to
shrug his shoulders and say "How sad, but God will make things right
for my neighbor". But an atheist has no such consolation and might
feel more motivated to help his neighbor in this life. Everything else
being equal, is not an atheist simply morally better than a theist?
Mike
"A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled."
(Plutarch)
.
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
15 Oct 2006 06:16:27 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are decent,
friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good conduct to
others? Obviously because human nature, when not poisoned by evil
experiences and irrationality, is naturally benevolent.
Is this a personal opinion - or do you have proof of natural
benevolence? I am not arguing; just curious.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
I don't suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous
generosity, but nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe
that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is a christian belief; what of theists who do not believe in
heaven or hell? What do you see as their motivation(s) for generosity?
On the otherhand if I, a godless heathen, have a generous impulse
towards someone, I get no reward other than the (fully adequate)
reward of an enjoyable feeling that I have assisted my neighbor's
happiness and well-being. For this reason it seems to me that atheist
generosity is more authentic than the so-called "Christian charity".
No argument. However, WHY did ou decide that generosity....assisting a
neighbor... is a good thing to do? Again, I am not arguing; I want to
know, I guess, where did you learn to be generous, to help others? Was
it from your parents? Society? Children are not inately generous; they
must be taught to care for others - to share.
Logically, atheists have more reason to be good to others. If a
theist has a neighbor suffering misfortune, the believer has an option
to shrug his shoulders and say "How sad, but God will make things
right for my neighbor".
Depends on the theist's beliefs; not all theists are christians; not
all christians believe god will take care of things - some feel they
have a responsibility to care for others. The key word there is "some".
A personal observation; I work with the community as a part of my job.
The great majority of those who display generosity are female - not
male. Although I don't ask their religion oratheism I would suspect
that I get a mix of theists, atheists, and those who are too busy
surviving to care about religion one way or another.
But an atheist has no such consolation and might feel more motivated
to help his neighbor in this life. Everything else being equal, is
not an atheist simply morally better than a theist?
Not all atheists are morally better than theists; not all theists are
morally worse than atheists. I guess I am saying that both atheists and
theists choose to be moral or not - only their motivations differ.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
15 Oct 2006 07:44:18 PM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are decent,
friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good conduct to
others? Obviously because human nature, when not poisoned by evil
experiences and irrationality, is naturally benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I don't suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous
generosity, but nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe
that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is a christian belief; what of theists who do not believe in
heaven or hell? What do you see as their motivation(s) for generosity?
A better turn of the wheel, a higher place in the next incarnation, 72
perpetual virgins - take your pick. Most religions promise something.
No argument. However, WHY did ou decide that generosity....assisting a
neighbor... is a good thing to do? Again, I am not arguing; I want to
know, I guess, where did you learn to be generous, to help others? Was
it from your parents? Society?
Evolution. Those who are naturally selfish (wrt others of their
group) as adults don't live in societies that continue to flourish.
Logically, atheists have more reason to be good to others. If a
theist has a neighbor suffering misfortune, the believer has an option
to shrug his shoulders and say "How sad, but God will make things
right for my neighbor".
Depends on the theist's beliefs; not all theists are christians; not
all christians believe god will take care of things - some feel they
have a responsibility to care for others. The key word there is "some".
*ALL* Christians believe that those with faith - or with faith who
practice works - or whatever part of the Bible the particular sect
accepts - will end up in heaven for eternity, so the few years spent
here don't matter. If you don't believe that the chosen - whatever
the choice is - go to heaven, you aren't Christian. The very essence
of Christianity is the METHOD needed to get to heaven, not whether you
can go there.
But an atheist has no such consolation and might feel more motivated
to help his neighbor in this life. Everything else being equal, is
not an atheist simply morally better than a theist?
Not all atheists are morally better than theists; not all theists are
morally worse than atheists. I guess I am saying that both atheists and
theists choose to be moral or not - only their motivations differ.
Theists make the choice to follow the dictates of their religion.
Atheists make the choice (if you want to call it a choice - it's no
more a choice than your race is) to do as they see fit. So if 10% of
theists are morally good (whatever that means) and 10% of atheists are
morally good, atheists are, generally, "morally better" than theists.
As a theist you probably won't see why.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
15 Oct 2006 09:06:08 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ftk5j2hj7igk8j20fidg651nm82scn4vhl@4ax.com:
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are
decent, friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good
conduct to others? Obviously because human nature, when not
poisoned by evil experiences and irrationality, is naturally
benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I ask again what evil experiences? Unless it is a topic you do not wish
to discuss.
Of course religion is irrational; it is a belief.
I don't suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous
generosity, but nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe
that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is a christian belief; what of theists who do not believe in
heaven or hell? What do you see as their motivation(s) for
generosity?
A better turn of the wheel, a higher place in the next incarnation, 72
perpetual virgins - take your pick. Most religions promise something.
What of one which does not? In your opinion what would motivate a
theist who is promised nothing?
No argument. However, WHY did you decide that generosity....assisting
a neighbor... is a good thing to do? Again, I am not arguing; I want
to know, I guess, where did you learn to be generous, to help others?
Was it from your parents? Society?
Evolution. Those who are naturally selfish (wrt others of their
group) as adults don't live in societies that continue to flourish.
According to the college classes I have taken and personal observations,
babies are born with almost no instincts. A human child must be taught
virtually everything s/he knows. Children depend on someone to teach
them morals, character, thinking skills, generosity, etc. Where did you
learn generosity? Parents? Society? A school teacher? Did you decide
only as an adult to be generous? If so, why?
Logically, atheists have more reason to be good to others. If a
theist has a neighbor suffering misfortune, the believer has an
option to shrug his shoulders and say "How sad, but God will make
things right for my neighbor".
Depends on the theist's beliefs; not all theists are christians; not
all christians believe god will take care of things - some feel they
have a responsibility to care for others. The key word there is
"some".
*ALL* Christians believe that those with faith - or with faith who
practice works - or whatever part of the Bible the particular sect
accepts - will end up in heaven for eternity, so the few years spent
here don't matter. If you don't believe that the chosen - whatever
the choice is - go to heaven, you aren't Christian. The very essence
of Christianity is the METHOD needed to get to heaven, not whether you
can go there.
I think my sig line, which was not included with this response, was
"nonchristian theist". I do forget to add it sometimes though.
My religious beliefs do not include a method. I do accept certain
tenets by which to live, but they do not constitute a method as you used
the term.
Also, I reread my statement to which you replied. I apologize; it
contains a major error. I wrote christians and I meant to write
theists. Does that change your response?
But an atheist has no such consolation and might feel more motivated
to help his neighbor in this life. Everything else being equal, is
not an atheist simply morally better than a theist?
Not all atheists are morally better than theists; not all theists are
morally worse than atheists. I guess I am saying that both atheists
and theists choose to be moral or not - only their motivations differ.
Theists make the choice to follow the dictates of their religion.
Atheists make the choice (if you want to call it a choice - it's no
more a choice than your race is) to do as they see fit. So if 10% of
theists are morally good (whatever that means) and 10% of atheists are
morally good, atheists are, generally, "morally better" than theists.
As a theist you probably won't see why.
*smile* I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree.
However, I do think morals are fairly well agreed up by theists and
atheists so I am disagreeing with "(whatever that means")... the
majority of theists just choose not to be moral.
Pangur - being a theist does not necessarily mean one does not use one's
(evolution-produced) brain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
16 Oct 2006 07:04:35 AM |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ftk5j2hj7igk8j20fidg651nm82scn4vhl@4ax.com:
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are
decent, friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good
conduct to others? Obviously because human nature, when not
poisoned by evil experiences and irrationality, is naturally
benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I ask again what evil experiences? Unless it is a topic you do not wish
to discuss.
Of course religion is irrational; it is a belief.
I don't suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous
generosity, but nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe
that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is a christian belief; what of theists who do not believe in
heaven or hell? What do you see as their motivation(s) for
generosity?
A better turn of the wheel, a higher place in the next incarnation, 72
perpetual virgins - take your pick. Most religions promise something.
What of one which does not? In your opinion what would motivate a
theist who is promised nothing?
No argument. However, WHY did you decide that generosity....assisting
a neighbor... is a good thing to do? Again, I am not arguing; I want
to know, I guess, where did you learn to be generous, to help others?
Was it from your parents? Society?
Evolution. Those who are naturally selfish (wrt others of their
group) as adults don't live in societies that continue to flourish.
According to the college classes I have taken and personal observations,
babies are born with almost no instincts.
As the Rumanian orphanage scandal of a few years ago amply
demonstrated. Who did not shed a tear for those sad empty heads
which displayed no emotions of any kind due to lack of human
contact?
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
16 Oct 2006 07:30:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:04:35 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ftk5j2hj7igk8j20fidg651nm82scn4vhl@4ax.com:
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are
decent, friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good
conduct to others? Obviously because human nature, when not
poisoned by evil experiences and irrationality, is naturally
benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I ask again what evil experiences? Unless it is a topic you do not wish
to discuss.
Of course religion is irrational; it is a belief.
I don't suggest that theists never have genuine spontaneous
generosity, but nevertheless in the back of their minds they believe
that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is a christian belief; what of theists who do not believe in
heaven or hell? What do you see as their motivation(s) for
generosity?
A better turn of the wheel, a higher place in the next incarnation, 72
perpetual virgins - take your pick. Most religions promise something.
What of one which does not? In your opinion what would motivate a
theist who is promised nothing?
No argument. However, WHY did you decide that generosity....assisting
a neighbor... is a good thing to do? Again, I am not arguing; I want
to know, I guess, where did you learn to be generous, to help others?
Was it from your parents? Society?
Evolution. Those who are naturally selfish (wrt others of their
group) as adults don't live in societies that continue to flourish.
According to the college classes I have taken and personal observations,
babies are born with almost no instincts.
As the Rumanian orphanage scandal of a few years ago amply
demonstrated. Who did not shed a tear for those sad empty heads
which displayed no emotions of any kind due to lack of human
contact?
They get everything that makes them human, their thought processes,
their language including the meanings of the words they use, their
behaviour towards others, any empathy they might have, etc etc from
this contact.
The rare feral child raised by animal is hardly human. They think they
are the kind of animal that raised them, and act like them. Mowgli
would have lived on all fours, and been everything a wolf is apart
from genetically.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
16 Oct 2006 10:32:14 AM |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ftk5j2hj7igk8j20fidg651nm82scn4vhl@4ax.com:
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are
decent, friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good
conduct to others? Obviously because human nature, when not
poisoned by evil experiences and irrationality, is naturally
benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I ask again what evil experiences? Unless it is a topic you do not wish
to discuss.
Of course religion is irrational; it is a belief.
Ask Mike - it's his assertion. I was just commenting on the
irrationality part.
What of one which does not? In your opinion what would motivate a
theist who is promised nothing?
Which god makes no promise?
According to the college classes I have taken and personal observations,
babies are born with almost no instincts.
Totally incorrect - babies are pure instinct. Sucking, fear of
falling ...
A human child must be taught virtually everything s/he knows.
Instinct is what we do that we aren't taught.
Children depend on someone to teach
them morals, character,
Learned behavior and totally relative.
thinking skills
One can learn to learn without being taught. One can't learn to learn
in a specific manner without being taught. There's a difference. Baby
chimps learn to eat through hunger. They learn WHAT to eat by being
taught.
generosity
Genetic. If your ancestors weren't altruistic to their own you
wouldn't be here. (Altruism is observed in the wild.)
My religious beliefs do not include a method. I do accept certain
tenets by which to live, but they do not constitute a method as you used
the term.
All theism include belief in a god, though - by definition.
Also, I reread my statement to which you replied. I apologize; it
contains a major error. I wrote christians and I meant to write
theists. Does that change your response?
Of course, since I was addressing the issue as it applies to
Christians.
Theists make the choice to follow the dictates of their religion.
Atheists make the choice (if you want to call it a choice - it's no
more a choice than your race is) to do as they see fit. So if 10% of
theists are morally good (whatever that means) and 10% of atheists are
morally good, atheists are, generally, "morally better" than theists.
As a theist you probably won't see why.
*smile* I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree.
However, I do think morals are fairly well agreed up by theists and
atheists
I guess that would depend on the theist. Most theists maintain that
morals come from the theist's god and are, therefore, absolute.
Atheists see it differently - morals are relative, and come from
societal consensus. Is it moral for a woman to appear in public with
her thighs showing? That would depend on the time and location. Try
it in Victorian England. Even a common prostitute wouldn't have been
that daring. Go to any public beach today.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart.
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
16 Oct 2006 09:21:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:nm87j25182nlpkespuo4p0nv44scvk5861@4ax.com:
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:ftk5j2hj7igk8j20fidg651nm82scn4vhl@4ax.com:
On 15 Oct 2006 11:16:27 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban
$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1160886709.956146.138500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
A thought. Why is it that the great majority of atheists are
decent, friendly folk even though we get no eternal reward for good
conduct to others? Obviously because human nature, when not
poisoned by evil experiences and irrationality, is naturally
benevolent.
What are the evil experiences? I assume the irrationality is
christianity?
Religion, so far as it's a steadfast insistence that there is a god,
is irrational.
I ask again what evil experiences? Unless it is a topic you do not
wish
to discuss.
Of course religion is irrational; it is a belief.
Ask Mike - it's his assertion. I was just commenting on the
irrationality part.
What of one which does not? In your opinion what would motivate a
theist who is promised nothing?
Which god makes no promise?
Mine.
According to the college classes I have taken and personal
observations,
babies are born with almost no instincts.
Totally incorrect - babies are pure instinct. Sucking, fear of
falling ...
I said "almost"....babies do have some instincts. However, other than
that they are blank tablets.
A human child must be taught virtually everything s/he knows.
Instinct is what we do that we aren't taught.
Yes, I know this.
Children depend on someone to teach
them morals, character,
Learned behavior and totally relative.
Yes, learned behavior.
thinking skills
One can learn to learn without being taught. One can't learn to learn
in a specific manner without being taught. There's a difference. Baby
chimps learn to eat through hunger. They learn WHAT to eat by being
taught.
A human child learns very very little without being taught. Consider how
many years it took humanity to develop technology... without being taught
we would be eating carrion, nuts, fruits, and roots; I for one like my
steak cooked - I wouldn't wish to reinvent cooking or the wheel. I take
gladly certain elements of learning/teaching.
generosity
Genetic. If your ancestors weren't altruistic to their own you
wouldn't be here. (Altruism is observed in the wild.)
Altruism in the wild is preservation of the species by preservation of
one's offspring and yet when the pressures are great enough, babies make
good meals. Also some species do not display altruism in any form.
Generosity in humans goes far beyond simple protection of offspring.
My religious beliefs do not include a method. I do accept certain
tenets by which to live, but they do not constitute a method as you
used
the term.
All theism include belief in a god, though - by definition.
I do believe in a deity.
Also, I reread my statement to which you replied. I apologize; it
contains a major error. I wrote christians and I meant to write
theists. Does that change your response?
Of course, since I was addressing the issue as it applies to
Christians.
Theists make the choice to follow the dictates of their religion.
Atheists make the choice (if you want to call it a choice - it's no
more a choice than your race is) to do as they see fit. So if 10% of
theists are morally good (whatever that means) and 10% of atheists
are
morally good, atheists are, generally, "morally better" than theists.
As a theist you probably won't see why.
*smile* I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree.
However, I do think morals are fairly well agreed up by theists and
atheists
I guess that would depend on the theist.
Ummm, most religions do agree on certain morals. It is the details or
added "morals" which contain the "devil".
Most theists maintain that
morals come from the theist's god and are, therefore, absolute.
Most theists do indeed. If they followed those morals which are common
to all religions, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately
they don't.
Atheists see it differently - morals are relative, and come from
societal consensus. Is it moral for a woman to appear in public with
her thighs showing? That would depend on the time and location. Try
it in Victorian England. Even a common prostitute wouldn't have been
that daring. Go to any public beach today.
Bare thighs is one of those details I mentioned above. However, most
religions agree upon the moral, do not steal. I think most atheists
follow that moral, do they not? That moral is one which virtually every
society in history has followed and which is endorsed by religions.
Those "universal morals" are what I follow. Societal morals I follow
depending on what they are.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
16 Oct 2006 11:38:53 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2006 02:21:12 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:nm87j25182nlpkespuo4p0nv44scvk5861@4ax.com:
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
thinking skills
One can learn to learn without being taught. One can't learn to learn
in a specific manner without being taught. There's a difference. Baby
chimps learn to eat through hunger. They learn WHAT to eat by being
taught.
A human child learns very very little without being taught.
Humans are a special case in the animal kingdom. To get our
relatively huge brains we've given up armor, armament, hearing,
vision, olfactory sense, the need to be cared for for a very long
period, loss of almost all instincts ... (we have mothers who can't
stand children, even.)
generosity
Genetic. If your ancestors weren't altruistic to their own you
wouldn't be here. (Altruism is observed in the wild.)
Altruism in the wild is preservation of the species by preservation of
one's offspring
Altruism in the wild is also giving up the chance to have offspring to
help raise your sibling's offspring, or your cousin's offspring.
Species that are altruistic have a survival advantage over the same
species if it weren't altruistic, so altruism gets infixed.
Also some species do not display altruism in any form.
Most don't show much. But in those that do it's not learned, it's
infixed by natural selection.
Generosity in humans goes far beyond simple protection of offspring.
No more than preference for sweets is anything more than survival of
the fittest. It's an infixed trait.
*smile* I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree.
However, I do think morals are fairly well agreed up by theists and
atheists
I guess that would depend on the theist.
Ummm, most religions do agree on certain morals. It is the details or
added "morals" which contain the "devil".
I think most morals are the ones not held in common. The ones held in
common are the "do good to us" ones. The "do bad to others" ones vary
all over the lot - Islam, Thuggee, Christian, not much in common when
it comes to "the other".
Most theists maintain that
morals come from the theist's god and are, therefore, absolute.
Most theists do indeed. If they followed those morals which are common
to all religions, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately
they don't.
Most religion do - take the Old Testament Hebrews. They never
enslaved their own people. They never murdered their own people.
There were no prohibitions against enslaving "others", killing
"others" or punishing their own with death for certain transgressions.
So they could honor "Thou shalt not murder", while killing a man for
gathering sticks on Sabbath.
They follow the rules, but the rules aren't the ones they tell you
they follow. (And don't most gods seem to make the rules their
followers would have made if the followers had been in charge of
making the rules?)
Atheists see it differently - morals are relative, and come from
societal consensus. Is it moral for a woman to appear in public with
her thighs showing? That would depend on the time and location. Try
it in Victorian England. Even a common prostitute wouldn't have been
that daring. Go to any public beach today.
Bare thighs is one of those details I mentioned above. However, most
religions agree upon the moral, do not steal.
From those of your own kind. Stealing from others is almost never
prohibited and, when it is, it's more often honored in the breach when
done against others. Stealing from the poor box is more heinous than
stealing from the tax payers.
I think most atheists follow that moral, do they not?
We basically (although I can only speak for me with any certainty)
follow the Wiccan moral - harm no one, else do what you will. I guess
you could call it the rule of empathy.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
17 Oct 2006 06:33:55 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:mim8j2ljq5qcs0j2an5t0ib4ojjsoiflie@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 02:21:12 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:nm87j25182nlpkespuo4p0nv44scvk5861@4ax.com:
On 16 Oct 2006 02:06:08 GMT, Pangur Ban
<Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
thinking skills
One can learn to learn without being taught. One can't learn to
learn in a specific manner without being taught. There's a
difference. Baby chimps learn to eat through hunger. They learn
WHAT to eat by being taught.
A human child learns very very little without being taught.
Humans are a special case in the animal kingdom. To get our
relatively huge brains we've given up armor, armament, hearing,
vision, olfactory sense, the need to be cared for for a very long
period, loss of almost all instincts ... (we have mothers who can't
stand children, even.)
We are indeed generalists - one of the main reasons the species has
survived....... thus far.
generosity
Genetic. If your ancestors weren't altruistic to their own you
wouldn't be here. (Altruism is observed in the wild.)
Altruism in the wild is preservation of the species by preservation of
one's offspring
Altruism in the wild is also giving up the chance to have offspring to
help raise your sibling's offspring, or your cousin's offspring.
Meercat Manor? I never miss an episode.
Species that are altruistic have a survival advantage over the same
species if it weren't altruistic, so altruism gets infixed.
Except sharks which have survived longer than the majority of species
which have ever existed; turtles - another long surviving species; it
is too early to think of more - but i am sure there are.
Are you teaching meme to me? I have been to Meme Central, but don't
grasp it yet.
Also some species do not display altruism in any form.
Most don't show much. But in those that do it's not learned, it's
infixed by natural selection.
*Nod* - a survival trait
Generosity in humans goes far beyond simple protection of offspring.
No more than preference for sweets is anything more than survival of
the fittest. It's an infixed trait.
*smile* I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree.
However, I do think morals are fairly well agreed up by theists and
atheists
I guess that would depend on the theist.
Ummm, most religions do agree on certain morals. It is the details or
added "morals" which contain the "devil".
I think most morals are the ones not held in common. The ones held in
common are the "do good to us" ones. The "do bad to others" ones vary
all over the lot - Islam, Thuggee, Christian, not much in common when
it comes to "the other".
I think that what you describe are the accretions/misinterpretations by
men. I believe the original concepts were to be applied to all; men
added the restrictions you mention above. Just my opinion.
Most theists maintain that
morals come from the theist's god and are, therefore, absolute.
Most theists do indeed. If they followed those morals which are
common to all religions, the world would be a much better place.
Unfortunately they don't.
Most religion do - take the Old Testament Hebrews. They never
enslaved their own people. They never murdered their own people.
There were no prohibitions against enslaving "others", killing
"others" or punishing their own with death for certain transgressions.
So they could honor "Thou shalt not murder", while killing a man for
gathering sticks on Sabbath.
See my comment re accretions/misinterpretations. If a way exits to
screw up something good, men will find a way to screw it royally! Mho.
They follow the rules, but the rules aren't the ones they tell you
they follow. (And don't most gods seem to make the rules their
followers would have made if the followers had been in charge of
making the rules?)
That is too broad - and I still disagree. Most religions have certain
moral tenets - which if followed in the simplest form - which would
beneficial to humanity. As said, if men can find a way to ......
Atheists see it differently - morals are relative, and come from
societal consensus. Is it moral for a woman to appear in public
with her thighs showing? That would depend on the time and
location. Try it in Victorian England. Even a common prostitute
wouldn't have been that daring. Go to any public beach today.
Bare thighs is one of those details I mentioned above. However, most
religions agree upon the moral, do not steal.
From those of your own kind.
An accretion added.....
Stealing from others is almost never prohibited and, when it is, it's
more often honored in the breach when done against others. Stealing
from the poor box is more heinous than stealing from the tax payers.
As noted.... the basic moral is a beneficial one.... you are discussing
the accretions/misinterpretations.
I think most atheists follow that moral, do they not?
We basically (although I can only speak for me with any certainty)
follow the Wiccan moral - harm no one, else do what you will. I guess
you could call it the rule of empathy.
I am well acquainted with Wicca.... the above tenet is a part of my own
religion.
Pangur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
17 Oct 2006 09:48:53 AM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2006 11:33:55 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:mim8j2ljq5qcs0j2an5t0ib4ojjsoiflie@4ax.com:
Altruism in the wild is also giving up the chance to have offspring to
help raise your sibling's offspring, or your cousin's offspring.
Meercat Manor? I never miss an episode.
And I never heard of it. :)
Species that are altruistic have a survival advantage over the same
species if it weren't altruistic, so altruism gets infixed.
Except sharks which have survived longer than the majority of species
which have ever existed; turtles - another long surviving species; it
is too early to think of more - but i am sure there are.
I'm not saying that all species that practice altruism have an
advantage over all species that don't, if that's where you think I was
going. I'm saying that a species that does practice it has an
advantage over the same species, if it didn't practice it. Natural
selection is a very trivial idea - what works, works.
Are you teaching meme to me?
Not meme - evolution.
Also some species do not display altruism in any form.
Most don't show much. But in those that do it's not learned, it's
infixed by natural selection.
*Nod* - a survival trait
A trait that survives because those with it survive at a greater rate
than those without it. Again, the concept is trivial. Darwin's
genius lay in articulating it.
I think most morals are the ones not held in common. The ones held in
common are the "do good to us" ones. The "do bad to others" ones vary
all over the lot - Islam, Thuggee, Christian, not much in common when
it comes to "the other".
I think that what you describe are the accretions/misinterpretations by
men. I believe the original concepts were to be applied to all; men
added the restrictions you mention above. Just my opinion.
'Original concepts'? That's like 'first man'. There were no original
moral concepts - they evolved along with us. Monkeys have certain
morals. Chimpanzees have more/other morals. Only man (as far as we
know) rationalizes what he wants into what's 'moral'.
Chimpanzees kill baboons for food, but they seldom kill other
chimpanzees. Man kills other animals for food, but we think about
whether it's moral to kill another human being in a particular
situation and, if we want to kill him, we come up with a 'moral'
reason for doing it.
See my comment re accretions/misinterpretations. If a way exits to
screw up something good, men will find a way to screw it royally! Mho.
Rationalization is part of abstract thought. Can't have one without
the other.
They follow the rules, but the rules aren't the ones they tell you
they follow. (And don't most gods seem to make the rules their
followers would have made if the followers had been in charge of
making the rules?)
That is too broad - and I still disagree. Most religions have certain
moral tenets - which if followed in the simplest form - which would
beneficial to humanity. As said, if men can find a way to ......
"if followed in the simplest form" ... which just about never happens.
Communism (the economic system) is the best economic system ever
devised - but it doesn't work for human beings. Neither does
morality. If we were a moral species, morality would work. But a
formal system of morality would be unnecessary. Why are there no laws
against taking off from paved surfaces? If we could fly there might
be, but we can't so we don't need such laws. If we couldn't bring
ourselves to steal, we wouldn't need morals that tell us that stealing
is wrong.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they're
different.
Bare thighs is one of those details I mentioned above. However, most
religions agree upon the moral, do not steal.
From those of your own kind.
An accretion added.....
Those with enough brain power to think in terms of 'morality' can't do
it without 'adding accretions'. It's like a fire that cooks your food
but doesn't burn your finger. Nice if it could happen, but you can't
break an egg without breaking an egg.
Stealing from others is almost never prohibited and, when it is, it's
more often honored in the breach when done against others. Stealing
from the poor box is more heinous than stealing from the tax payers.
As noted.... the basic moral is a beneficial one.... you are discussing
the accretions/misinterpretations.
I'm discussing morality as it works on the ground. Unconditionally
turning the other cheek sounds good, but it's a great path to
extinction.
Truly moral beings don't need a code of morality - only amoral beings
do.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
17 Oct 2006 10:27:57 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:o1q9j2hs242b2jiqh00hevmoagk6q6nl73@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 11:33:55 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:mim8j2ljq5qcs0j2an5t0ib4ojjsoiflie@4ax.com:
Altruism in the wild is also giving up the chance to have offspring
to help raise your sibling's offspring, or your cousin's offspring.
Meercat Manor? I never miss an episode.
And I never heard of it. :)
Animal Planet channel. I think it is in its 4th year. Follows a family
of meercats through life, death, and survival. A bit
anthropomorphic....but delightful.
Species that are altruistic have a survival advantage over the same
species if it weren't altruistic, so altruism gets infixed.
Except sharks which have survived longer than the majority of species
which have ever existed; turtles - another long surviving species;
it is too early to think of more - but i am sure there are.
I'm not saying that all species that practice altruism have an
advantage over all species that don't, if that's where you think I was
going. I'm saying that a species that does practice it has an
advantage over the same species, if it didn't practice it. Natural
selection is a very trivial idea - what works, works.
Are you teaching meme to me?
Not meme - evolution.
Ah. I have not kept up with the latest theories about it. I studied in
many years ago... decided, yep! Makes sense to me. I am a bit better
on the physical aspects of evolution.... as an amateur fossil hunter,
that aspect is of more interest.
Also some species do not display altruism in any form.
Most don't show much. But in those that do it's not learned, it's
infixed by natural selection.
*Nod* - a survival trait
A trait that survives because those with it survive at a greater rate
than those without it. Again, the concept is trivial. Darwin's
genius lay in articulating it.
I think most morals are the ones not held in common. The ones held
in common are the "do good to us" ones. The "do bad to others" ones
vary all over the lot - Islam, Thuggee, Christian, not much in
common when it comes to "the other".
I think that what you describe are the accretions/misinterpretations
by men. I believe the original concepts were to be applied to all;
men added the restrictions you mention above. Just my opinion.
'Original concepts'? That's like 'first man'. There were no original
moral concepts - they evolved along with us.
Oooops. Don't forget you are discussing this with a theist! *smile*
That's just a gentle poke in the ribs - not a jab.
Monkeys have certain
morals. Chimpanzees have more/other morals. Only man (as far as we
know) rationalizes what he wants into what's 'moral'.
I see the morals you are discussing (I think) as very low level
"morals". Only man has the ability to understand morals and choose
whether or not to follow them - high order or low order morals.
Chimpanzees kill baboons for food, but they seldom kill other
chimpanzees.
Animal Planet had a documentary on the hunting tactics of
chimps....hunting for, killing, and eating other chimps.
Man kills other animals for food, but we think about
whether it's moral to kill another human being in a particular
situation and, if we want to kill him, we come up with a 'moral'
reason for doing it.
Thou shalt not murder, I read once, is the correct translation of that
commandment. Personally, I go with the anti-murder translation....
which would allow me to kill in certain situations. My gun is loaded
with "man-stoppers" as I live out in the desert... no cops on the
beat....and a 15 minute wait to get one on site, if ever.
See my comment re accretions/misinterpretations. If a way exits to
screw up something good, men will find a way to screw it royally!
Mho.
Rationalization is part of abstract thought. Can't have one without
the other.
True. Rationalization is one skill humanity has nearly perfected.
They follow the rules, but the rules aren't the ones they tell you
they follow. (And don't most gods seem to make the rules their
followers would have made if the followers had been in charge of
making the rules?)
That is too broad - and I still disagree. Most religions have certain
moral tenets - which if followed in the simplest form - which would
beneficial to humanity. As said, if men can find a way to ......
"if followed in the simplest form" ... which just about never happens.
*nod* but hope springs eternal. Having humanity follow those simple
moral tenets with or without a deity would be a fine goal.
Communism (the economic system) is the best economic system ever
devised - but it doesn't work for human beings. Neither does
morality. If we were a moral species, morality would work. But a
formal system of morality would be unnecessary. Why are there no laws
against taking off from paved surfaces? If we could fly there might
be, but we can't so we don't need such laws. If we couldn't bring
ourselves to steal, we wouldn't need morals that tell us that stealing
is wrong.
*nod* That is why (in my beliefs) we were given those simple basic
moral tenets. As humanity evolved and was not created, we are flawed in
many ways.... I believe we were given those simple moral tenets to help
us - if we would only follow them.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they're
different.
Bare thighs is one of those details I mentioned above. However,
most religions agree upon the moral, do not steal.
From those of your own kind.
An accretion added.....
Those with enough brain power to think in terms of 'morality' can't do
it without 'adding accretions'. It's like a fire that cooks your food
but doesn't burn your finger. Nice if it could happen, but you can't
break an egg without breaking an egg.
Those who add accretions do so because it serves themselves....
political power, wealth, prejudice, whatever. Those accretions are
added because man is man - imperfect.
Stealing from others is almost never prohibited and, when it is,
it's more often honored in the breach when done against others.
Stealing from the poor box is more heinous than stealing from the
tax payers.
As noted.... the basic moral is a beneficial one.... you are
discussing the accretions/misinterpretations.
I'm discussing morality as it works on the ground. Unconditionally
turning the other cheek sounds good, but it's a great path to
extinction.
I turn my other cheek just so far.... *smile*
Truly moral beings don't need a code of morality - only amoral beings
do.
And that is humanity.... but doesn't have to be.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
17 Oct 2006 01:44:11 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2006 15:27:57 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:o1q9j2hs242b2jiqh00hevmoagk6q6nl73@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 11:33:55 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Are you teaching meme to me?
Not meme - evolution.
Ah. I have not kept up with the latest theories about it. I studied in
many years ago... decided, yep! Makes sense to me. I am a bit better
on the physical aspects of evolution.... as an amateur fossil hunter,
that aspect is of more interest.
Nothing new, really. Survival of the fittest, natural selection,
whatever name you want to give it, is a trivial concept. We wouldn't
expect the traits LEAST useful to be the ones that succeeded, would
we?
'Original concepts'? That's like 'first man'. There were no original
moral concepts - they evolved along with us.
Oooops. Don't forget you are discussing this with a theist! *smile*
That's just a gentle poke in the ribs - not a jab.
Not all theism accepts "In the Beginning ..."
Monkeys have certain
morals. Chimpanzees have more/other morals. Only man (as far as we
know) rationalizes what he wants into what's 'moral'.
I see the morals you are discussing (I think) as very low level
"morals". Only man has the ability to understand morals and choose
whether or not to follow them - high order or low order morals.
Metamorals. Morals about morals.
Chimpanzees kill baboons for food, but they seldom kill other
chimpanzees.
Animal Planet had a documentary on the hunting tactics of
chimps....hunting for, killing, and eating other chimps.
Not their own, though. "Other" is an ancient concept. To most
animals it begins where the family line ends, not where the species
line ends.
Man kills other animals for food, but we think about
whether it's moral to kill another human being in a particular
situation and, if we want to kill him, we come up with a 'moral'
reason for doing it.
Thou shalt not murder, I read once, is the correct translation of that
commandment.
It is. And 'murder', in that context, means "kill against God's
order". The commandments boil down to "you will do what your god
commands you to do".
That is too broad - and I still disagree. Most religions have certain
moral tenets - which if followed in the simplest form - which would
beneficial to humanity. As said, if men can find a way to ......
"if followed in the simplest form" ... which just about never happens.
*nod* but hope springs eternal. Having humanity follow those simple
moral tenets with or without a deity would be a fine goal.
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
As humanity evolved and was not created, we are flawed in
many ways.... I believe we were given those simple moral tenets to help
us - if we would only follow them.
One of the ways in which we're flawed is that we evolved ... so we
can't follow them. If we had evolved following them we'd be extinct.
Those who add accretions do so because it serves themselves....
Which is the reason we survived evolution. Those who weren't selfish
are no longer part of the species.
I turn my other cheek just so far.... *smile*
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition? Turning the other cheek
would mean selling that weapon and giving the money to the poor. Why
would you need man-stoppers if you're going to turn the other cheek?
Truly moral beings don't need a code of morality - only amoral beings
do.
And that is humanity.... but doesn't have to be.
No, it can be humanity and amoral or moral and some other, not quite
human, species. Homo sapiens sapiens is an amoral species because it
had to be to survive. Or, more exactly, because only its amoral
members did survive. Survival demands me and mine first regardless of
anything else. The world gives no quarter.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 01:54:18 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
19 Oct 2006 09:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
To go from an immature morality to a mature morality would put the
superstition industry out of business.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
20 Oct 2006 11:40:07 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:rnbgj2dp0em5blrhr3tarr5r8livfd312k@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet
been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced
by
the *need not to harm*.
To go from an immature morality to a mature morality would put the
superstition industry out of business.
And quite a few other industries as well! You know, I just wish there was a
kind of human being that had the strength to say -- when faced with the
set-up in that famous Milgram experiment -- "Listen, I don't care how
'important' your project is, or how 'disappointed' you'll be: I simply *will
not* harm the guy in that room....!"
Alas, we don't seem to be made that way......*Yet*!
Incidentally, why has no-one wondered why I singled out 'monotheistic'
religions in my aphorism...? There was a reason...!
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
22 Oct 2006 06:19:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:40:07 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:rnbgj2dp0em5blrhr3tarr5r8livfd312k@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet
been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced
by
the *need not to harm*.
To go from an immature morality to a mature morality would put the
superstition industry out of business.
And quite a few other industries as well! You know, I just wish there was a
kind of human being that had the strength to say -- when faced with the
set-up in that famous Milgram experiment -- "Listen, I don't care how
'important' your project is, or how 'disappointed' you'll be: I simply *will
not* harm the guy in that room....!"
Alas, we don't seem to be made that way......*Yet*!
At least not in great numbers.
Incidentally, why has no-one wondered why I singled out 'monotheistic'
religions in my aphorism...? There was a reason...!
I figured you would have said so if you were so inclined.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
21 Oct 2006 09:24:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:06:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
To go from an immature morality to a mature morality would put the
superstition industry out of business.
Which is worse - the demise of smallpox or the demise of religion?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
24 Oct 2006 10:18:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:24:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:06:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
To go from an immature morality to a mature morality would put the
superstition industry out of business.
Which is worse - the demise of smallpox or the demise of religion?
The demise of both would be grand.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
21 Oct 2006 11:53:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:24:51 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
Which is worse - the demise of smallpox or the demise of religion?
Well, at least there _might_ be a good reason to keep a few small samples
of the smallpox virus around...
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
24 Oct 2006 10:19:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:53:52 -0700, "Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:24:51 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
Which is worse - the demise of smallpox or the demise of religion?
Well, at least there _might_ be a good reason to keep a few small samples
of the smallpox virus around...
Fore hysterical porpises.....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: AQOTM nomination: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 02:05:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote:
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
Nominate this for AQOTM. It's succinct and accurate.
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM nomination: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 03:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:05:32 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote
(in article <amucj2dtrb532tkvnfkcijn6rab60po32c@4ax.com>):
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote:
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet
been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced by
the *need not to harm*.
Nominate this for AQOTM. It's succinct and accurate.
I will second it.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
America, making tomorrow's terrorists today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM nomination: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 11:41:13 PM |
|
|
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C15BF4E8000CBE26F0284530@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:05:32 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote
(in article <amucj2dtrb532tkvnfkcijn6rab60po32c@4ax.com>):
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote:
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet
been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to
a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced
by
the *need not to harm*.
Nominate this for AQOTM. It's succinct and accurate.
I will second it.
My grateful thanks to you both.
M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM nomination: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
20 Oct 2006 04:51:54 PM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.C15BF4E8000CBE26F0284530@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:05:32 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote
(in article <amucj2dtrb532tkvnfkcijn6rab60po32c@4ax.com>):
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:54:18 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote:
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
There is an insight which no monotheistic religion in the world has yet
been
capable of discovering: the fact that the transition from an immature to a
mature morality comes only when the *need not to disappoint* is replaced
by
the *need not to harm*.
Nominate this for AQOTM. It's succinct and accurate.
I will second it.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 11:22:29 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:sa8aj2drdgd3jp42ln615uleqjsb8b3ih9@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 15:27:57 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:o1q9j2hs242b2jiqh00hevmoagk6q6nl73@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 11:33:55 GMT, Pangur Ban
<Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Are you teaching meme to me?
Not meme - evolution.
Ah. I have not kept up with the latest theories about it. I studied
in many years ago... decided, yep! Makes sense to me. I am a bit
better on the physical aspects of evolution.... as an amateur fossil
hunter, that aspect is of more interest.
Nothing new, really. Survival of the fittest, natural selection,
whatever name you want to give it, is a trivial concept. We wouldn't
expect the traits LEAST useful to be the ones that succeeded, would
we?
Well, I wish the trait for diabetes would have died out long ago - but
it is too late for me.
'Original concepts'? That's like 'first man'. There were no
original moral concepts - they evolved along with us.
Oooops. Don't forget you are discussing this with a theist! *smile*
That's just a gentle poke in the ribs - not a jab.
Not all theism accepts "In the Beginning ..."
True... but my own belief is at some point... I am not certain when and
will not know when until "later".... these moral concept were delivered
to humanity, who promptly did their best to scew them up. My own choice
is around the time of homo sapiens.
Monkeys have certain
morals. Chimpanzees have more/other morals. Only man (as far as we
know) rationalizes what he wants into what's 'moral'.
I see the morals you are discussing (I think) as very low level
"morals". Only man has the ability to understand morals and choose
whether or not to follow them - high order or low order morals.
Metamorals. Morals about morals.
I was thinking the high order morals as being do not murder, do no harm
by word or deed (to anyone), and lower level ones protect the
weak/young/old.
Chimpanzees kill baboons for food, but they seldom kill other
chimpanzees.
Animal Planet had a documentary on the hunting tactics of
chimps....hunting for, killing, and eating other chimps.
Not their own, though. "Other" is an ancient concept. To most
animals it begins where the family line ends, not where the species
line ends.
Uh, I was not clear enough - they not onky hunted chimps from other
groups, they also killed and ate the infants in their own group....much
as male lions do so as to reproduce their own genes. I don't remember
male lions snacking on the dead cubs... but do think I remember the male
chimps doing so.
Man kills other animals for food, but we think about
whether it's moral to kill another human being in a particular
situation and, if we want to kill him, we come up with a 'moral'
reason for doing it.
Thou shalt not murder, I read once, is the correct translation of that
commandment.
It is. And 'murder', in that context, means "kill against God's
order". The commandments boil down to "you will do what your god
commands you to do".
Ummm, I go with a simpler definition.... murder being the cold, planned
killing of another person for some sort of gain.....money, property,
power, etc. Murder in the name of religion is just another way to gain
power with religion being the justification. No murder being the basic
tenet - in the name of religion being okay...man's screw-up.
That is too broad - and I still disagree. Most religions have
certain moral tenets - which if followed in the simplest form -
which would beneficial to humanity. As said, if men can find a way
to ......
"if followed in the simplest form" ... which just about never
happens.
*nod* but hope springs eternal. Having humanity follow those simple
moral tenets with or without a deity would be a fine goal.
Unfortunately "morality", the kind we really have, usually prevents
morality.
I am pleased to see the "usually" - as I consider myself a moral
person... following the basic tenets to the best of my ability.
As humanity evolved and was not created, we are flawed in many
ways.... I believe we were given those simple moral tenets to help us
- if we would only follow them.
One of the ways in which we're flawed is that we evolved ... so we
can't follow them. If we had evolved following them we'd be extinct.
Why? How would "do not murder" have led to our extinction? It doesn't
preclude self-defense whether of self, clan, tribe, or nation. "Do no
harm" seems to me would have increased humanity's survival rate.
Those who add accretions do so because it serves themselves....
Which is the reason we survived evolution. Those who weren't selfish
are no longer part of the species.
There are degrees of selfishness. At what level do you place
selflessness as being anti-survival?
I turn my other cheek just so far.... *smile*
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition? Turning the other cheek
would mean selling that weapon and giving the money to the poor.
Please excuse the language - but *****! You are thinking christian
again. I turn the other cheek just a bit to rudeness, incivility, and
give the person a second chance - usually with some comment like "I
haven't been rude to you; why are you being rude to me?" If the
incivility continues, I no longer respond to the person. I have a
neighbor who called me a couple of years ago on MLK day to ask me if I
was celebrating ***** Day. I added that (though her bigotry was not
aimed at me) to other incidents and just withdrew from her. My cheek
turns just so far.
Why
would you need man-stoppers if you're going to turn the other cheek?
If I am in danger, self-defense is a really good idea. No cheek turning
then. If I could depend on the police, I would probably go to something
non-lethal. Someone breaks into my home has given up the right to
expect civility and politeness from me - except the "welcoming"
man-stopper greeting him/her. Just like my attitude toward spiders.
Truly moral beings don't need a code of morality - only amoral
beings do.
And that is humanity.... but doesn't have to be.
No, it can be humanity and amoral or moral and some other, not quite
human, species. Homo sapiens sapiens is an amoral species because it
had to be to survive. Or, more exactly, because only its amoral
members did survive. Survival demands me and mine first regardless of
anything else. The world gives no quarter.
I am glad I do not live in your world... and I mean no offense. I am
simply glad that I do not see humanity as you do. If you think I am
wearing rose-colored glasses - I like a slightly rosy world.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist benevolence more genuine than Christian benevolence |
18 Oct 2006 05:06:43 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2006 16:22:29 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:sa8aj2drdgd3jp42ln615uleqjsb8b3ih9@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 15:27:57 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:o1q9j2hs242b2jiqh00hevmoagk6q6nl73@4ax.com:
On 17 Oct 2006 11:33:55 GMT, Pangur Ban
<Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Are you teaching meme to me?
Not meme - evolution.
Ah. I have not kept up with the latest theories about it. I studied
in many years ago... decided, yep! Makes sense to me. I am a bit
better on the physical aspects of evolution.... as an amateur fossil
hunter, that aspect is of more interest.
Nothing new, really. Survival of the fittest, natural selection,
whatever name you want to give it, is a trivial concept. We wouldn't
expect the traits LEAST useful to be the ones that succeeded, would
we?
Well, I wish the trait for d | | | | | | | | | | | | |
