Atheism as a handicap to people skills/compassion

PDN

2Scoops wrote: »

I would also like to see these data. :pac:

Happy to oblige. :pac:

http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/pdf/n-vc1sen.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=lSakKhqTy70C&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=church+attendance+charitable+giving&source=web&ots=gMasb0WniU&sig=HsAehz0yCTO0pe7KMrgEG_-6tqM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA257,M1

http://www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/rrr_acc.pdf

http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charity-news/conservatives-give-more-charity.htm

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/BG1093.cfm

http://books.google.com/books?id=8iQ9hFR3On8C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=church+attendance+charitable+giving&source=web&ots=4ei6eGqXf3&sig=uvLV-ZTPj9NU7pqW8MG59Y_evTo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

No. As I stressed ad nauseum that is not what I said. It's a good straw man to make me look stupid, but it's not what I said. That is, I think that you will always be subpar to what you are capable of because you are an atheist. I don't expect agreement, but it's what I think.

I would have thought that one of the people skills you look for in a doctor would be the ability to actually understand what the patient is trying to say, and the ability to listen if the patient says, "No, that's not what I'm saying."

Not that I'm blaming MatthewVII's atheism for his shortcomings in this area, of course.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Altruism is a very successful survival strategy.

So is killing anyone that got in your way of your food.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Altruism is a very successful survival strategy.

So is killing anyone that got in the way of you and your food.

sorella

Exactly so. You have all ben busy while we have ben in Grand Silence:)

And "devoid of religion" does not mean devoid of faith in Jesus. The Church in every denom has a terrible record where children are concerned; ask google for abusetracker..

Many who host the Chernobyl children - and they have fought a battle royal over this last year - have a deep faith in Jesus. And do as they do for Him.

But work outside any Church organisation.

Christianity is a living force. Far more than even a lifestyle.

Many become atheists because we let them down.

Blessings

JimiTime wrote: »

I gathered it was backed up by her point. I'd back it up too. I'm sure there are many organisations which are devoid of religion that help others. I think the point though, is the Christian value promotes and encourages charity etc, Atheism encourages nothing. So from a personality point of view, Atheism of itself is a fairly worthless thing. Its a belief that all proposed Gods don't exist, or whatever. Whereas, true Christianity is more than an opinion, its a lifestyle.

sorella

I once knew a pastor who thought that no one ever did anything selfless; always to make us feel good.

And I read one thread on a list that said we should not act or give unless our motivation was right. They made it an excuse not to give:)

Do you think that that matters to someone starving? To one of the girl babies dumped on the street in India?

But yes, I see your point:) Last summer when we were selling our crafts in the street and the evangelists from the North zoomed in for the attack as usual with their" THAT won't get you to heaven" routine, we asked them if they got up each morning thinking abiout their own salvation?

We don't we get up thinking of the work we can do to help others.Of our babies and street people....

After all, we know the promises Jesus has made and we trust Him utterly.

He is our Lord and Master. Whatever He decides is totally fine with us; and, gee, He is Lord anyways:)

But I look at those young men; who spend the summer attacking Nuns:) There are so many ways they could help.

Blessings

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no denying that there are massive benefits to helping others and doing good things. These benefits are only gained, if the motivation is not selfish in the first place. Personally, I think if someone is motivated by saving themself, they wont be helping others very long. We have a propensity towards what makes us happy, and only if our heart is in the right place, will helping others make us happy. So if we have Love for our brothers and sisters, and we give to them, we actually benefit in that it makes us happy. If we help them so that 'we' will be happy, I don't think that we would actually be happy. Love is the key, and like Paul said, without it, its all nothingness.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Well there were very similar moral systems to the Judeo-Christian ones long before Judaism came on the scene. It is hard to view it the other way around, we know that things like empathy existed in human cultures before religion.

I know you guys will say that that is because God has influenced all human conscience since before time etc etc

But I think Atomic was coming from an atheist perspective on this one.

This is the argument used by C.S Lewis to suggest that there is a universal moral law binding upon all cultures, with only very slight differences indicating that God has put a need to search for the Law inside of us too.

However, what is interesting is that when Friedrich Nietzsche is discussing the herd morality is that he uses the other side of this argument to disprove God and disprove universal morality.

Zombrex

sukikettle wrote: »

Thats a lot of old ****e Wick...I've been with secular counsellors and they're parent-hating sex/mental/physical abuse seekers. There is peace to be found in faith with God.

I assume you reported the Department of Health the registered counselor who tried to have sex with you while beating you and telling you to hate your parents ...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So is killing anyone that got in the way of you and your food.

No actually it isn't.

That is one of the great things about evolution, it is the ultimate test bed. If killing everyone who go in front of you so you can take their food was the best survival strategy well that is what we would all be doing.

We don't, and that tells us something about the success of such a strategy. We can see this in more detail by looking at animals that do and don't use this strategy.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the argument used by C.S Lewis to suggest that there is a universal moral law binding upon all cultures, with only very slight differences indicating that God has put a need to search for the Law inside of us too.

However, what is interesting is that when Friedrich Nietzsche is discussing the herd morality is that he uses the other side of this argument to disprove God and disprove universal morality.

I'm some what aware of Lewis' argument that evil in fact demonstrates God, because without God how would we know what evil is in the first place?

In fairness to Lewis he was living and working in a time before we understood much about the evolutionary and biological under pinnings of behavior. We know quite a bit more about it now though, so the idea of a God given notion of a universal morality makes much less sense.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

So is killing anyone that got in the way of you and your food.

No it isn't.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

No it isn't.

I suppose then that if we just let people eat all our food then that is a good strategy for survival? Remember we are supposed to have evolved socially, those skills were not in us from the get go, so at some point we fought tooth and nail for food. If this worked well then why evolve socially if our primary purpose is to merely survive and propagate DNA? I don't see the point if the prior strategy worked so well for so long.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

I suppose then that if we just let people eat all our food then that is a good strategy for survival? Remember we are supposed to have evolved socially, those skills were not in us from the get go, so at some point we fought tooth and nail for food. If this worked well then why evolve socially if our primary purpose is to merely survive and propagate DNA? I don't see the point if the prior strategy worked so well for so long.

Did you read the material I suggested yet? I don't mean to sound rude, but you don't understand altruism and its role as an evolutionary strategy.

To get the ball rolling, I'll ask a simple question: Where do you believe the altruism exhibited in chimpanzee societies originated from?

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Did you read the material I suggested yet?

Not yet, can you re-link it please?

Morbert wrote: »

I don't mean to sound rude, but you don't understand altruism and its role as an evolutionary strategy.

You're not coming across as rude at all. I understand what altruism is and I can see why it is beneficial for survival but what I can't understand is why natural selection which is blind to the effects of what it weeds out and keeps in and has no goals or purpose, would select altruism when things worked pretty well before that. And still works pretty well today in much of the animal kingdom. Sharks for instance show very little altruistic traits and yet they have been around nearly from the get go and have remained virtually unchanged since then and yet they seem to survive pretty well.

Morbert wrote: »

To get the ball rolling, I'll ask a simple question: Where do you believe the altruism exhibited in chimpanzee societies originated from?

Haven't the foggiest but maybe your link will shed some light on it.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're not coming across as rude at all. I understand what altruism is and I can see why it is beneficial for survival but what I can't understand is why natural selection which is blind to the effects of what it weeds out and keeps in and has no goals or purpose, would select altruism when things worked pretty well before that.

Because it works? I mean, why wouldn't it select for altruism? If a species survives better on average with this trait, they'll out-compete the others.

JimiTime

sorella wrote: »

I once knew a pastor who thought that no one ever did anything selfless; always to make us feel good.

And I read one thread on a list that said we should not act or give unless our motivation was right. They made it an excuse not to give:)

That certainly isn't right. We should give with the right motivation. That shouldn't be an excuse not to give though, for that would be incredibly stupid. It would mean you have recognised that your motivation is wrong, and rather than work on it, you just say, 'i won't do it so'. I suppose, there's nout as queer as folk, as the saying goes.:)

Do you think that that matters to someone starving? To one of the girl babies dumped on the street in India?

I do actually. Now in saying that, if the choice is between doing nothing, and doing something with the wrong motivation, then obviously the latter is better. However, the right motivation, i.e. Love, will make a difference to the little girl.

But yes, I see your point:)

As I do yours. As I said, its better to do something rather than nothing. However, the ideal is to do something with the right motivation. As Jesus thought us.

Last summer when we were selling our crafts in the street and the evangelists from the North zoomed in for the attack as usual with their" THAT won't get you to heaven" routine, we asked them if they got up each morning thinking abiout their own salvation?

Who are these guys? I've seen you mention these evangelists a few times now. Sound like a fairly self-righteous bunch of folk.

We don't we get up thinking of the work we can do to help others.Of our babies and street people....

After all, we know the promises Jesus has made and we trust Him utterly.

Great to see such faith. One of my favourite biblical accounts is David's faith when meeting Goliath. A real, 'well, I've got nothing to fear' faith. I love it.

But I look at those young men; who spend the summer attacking Nuns:) There are so many ways they could help.

Again, who are these guys??

sorella wrote: »

And "devoid of religion" does not mean devoid of faith in Jesus. The Church in every denom has a terrible record where children are concerned; ask google for abusetracker..

Many who host the Chernobyl children - and they have fought a battle royal over this last year - have a deep faith in Jesus. And do as they do for Him.

Actually, thats a good point. Just because a charity has no religious affinity, doesn't mean its devoid of faithful people.

Many become atheists because we let them down.

I'm delighted someone from within has said that. Religion has probably done more for the atheist movement than the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens ever could. The amount of times I've seen people mix up religion and faith. I've actually seen some atheists describe a particular religion when describing why they became atheist. Religion can be such a stumbling block, but I suppose man will be man.

sorella

Hi again...

JimiTime wrote: »

That certainly isn't right. We should give with the right motivation. That shouldn't be an excuse not to give though, for that would be incredibly stupid. It would mean you have recognised that your motivation is wrong, and rather than work on it, you just say, 'i won't do it so'. I suppose, there's nout as queer as folk, as the saying goes.:)

This came up on an RC forum actually; I replied and the moderator blocked my mail. Called me all kind of.... things:) So I made a fuss... the point was there that we "must" have the right mindset spiritually or not give. Because WE would be in sin if we did. A tortuous theological argument indeed.


I do actually. Now in saying that, if the choice is between doing nothing, and doing something with the wrong motivation, then obviously the latter is better. However, the right motivation, i.e. Love, will make a difference to the little girl.

yes, but we work with tiny abandoned babies who have nothing and are barely alive often. We give all we have and are with love. But if anyone helps, we accept that help of course.

As I do yours. As I said, its better to do something rather than nothing. However, the ideal is to do something with the right motivation. As Jesus thought us.

Yep, but we need to be realisitc and also we need not to judge other's motives. Sometimes giving takes a long time to learn. Have you read "Little Women"? The scene where the girls take their Chrstmas breakfast to the needy family? all shades of giving there, but the hungry were fed.


Who are these guys? I've seen you mention these evangelists a few times now. Sound like a fairly self-righteous bunch of folk.

yep; they come in from the North on 'missions" and the sight of a catholic Nun in full Monastic habit is more than they can resist:) They give out the most obnoxious leaflets to persuade me to give up my erring ways....

eg they throw a booklet entitled "The Bible and the Catholic Church" on the table. I say, no thank you and they try to make out that it is not anti-catholic.
Thankfully I know the Gospel better than they do:) And they often come off worst thus....

Another dreadful leaflet aboiut a Nun who saw the light aged 70 after 50 years as a Nun.
Trying to remember her name as that is online.
When we checked on her , it emerged that her order was folding when she left it...
Ah, good old google..

http://www.scionofzion.com/peggy_oneill.htm

Twice I have been given thatl the first time in a brown paper bag:)

It is the stereotyping..

They are so well trained; reminds me of the JWs too

And they never buy and never give. Managed to get E 3 out of one lot once:)

But I yearn to be one with them... It must ache the heart of Jesus to see it.

Great to see such faith. One of my favourite biblical accounts is David's faith when meeting Goliath. A real, 'well, I've got nothing to fear' faith. I love it.

I know the feeling!!! and we do fear often, but never must we show it.


Actually, thats a good point. Just because a charity has no religious affinity, doesn't mean its devoid of faithful people.

Amen

I'm delighted someone from within has said that. Religion has probably done more for the atheist movement than the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens ever could. The amount of times I've seen people mix up religion and faith. I've actually seen some atheists describe a particular religion when describing why they became atheist. Religion can be such a stumbling block, but I suppose man will be man.

I never read such things; just Jesus and a good novel for relaxation

Yep. A dear lady I knew in mayo used to say when 'war" broke out in the village " Too much religion" and i would add " And not enough faith"

She would have been called a "cafeteria catholic" rarely went to Mass etc, but her faith was a shining light.. and there was even a miraculous healing.

The clergy abuse here has damaged whole generations; we have been called "demons" on Irish streets. So much pain out there.

Blessings this night....

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

I would have thought that one of the people skills you look for in a doctor would be the ability to actually understand what the patient is trying to say, and the ability to listen if the patient says, "No, that's not what I'm saying."

Not that I'm blaming MatthewVII's atheism for his shortcomings in this area, of course.

Except that I am getting exactly what Hurin is saying. He is saying that christians are objectively more compassionate than atheists. If you were to take a group of christians and a group of atheists and perfectly match them in every respect except religion, the christians would inevitably come out on top because they have something extra that atheists don't have, something that is holding them back. That is what Hurin is saying, and that is what I am echoing as fundamentally my problem with his argument. He has admitted to this and denied this on several occasions. I find his caprice alarming and your interpretation as offensive.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Except that I am getting exactly what Hurin is saying. He is saying that christians are objectively more compassionate than atheists. If you were to take a group of christians and a group of atheists and perfectly match them in every respect except religion, the christians would inevitably come out on top because they have something extra that atheists don't have, something that is holding them back. That is what Hurin is saying, and that is what I am echoing as fundamentally my problem with his argument. He has admitted to this and denied this on several occasions. I find his caprice alarming and your interpretation as offensive.

Yes, that is what I am saying (though the situation of a bunch of doubles is so unrealistic as to be useless), and I have been consistent on that. You think I have been capricious because you misunderstood my argument at first. You thought I was making the ridiculous claim that all Christians are more compassionate than all atheists. My view comes from my opinion that our kindness as people is largely determined by environment:

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the religious (and I'm talking genuine practising faith here, not just raised and never rebelled against it) doctor who is cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring would likely be worse in these qualities were he an atheist doctor.

I think that people's temperaments are largely determined by their upbringing, and that those of kinder temperament generally got luckier in early life than those of unkind demeanor. But faith, I think, can steer both kinds of people towards greater levels of empathy.

That still means that the person who lost out in upbringing, but then embraced faith, may well be less kind than the atheist to whom great kindness comes "naturally". My claims do not rule that out.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, that is what I am saying (though the situation of a bunch of doubles is so unrealistic as to be useless), and I have been consistent on that. You think I have been capricious because you misunderstood my argument at first. You thought I was making the ridiculous claim that all Christians are more compassionate than all atheists. My view comes from my opinion that our kindness as people is largely determined by environment:

You quite misunderstand me, I meant that from an objective viewpoint, christians are more capable of compassion. This back and forth is clearly pointless anyway. I fail to see how christians are objectively able to be more compassionate and you fail to see that atheists and christians have the exact same capabilities.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

You quite misunderstand me, I meant that from an objective viewpoint, christians are more capable of compassion. This back and forth is clearly pointless anyway. I fail to see how christians are objectively able to be more compassionate and you fail to see that atheists and christians have the exact same capabilities.

Do you not think that people are shaped by their environments? I would broadly agree that atheists and christians have the same capabilities, as they're all humans anyway. But Christians have asked for guidance from the spirit of God, and they get it.

*awaits indignant shooting down*

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because it works? I mean, why wouldn't it select for altruism? If a species survives better on average with this trait, they'll out-compete the others.

Yeah but seeing that natural selection is a blind process as to what the effects of a certain trait will be before selecting for them, and the fact that it is has no set goals or purposes to arrive at, how can it select for altruism when brute force was doing quite well? How did altruism get a foot in the door so to speak?

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

But Christians have asked for guidance from the spirit of God, and they get it.

Must...resist....temptation....to.....mock......

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah but seeing that natural selection is a blind process as to what the effects of a certain trait will be before selecting for them, and the fact that it is has no set goals or purposes to arrive at, how can it select for altruism when brute force was doing quite well? How did altruism get a foot in the door so to speak?

Natural selection is far from blind. It ensures that consistently beneficial traits survive and maladaptive ones die out. From the point of view of altruism, I think it likely that brute force provided only a temporary advantage to the aggressor but was damaging in the long run to the society in which it existed, causing that society to fare worse than a society in which altruism was a prevalent concept. Such a society would ensure all of its members were protected and encouraged and as such there would be a greater chance of passing on genetic material. These traits combined with a reinforcing effect of the society on their offspring would ensure that the altruistic nature would continue for further generations and eventually replace societies which fell into disrepair because of greed and brute force which favour only the individual

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah but seeing that natural selection is a blind process as to what the effects of a certain trait will be before selecting for them, and the fact that it is has no set goals or purposes to arrive at, how can it select for altruism when brute force was doing quite well? How did altruism get a foot in the door so to speak?

Altruistic behaviour could have evolved from brute force behaviour if, for all intermediate steps, behaving in an altruistic manner was more advantageous to the individual's genes than behaving in a brute force manner. There are many forms of altruism but chances are you are talking about Reciprocal altruism. And while its benefit might not be immediately obvious, it's still there.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html

It's all about investment and eventual return.

It should be noted that complete and unconditional altruism would not be selected by evolution (very few of us would be satisfied with paying taxes but not receiving government support or services).

Shinji Ikari

MatthewVII wrote: »

What do Christians possess which makes them objectively superior to their atheist counterparts?

:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah but seeing that natural selection is a blind process as to what the effects of a certain trait will be before selecting for them, and the fact that it is has no set goals or purposes to arrive at, how can it select for altruism when brute force was doing quite well? How did altruism get a foot in the door so to speak?

Because brute force doesn't do "quite well" Brute force will most likely get you killed before you can reproduce children, and that is really the crux of evolution.

If you go around trying to take stuff from people you are likely to wind up dead, because they will try and kill you rather than let you take the stuff. The odds that you will last long enough to pass on your "brute force" genes to your children greatly diminish, and thus this instinct to go around bashing people over the head and taking their stuff doesn't survive very long in the species.

Altruism is far less likely to get you killed, not many people get stabbed to death because they are too nice. Altruism is far more likely to get you and those around you living longer, and thus more likely to produce and pass on this "altruism gene" to your children.

JoeB-

I'd argue that religious people who rely on books to tell them what's right and wrong are by definition less moral than those who think for themselves. A book led morality runs into difficulty when faced with new situations... (or changing times, i.e slavery)... an athiest is free to use his intelligence and gut feeling to decide on the rights and wrongs of the new situation.. There will never be an absolute morality... but I don't see how a Christian can ever admit this.. as their morality is indeed fixed and unchanging, as it's written down. (Unless the pope gets onto the infallible hotline and changes God's laws)

All Christians do in fact decide their own morality for themselves anyway.. they just may not admit it. As Dawkins and others have pointed out the bible message is unclear and inconsistent, and many activities are praised within that we find abhorrent today. Slavery for one... and women as property, genocide, infanticide etc.


As far as evolution goes, yes, of course it is possible to benefit the genes (that create bodies) that take part in reciprocal altruism... think of a mouse that cannot clean a (deadly) parasite from its own head as it cannot reach it... it has a few options, it can become extinct, it can develop (evolve) resistance to the parasite, or it's buddies, parents etc can help it by cleaning it, in return for being cleaned themselves...

Rather than individual mice doing one of the options each of the mice may tend to follow a certain part some of the time... some mice may be more likely to clean than others.. in the long run the genes for altrusism can increase, (as more cleaning individuals are surviving compared to non-cleaners).. and so reciprocal altruism is born.

(There must be begrudgers, some mice that will only clean if you clean back, so they will clean other cleaners, but not non-cleaners.. and so the non-cleaners are in trouble, no-one to clean them, so they go extinct, and the remaining mice are altruists). So a form of altruism is possible, but probably not universal and unconditional altruism, where you selfessly and tirelessly work for others with no reward, this behaviour is not rewarded as a cheat can expolit it and will fare better than a non-cheat).

So the Christian ideal of helping others all the time with no regard to yourself is questionable, it is unlikely that humans would behave in this way, it would be un-natural., and wouldn't be an stable evolutionary strategy)

Cheers so

sorella

This is not so.

We who know and love the Lord Jesus are inspired and empowered by Him - not by books.

By His Living Spirit.

By His teachings and by His example.

You assess by worldly standards that do not take the Life He is into any account - because you do not believe in it.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I'd argue that religious people who rely on books to tell them what's right and wrong are by definition less moral than those who think for themselves. A book led morality runs into difficulty when faced with new situations... (or changing times, i.e slavery)... an athiest is free to use his intelligence and gut feeling to decide on the rights and wrongs of the new situation.. There will never be an absolute morality... but I don't see how a Christian can ever admit this.. as their morality is indeed fixed and unchanging, as it's written down. (Unless the pope gets onto the infallible hotline and changes God's laws)

All Christians do in fact decide their own morality for themselves anyway.. they just may not admit it. As Dawkins and others have pointed out the bible message is unclear and inconsistent, and many activities are praised within that we find abhorrent today. Slavery for one... and women as property, genocide, infanticide etc.


As far as evolution goes, yes, of course it is possible to benefit the genes (that create bodies) that take part in reciprocal altruism... think of a mouse that cannot clean a (deadly) parasite from its own head as it cannot reach it... it has a few options, it can become extinct, it can develop (evolve) resistance to the parasite, or it's buddies, parents etc can help it by cleaning it, in return for being cleaned themselves...

Rather than individual mice doing one of the options each of the mice may tend to follow a certain part some of the time... some mice may be more likely to clean than others.. in the long run the genes for altrusism can increase, (as more cleaning individuals are surviving compared to non-cleaners).. and so reciprocal altruism is born.

(There must be begrudgers, some mice that will only clean if you clean back, so they will clean other cleaners, but not non-cleaners.. and so the non-cleaners are in trouble, no-one to clean them, so they go extinct, and the remaining mice are altruists). So a form of altruism is possible, but probably not universal and unconditional altruism, where you selfessly and tirelessly work for others with no reward, this behaviour is not rewarded as a cheat can expolit it and will fare better than a non-cheat).

So the Christian ideal of helping others all the time with no regard to yourself is questionable, it is unlikely that humans would behave in this way, it would be un-natural., and wouldn't be an stable evolutionary strategy)

Cheers so

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

By His teachings and by His example.

His teachings and his example which you know about from reading about them in books, right?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Natural selection is far from blind.

How can a purpose exist without a mind?

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I'd argue that religious people who rely on books to tell them what's right and wrong are by definition less moral than those who think for themselves. A book led morality runs into difficulty when faced with new situations... (or changing times, i.e slavery)

What's really funny about this is that it was evangelical Christians who lobbied to end legally sanctioned slavery in the British Empire among other places.

I don't think that knowing what's right is much of an issue - we all have a conscience to tell us that. What is more of an issue in my mind is actually doing right and not wrong. Christians ask for and get help from God to do what is right, even if it does not serve self-interest.

You yourself said that "the Christian ideal of helping others all the time with no regard to yourself is questionable, it is unlikely that humans would behave in this way, it would be un-natural"

Indeed, it is difficult (I'm hesitant to use such as sweeping term as "unnatural") but we know it is the right thing to do. Without God's help it is unlikely that humans would behave in this way. Christians admit that they are flawed and weak, and that is why we openly need God's Spirit to guide our lives. Atheists usuaslly just pretend they are good people.

Wicknight wrote: »

His teachings and his example which you know about from reading about them in books, right?

The Spirit and the Word work together.

Sorella was pointing out that Christians live by the guidance of the spirit, not by a solitary, grudging abiding by a list on a page - as Joe implied.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

The Spirit and the Word work together.

Which is just a fancy way of saying you guys read something in a book and then feel that it is true.

The point of Joe's post though was that taking this stuff from a book runs into problems when you try to apply it to situations that aren't covered in the book.

Saying you have the "spirit" for that is some what pointless, that just means you figure it out yourselves. Which is what everyone else does, but the problem you guys have is that you have to then tie that back to the book, which is often a very difficult thing to do.

The issue with Wilberforce is not that a Christian found fault with slavery, but why every Christian doesn't find fault with slavery. The reason probably being that the Bible doesn't find fault with slavery.

So even if a Christian in 16th century thinks, on their own, that slavery is terrible they have to some how "confirm" that with the Bible, rather than just saying "No, this is wrong"

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is just a fancy way of saying you guys read something in a book and then feel that it is true.

In fairness you have no good reason to presume that the experience of the holy spirit is just an intuitive warm feeling.

The point of Joe's post though was that taking this stuff from a book runs into problems when you try to apply it to situations that aren't covered in the book.

This surely applies to all moral norms. If it cannot be applied to all circumstances it's not morality, it's regulation.

Saying you have the "spirit" for that is some what pointless, that just means you figure it out yourselves. Which is what everyone else does, but the problem you guys have is that you have to then tie that back to the book, which is often a very difficult thing to do.

A nice and simple hypothesis, but it doesn't usually work that way. In fact I expect a lot of people will take issue with the insinuation that they simply use the Bible to back up their intuitive beliefs, rather than honestly seeking Biblical truth.

The issue with Wilberforce is not that a Christian found fault with slavery, but why every Christian doesn't find fault with slavery. The reason probably being that the Bible doesn't find fault with slavery.

That's because a lot of Christians who were not opposing slavery were not paying heed to Biblical moral teaching.

So even if a Christian in 16th century thinks, on their own, that slavery is terrible they have to some how "confirm" that with the Bible, rather than just saying "No, this is wrong"

Conscience is not enough to extrapolate morals for an entire society. Feelings can be wrong. I've been over this ad nauseum in the last few days.

If the atheist is somehow in a better position, then why were the atheists/secular powers hundreds of years ago not opposing slavery?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness you have no good reason to presume that the experience of the holy spirit is just an intuitive warm feeling.

I didn't say anything about it being warm

Húrin wrote: »

This surely applies to all moral norms.

No, few believe the morals they read about in books (eg the UN Declaration of Human Rights) are perfect or universal. If they did I would have a problem with that also.

Húrin wrote: »

A nice and simple hypothesis, but it doesn't usually work that way. In fact I expect a lot of people will take issue with the insinuation that they simply use the Bible to back up their intuitive beliefs, rather than honestly seeking Biblical truth.

Yes, that was my point. They will often ignore their own intuitive feelings if they can't back it up with the Bible. Leading to slavery lasting in Christian countries for hundreds of years.

Húrin wrote: »

That's because a lot of Christians who were not opposing slavery were not paying heed to Biblical moral teaching.

You sure about that? You sure it wasn't the other way around?

Húrin wrote: »

Conscience is not enough to extrapolate morals for an entire society. Feelings can be wrong.

Such as the feeling that God exists and the Bible is his word ...

It is a bit silly to say that we can't work it out for ourselves, we need to base it on a universal system that we then have to work out for ourselves.

Húrin wrote: »

If the atheist is somehow in a better position, then why were the atheists/secular powers hundreds of years ago not opposing slavery?

Which "atheist powers" are you referring to?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is just a fancy way of saying you guys read something in a book and then feel that it is true.

The point of Joe's post though was that taking this stuff from a book runs into problems when you try to apply it to situations that aren't covered in the book.

Saying you have the "spirit" for that is some what pointless, that just means you figure it out yourselves. Which is what everyone else does, but the problem you guys have is that you have to then tie that back to the book, which is often a very difficult thing to do.

The issue with Wilberforce is not that a Christian found fault with slavery, but why every Christian doesn't find fault with slavery. The reason probably being that the Bible doesn't find fault with slavery.

So even if a Christian in 16th century thinks, on their own, that slavery is terrible they have to some how "confirm" that with the Bible, rather than just saying "No, this is wrong"

And despite all this, Wilberforce's Christian beliefs - found on the bible - were as instrumental in his opposition to slavery as MLK Jr's faith - again, founded on the bible - was to his fight for equality.

JoeBallantine wrote:

I'd argue that religious people who rely on books to tell them what's right and wrong are by definition less moral than those who think for themselves. A book led morality runs into difficulty when faced with new situations... (or changing times, i.e slavery)... an athiest is free to use his intelligence and gut feeling to decide on the rights and wrongs of the new situation.. There will never be an absolute morality... but I don't see how a Christian can ever admit this.. as their morality is indeed fixed and unchanging, as it's written down. (Unless the pope gets onto the infallible hotline and changes God's laws)

If Christians adhere to a hard and fast biblical rule we are accused of lacking the facilitates to critically analyse situations for ourselves. However, if we also use the bible as the fulcrum to our overall morality (not just a handful of specific laws), then such a thing is similarly devalued because you feel we are just arbitrarily making it all up.

I'm of the opinion that the bible gives both a solid and unambiguous rules and also a looser yet no less strong moral framework that is as relevant today as it ever was. However, for some people it seems that the bible is too rigid a book to be relevant in our rapidly developing world, yet at the same time, it isn't clear enough to encompass the changes in the same rapidly developing world. This despite the fact that not only has the bible managed to remain relevant to countless civilisations throughout the millennia; it also formed much of the basis for most Western civilisations and many of its citizens - even in 2009.

I'm sorry to say, Joe, but your statement that atheists are free to use their 'intelligence and gut feeling' is equal parts arrogance and assumption. Firstly, as incredible as it may sound, not all Christians are slacked-jawed, dribbling cretins. Secondly, if you were being entirely objective, your arbitrary 'gut feeling' is be no better or more valid than anybody else's 'gut feeling'. In fact, when compared to a belief system like Christianity, there is just as good a chance - if not a substantially higher chance - that your intestines wont experience a harmonised vibration with another person's.

As for your notion that those people who selflessly devote themselves to others as being an unnatural state of existence because it is not apparently in agreement with natural selection - that is certainly a belief that I find totally alien. Without meaning to wax lyrical - the selfless courage of just one individual can make the world a better place for countless numbers of our species as well as others. People like MLK Jr. and Wilberforce understood that.

Joe, do you actually believe that true altruism exists? Or is everyone simply scratching every back they see in hope that they will get theirs scratched, too?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And despite all this, Wilberforce's Christian beliefs - found on the bible - were as instrumental in his opposition to slavery as MLK Jr's faith - again, founded on the bible - was to his fight for equality.

Where they?

What was the "Christian belief" that was instrumental to his opposition, and how many other Christians shared this belief?

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

How can a purpose exist without a mind?

Natural selection progresses without a mind and without planning. It just happens. It is bound to happen. This does not mean it is completely random. Traits which confer an advantage to survival or procreation will always do slightly better than ones which do not. So although there is no-one behind it pulling the strings, to a certain extent the endpoints are predictable (obviously it's much more complex, but one could say with a fair amount of certainty that a population of zebra -or zebra ancestors- who were able to run slightly faster than another population would have a better chance of survival, and over time the balance of the overall population would change to have this trait as a majority).

Christians habitually miss the point that just because something works and makes sense that there has to be an intelligent mind behind it. Gravity doesn't work because there is someone willing to hold us to the ground so we won't float into space, it exists as a natural consequence of matter. That is, unless one prescribes to the "intelligent falling" theory.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Where they?

What was the "Christian belief" that was instrumental to his opposition, and how many other Christians shared this belief?

Yes!

I would heartily recommend watching a documentary I mentioned a while back entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. It shows the central role King's beliefs had on his decision to fight for the cause he believed in. Did other Christians believe what King believed? Some did, but not all! In time, though, enough did share his beliefs (transcending traditional race barriers) to make a change.

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

Christians habitually miss the point that...

And it would seem that Matthew habitually likes to generalise.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes!

I would heartily recommend watching a documentary I mentioned a while back entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. It shows the central role King's beliefs had on his decision to fight for the cause he believed in. Did other Christians believe what King believed? Some did, but not all! In time, though, enough did share his beliefs (transcending traditional race barriers) to make a change.

That isn't what I asked.

I don't care if the individual believed that they did what they did out of Christian love or what ever. You guys all go on about how love comes from Jesus, so by that logic anything you do that is kind or nice "comes" from Jesus. If someone believes that everything comes from God they will believe that everything they do comes from God, even if it has nothing to do with God.

I'm asking what Christian belief (found in the Bible) lead to this. What belief from the Bible lead Wilberforce to say "well I used to think that slavery was fine, but after reading this ...."

Or to put it another way, if they were Hindus why would they not have done what they did? If they had never read the Bible why would they have not done what they did?

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the bible gives both a solid and unambiguous rules and also a looser yet no less strong moral framework that is as relevant today as it ever was. However, for some people it seems that the bible is too rigid a book to be relevant in our rapidly developing world, yet at the same time, it isn't clear enough to encompass the changes in the same rapidly developing world. This despite the fact that not only has the bible managed to remain relevant to countless civilisations throughout the millennia; it also formed much of the basis for most Western civilisations and many of its citizens - even in 2009.

When you say looser do you mean rejecting such moral frameworks as publicly executing people who work on sundays or are sexually attracted to their neighbours wife or torturing non-believers til they repent just because they're not sociall acceptable anymore??....thats the thing that annoys me most, how christians seem to act like all the nasty stuff in the bible just isn't there anymore. And i'm not just talking about the stupidity of the old testament,the new testament too is rife with illogical,perverted idiocy.

EG:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. ( Matthew 5:28-30)"

If this were the case all men would have to walk around blindfolded, unless of course christians don't have sexual impulses???

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't say anything about it being warm

My point is that you are making a groundless presumption about what goes on in the minds of other people. You don't know what the experience of the spirit is.

No, few believe the morals they read about in books (eg the UN Declaration of Human Rights) are perfect or universal. If they did I would have a problem with that also.

That declaration does indeed claim to be universal.

I don't see why a moral norm should not be universal, if it is true. It sounds to me like you are trying to say that it is moral until it becomes inconvenient in a particular situation.

Yes, that was my point. They will often ignore their own intuitive feelings if they can't back it up with the Bible. Leading to slavery lasting in Christian countries for hundreds of years.

These people are hypocrites. Jesus had a lot to say about them.

You sure about that? You sure it wasn't the other way around?

Apologies to any Christians who honestly believed that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was compatible with keeping slaves, but I think that it clearly isn't.

Such as the feeling that God exists and the Bible is his word ...

I'm not advocating Christian government here.

It is a bit silly to say that we can't work it out for ourselves, we need to base it on a universal system that we then have to work out for ourselves.

I am not saying that we don't have a clue what is right or wrong without the Bible. I am trying to refute this privatised morality, because our feelings can sometimes be wrong. I am surprised that you of all people would advocate individuals following their feelings, to the exclusion of external influences, to discern right conduct. I've met precious few non-Christians, for instance, who are against revenge.

Which "atheist powers" are you referring to?

The governments of the time were secular powers (not atheist) who supported slavery for economic reasons.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Natural selection progresses without a mind and without planning. It just happens. It is bound to happen. This does not mean it is completely random.

So is it blind or not? Make up your mind. If it is not blind, then it has a purpose. Why does it have that purpose?

Gravity is indeed a natural consequence of matter. But why is it a natural consequence?

MatthewVII

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And it would seem that Matthew habitually likes to generalise.

I would love to name them each individually but that might seem a tad excessive.

Perhaps i should have said "some Christians"

and replaced "habitually" with "probably erroneously"

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what I asked.

I don't care if the individual believed that they did what they did out of Christian love or what ever. You guys all go on about how love comes from Jesus, so by that logic anything you do that is kind or nice "comes" from Jesus. If someone believes that everything comes from God they will believe that everything they do comes from God, even if it has nothing to do with God.

I'm asking what Christian belief (found in the Bible) lead to this. What belief from the Bible lead Wilberforce to say "well I used to think that slavery was fine, but after reading this ...."

Or to put it another way, if they were Hindus why would they not have done what they did? If they had never read the Bible why would they have not done what they did?

Well then you misrepresent my position. I stated that it was their Christian beliefs (plural) and faith that drove them. I never stated that it was a single Christian belief (as in a specific doctrine) that fuelled their passion for change. Here you have misquoted and misunderstood me.

I'm sorry that I don't have a list of the chapters and verses that drove people like Wilberforce or King to go about their business. I'm not an expert in either man, and that is why I never made any specific claims as to their motivations beyond their general faith and Christian beliefs. However, at a guess, and it is nothing more than that, I would suggest looking at the Gospels as a starting point and more specifically the simple commandments of Jesus. But please bear in mind that it is you, and not me, who is assuming that there was one single book, chapter or verse that made either man say "well I used to think that such and such was fine, but after reading this...".

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. ( Matthew 5:28-30)"

This means that God has a moral standard so high that no human lives up to it. In isolation it appears that Jesus demands that his followers maim themselves. In the context of the Gospels it is clear that he is highlighting our need for a saviour, because we cannot save ourselves by being "good people."

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

Perhaps i should have said "some Christians"

Yes, that would have been better.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo wrote: »

When you say looser do you mean rejecting such moral frameworks as publicly executing people who work on sundays or are sexually attracted to their neighbours wife or torturing non-believers til they repent just because they're not sociall acceptable anymore??....thats the thing that annoys me most, how christians seem to act like all the nasty stuff in the bible just isn't there anymore. And i'm not just talking about the stupidity of the old testament,the new testament too is rife with illogical,perverted idiocy.

Yeah, we Christians are always out killing those who work on Sunday. Are you actually interested in debate? Or are you here to cast around some foolish accusations?

Mickeroo wrote: »

EG:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. ( Matthew 5:28-30)"

If this were the case all men would have to walk around blindfolded, unless of course christians don't have sexual impulses???

Húrin has elaborated on the verse. Again, are you interested in the actual meaning behind it? Or are you happy to have an obtuse and superficial understanding of it?

titwank

What about other religions? Don't Hindu's and Buddhists beat all the other religions hands down when it comes to compassion becuase they don;t harm ANY living things?

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

So is it blind or not? Make up your mind. If it is not blind, then it has a purpose. Why does it have that purpose?

Gravity is indeed a natural consequence of matter. But why is it a natural consequence?

I think we define blind differently. I see blind meaning randomly occurring, with no way of predicting what the outcome. Mutations occur randomly, but natural selection is a streamlined process, constantly driving towards better adaptation and increasing chance of survival and procreation. That is why I do not see it as blind, it is predictable.ass exerts gravitational force.

I say gravity is a natural consequence because all mass exerts gravitational force under all observable conditions. Therefore it is logical to conclude that mass and gravity are interlinked. If there were evidence that say, sinful mass did not exert gravity, then I may be swayed over to the idea that it is caused by a higher power.

Mickeroo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, we Christians are always out killing those who work on Sunday. Are you actually interested in debate? Or are you here to cast around some foolish accusations?

In no way did i accuse christians of going around killing anybody,i was questioning the moral framework of the bible, in which people do carry out these acts. What I'm trying to say is I find the notion that christians or people of any religion are morally superior to everyone else as elitist and arrogant and a little hypocritical since most attrocities carried out in this world are by people who stringently believe in religious texts. I'm well aware christians do lot's of good, such as charity work etc, but so do supposed heathens. The thing is,devout christians seem to do it because god or the holy spirit wills them too, or because the holy spirit lives inside them,but a non-beliver does it because THEY want to. One is a good person because they think they'll burn in hell if they dont carry out god's work,the other is a good person because they are quite simply a good person.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Húrin has elaborated on the verse. Again, are you interested in the actual meaning behind it? Or are you happy to have an obtuse and superficial understanding of it?

The meaning behind it is we have sinned by merely thinking about such things, which is ridiculous. Did god not want us to be attracted to the opposite sex?? Then why did he make it so our species can't survive without procreation. How can human traits and emotions be sins??? Why would anyone think it's right to not be attracted to a beautiful woman. It's sick. It's not that i don't believe in fidelity before anyone accuses me of such. I think love is a wonderful thing,but cheating on your wife and finding someone attractive are two completely different things. If a man says he never has "impure thoughts" he's lying.