Atheism as a handicap to people skills/compassion

JoeB-

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

Incredible... How is it arrogant to say that humans have minds and can think for themselves? And no, a 2,000 year old morality cannot be said to be superior to modern morality... and I'm sure, the morality of today will be seen to be barbaric in the future.. (zoo's maybe, natural destruction, littering, smoking, drinking, killing dolphins, human hunger and suffering, FGM, religion and religious fervour and faith hopefully etc etc)

And your point that not all Christians are slacked jawed etc is silly.... any Christian who does not follow Gods rules as laid down in the book isn't a Christian at all.. and so what they do is a moot point, they are acting more like athiests than Christians.
Any Christian who does follow the rules correctly and rigidly is open to accusations of bad morals, because he'll be outdated and he'll think it's fine and dandy to kill people for non-crimes, like blasphemy, and collecting sticks to keep your family warm on Sunday.
I am constantly amazed that Christians don't understand what it means to be Christian.. you have to follow all the laws, if you think you can pick and choose which laws to follow then you are making it up for yourslf, like I do, and you may as well call yourself agnostic at best.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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?

I don't think I said those exact things... It is possible for an individual to be completely selfless some of the time.. it's just that this behaviour probably wouldn't be rewarded by natural selection...
So that's my position on 'true' altruism... and now, might I ask you something, is every Catholic only being good because God will punish them otherwise?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

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.

So mutations are random, but selection is not blind. It seemingly has a purpose towards survival and increasing the proliferation of life.

I say gravity is a natural consequence because all mass exerts gravitational force under all observable conditions.

This is true, but circular considering my question. Why does it do this? I don't think science gives an answer. But enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Therefore it is logical to conclude that mass and gravity are interlinked.

Thanks, I know this. The equations were after all worked out 400 years ago, by a Christian scientist.

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.

Mindless matter cannot do wrong.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

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 atrocities carried out in this world are by people who stringently believe in religious texts.

I agree, it is arrogant and elitist.

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.

This belief is also arrogant and elitist. It also misunderstands Christian theology to such an extent, that has been refuted in this very thread, that I think you are winding us up.

There are many misunderstandings of Christianity in your judgement, but the most basic is this: Christians believe they are saved by being Christians. There is no fear of hell for those who do not do charitable things. Faith saves us. However it is a rare thing to find a Christian who never lifts a finger for other people.

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???

Nothing wrong with attraction, or indeed any of our instincts.

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.

In an ideal state of marriage, one would be so joined to the wife in love that one would not feel the need to fantasise about other women. However, this is an ideal that few if any people have ever lived up to. But that is God's standard, said Jesus. That's plausible to me.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Incredible... How is it arrogant to say that humans have minds and can think for themselves? And no, a 2,000 year old morality cannot be said to be superior to modern morality.

It's the same morality - it doesn't change. Most of what is considered moral today is also moral in Christianity. Some moral values are ignored for convenience, like people think it's OK to casually lie, curse and talk crap about other people - are these better than Christian morals?

Another instance; is it barbaric to turn the other cheek instead of plotting revenge for attacks made against you? I don't see atheists adhering to that Christian moral norm.

I'm sure, the morality of today will be seen to be barbaric in the future.. (zoo's maybe, natural destruction, littering, smoking, drinking, killing dolphins, human hunger and suffering, FGM, religion and religious fervour and faith hopefully etc etc)

Many of these things are seen as barbaric under the morality taught by Jesus 2,000 years ago.

Any Christian who does follow the rules correctly and rigidly is open to accusations of bad morals, because he'll be outdated and he'll think it's fine and dandy to kill people for non-crimes, like blasphemy, and collecting sticks to keep your family warm on Sunday.

Where is any of this done in the New Testament? The acts of the early church are well documented in it.

I am constantly amazed that Christians don't understand what it means to be Christian.. you have to follow all the laws, if you think you can pick and choose which laws to follow then you are making it up for yourslf, like I do, and you may as well call yourself agnostic at best.

I think you should listen to what Christians have to say before you judge them.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

One belief or twenty beliefs, it doesn't matter. You stated that the motivation for what he did was his Christian beliefs, found in the Bible. I'm asking where in the Bible were these found. What belief or beliefs stated in the Bible made him campaign against slavery?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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...".

No Fanny. What you tried to do what to credit Christian doctrine with making Wilberforce champion freeing of slaves.

We both know that is nonsense.

There is no specific beliefs or passages or quotes in the Bible that made Wilberforce come to this conclusion. I can state that with almost certainty because there is no passage or passages in the Bible that condemn slavery, and plenty that suggest God had no problem with the concept. You can't give me the passages because you know there aren't any. And that was used for centuries, by Christians, as justification for the enslavement of Africans and Americans.

He came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong out of his own conscience. Which is why millions of other Christians didn't.

It isn't that they all some how just didn't read the important bits in the Bible. It is that they didn't believe slavery was wrong and there was nothing in the Bible telling them otherwise.

Wilberforce would have concluded that slavery was wrong if he was a Hindu or a Muslim or a atheist. He didn't do it because of reading the Bible. He didn't do it because he was Christian. Hardly any of the other Christians were doing it. He did it because he was a good man, a man that luckily evolution had given a strong conscience.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

My point is that you are making a groundless presumption about what goes on in the minds of other people.

I'm making the "groundless assumption" that it goes on in their minds, a groundless assumption you appear to agree with.

Húrin wrote: »

You don't know what the experience of the spirit is.

Well there you go. If I have the same experience as you but consider it to be of non-supernatural origin you simply dismiss that as not actually being the "spirit", because if it was actually the spirit I would have converted to Christianity and be singing hymns right now.

Confirmation bias. A good reason not to trust what goes on in a persons mind, and certainly not to trust his interpretation of it.

Húrin wrote: »

That declaration does indeed claim to be universal.

You know perfectly well that the "universal" is not used with the same meaning as Christians consider God to be universal morality.

Christians use universal morality not as morality that applies to everyone but morality that cannot be wrong, that is a force of nature independent to humans.

Húrin wrote: »

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.

It sounds like you are back tracking from the original discussion because you are trying to win an argument (see above)

Húrin wrote: »

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

No actually these people are good Christians. They do not listen to their gut feelings about things if they contradict the teachings of the Bible.

Húrin wrote: »

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.

Húrin wrote: »

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.

Our feelings can sometimes be wrong. Which is why the feeling that God exists and the Bible is infallible can be wrong.

So if you have a decision based on conscience that contradicts the Bible, which do you follow?

Húrin wrote: »

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'm surprised you can apply this to everything except your own faith.

Húrin wrote: »

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

Again which "atheist powers" are you refering to?

Húrin wrote: »

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

Let me guess ... God did it

Why does God exist?

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

No Fanny. What you tried to do what to credit Christian doctrine with making Wilberforce champion freeing of slaves.

We both know that is nonsense.

Why? Wilberforce himself credited Christianity with his desire to get rid of slavery.

There is no specific beliefs or passages or quotes in the Bible that made Wilberforce come to this conclusion.

I think the strongest Christian argument against slavery is that it contradicts the fundamental moral principles of "love your neighbour, and do to him as you would have him do to you." (Luke 10)

There are passages which condemn the slave trade in the Bible. But they are not necessary. You demand regulations for a credible Christian rebuke of slavery. Christians do not need such rules when we have the principles that manifest love, such as that which I mentioned above.

I can state that with almost certainty because there is no passage or passages in the Bible that condemn slavery, and plenty that suggest God had no problem with the concept. You can't give me the passages because you know there aren't any. And that was used for centuries, by Christians, as justification for the enslavement of Africans and Americans.

In whatever way the scriptures were abused for financial gain, the abusers had to ignore the fundamental moral tenets of Christianity.

He came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong out of his own conscience. Which is why millions of other Christians didn't.

It isn't that they all some how just didn't read the important bits in the Bible. It is that they didn't believe slavery was wrong and there was nothing in the Bible telling them otherwise.

Why didn't millions of other people's consciences tell them that slavery was wrong enough to do anything about?

Perhaps they were not Bible-reading Christians. They may have been baptised into it as children, but that doesn't make a follower of Jesus.

They must have been blinded by cultural norms, and money. The Bible wasn't that influential in the medieval Catholic church unfortunately.

Wilberforce would have concluded that slavery was wrong if he was a Hindu or a Muslim or a atheist. He didn't do it because of reading the Bible. He didn't do it because he was Christian. Hardly any of the other Christians were doing it. He did it because he was a good man, a man that luckily evolution had given a strong conscience.

Didn't you say something about pleasing conclusions that do not accord with reality in another thread?

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

This belief is also arrogant and elitist. It also misunderstands Christian theology to such an extent, that has been refuted in this very thread, that I think you are winding us up.

There are many misunderstandings of Christianity in your judgement, but the most basic is this: Christians believe they are saved by being Christians. There is no fear of hell for those who do not do charitable things. Faith saves us. However it is a rare thing to find a Christian who never lifts a finger for other people.

I understand christian theology just fine,i was raised on it. I'm not winding you up, i am just new to the forum, apologies. I also apologise for the way i worded that,it did come off hypocritical on my part.
So you say your faith saves you and you don't need to do charitable work to get into heaven? does the same extend to other aspects of life? but surely you must live by the teachings of Jesus and love thy neighbour and thine enemy? If you believe you are saved by just being christian and having faith but not actually by being a good person,which i was taught being a christian was all about, does this mean you could be a complete asshole all the time? If all christians were sinners and all atheists were saints who would go to heaven?

Húrin wrote: »

In an ideal state of marriage, one would be so joined to the wife in love that one would not feel the need to fantasise about other women. However, this is an ideal that few if any people have ever lived up to. But that is God's standard, said Jesus.

I garauntee nobody has lived up to it because it's completely unnatural.

Húrin wrote: »

Another instance; is it barbaric to turn the other cheek instead of plotting revenge for attacks made against you? I don't see atheists adhering to that Christian moral norm.

The notion that atheists plot revenge more so than christians is guilty of the same arrogance i was accused of, I'm an atheist and i don't believe in the notion of "an eye for an eye" just as I'm sure many christians don't.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote:

You know perfectly well that...

We both know that is nonsense...

Do you really think that myself and Fanny are being dishonest? You seem to presume that we are wilfully deluding ourselves by writing mendacious arguments in support of hypotheses we ourselves don't believe in. Is it that hard to refrain from these personal attacks and accept that not everybody thinks like you?

Fanny Cradock

Grand Wicknight, you win. I now admit that in the case of Wilberforce and MLK that Christianity was not a prime motivator, nor is Christianity based upon the bible. Well done!

wicknight wrote:

Wilberforce would have concluded that slavery was wrong if he was a Hindu or a Muslim or a atheist. He didn't do it because of reading the Bible. He didn't do it because he was Christian. Hardly any of the other Christians were doing it. He did it because he was a good man, a man that luckily evolution had given a strong conscience.

Did I ever state otherwise? Really, you are playing silly buggers by bringing up this old duck. Many times have I made the statement that simply because one is a Christian it doesn't follow that you operate on a higher moral plane then everyone else. However, you appear to have missed this or you wouldn't feel the need to mention what could have been possible if he was a Hindu, Muslim or Atheist.

But it is probably best to leave that canard behind and look at Wilberforce's own words on the matter - for there we see what drove him.

Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life.[72][73] He and other Evangelicals were horrified by what they perceived was a depraved and unchristian trade, and the greed and avarice of the owners and traders.[73][74] Wilberforce sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]". (Wiki)

You are perfectly correct when you state that there is no specific condemnation of slavery in the bible. Then again I have never stated there is. The best we have in the NT are some passages that obviously led people like Wilberforce to believe that equality between races was a natural consequence of Christianity. Similarly, if you watch the documentary about MLK, you will see that he felt the same way.

In their own words, they felt that their Christian faith - which was based upon the bible - was the driving force in their lives. If you think that either of these men could attribute their causes to God's will, while also not basing their Christian belief upon the bible, then that's just fine and dandy!

As for what Christians opposed to these men thought - it really doesn't matter a toss. The point is that Wilberforce and King won their battles. And I dare say that the world is a better place for it.

Finally, and by way of reiterating my position - you say it doesn't matter what these men believed. But my point is that it does matter! And if you dismiss this for your insistence that I am really saying there is a specific passage in the bible that condemns slavery, then you are clearly trying to force me into making an argument that I have no intention of making.

sorella

Er.... no.

Jesus is alive. And present to us.

Blessings.

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Mickeroo

sorella wrote: »

Er.... no.

Jesus is alive. And present to us.

Blessings.

So the 2nd coming has happened? he's just keeping a low profile is it? bit more covert this time? Can't blame him after what happened the last time really.

sorella

er.... no.....

Mickeroo wrote: »

So the 2nd coming has happened? he's just keeping a low profile is it? bit more covert this time? Can't blame him after what happened the last time really.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did I ever state otherwise? Really, you are playing silly buggers by bringing up this old duck. Many times have I made the statement that simply because one is a Christian it doesn't follow that you operate on a higher moral plane then everyone else. However, you appear to have missed this or you wouldn't feel the need to mention what could have been possible if he was a Hindu, Muslim or Atheist.

Perhaps I was confused by the fact that while you apparently agreed with me (and not Hurin) you were arguing with me rather than him.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In their own words, they felt that their Christian faith - which was based upon the bible - was the driving force in their lives.

Yes but all Christians believe that, including the ones that thought slavery was a smashing idea.

The assertion being made (not by you but by Hurin who you jumped to defend) was what separated great men like Wilberforce from others was his Christianity.

My point all along is that this is nonsense. Plenty of Christians were following the exact same Bible as Wilberforce and came to none of the conclusions he did.

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

Er.... no.

Jesus is alive. And present to us.

Blessings.

He is?

Can you point to him please. Can you tell me what he looks like, or better yet take a photograph

Mickeroo

sorella wrote: »

er.... no.....

So now you deny what you said in your previous post?? :rolleyes:

sorella

Er.. no.... We affirm it.

Mickeroo wrote: »

So now you deny what you said in your previous post?? :rolleyes:

Mickeroo

sorella wrote: »

Er.. no.... We affirm it.

I'm confused....is he alive or not? It's a yes or no question. And if the answer is yes then it's pretty reasonable to request proof such as a physical description or asking where he lives. I'd like to meet him i have a lot of questions. If the nswer is no then you are denying what you said a few posts back.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm confused....is he alive or not? It's a yes or no question. And if the answer is yes then it's pretty reasonable to request proof such as a physical description or asking where he lives. I'd like to meet him i have a lot of questions. If the nswer is no then you are denying what you said a few posts back.

Visit the great variety of Christian churches and you will find him manifest in the people there. If you have questions, they will answer, and if you still have more questions then you can read the Bible. Ask in prayer for right understanding of what it says.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Visit the great variety of Christian churches and you will find him manifest in the people there.

So it is more "Your father is alive in the minds of everyone who read his books and his poems" (from that movie with that guy, what's his name) kind of "alive", rather than you know, I pushed him over and he fell down sort of "alive"

Húrin wrote: »

If you have questions, they will answer, and if you still have more questions then you can read the Bible. Ask in prayer for right understanding of what it says.

I think sorella's point is we don't need to read the Bible, Jesus is "alive" so we can just ask him, or something.

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

Sorella - Er, no. Jesus is alive. And present to us. Blessings

MatthewVII

sorella wrote: »

Er.... no.

Jesus is alive. And present to us.

Blessings.

How come every person I've met who has talked to Jesus has been on a psychiatric ward on high dose antipsychotic medication? I would definitely recommend you (or other christians) fix this if Jesus is alive and real.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

Visit the great variety of Christian churches and you will find him manifest in the people there. If you have questions, they will answer, and if you still have more questions then you can read the Bible. Ask in prayer for right understanding of what it says.

Thank you for clarifying that he is not alive.

Fanny Cradock

Mickeroo, stop trying to stir things up. This is your only warning.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

How come every person I've met who has talked to Jesus has been on a psychiatric ward on high dose antipsychotic medication? I would definitely recommend you (or other christians) fix this if Jesus is alive and real.

Weren't you talking earlier about your Christian medical colleagues who couldn't work well under pressure? Everyone who prays talks to Jesus. Were these psychiatric patients really people who were also pretending to be Christian doctors?

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Weren't you talking earlier about your Christian medical colleagues who couldn't work well under pressure? Everyone who prays talks to Jesus. Were these psychiatric patients really people who were also pretending to be Christian doctors?

I don't quite follow. My point is that it is hard to distinguish between someone who prays and someone who has a psychotic experience where they believe they are talking to Jesus.

Why would anyone pretend to be a christian doctor ahead of any other kind of christian?

Anyhow, getting back to my original point, I think it was something about Jesus being real and Jesus being "real"

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

How come every person I've met who has talked to Jesus has been on a psychiatric ward on high dose antipsychotic medication? I would definitely recommend you (or other christians) fix this if Jesus is alive and real.

I believe that Jesus communicates through life events, and through the Scriptures yes, and I really couldn't care less if you in particular think I am crazy for doing so. Anyone can argue that anyone is crazy, it doesn't mean it is true.