Why is faith so necessary? Was: Is atheism the result of cerebral malfunction?
FDR
>FDR just brought up an assertion for which I have yet to receive a good
>explanation. For some reason he feels that faith is a necessary part of
>life. What I would like to ask is why do so many theist believe that
>faith is so important. When you answer this question please give me
>your definition of faith plus the reasons for its importance.
>
>FYI I am coming form an atheist view point and its is my opinion tht
>faith is an uneccessary and possibly detrimental aspect of the human
>psyche. A vestigal way of thinking if you will. I hope this doesn't
>scare any of you potential responders off.
>
>Nostromo
Well, I'll be honest with you and say right away that faith isn't
absolutely necessary for gaining one a place in Heaven. Many who have
had no faith have still managed to enter Heaven at the end of their
lives, but only because they retained the good qualities with which they
were born and therefore led good lives. Faith isn't there just as a
means of gaining one a place in Heaven.
Nevertheless, he or she who has true faith is the least likely of all
to violate those principles on which Life is founded and the violation
of which does lead many to throw away their birthright of a reserved
place in Heaven, and, furthermore, though such matters may not yet be
apparent to us, there comes a time in each of our lives when we must
return to the God who made us and in whom we have our Being and answer
for the lives that we've led in this world of His - a world which
belongs both to Him and, through Him, to each of us too. At that time,
one wants to have *everything* in one's favour, and you'd be surprised
at how powerfully people can be affected by the simple truth that they
lived in God's world all their days, enjoying all the delights that it
has to offer, as well as grappling with all the adversities that it
presents, while never having given credit to God for the delights or
for the chance to show their mettle in rising above the adversities.
Sometimes, the guilt and sense of one's ingratitude can be overwhelming
and bias one's judgement of oneself according to the truths about
oneself that God reveals to one at that time to such an extent that one
feels unworthy of taking up one's place in Heaven and turns away in
consequence to begin an eternity in solitude. This is a grave danger and
it must never be underestimated.
On the whole, though, in spite of the fact that religious truths have
so far been so little comprehended in our world, our lack of comrehen-
sion often leading to the carrying out of the most heinous acts against
Humanity allegedly in the name of God, to have a faith that one truly
understands is to be incapable of defiling the world. Consider the way
in which we're destroying the environment at present or the violation
of the most basic principles of Creation through such things as cloning,
for example, and ask yourself whether one whose faith was true could
ever do or permit such things.
A world in which Man has discovered true faith is always a better world
than one in which he hasn't.
So, what is faith? It's knowing that all living creatures are created
by God out of His very own Substance, His very own Thought and that
nothing makes sense in Life other than that we love our neighbours as
ourselves and our God with all our might.
A. Ego.
James Alexander
FDR <aser...@laz.win-uk.net> wrote in article <30...@laz.win-uk.net>...
> On the whole, though, in spite of the fact that religious truths have
> so far been so little comprehended in our world, our lack of comrehen-
> sion often leading to the carrying out of the most heinous acts against
> Humanity allegedly in the name of God, to have a faith that one truly
> understands is to be incapable of defiling the world. Consider the way
> in which we're destroying the environment at present or the violation
> of the most basic principles of Creation through such things as cloning,
> for example, and ask yourself whether one whose faith was true could
> ever do or permit such things.
Atheists care more about the world than Christians do. Christians
care, but they're stupid. The pope actively advocates overpopulation.
Overpopulation is the biggest threat facing the world today. I
consider the pope to be a man of extreme evil. I rank him right up
there with Hitler and Stalin. Television ministers say "go forth
and multiply" and they say that man has dominion over all creatures.
They talk as if it is perfectly OK to wipe out various animals.
Rush Limbaugh seems to be absolutely delighted by the killing and
extinction of animals. He says that man isn't capable of damaging
the environment.
We have created a new form of poverty. 2000 years ago, if you had
no money, you still had the forest. Now we don't have the forest in
many parts of the world.
I say that the one unforgivable sin is to destroy the earth. Many
Christians are too demented to save the world.
> A world in which Man has discovered true faith is always a better world
> than one in which he hasn't.
False
osni...@rci.rogers.com
In article <30...@laz.win-uk.net> aser...@laz.win-uk.net (FDR) writes:
>From: aser...@laz.win-uk.net (FDR)
>Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 16:00:42 GMT
>Subject: Re: Why is faith so necessary? Was: Is atheism the result of cerebral malfunction?
>>FDR just brought up an assertion for which I have yet to receive a good
>>explanation. For some reason he feels that faith is a necessary part of
>>life. What I would like to ask is why do so many theist believe that
>>faith is so important. When you answer this question please give me
>>your definition of faith plus the reasons for its importance.
>>
>>FYI I am coming form an atheist view point and its is my opinion tht
>>faith is an uneccessary and possibly detrimental aspect of the human
>>psyche. A vestigal way of thinking if you will. I hope this doesn't
>>scare any of you potential responders off.
>>
>>Nostromo
>Well, I'll be honest with you and say right away that faith isn't
>absolutely necessary for gaining one a place in Heaven. Many who have
I am asking about life not the controversial supposed after life.
>had no faith have still managed to enter Heaven at the end of their
>lives, but only because they retained the good qualities with which they
>were born and therefore led good lives. Faith isn't there just as a
>means of gaining one a place in Heaven.
I am happy that you believe this. None the less that's not what I am asking.
(snip)
Okie. I wasn't asking about why faith is neccessary to gain a place in heaven.
I was askin why it is neccessary in this life. Forget about heaven. I've been
told by theists that I am not really happy because I don't have *FAITH*. I've
been told that my life is empty. I, knowing myself, disagree with this. But
I'd like to know why some theists claimn that faith is a way to happiness in
this life and those without it cannot have happiness. Please explain.
Nostromo
Jim Toth
>
> I am happy that you believe this. None the less that's not what I am
asking.
>
> (snip)
>
> Okie. I wasn't asking about why faith is neccessary to gain a place in
heaven.
> I was askin why it is neccessary in this life. Forget about heaven. I've
been
> told by theists that I am not really happy because I don't have *FAITH*.
I've
> been told that my life is empty. I, knowing myself, disagree with this.
But
> I'd like to know why some theists claimn that faith is a way to happiness
in
> this life and those without it cannot have happiness. Please explain.
>
> Nostromo
>
We could not do anything without faith. You have faith working within you
right now. For instance your sitting a room looking at your computer
screen. You have faith that the person that designed your hard drive knew
what he was doing. Or you would not have place all the information you have
on it. (OK, so you don't have that much faith in him so you backed up.) But
you did have enough faith in him to buy it. Every morning you have faith
that your alarm clock will go off.
If you've ever flown on a commercial airlines you have more faith in the
airline than I do. Get the picture.
Now as far as athiest. IMO I think it is just a big Cop out. you people
just will not take responsibility for anything. I have never met an athiest
that will take responsibility for their own actions, It's always someone
else's fault.
I assume that they figure that when it come's to there jugdement day
they'll all scream it wasn't my fault, I didn't know there was a God.
Just my opinion,
Jim
Ken Morton
Jim Toth wrote:
> [snip question asking why christians think faith is necessary in this life]
> We could not do anything without faith. You have faith working within you
> right now. For instance your sitting a room looking at your computer
> screen. You have faith that the person that designed your hard drive knew
> what he was doing. Or you would not have place all the information you have
> on it. (OK, so you don't have that much faith in him so you backed up.) But
> you did have enough faith in him to buy it. Every morning you have faith
> that your alarm clock will go off.
> If you've ever flown on a commercial airlines you have more faith in the
> airline than I do. Get the picture.
You're defining faith far too broadly. I trust my hard drive, to the extent
that I do trust it, because it has been working reliably for over a year. I
trust commercial airlines because they are reliable (a handful of accidents
among tens of thousands of flights is pretty good). It is not faith operating
here, it's evidence. We have good solid reasons for believing that the hard
drive will work, the plane will fly safely, and that the alarm clock will
go off.
Surely do you can see that there is a difference between the assumption
based on past experience that the clock will wake me up in the morning,
and faith in the existence of an unseeable, all-powerful, supernatural
being.
>
> Now as far as athiest. IMO I think it is just a big Cop out. you people
> just will not take responsibility for anything. I have never met an athiest
> that will take responsibility for their own actions, It's always someone
> else's fault.
I think you've got this exactly backwards. In the absence of convenient
supernatural excuses or explanations, this atheist takes full responsibility
for all his actions. How could it be otherwise?
> I assume that they figure that when it come's to there jugdement day
> they'll all scream it wasn't my fault, I didn't know there was a God.
>
> Just my opinion,
> Jim
We don't "figure" _anything_ about a so-called "judgement day". This concept
is a small part of a myth that other people believe is true and which has
no relevance to our lives or beliefs.
Ken
Gene Johannsen
"Jim Toth" <jpt...@psci.net> writes:
| >
| > I am happy that you believe this. None the less that's not what I am
| asking.
| >
| > (snip)
| >
| > Okie. I wasn't asking about why faith is neccessary to gain a place in
| heaven.
| > I was askin why it is neccessary in this life. Forget about heaven. I've
| been
| > told by theists that I am not really happy because I don't have *FAITH*.
| I've
| > been told that my life is empty. I, knowing myself, disagree with this.
| But
| > I'd like to know why some theists claimn that faith is a way to happiness
| in
| > this life and those without it cannot have happiness. Please explain.
| >
| > Nostromo
| >
| We could not do anything without faith. You have faith working within you
| right now. For instance your sitting a room looking at your computer
| screen. You have faith that the person that designed your hard drive knew
| what he was doing. Or you would not have place all the information you have
| on it. (OK, so you don't have that much faith in him so you backed up.) But
| you did have enough faith in him to buy it. Every morning you have faith
| that your alarm clock will go off.
| If you've ever flown on a commercial airlines you have more faith in the
| airline than I do. Get the picture.
I disagree that _any_ of the above requires faith. It's
gambling we should be talking about. Whenever we put a file on
a drive, we gamble it will be there tomorrow. Whenever we set
foot on a plane, we gamble that the pilot isn't a crack
addict. Whenever we lay down to sleep, we gamble we'll wake up
in the morning. Life is a tremendous crap shoot. The sooner
we recognize that fact the sooner we can take a deep breath,
shrug it off, and move on to the next roll of the dice.
Sure, ``Gambling'' is a hard word. It's not warm and fuzzy
like ``Faith''. It doesn't give you the hope that if you pray
hard, or if you're a good person, things will suddenly go your
way. And I think it was the ancient's inability to come to
terms with this fact that gave us religion in the first place.
No one wanted to think that they could be cock of the walk
today and lion crap tomorrow. They needed faith because they
needed a greater purpose, some deeper and better meaning, than
the squalid and scary reality they saw.
|
| Now as far as athiest. IMO I think it is just a big Cop out. you people
| just will not take responsibility for anything. I have never met an athiest
| that will take responsibility for their own actions, It's always someone
| else's fault.
Are you over-generalizing? Are you using anecdotal evidence?
Allow me to rebut in kind. The atheists I know are the most
intelligent people I've ever met. They are skeptics, yet
maintain an incredible amount of curiousity. They have been
the most moral people I've known, and far less flexible when it
comes to their principles than most Christian's I've known
(It's easy to justify anything when your rule book is full of
contradictions and loop holes).
| I assume that they figure that when it come's to there jugdement day
| they'll all scream it wasn't my fault, I didn't know there was a God.
No. I hope I have the where-with-all to tell God that he
should have expected I'd not believe, since he gave me the
intelligence and the reasoning ability I used to reject him as
a myth.
|
| Just my opinion,
And not a very good or informed one.
gene
| Jim
|
or...@ct2.nai.net
In article <01bc2e97$1ccd7ea0$04a9...@jptoth.psci.net>,
> just will not take responsibility for anything. I have never met an athiest
> that will take responsibility for their own actions, It's always someone
> else's fault.
> they'll all scream it wasn't my fault, I didn't know there was a God.
>
> Jim
>
Name me an Atheist that blamed someone else for their problems. We're
not the ones who are always asking some myth for the courage to face
everyday life.
Just MY opinion
Mark
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Michelle Malkin
"Jim Toth" <jpt...@psci.net> wrote:
Being an atheist means that we take personal responsibility for everything we do
- EVERYTHING. If we do wrong, it is our own fault. If we do good, it is because
we chose to do so. We do not put the blame for evil actions on a devil or good
actions on a god. We do not pass the buck as so many Christians do. We choose
to be responsible for all our actions. And, the fact that we make this choice by
our own decision and not out of fear of punishment by some old fogey in the sky
makes atheists infinitely more moral than any Christian can ever hope to be.
Michelle Malkin
*********************************************************
Christianity says to 'witness'. It does not say to annoy
possible converts to the point of making them your enemy.
--Michelle Malkin
*********************************************************
Doug Nelson
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
| Being an atheist means that we take personal responsibility for
everything we do
| - EVERYTHING. If we do wrong, it is our own fault. If we do good,
it is because
| we chose to do so. We do not put the blame for evil actions on a
devil or good
| actions on a god. We do not pass the buck as so many Christians do.
I think that anyone who thinks about atheism very long would have to
acknowledge that atheists do have to take responsibility for their
lives and the consequences of their acts. I have not heard an
atheist say otherwise. I think that this is one of atheists' common
factors and without the 'fall-guy', they do have to take a personal
stake in morality.
| We choose| to be responsible for all our actions. And, the fact
that we make this choice by
| our own decision and not out of fear of punishment by some old
fogey in the sky
| makes atheists infinitely more moral than any Christian can ever
hope to be.
|
| Michelle Malkin
I don't agree that atheists are more moral than any Christian, I
would think that the mean morality of each group would be fairly
close to one another.
I certainly don't make my decisions based on fear of punishment, but
upon desire to glorify my particular personal God. I usually screw
that up anyway. It is very hard for anyone to remove the "I" from
decisions. Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
acts?
Doug Nelson
Jeff Candy
Doug Nelson:
|> Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
|> acts?
Please define carefully 'unselfish'. My impression is that
acts like 'providing shelter for the homeless' and 'giving
to charity' are selfish. They presumably give the giver a
sense of well-being and satisfaction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn and Mary Arnold
Jeff Candy wrote:
>
> Doug Nelson:
>
> |> Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
> |> acts?
>
> Please define carefully 'unselfish'. My impression is that
> acts like 'providing shelter for the homeless' and 'giving
> to charity' are selfish. They presumably give the giver a
> sense of well-being and satisfaction.
Your statement begins to answer the question by stating that selfishness
CAN be rewarding to others. Humanity is a complex and interactive
support system. Selfishness provides incentive to get things done, while
a mutual understanding that we must work together to survive moderates
selfishness.
I think your presumption is splitting hairs. My kids do all kind of
unselfish acts from which the only reward is they don't make me angry,
this is how they begin to learn this mutual understanding.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
> Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Glenn Arnold
Email address is: koniz-...@worldnet.att.net
Please remove the zz's from the return adddress when replying.
Unsolicited commercial emails are unwelcome.
email responses to my posting are welcome.
Raistlin Majere
Doug Nelson wrote:
> I don't agree that atheists are more moral than any Christian, I
> would think that the mean morality of each group would be fairly
> close to one another.
Well, we're all human. Humans all have similar "moralistic" view. That
is, stealing is wrong, etc. Stuff like that.
> I certainly don't make my decisions based on fear of punishment, but
> upon desire to glorify my particular personal God. I usually screw
> that up anyway. It is very hard for anyone to remove the "I" from
> decisions. Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
> acts?
Helping others is simply the, well, humane thing to do. You feel good
because you helped someone, but that's not the main reason. You help
someone/perform an unselfish act because it's the right thing to do.
Because you'd want someone else to do so for you. Basically, the golden
rule. You do it because, well, just because.
Raist
--
e-mail address fake to foil spam-bots
real: dkr...@execpc.com
"God did do it, science just ignores him": John P. Boatwright
*****************************************************************
Well I don't want no preacher telling me about the god in the sky
No I don't want no one to tell me where I'm gonna go when I die
I wanna live my life with no people telling me what to do
I just believe in myself, 'cause no one else is true
******************************************************************
((J)O.Osbourne/T.Iommi/W.Ward/T.Butler. From "Under the Sun/Every Day
Comes and Goes" Black Sabbath. _Sabbath Vol 4_)
Doug Nelson
Jeff Candy <ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<5g9stv$7ki$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
|
| Doug Nelson:
|
| |> Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
| |> acts?
|
| Please define carefully 'unselfish'. My impression is that
| acts like 'providing shelter for the homeless' and 'giving
| to charity' are selfish. They presumably give the giver a
| sense of well-being and satisfaction.
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
| Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
| -------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Well, Jeff, that already answers my question. That would indeed be
reason enough. I guess I would have stated it better by saying acts
not centered on rewarding oneself instead of unselfish. I can't
think of an act of charity that wouldn't give the possibility of a
sense of satisfaction. I was just wondering what the motivation of
an atheist would be to be charitable, not because I think there is a
hidden point to the question, but rather, I want to understand
atheists better. Thanks for showing me the obvious, are there any
more possibilities, i.e. tradition, nostalgia, wanting to give back
to community?
Stoney
"Doug Nelson" <dlne...@netins.net> wrote:
>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>| Being an atheist means that we take personal responsibility for
>everything we do
>| - EVERYTHING. If we do wrong, it is our own fault. If we do good,
>it is because
>| we chose to do so. We do not put the blame for evil actions on a
>devil or good
>| actions on a god. We do not pass the buck as so many Christians do.
>I think that anyone who thinks about atheism very long would have to
>acknowledge that atheists do have to take responsibility for their
>lives and the consequences of their acts. I have not heard an
>atheist say otherwise. I think that this is one of atheists' common
>factors and without the 'fall-guy', they do have to take a personal
>stake in morality.
Very eloquently stated, Doug.
>| We choose| to be responsible for all our actions. And, the fact
>that we make this choice by
>| our own decision and not out of fear of punishment by some old
>fogey in the sky
>| makes atheists infinitely more moral than any Christian can ever
>hope to be.
>|
>| Michelle Malkin
>
>I don't agree that atheists are more moral than any Christian, I
>would think that the mean morality of each group would be fairly
>close to one another.
I don't think that is what she was saying, Doug. She said that
atheists make their decision about their morality *by themselves*.
Xtians have it imposed on them and the morality is fear based. She
indicated that it is more moral to live by one's own morals rather
than ones forcible imposed.
>I certainly don't make my decisions based on fear of punishment, but
>upon desire to glorify my particular personal God.
That, of course, is your decision to make.
> I usually screw
>that up anyway. It is very hard for anyone to remove the "I" from
>decisions. Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
>acts?
Haven't you read the very l-o-n-g thread on that subject? Sure
atheist do unselfish acts. Incentives or reasons for it? You would
have to ask the individual, but I can give you some reasons.
1] empathy
2] respect for others
3] willingness to assist others
For myself, I give assistance (within my capabilities) with computers
to others at no charge.
I also am a ham radio operator.
I also (after clearance from the medics) searched in mountainous
terrain in abysmal conditions for a child for two days. My radio gave
us info via the search and rescue frequencies.
I also, with others, assisted with communications during an extensive
fire about 100 miles north of where I live. [It cost me a vacation day
to go] One the way there we spotted and reported another blaze.
I also, with others, set up communications linking emergency agencies
with the Red Cross after an earthquake.
I find your last question VERY offensive and patronizing and I
thoroughly resent it!
>Doug Nelson
Regards,
Stoney
Faith is intellectual pornography.
Due to commercial spams; header address is falsified.
Real email address is: cc1...@cdsnet.net
#9
Stoney
"Jim Toth" <jpt...@psci.net> wrote:
> We could not do anything without faith. You have faith working within you
>right now. For instance your sitting a room looking at your computer
>screen.
> You have faith that the person that designed your hard drive knew
>what he was doing.
No, Jim. You are talking of two different things. The hard drive and
the rest of the computer are things you can see and touch. It has a
physical existance. You can see if it is functioning properly, or
malfunctioning.
People like you believe in deity that has as much validity as
unicorns, leprecahns and santa claus. Deity has no physical
existance, nor evidence of it doing anything to affect our world. It
is told to you by people who's entire purpose is to control you.
These people produce nothing and are as parasitic as the infernal
revenue service.
> Or you would not have place all the information you have
>on it. (OK, so you don't have that much faith in him so you backed up.)
Again faith has nothing to do with this. Drives crash and components
burn out. It is a precaution, nothing more.
> But
>you did have enough faith in him to buy it. Every morning you have faith
>that your alarm clock will go off.
> If you've ever flown on a commercial airlines you have more faith in the
>airline than I do. Get the picture.
Sure. You are comparing apples and orangatanges(sp), as usual.
> Now as far as athiest. IMO I think it is just a big Cop out. you people
>just will not take responsibility for anything. I have never met an athiest
>that will take responsibility for their own actions, It's always someone
>else's fault.
This is a flat out lie. That particular whine is used by a lot of
xtians. They can always confess and get the slate wiped clean.
>I assume that they figure that when it come's to there jugdement day
>they'll all scream it wasn't my fault, I didn't know there was a God.
[yawn] Pascal's bullshit again. Tell me, why aren't you quivering in
your boots? Mars, Ra, and Zeus are extremely torqued that you aren't
worshipping them. Mars, I understand, has gone so far as to update
his playroom for those who worship the xtian deity. If you aren't
quaking, don't say I didn't warn you. Switch now or scream later.
>Just my opinion,
> Jim
Doug Nelson
Stoney <cc1...@stoneynet.net> wrote in article
<5gammr$8n8$3...@news.cdsnet.net>...
I don't see how you found it offensive or patronizing, it was a real
question based on my desire to understand my fellow humans better. I
apologize if I worded it badly, but it was a question and not a
statement. I understand that this NG is usually a tongue in cheek
battleground, but I was sincere. I learned that the 'golden rule' is
a concept that is universally applied (thanks Raist). I don't want
to make any assumptions about how atheists or anyone else thinks when
I can just ask them, isn't this the best way to mutual understanding?
Is that patronizing?
Doug
Jeff Candy
Glenn and Mary Arnold:
|> Your statement begins to answer the question by stating that selfishness
|> CAN be rewarding to others. Humanity is a complex and interactive
|> support system. Selfishness provides incentive to get things done, while
|> a mutual understanding that we must work together to survive moderates
|> selfishness.
|>
|> I think your presumption is splitting hairs. My kids do all kind of
|> unselfish acts from which the only reward is they don't make me angry,
|> this is how they begin to learn this mutual understanding.
Selfish is a label normally applied to overtly 'selfish'
acts: brother (a) not sharing with brother (b). However,
in some sense doing the opposite -- sharing -- is selfish.
The sharer decides to share because it makes HIM happy (or
prevents HIM from getting spanked). A person generally has
some algorithm which optimizes (however rationally or
irrationally) 'HIS happiness'. This optimization is by
definition 'selfish'. In any case, I don't see how one's
non-belief in boogeymen is correlated with one's selfishness.
There is a wonderful book called 'The Virtue of Selfishness',
by Ayn Rand. Many on this group will undoubtedly have read it.
Jeff Candy
Doug Nelson:
|> Well, Jeff, that already answers my question. That would indeed be
|> reason enough. I guess I would have stated it better by saying acts
|> not centered on rewarding oneself instead of unselfish. I can't
|> think of an act of charity that wouldn't give the possibility of a
|> sense of satisfaction. I was just wondering what the motivation of
|> an atheist would be to be charitable, not because I think there is a
|> hidden point to the question, but rather, I want to understand
|> atheists better. Thanks for showing me the obvious, are there any
|> more possibilities, i.e. tradition, nostalgia, wanting to give back
|> to community?
I don't imagine that one's athiesm has much to do with the
manner in which one disposes of his time and money. I can't
see any causal link, or perhaps, any general trend.
Chris Hackett
Doug Nelson wrote:
> I don't agree that atheists are more moral than any Christian, I
> would think that the mean morality of each group would be fairly
> close to one another.
> I certainly don't make my decisions based on fear of punishment, but
> upon desire to glorify my particular personal God. I usually screw
> that up anyway. It is very hard for anyone to remove the "I" from
> decisions. Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make unselfish
> acts?
You are assuming that the definition of morality is to help other people
with no hope of personal gain. So I'd like to ask you this: Why is it
necessary to perform "unselfish acts" to be moral?
I consider myself to be a moral person, and yet I don't really do
anything that would be considered "unselfish." I'm a very selfish
person, and yet I'm very moral. Hmm, it sounds like a paradox doesn't
it? But it really isn't...
stufnten
On 13 Mar 1997, Jeff Candy wrote:
> Doug Nelson:
>
> |> acts?
>
> acts like 'providing shelter for the homeless' and 'giving
> to charity' are selfish. They presumably give the giver a
> sense of well-being and satisfaction.
Psychological egoism is a philosophical dead-end. Who is unselfish? Who is
altruistic? Simply the one who takes pleasure in helping others. The only
way one can support psychological egoism in the face of examples of
charity is by playing semantics or reinterpretation, which robs the theory
of its explanatory power, making it defunct.
Any empirical theory of worth *must* be falsifiable, otherwise it is
useless.
stufnten[tm], Toby
--- a#55
> in case of sanity, delete message
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract
Kenneth J Smith
cc1...@stoneynet.net (Stoney) wrote:
>"Jim Toth" <jpt...@psci.net> wrote:
>
>> We could not do anything without faith. You have faith working within you
>>right now. For instance your sitting a room looking at your computer
>>screen.
>> You have faith that the person that designed your hard drive knew
>>what he was doing.
>
>No, Jim. You are talking of two different things. The hard drive and
>the rest of the computer are things you can see and touch. It has a
>physical existance. You can see if it is functioning properly, or
>malfunctioning.
I'm curious. How do you explain Love? You can't see it, you can't touch
it and it has no PHYSICAL existance.
Perhaps I should have first ask if you have ever felt Love or Loved.
I feel love and loved. I have tried and tried to find facts and evidence
to explain why I feel what I feel but I've yet to come up with any answer
other than faith in GOD and that it was placed in me by the grace of God.
I'm very interested in hearing how people who do not believe in God
explain what Love is, what the purpose of it is, and where does it come
from.
Ken Smith
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy:
|> > Please define carefully 'unselfish'. My impression is that
|> > acts like 'providing shelter for the homeless' and 'giving
|> > to charity' are selfish. They presumably give the giver a
|> > sense of well-being and satisfaction.
stufnten <tch...@sfu.ca>:
|> Psychological egoism is a philosophical dead-end.
What is 'psychological egoism? Is it the idea that everything
a (rational) person does is somehow selfish?
|> Who is unselfish? Who is altruistic? Simply the one who takes
|> pleasure in helping others.
Certainly. I am aware of the definition. But often altruism
is interpreted as necessarily putting others _before_ oneself.
My simple point is that it is _not_ necessary to value others
_more_ than oneself to be charitable and giving.
|> The only way one can support psychological egoism in the
|> face of examples of charity is by playing semantics or
|> reinterpretation, which robs the theory of its explanatory
|> power, making it defunct.
Well, suffice it to say that I consider myself a rational egoist,
but not uncharitable or overtly selfish.
|> Any empirical theory of worth *must* be falsifiable, otherwise
|> it is useless.
What is a 'theory of worth'? Your posts ought to contain
a link to a jargon dictionary.
Once again, I guess that it is a theory which identifies how
we make decisions. In any case, it is clear the human mind
goes through some (convoluted) optimization process, and
should normally optimize on correlated variables like 'worth'
and 'happiness'. In case this sounds abstract, ask youself
how you would choose between a high-stress, long-hour job
which pays $200,000/yr, and a low-stress, enjoyable $50,000/yr
job which gives you lots of free time. How will you make that
decision? If you take the high-paying job, should you give
lots of cash to charity?
Now do you see my difficulty with the simple notion of
'unselfish'?
Doug Nelson
Chris Hackett <chac...@ea.uci.edu> wrote in article
<3329AE...@ea.uci.edu>...
| Doug Nelson wrote:
|
| > I don't agree that atheists are more moral than any Christian, I
| > would think that the mean morality of each group would be fairly
| > close to one another.
| > I certainly don't make my decisions based on fear of punishment,
but
| > upon desire to glorify my particular personal God. I usually
screw
| > that up anyway. It is very hard for anyone to remove the "I" from
| > decisions. Do atheists have incentives or reasons to make
unselfish
| > acts?
|
| You are assuming that the definition of morality is to help other
people
| with no hope of personal gain. So I'd like to ask you this: Why
is it
| necessary to perform "unselfish acts" to be moral?
Where did I say it was necessary to perform unselfish acts to be
moral? Did you read the thread that I was responding to or just a
cropped piece?
moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior:
Ethical i.e. a moral judgement
: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical
judgement. i.e. a moral obligation
paraphrased from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
This is where the question began:
.Being an atheist means that we take personal responsibility for
everything we do
.- EVERYTHING. If we do wrong, it is our own fault. If we do good, it
is because
.we chose to do so. We do not put the blame for evil actions on a
devil or good
.actions on a god. We do not pass the buck as so many Christians do.
We choose
.to be responsible for all our actions. And, the fact that we make
this choice by
.our own decision and not out of fear of punishment by some old fogey
in the sky
.makes atheists infinitely more moral than any Christian can ever
hope to be.
.Michelle Malkin
She was asserting that Christians make all their moral decisions
because of fear of punishment. I didn't agree that all their
decisions are based on this, so I responded as you quoted above. I
was trying to understand non-Christian motivation and reward, since
it foreign to me. No where did I say that atheists are any less or
any more moral than anyone else. Please don't point out to me what
my assumptions are unless you helped me formulate them.
|
| I consider myself to be a moral person, and yet I don't really do
| anything that would be considered "unselfish." I'm a very selfish
| person, and yet I'm very moral. Hmm, it sounds like a paradox
doesn't
| it? But it really isn't...
|
Some moral people (especially self-named Christians) can be very
selfish, they 'toe the line' so that they can have a stressfree,
predictable life. Some of them even jump all over people that they
think might rock their boat. Present company excluded, of course.
8^D
Stoney
Kenneth J Smith <kjss...@netrax.net> wrote:
>I'm curious. How do you explain Love? You can't see it, you can't touch
>it and it has no PHYSICAL existance.
>Perhaps I should have first ask if you have ever felt Love or Loved.
>I feel love and loved. I have tried and tried to find facts and evidence
>to explain why I feel what I feel but I've yet to come up with any answer
>other than faith in GOD and that it was placed in me by the grace of God.
And a believer in another religion might say the same thing and give
'credit' to another deity.
>I'm very interested in hearing how people who do not believe in God
>explain what Love is, what the purpose of it is, and where does it come
>from.
It's an emotion that can be either constructive or destructive. It is
something that causes two people to share their lives [Please note
that I said nothing about gender]. It is a mechanism that increases
the survivability of the species.
It can stabilize a healthy environment that nutures offspring, adopted
children or no children.
For my part the constant assumption of deity astounds me.
Hopefully, I have been of some assistance.
Regards,
Stoney
Due to commercial spams; header address is falsified.
Real email address is: cc1...@cdsnet.net
Faith is intellectual pornography.
#9
Stoney
[Doug's question and the replies snipped]
Doug said in reply to my finding the question offensive and
patronizing;
>I don't see how you found it offensive or patronizing, it was a real
>question based on my desire to understand my fellow humans better. I
>apologize if I worded it badly, but it was a question and not a
>statement.
Accepted, and I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
I had read your post several times before I answered it.
> I understand that this NG is usually a tongue in cheek
>battleground, but I was sincere. I learned that the 'golden rule' is
>a concept that is universally applied (thanks Raist).
It is a tongue in check battleground, true. All of us are human with
likes, dislikes, fears and insecurities. We all want to be treated
with fairness and respect as human beings.
> I don't want
>to make any assumptions about how atheists or anyone else thinks when
>I can just ask them, isn't this the best way to mutual understanding?
Asking questions *is* the best way to mutual understanding.
> Is that patronizing?
The phraseology gave me that indication.
Stix
Kenneth J Smith posted the following to alt.atheism,
>I'm curious. How do you explain Love? You can't see it, you can't touch
>it and it has no PHYSICAL existance.
Correct, because it's merely a feeling. Love is the feeling of attraction
or the desire to be with someone caused by attributes in the person that
one considers desirable, similar, or attractive to oneself.
>Perhaps I should have first ask if you have ever felt Love or Loved.
Yep. I'm just sloppin' over with it. Heh heh, you may not tell it from my
posts (after all, I'm usually carving bleaters) but I'm a romantic with a
golden heart. :)
<<<SNARL>>> <== pre-emptive aggression in case any bleaters feel like
scoffing. Not that I really give a tinker's cuss. :)
>I feel love and loved. I have tried and tried to find facts and evidence
>to explain why I feel what I feel but I've yet to come up with any answer
>other than faith in GOD and that it was placed in me by the grace of God.
Eww, ick! Sorry, but I think the concept of god(s) cheapens love and
reduces it from an understandable human phenomenon to a requirement, and
gives credit for the beauty of it to an imaginary human construction.
I think love is easily definable and understandable and I have no belief in
god-thingumy's whatsoever.
>I'm very interested in hearing how people who do not believe in God
>explain what Love is, what the purpose of it is, and where does it come
>from.
I explained what it is above. It has no "purpose" per se, well, not that I
can see, except perhaps for defending our partner during our early
evolution (much the same as a wolf will protect its mate, particularly when
she is vulnerable) and that it just feels *good* to love and be loved.
As for where it comes from, I'd say it comes from merely finding a person
who has attributes you find attractive. When that person whom you find
attractive also feels similar attraction for you, that attribute in itself
is very attractive - hence the feeling of wanting to be with them. The more
attributes one finds attractive, the greater the desire to be with them,
hence the greater feeling of what we call "love." No god(s) required. :)
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Amanda Gellhouse
Stix <st...@oz-email.com.au> wrote in article
<332e33d8...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> Kenneth J Smith posted the following to alt.atheism,
>
> >I'm curious. How do you explain Love? You can't see it, you can't
touch
> >it and it has no PHYSICAL existance.
>
> Correct, because it's merely a feeling. Love is the feeling of attraction
> or the desire to be with someone caused by attributes in the person that
> one considers desirable, similar, or attractive to oneself.
A Christian tried to pull this one on me once, I explained to her that love
was an emotion that is produced by a reaction in your brain to a person who
is as you described above. It's an innate characteristic.
She was baffled.
I wonder where theists come up with these arguments? Do they attend a
yearly convention or something? They're all so similar.
<snip>
> >I'm very interested in hearing how people who do not believe in God
> >explain what Love is, what the purpose of it is, and where does it come
> >from.
>
> I explained what it is above. It has no "purpose" per se, well, not that
I
> can see, except perhaps for defending our partner during our early
> evolution (much the same as a wolf will protect its mate, particularly
when
> she is vulnerable) and that it just feels *good* to love and be loved.
I believe love is a way evolution has made us make sure our fellow human
beings are kept safe from dangers which may result in death of the
individual, and eventually of the species. And it is exactly for this
reason that love *does* feel good.
Most of our emotions exist for essentially selfish purposes.
> As for where it comes from, I'd say it comes from merely finding a person
> who has attributes you find attractive. When that person whom you find
> attractive also feels similar attraction for you, that attribute in
itself
> is very attractive - hence the feeling of wanting to be with them. The
more
> attributes one finds attractive, the greater the desire to be with them,
> hence the greater feeling of what we call "love." No god(s) required. :)
I don't think I understand the relationship between attributes and
attractiveness, could you please rephrase that? ;)
Amanda
>
>
> Stix
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> "Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
--
Amanda Gellhouse
ama...@alaska.net
Atheist #241
Reply-to address edited to spam-proof inbox.