Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Moral situation - Theist vs Atheist

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:58:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Nice agree 100%.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 10:05:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


I think your example is extreme. Compassion is something all humans have. Some tube it out better than others. People have the ability to be very bad and very good regardless of their religious belief.
Very bad people can still rescue an innocent child and very good people could freeze up and let them die.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 10:12:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 10:05:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


I think your example is extreme. Compassion is something all humans have. Some tube it out better than others. People have the ability to be very bad and very good regardless of their religious belief.

I don't know if I was fuzzy. Because this is exactly what I was trying to say in the post. You can be religious and be the world's nicest person. You can be atheist and ditto. You can be religious and be the world's most evil person. You can be atheist and ditto. Whereas many people try to say only atheists would be evil. The other way around too though, many people say only religious are evil.

Very bad people can still rescue an innocent child and very good people could freeze up and let them die.

Yes that too.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:07:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It's a very good way of putting it. You did however forget to add the distinction... After religious people finish acting in accordance with their own personal empathy and compassion, they then credit their God for it as if their faith is where it really came from.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:27:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 1:07:06 AM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very good way of putting it. You did however forget to add the distinction... After religious people finish acting in accordance with their own personal empathy and compassion, they then credit their God for it as if their faith is where it really came from.

And which of all the religious people in the world are you speaking for?
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:29:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 1:27:03 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:07:06 AM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very good way of putting it. You did however forget to add the distinction... After religious people finish acting in accordance with their own personal empathy and compassion, they then credit their God for it as if their faith is where it really came from.

And which of all the religious people in the world are you speaking for?

Pretty much everyone I have came across.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:10:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 10:12:46 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/27/2016 10:05:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


I think your example is extreme. Compassion is something all humans have. Some tube it out better than others. People have the ability to be very bad and very good regardless of their religious belief.

I don't know if I was fuzzy. Because this is exactly what I was trying to say in the post. You can be religious and be the world's nicest person. You can be atheist and ditto. You can be religious and be the world's most evil person. You can be atheist and ditto. Whereas many people try to say only atheists would be evil. The other way around too though, many people say only religious are evil.

Very bad people can still rescue an innocent child and very good people could freeze up and let them die.

Yes that too.

right gotcha.. i agree then
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:22:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


so if you realize your god is a myth, then you would throw away all of your morals?
Theist - Subconcious thoughts: i'm just a weak human, i can't save the child. - Reaction: Pray
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: if i was in danger, then i would want someone to help me. - Reaction: Rescue
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:50:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 1:29:28 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:27:03 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:07:06 AM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very good way of putting it. You did however forget to add the distinction... After religious people finish acting in accordance with their own personal empathy and compassion, they then credit their God for it as if their faith is where it really came from.

And which of all the religious people in the world are you speaking for?

Pretty much everyone I have came across.

You must be a lonely young man, who never seems to met anyone.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:14:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:22:58 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


so if you realize your god is a myth, then you would throw away all of your morals?
Theist - Subconcious thoughts: i'm just a weak human, i can't save the child. - Reaction: Pray
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: if i was in danger, then i would want someone to help me. - Reaction: Rescue

You must have misunderstood. I'm not religious, but your question is a question I ask to the all religious people with the "no moral without God" mentality. Because this is pretty much what they are saying, that there would be no point in doing good things if god didn't exist. As I said in OP, whenever they come up with that kind of bullcrap, I answer them "If you're saying killing would be justified without God, then you should rather rephrase it to that you personally would see no problem killing everyone in your vicinity if your god was proven not to exist". I have done a separate thread about this before http://www.debate.org...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 11:16:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

Natural selection...that's my motto...

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

lol no. No one would care. Who needs children, right? Too much overpopulation anyway...

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

They still kill people and they think God exist. Makes no difference.

BTW, is the kid dead yet? He's been drowning for ages now...

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Its called instinct.

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Of course not...the child deserved it. It probably has no parents anyway considering that it's drowning in a lake.

Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

See above.

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

No no no. No one cares about a drowning child.


Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Of course not. Your argument was based on the faulty premise that people would care about a drowning child. Pah!
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:01:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


It's not a matter of atheists not having morals, they can be highly moral people but they don't have a basis for morality. If our thoughts and actions are just a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, then who can say what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, everyone can decide for themselves. A moral law requires a moral law giver who defines right or wrong.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:09:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:01:08 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?



It's not a matter of atheists not having morals, they can be highly moral people but they don't have a basis for morality.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but this is a myth. There are so many other things than religions who function as moral grounds. Culture, traditions, ideologies, you name it.

If our thoughts and actions are just a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, then who can say what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, everyone can decide for themselves. A moral law requires a moral law giver who defines right or wrong.

Then you pretty much confirm the idea of a theist not saving the drowning child because of things like compassion etc, he would only save it because his religion told him to. And that is very shallow.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:12:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:01:08 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?



It's not a matter of atheists not having morals, they can be highly moral people but they don't have a basis for morality. If our thoughts and actions are just a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, then who can say what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, everyone can decide for themselves. A moral law requires a moral law giver who defines right or wrong.

Moral laws do not require a lawgiver any more than the laws of mathematics, logic or nature require a lawgiver.
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:52:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:12:47 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:01:08 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?



It's not a matter of atheists not having morals, they can be highly moral people but they don't have a basis for morality. If our thoughts and actions are just a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, then who can say what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, everyone can decide for themselves. A moral law requires a moral law giver who defines right or wrong.

Moral laws do not require a lawgiver any more than the laws of mathematics, logic or nature require a lawgiver.

Then no one can say that a murderer or a rapist or a peadophile is wrong, since they can decide for themselves, and anyone can be right no matter what conclusion they come to in math, logic or nature.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:50:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:52:49 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:12:47 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:01:08 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?



It's not a matter of atheists not having morals, they can be highly moral people but they don't have a basis for morality. If our thoughts and actions are just a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, then who can say what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, everyone can decide for themselves. A moral law requires a moral law giver who defines right or wrong.

Moral laws do not require a lawgiver any more than the laws of mathematics, logic or nature require a lawgiver.

Then no one can say that a murderer or a rapist or a peadophile is wrong, since they can decide for themselves, and anyone can be right no matter what conclusion they come to in math, logic or nature.

I'm sorry but there have been indeed many cases where religions have excused all of those three cases, so your argument falls apart.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:02:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 9:50:09 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:29:28 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:27:03 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:07:06 AM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very good way of putting it. You did however forget to add the distinction... After religious people finish acting in accordance with their own personal empathy and compassion, they then credit their God for it as if their faith is where it really came from.

And which of all the religious people in the world are you speaking for?

Pretty much everyone I have came across.

You must be a lonely young man, who never seems to met anyone.

Much easier to attack me then the point I see. Not that I'm surprised coming from you.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:22:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 10:12:46 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/27/2016 10:05:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


I think your example is extreme. Compassion is something all humans have. Some tube it out better than others. People have the ability to be very bad and very good regardless of their religious belief.

I don't know if I was fuzzy. Because this is exactly what I was trying to say in the post. You can be religious and be the world's nicest person. You can be atheist and ditto. You can be religious and be the world's most evil person. You can be atheist and ditto. Whereas many people try to say only atheists would be evil. The other way around too though, many people say only religious are evil.

Very bad people can still rescue an innocent child and very good people could freeze up and let them die.

Yes that too.

Yeah i gotcha, Was just saying not all believers look at it the way you said. I certainly dont look at morals that way
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 3:48:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
OK I didn't really get more answers than agreements from atheists, I will bump this because I want someone else to answer.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:05:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Of course natural compassion, fueled by empathy and the most basic survival instinct, would reign in most people. Humans are, by nature and by long evolution, social beings that grouped together because of these qualities. I agree with you and this simple scenario completely refutes the 'No God, No Morals' bovine fecal matter that most theists like to dish out, completely ignoring all of the immoral crap in their holy book.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:19:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:05:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Of course natural compassion, fueled by empathy and the most basic survival instinct, would reign in most people. Humans are, by nature and by long evolution, social beings that grouped together because of these qualities.

Yes and I've read evolution will make us even better in the future

I agree with you and this simple scenario completely refutes the 'No God, No Morals' bovine fecal matter that most theists like to dish out, completely ignoring all of the immoral crap in their holy book.

I'm not really caring about the bad passages in the religious books, I'm just saying that if there are so many people who would see nothing bad in killing, raping, pedophilia etc. if it wasn't for the fact that they have their religion as a buffer to them, then we have a reason to worry about these people.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:24:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:19:29 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:05:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Of course natural compassion, fueled by empathy and the most basic survival instinct, would reign in most people. Humans are, by nature and by long evolution, social beings that grouped together because of these qualities.

Yes and I've read evolution will make us even better in the future

I agree with you and this simple scenario completely refutes the 'No God, No Morals' bovine fecal matter that most theists like to dish out, completely ignoring all of the immoral crap in their holy book.

I'm not really caring about the bad passages in the religious books, I'm just saying that if there are so many people who would see nothing bad in killing, raping, pedophilia etc. if it wasn't for the fact that they have their religion as a buffer to them, then we have a reason to worry about these people.

Agreed, and that was implicit in my comment though it might not have been clear. An atheist acts out of personal responsibility. Theists do much the same but they are also worrying about their score with a mythical invisible being and what will happen after they die.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 1:19:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?
(Hrn, I thought I'd responded to this. Anyway, since you asked for another view, Jovian, here's one, though it's not entirely mine.)

It's true that altruism can be found in other animals, including cross-species altruism, so I'm very comfortable with the idea of compassion evolving in some species. I think many religious who understand and support evolution (which is most religious in developed democracies) would be reasonably comfortable agreeing that compassion may have evolved.

Yet compassion alone doesn't drive morality. We need wisdom and courage too. Else we end up giving plague victims hugs rather than quarantining them and giving them medicines. :p

There are plenty of religious people who agree that humanity is compassionate, and they'll typically have some metaphysical creation story to justify that. But I think most religious moralists would agree that wisdom and courage are necessary too. They might simply disagree with me on where to get it, and what inspires it.

So you might find some who'd argue that compassion might not need religion, but that morality benefits from it. There's now a growing array of scientific data showing otherwise, but I think many religious still believe that. Unfortunately, the religious participation in this forum isn't very representative, but I think we can find plenty of such thought online among clergy and religious bloggers if we look.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 10:28:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Human instincts are generally universal. Asking "What would Jesus do?" makes you do more than you would have done otherwise.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 10:12:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 10:28:06 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, Jovian wrote:
Imagine a situation where an atheist is out walking around a lake, and suddenly he sees a child falling into the water and shout for help because said child can't swim. Imagine the same scenario happening to a theist.

I've read so many people saying how religion is a buffer, likewise the only kind of buffer, against humans behaving what most people would call bad. I'm saying this is a flawed way of seeing it. This would mean that their answer to my question would be:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: Ehm...I guess I have to rescue him because...ehm...God said so. - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: Nothing is worth doing. Darkness. Darkness. - Reaction: None

This is practically much what the "no moral without religion" people are saying. They are saying that humans are such a bad creation that they need a religion in order to work normally. That humans are empty notebooks totally free for anyone to write in. As I've told these kind of people many times "If you say killing would be justified in atheism, then this is rather saying things about you, that you personally would kill people if your god was proven not to exist".

I on the other hand am not that categorical. I know there is something naturally encoded in humans, and also many other animal species, called compassion. Here is how I would answer my question:

Theist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue
Atheist - Subconcious thoughts: ALERT! ALERT! Child drowning! Drowning child's fear synchronized with brain. Must save child in order not to let a young innocent life perish, likewise to relieve the child's family and friends of possible trauma and PTSD! - Reaction: Rescue

Even people from primitive uncontacted tribes would have the same thoughts and reactions above (maybe not on outsider adult men, given how prehistorical humans viewed those as threats whereas women and children were kind of seen as innocent). And as I said, this is not only something humans would do. Animals protect humans too. ( http://listverse.com... ) Maybe even other animals, I don't know.

Do you agree with me? If not, why would natural compassion not play any role at all? Would you present another view on this?


Human instincts are generally universal. Asking "What would Jesus do?" makes you do more than you would have done otherwise.

But it's not moral to flip tables and chase people with whips.