Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Atheist do-gooders (Read 10638 times)
|
EC
 Offline
Posts: 46
Let Your Spirit Soar!
|
When I say "I want to make the world a better place, I probably mean I want to make my world a better place, and that's an important disctinction.
Hi Rocketman, Hope all is well!
And That is what we all need to do, "One at a time, and then together!"
They have coerced the proletariat into dysfunction:
It has been going on since control and coercion of the proletariat was put to work
and was made to work through fear.
They do not want us to trust one another. They want us to fear one another.
They do not want us to help one another or depend on one another to any large,
coordinated degree. But little clusters are ok and harmless to them. We are still
quite separate this way.
Ignore them. The government, public schools, most churches, the media (tv, newspapers, etc.) and
anything else the puppeteers have their hands on. It will break down if enough of
us give them no mind. They cannot jail 500,000/1,000,000/5,000,000 people for not
listening and getting on with life the way they choose.
We have the ability to stop them by thinking and acting in the opposite realm.
We can choose not to listen at all to their realm and not to function at all in their realm.
We will be free of them by simply living free of them. We can change the whole
scenario around in a heartbeat with one coordinated, decisive action. Little clusters turning
to one big cluster. Everything opposite of what they are will simply come to the forefront
by this action. This is where faith should be...this is where our energy should be. One action
at a time, together. Changing the way they want us to think and thinking our way.
Changing what each of us may for the good right in front of us!
Being Sovereign
Being Good
One by One, Together, Forever
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 05:42:14 pm by EC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
What would an ideal government "feel" like? Nothing. The intent of government is merely to keep the peace. If things were going smoothly almost noone would have to even know who the President was. The fact that about half the mainstream news (or more?) is ralted to the operation of government shows the, what should ideally be a smooth ride, has gotten bumpy. Everyone wants to ride in the bus, but few are willing to fix it. If one day a large number of people decided to change things, it would be done almost overnight. We'd then spend a long time learning how to adapt to the changes but I don't think that would be too bad of an experience ... I think would honestly be fun  ... a little work is good for character anyway.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Pat K
|
"So here's the element: Costs little, reaps education and warm fuzzies from seeing someone else happy. So clearly in this example, the cost benefit analysis is cost v.s. education and warm fuzzies. Sounds like PatK fits the mold perfectly "
Yep and remember I never claimed to be altruistic. I see no difference why some one is.......good, helpful,um ...
as long as they are.
A question for Varrin= If tomorrow you came to the conclusion that there was no god, would you become a barbarian
or pretty much just be Varrin minus a Deity?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Look... I get it. I got Obama's point. It was "technically" correct. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a totally dochebag, dickwad thing to say to people who have done great things and deserve a pat on the back and not to be knocked down a peg just to serve his political agenda. -Dale
Jason Osborne "Fighting for reduction of government" is kind of like smashing your dick in a car door to reduce the pain of smashing your dick in the car door, and then getting pissed at the folks who don't want to smash their dicks in car doors as if it is their fault that your dick hurts.
"I don't recommend looking towards a government building if you don't want to see indecent behavior." --Russell Kanning
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
Rocketman, If "pure egoism" is your only motivation, you'd have to say all three are equally desirable actions. If "pure altruism" is your only motivation, you would only choose action c.
But I would argue that 'pure altruism' is *never* anyone's motive. I view the equation slightly differently than you do. Those who *appear* to balance the 'altruistic' motive are actually counting other people's benefit as some benefit to themselves. You allude to another reason to do this later (i.e. leading the creation of the kind of society you'd like to live in). So instead of X benefit to me from *not* helping others v.s. Y benefit to others from helping others I think the *real* equation is: X net benefit to me from *not* helping others v.s. Y net benefit to me from helping others Cases where helping others benefits us are not particularly challenging to figure out (unless being mean carries a high perceived net benefit, which for some people it does). But... moving right along...  So, back to the religion part: to me, mandatory sharing and even mandatory niceness are despicable whether they are mandated by gods or governments. I think people should understand on a purely rational basis that voluntary cooperation is good policy, and when churches (or governments) come along and say "you have to help your neighbor or burn in hell (or prison)," they undermine the essence of voluntary cooperation, and I don't think we can have another Age of Enlightenment without dramatically reducing the anti-rational impact of both forms of coercion.
There may well be some religions (in fact, there *are*) that operate that way. But that's not an accurate characterization of Christianity. Burning in hell is the natural consequence of separation from God. As long as we are sinful *and* that sin is not 'paid for', we cannot spend eternity in heaven. Consequently we need to either be *not* sinful ("...all have sinned..." Rom 3:23 - this option is impossible), or repent and accept Christ's offer of salvation. So saying "help our neighbor or burn in hell" isn't exactly the spirit of what Christianity teaches. It's more like "help your neighbor because that's the right (loving) thing to do", which is, more or less, what you're saying. In fact, the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor" (Matt 22:39). Interesting that after some 'enlightenment', the truth about loving your neighbor comes out: it's a good idea! In fact, since atheists view life on earth as the only life we'll ever have, I'd say they're often more motivated than Christians to improve this world.
See, that idea baffles me. If you're an atheist, you readily admit that life on earth is the only life you'll ever have. Hence, when it's over... it's *over*. If I were an atheist (to partly answer PatK's question), I really wouldn't care what happens after I die... I'll be *dead*... I couldn't possibly care. And since I'd not have any real reason to care about peoples' souls, why should I care??? My motivation for making life on earth better, would be making life better for *me*. It wouldn't be making life better for people who might live after I'm dead. But maybe I'm just a bit cynical eh? Some Christians seem to be looking forward to Armageddon, and that to me is the scariest thing to me about religion. If people believe their deity is going to blow the whole place up sooner than later, why fix it?
There are *some* people who look at things that way. But that's directly contradictory to what the Bible clearly tells us to do. While the expectation is that this earth is temporary, that doesn't mean we outta just wait around for it all to end. The Bible clearly teaches against that. And, BTW, absent the Bible, it doesn't look to me like Earth can go on forever. At least two huge factors pose a significant threat to the long term sustainability for human life on earth: 1) the exponential increase in the ability and desire (power) of a few people to do bad things to more and more people, and 2) enviornmental factors (climate change, population growth, etc.). So the concept of "it's all gonna end soon" seems much more plausable today than it did when the Bible was written (can you say prophecy?). The point is, though, Christ didn't say "sit here and wait for the end". He said love God and love people... and go teach others to do the same. That's the ultimate model for stability and peace if ya ask me... And besides, life on earth is only a drop in the ocean compared to eternity with God, so why bother with earth? Fortunately, not all Christians think that way, but enough do to frighten me...
Those that do obviously haven't read the (whole) Bible. In fact, it is the former reason (life on earth is only a drop in the ocean compared to eternity with God) is an excelent motivator (aside from outright obedience) for working to make things better here. Being a good (attractive, positive, etc.) example is far more persuasive than sitting on the mountain waiting for it all to end. And once a person recognizes the value of a soul (starting with their own), it becomes difficult to stomach the idea of people being eternally separated from God because we sat around waiting for the end instead of doing our job... So, how am I doing?
Pretty good actually! V- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
A question for Varrin= If tomorrow you came to the conclusion that there was no god, would you become a barbarian
or pretty much just be Varrin minus a Deity?
Pat, if tomorrow you came to the conclusion that there was no beer, would you become a barbarian or pretty much just be PatK minus beer??? V- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Varrin, Always a pleasure arguing with you.  First, I very nearly agree with you about altruism. When analyzing a person's decision-making process, I begin by considering how each of the person's options would benefit the person making the choice.  I always view altruistic considerations as secondary, and the "pure altruism" of my example was intended as a purely theoretical construct. At the same time, "pure egoism" is incomplete without altruistic considerations to inform it (i.e. people should always consider how their choices will affect other people). If a person has no regard for the well-being of others, he or she will theoretically choose options a, b, and c of my example, without even acknowledging a preference for option c over option a. This sort of person would fit right into Book IV of Gulliver's Travels, and is not welcome in my neighborhood. Yeah, I'm no Randian. Ethically, I prefer to think of myself as an Aristotelian egoist -- Aristotelian egoism is often called "enlightened" or "other-directed" egoism. Aristotle understood without appeal to religion that we can't seek the good for ourselves without considering how our lives are bound up with the lives of others. I strongly recommend Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics to anyone interested in ethical systems -- as philosophical texts go, it contains a lot of common sense and is easy to comprehend. We're also flirting here with the borders of moral philosophy, or ethics. Ethics is concerned with how people ought to live. Thus, ethical egoism is the idea that people ought to make life choices based upon self-interest. When we hold that people are always-already egoists, that they cannot help but act according to self-interest, that's more of a psychological position than an ethical one, because it contains no moral ought. (Some have termed this position "psychological egoism.") Extrapolation from Aristotle to this discussion: It is our task as human beings to seek the good for ourselves, to discover what it means to live a good life and try to live it. This task requires each of us to develop an understanding of virtue. An easily understood example is courage -- people with too much courage are reckless and foolhardy, whereas people with too little courage are cowardly and pathetic, so we need to learn from our experiences and observations to find the "golden mean" between these extremes. Applying this consideration to selfishness vs. altruism, our desire "to live well" (as Aristotle would have put it, had he known English ) requires us to find the mean between these two extremes. Whew, I need a breather, but I'll go ahead and post this before I get into all that religious mumbo-jumbo.   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Okay, cont'd..... To begin, let me clarify that, depending on how we define the terms, I should more accurately describe myself as an agnostic deist. That is, when contemplating nature, I often think there might have been a creator, but the only way I might be able to comprehend such a creator is through my observation of creation and through reason. If the creator is the sort of personal deity who is worshipped by Christians, then he/she/it is more than capable of approaching me with a revelation. God: if you're reading this, and you want any sort of relationship with me, INTRODUCE YOURSELF! YOU HAVE THE POWER! Reason tells me that revelations are non-transferrable -- people have too many potential reasons to say "God told me this or that," and history is replete with examples of pretended or delusional revelations that have threatened the rational basis of civilization. I'm afraid that lots of folks who lose faith in a revealed religion immediately become atheists or agnostics, without considering deism, which for many would be a more palatable option than atheism: Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason.Â
Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power. (deism.org) So why am I speaking for atheists? Well, if atheism simply means "absence of belief in a deity," then I am an atheist. I sort of think there might have been a creator, but I don't base my decisions on what I think that creator might want me to do -- as far as ethics is concerned, if I'm not an atheist, I might as well be one. If God has ever given me anything beyond life, it is reason... use it or lose it. So, back to the religion part: to me, mandatory sharing and even mandatory niceness are despicable whether they are mandated by gods or governments. I think people should understand on a purely rational basis that voluntary cooperation is good policy, and when churches (or governments) come along and say "you have to help your neighbor or burn in hell (or prison)," they undermine the essence of voluntary cooperation, and I don't think we can have another Age of Enlightenment without dramatically reducing the anti-rational impact of both forms of coercion. There may well be some religions (in fact, there *are*) that operate that way. But that's not an accurate characterization of Christianity. It certainly isn't an accurate characterization of Christ's teachings. However, in my view, churches are more likely to serve as instruments of social control than as vehicles to personal enlightenment. The moral teachings of Christ, many of which I admire, are hardly the basis for Christianity as I have experienced it. I think "Love Your Neighbor" was well-established as a good idea long before Matthew (the dude I was named after) scribbled it down.  In fact, since atheists view life on earth as the only life we'll ever have, I'd say they're often more motivated than Christians to improve this world.
See, that idea baffles me. If you're an atheist, you readily admit that life on earth is the only life you'll ever have. Hence, when it's over... it's *over*. If I were an atheist (to partly answer PatK's question), I really wouldn't care what happens after I die... I'll be *dead*... I couldn't possibly care. And since I'd not have any real reason to care about peoples' souls, why should I care??? My motivation for making life on earth better, would be making life better for *me*. It wouldn't be making life better for people who might live after I'm dead. But maybe I'm just a bit cynical eh? Well, Varrin, if your rational mind (I know you're an NT ) ever concludes that there is no life after death, no Judgement Day, no interview at the portal to heaven, no entity other than yourself who is your ultimate judge, I think you will then find the situation far from baffling. I understand your perspective, having undergone the transition myself -- at one time, I would have found life without God terrifying and unfathomable, much like life after the death of a beloved parent or spouse, but the show goes on... To illustrate, today I attended a memorial service for one of my colleagues, a Muslim, who died unexpectedly last weekend. He was a truly exceptional person, and I'm not just saying that because he recently died; however, I've noticed that a lot of the folks (99% Christians) seem to be quite concerned about the status of Hassan's soul. Everybody liked him and they want him to be in heaven, but do Muslims go to heaven? In my view, he lives on in our memories, and in any influence he might have had on our lives. I know posterity doesn't sound too rosy compared to eternal life in heaven with God, your dead family members, dead pets, and famous dead Christians throughout history you always wanted to meet, but once a person accepts that this life is all there is, doing the best you can for the sake of posterity becomes enormously important for many of us. When the Christian preacher (who doubles as a philosophy instructor at this college) asserted, in his most insistent tone, that "Hassan is smiling down on us," I thought "Wow, do these people really need to believe that?" He's smiling in most of my memories of him, memories I will cherish, but I had given no thought to the status of his soul. The man lived well, I think, and in my view that's all he could do. I am my own judge, which means my judgements are nearly immediate, not deferred until Judgement Day, and that is a key consideration. Some Christians seem to be better than others at honest self-evaluation, but (they believe) only God can judge, and God will supposedly forgive just about any sin if the sinner repents. Atheists don't get to repent, so they may feel more inclined to avoid making bad choices. I know I'm a much more responsible decision maker as an atheist (or whatever) than I ever was as a Christian. ***************************************************************************************************************** So, Varrin, if I may... you're one of the most rational Christians I've ever met, so I'd be interested to hear your views on faith as opposed to reason. In my view, the two concepts are antithetical. When Jesus tells "Doubting" Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe," I find that to be the most annoying statement in any of the Gospels. If God gave us reason, wouldn't he want us to use it? Aren't skepticism and doubt essential to rational thought? Wow, I spent a lot of time and energy on this... feels good to use that part of my brain again, and besides, it's so important that we all learn to understand each other. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Pat K
|
A question for Varrin= If tomorrow you came to the conclusion that there was no god, would you become a barbarian
or pretty much just be Varrin minus a Deity?
Pat, if tomorrow you came to the conclusion that there was no beer, would you become a barbarian or pretty much just be PatK minus beer??? V- Um I was actually expecting an answer. To answer your query, yes I would still pretty much be Pat but I would weigh less. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Look... I get it. I got Obama's point. It was "technically" correct. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a totally dochebag, dickwad thing to say to people who have done great things and deserve a pat on the back and not to be knocked down a peg just to serve his political agenda. -Dale
Jason Osborne "Fighting for reduction of government" is kind of like smashing your dick in a car door to reduce the pain of smashing your dick in the car door, and then getting pissed at the folks who don't want to smash their dicks in car doors as if it is their fault that your dick hurts.
"I don't recommend looking towards a government building if you don't want to see indecent behavior." --Russell Kanning
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
Wow... this is way too much fun...
I have several largish projects with due dates in the next two days and then I go back to work. I need to put this off until at least the 17th or so... But... (in my best Arnold impersonation) I'll be back...
V-
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Yeah, I suppose the quest for wisdom and truth can wait a few days.  ;) It'll still be here when you get back, Varrin, so take your time.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/goodness.php"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? . . . Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
Lynn
|
Storey & Rocketman: There you are! Is this the forum you meant this to be in? Should we start a new post in a different forum? I'm not keen on justifying my belief system, so I think this isn't the forum I had in mind. I'm wanting to connect with others who, 1) don't want to have to suffer through a prayer at the beginning and ending of each group project and, 2) want to discuss some of those other fascinating topics about reasoning and thinking that we had touched on during the atheist meeting. How do we find the others? Or do we let them find us? So - looking for your guidance I am launching a new career, so I won't be online every day, but I will check in. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky
|
I hate to say this, my friend Rocket, but you make more sense in your writing than in listening to you ! I get it (well, a little better than before). Very modestly, these are very necessary words. More Christians should have this out look. But as you stated, it should come natural and not from fear of damnation (or prison as you poignantly put)! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ThomasPaine
Guest
|
Applying this consideration to selfishness vs. altruism, our desire "to live well" requires us to find the mean between these two extremes. Rocket- What is the mean between freedom and equality as it relates to the fact that this project seems to attract people mostly holding extreme selfishness and extreme freedom views whereas reality appears to be much more complex and will require a nuanced approach to build a majority political party in NH after getting off the bus? Can rational people (individuals or groups) hold opposing views at the same time and articulate a unifying vision of "living well"? TeePee |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
August 17th came and went... and went... and went.... and I never came back. I haven't forgotten... Last month's work trip was WAY too busy (all my FSP work has suffered) and now I'm on vacation...
More later... (maybe October?!?!? lol)
V-
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
