-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Christian said:
That's a pretty big jump you make there. In any case, emotions are not generally rationally decided upon. There could be any number of reasons for feeling remorse, empathy being one of the big ones.
Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
I get what Christian is saying. It's like this:
I logically understand that my body requires rest to continue functioning, and I need some food occasionally for the same reason. Let's not forget my daily intake of water, now.
So, since I logically understand all these things, it is irrational of my body to feel sleepy, hungry, or thirsty, thus invalidating my atheism.
Excuse me, I'm off to join a church and repent my evil ways.
I logically understand that my body requires rest to continue functioning, and I need some food occasionally for the same reason. Let's not forget my daily intake of water, now.
So, since I logically understand all these things, it is irrational of my body to feel sleepy, hungry, or thirsty, thus invalidating my atheism.
Excuse me, I'm off to join a church and repent my evil ways.
We atheists may be soulless automatons, but we're Human too. We are just as capable at the religious of doing things we regret. I think a basic flaw in your assumption is that atheists are ruled by logic and not emotion. Logically there may be no reason for remorse, but that is equally true for Christians since forgiveness for sins is also available; in neither case is fear of divine retribution a factor. I can feel remorse because I can empathise with my victim and see/feel the pain I've caused.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
Oh, that's not the church I'm joining. I'm going Southern Baptist. They can't go more than 2 days without a potluck luncheon.
Marquis de Carabas said:
Oh, that's not the church I'm joining. I'm going Southern Baptist. They can't go more than 2 days without a potluck luncheon.
Yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaawww! Get yer shawtguns, 'cause it's an NRA get tegether right after we get with Gawd.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
mmmm shotguns and meat loaf, courtesy of Chuck H and God, respectively.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Christian,
DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.
DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.
Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose? You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value? What leads you to believe this?
Well put, Marquis.
Agammamon--fear of divine retribution? Is that what is supposed to be the driving engine behind remorse? If that is so, seems to me like it is more like fear of getting caught rather than genuine remorse.
As a neat aside, I recommend the book Towing Jehovah. In it, God dies. Literally, unmistakably, visibly--there's a huge corpse floating in the Atlantic, which the church tries to tow to the arctic for preservation. The natural question explored, then, is what happens to people when they know indisputably that god is dead? If, as suggested above, remorse is driven by fear of divine retribution, religious people start acting amorally. Of course, atheists in this situation find themselves in a quandry--they were wrong, but now are right. But since their morals and ethics were independent of belief in a higher power, they still act morally and ethically.
BTW, well written and at times hilarious.
Agammamon--fear of divine retribution? Is that what is supposed to be the driving engine behind remorse? If that is so, seems to me like it is more like fear of getting caught rather than genuine remorse.
As a neat aside, I recommend the book Towing Jehovah. In it, God dies. Literally, unmistakably, visibly--there's a huge corpse floating in the Atlantic, which the church tries to tow to the arctic for preservation. The natural question explored, then, is what happens to people when they know indisputably that god is dead? If, as suggested above, remorse is driven by fear of divine retribution, religious people start acting amorally. Of course, atheists in this situation find themselves in a quandry--they were wrong, but now are right. But since their morals and ethics were independent of belief in a higher power, they still act morally and ethically.
BTW, well written and at times hilarious.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
Thanks, Merc.
I'd also recommend Towing Jehovah and add that it is but the first book in a very humourous trilogy. The other two books areBlameless in Abaddon and The Eternal Footman for anyone who's interested.
I'd also recommend Towing Jehovah and add that it is but the first book in a very humourous trilogy. The other two books areBlameless in Abaddon and The Eternal Footman for anyone who's interested.
As you can all understand, I can't address all of you. It would take me forever. So, I will have to narrow it more down to what is the core. And I guess, the noise is going to be inevitable. Just try to keep it down guys.
Thanks for the contribution Pahansiri.
Yahzi wrote:
1. Can theists do anything about the past? I haven't seen any theology that says God will change the past for you. This would imply that your argument shows theists have as little use for remorse as atheists.
No, it does not.
2. Time is as precious to theists as it is to athiests. We know this for a fact, having read my Seatbelts thread. If time were indeed valued differently by Xians, they would all commit suicide instantly - since they are in effect merely wasting time here on Earth that could be spent in Heaven.
False dichotomy here. Valueing time differently does not lead to suicide.
3. You make the argument that intellectually there is no value in remorse. That might be true, but it certainly wouldn't mean athiests don't feel it. Athiests are just as likely to feel an emotion for non-rational reasons as anyone else. Athiesm does not mean a person who is unflinchingly rational, it just means a person who doesn't believe in God. (Dancing David and Mercutio make this point.)
Obvious point, but atheist can easely adjust their thinking. Letting go of remorse is much easear of letting go of the notion of god I would think.
4. If we break remorse into its components of regret and guilt, then it becomes a little clearer. Nobody should feel regret. There is nothing you can do with regret. You should live your life without regrets. On the other hand, if you don't feel guilt, you are a nutcase. The role of guilt is to induce you to amend your mistakes and prevent you from repeating them. This is why an important part of guilt is redemption: the idea that you can do something to make it right, pay your debts, and once again be free. (I think this is what Hans was getting at.)
Guilt plays no role in analysis. Critical thinking does. The proof is that most mistake we make do not elicit guilt. And guilt and redemption are not necessarily connected either. I really don't see the distinction you are trying to make.
Your argument for why people should not feel remorse actually makes a lot of sense if you substitute the word "regret." However, it has nothing to do with "sorrow over harming someone."
Feeling sorrow for past things you can do nothing about is useless. It serves no purpose.
The Golden Rule provides plenty of reason to feel sorrowful: if you make other people suffer, you will almost certainly be made to suffer by someone else. Also, by making other people suffer, you treat their happiness as unimportant to you, and consequently you can't complain when other people dismiss your happiness as unimportant. We treat others as valuable because we want to be treated as valuable.
These are practical selfish reasons. They don't justify remorse, they seem like arguments or strategies for the future.
If I define "remorse" as "useless guilt," then it becomes obvious that remorse is to be avoided, but there are no gaps in atheistic moral logic. But if you define "remorse" as "actual feelings of sorrow for having done wrong," then it is obvious that atheists should and do feel remorse.
I see no distinction, feelin sorrow serves no purpose for past events.
Your premise that athiests should feel differently based on what they believe seems amazingly similar to my Seatbelts thread,
Yes, I have borrowed the concept. I hope you don't have it copyrighted.
DanishDynamite
And all Christians should not care for their young as they will then go straight to heaven.
True, and the creators of the religion, put some safeguards as to prevent this conclusion.
This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".
Yes it is. I know it contributes nothing because most mistakes humans make do not trigger remorse. And that in no way impedes them to correct the mistakes.
Remorse is felt only (very selectively) in some instances. It is very convinient. Why would we feel no remorse in most instances of mistakes and in select few instances yes. What evolutionary advantage, critical thinking is what makes us learn from our mistakes and correct them. There is no other mechanism. Emotions play absolutely no role in analysis. There is no way to solve a problem with emotions. I would think the argument would be that the evolutionary process in the human brain is going in the direction where we are able to more and more use critical thinking instead of emotional responses.
Yazhi wrote:
Because this is the way you prevent yourself from repeating the past event, and how you motivate yourself to make amends.
This argument is a non starter. Most mistakes and correction have absolutely no remorse in the equation. The motivation to correct mistakes can come from many places.
Human beings are motivated by emotion: it is the mechanism by which we make ourselves act, the strings on the puppet. Athiests are no less emotional than theists, and even rationalists must be emotionally motivated. What the rationalist does is not avoid emotion, but rather, construct the emotions that will lead to the desired goal.
So, your motivation to be an atheist is emotional?
Guilt is one way to make yourself do what you have decided you should be doing. Thus, it is perfectly rational.
Guilt is a lousy way to make you do anything. Actions should be done based on rational thinking, not emotion. To act rationally is the opposite of acting emotionally.
I decided that I should switch to non-fat milk instead of whole milk, for health reasons. After much cajoling and practice, I now can barely stand the taste of whole milk, and I actually enjoy the taste of non-fat. This is an example of me using emotion to get myself to do what I want.
No, it is an example of using your critical thinking skills against your original liking (emotion) of whole milk.
Dancing David wrote:
Again you are basing the train of logic on some assumption tha atheists are totaly rational, what if I don't believe in god for some irrational reason , like I think burritos are the sole source of divinity. I would still be an atheist and still not subject to the logic of 'atheist must be rational'.
I have yet to meet an atheist who claims they have decided there is no god based on emotion or irrationality.
Mercutio wrote
Um, did you miss the if clause? Did you understand the difference between should and do? I was not ceding the point, I was pointing out the irrelevance of the point.
I didn't mean to imply that you agreed, only that that is where I want to go.
Valmorian wrote:
Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?
No, I'm not asking to discard *all* of them, just remorse.
No, I think I keep all of my irrational beliefs intact.
Loki wrote:
DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.
Yes, let's explore that.
Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose?
The strongest evidence I have is that remorse plays *cero* part in most mistakes-corrections in human behavior. Further, I asserting that the *only way* to correct a mistake is via critical thinking. Emotions have no part in solving a problem.
You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value?
No, I linking morality with the afterlife. Morality has no value if there is no afterlife or god.
What leads you to believe this?
I'm starting with remorse. I will show remorse is absolutely and totally unnecessary if there is no god.
Thanks for the contribution Pahansiri.
Yahzi wrote:
1. Can theists do anything about the past? I haven't seen any theology that says God will change the past for you. This would imply that your argument shows theists have as little use for remorse as atheists.
No, it does not.
2. Time is as precious to theists as it is to athiests. We know this for a fact, having read my Seatbelts thread. If time were indeed valued differently by Xians, they would all commit suicide instantly - since they are in effect merely wasting time here on Earth that could be spent in Heaven.
False dichotomy here. Valueing time differently does not lead to suicide.
3. You make the argument that intellectually there is no value in remorse. That might be true, but it certainly wouldn't mean athiests don't feel it. Athiests are just as likely to feel an emotion for non-rational reasons as anyone else. Athiesm does not mean a person who is unflinchingly rational, it just means a person who doesn't believe in God. (Dancing David and Mercutio make this point.)
Obvious point, but atheist can easely adjust their thinking. Letting go of remorse is much easear of letting go of the notion of god I would think.
4. If we break remorse into its components of regret and guilt, then it becomes a little clearer. Nobody should feel regret. There is nothing you can do with regret. You should live your life without regrets. On the other hand, if you don't feel guilt, you are a nutcase. The role of guilt is to induce you to amend your mistakes and prevent you from repeating them. This is why an important part of guilt is redemption: the idea that you can do something to make it right, pay your debts, and once again be free. (I think this is what Hans was getting at.)
Guilt plays no role in analysis. Critical thinking does. The proof is that most mistake we make do not elicit guilt. And guilt and redemption are not necessarily connected either. I really don't see the distinction you are trying to make.
Your argument for why people should not feel remorse actually makes a lot of sense if you substitute the word "regret." However, it has nothing to do with "sorrow over harming someone."
Feeling sorrow for past things you can do nothing about is useless. It serves no purpose.
The Golden Rule provides plenty of reason to feel sorrowful: if you make other people suffer, you will almost certainly be made to suffer by someone else. Also, by making other people suffer, you treat their happiness as unimportant to you, and consequently you can't complain when other people dismiss your happiness as unimportant. We treat others as valuable because we want to be treated as valuable.
These are practical selfish reasons. They don't justify remorse, they seem like arguments or strategies for the future.
If I define "remorse" as "useless guilt," then it becomes obvious that remorse is to be avoided, but there are no gaps in atheistic moral logic. But if you define "remorse" as "actual feelings of sorrow for having done wrong," then it is obvious that atheists should and do feel remorse.
I see no distinction, feelin sorrow serves no purpose for past events.
Your premise that athiests should feel differently based on what they believe seems amazingly similar to my Seatbelts thread,
Yes, I have borrowed the concept. I hope you don't have it copyrighted.
DanishDynamite
And all Christians should not care for their young as they will then go straight to heaven.
True, and the creators of the religion, put some safeguards as to prevent this conclusion.
This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".
Yes it is. I know it contributes nothing because most mistakes humans make do not trigger remorse. And that in no way impedes them to correct the mistakes.
Remorse is felt only (very selectively) in some instances. It is very convinient. Why would we feel no remorse in most instances of mistakes and in select few instances yes. What evolutionary advantage, critical thinking is what makes us learn from our mistakes and correct them. There is no other mechanism. Emotions play absolutely no role in analysis. There is no way to solve a problem with emotions. I would think the argument would be that the evolutionary process in the human brain is going in the direction where we are able to more and more use critical thinking instead of emotional responses.
Yazhi wrote:
Because this is the way you prevent yourself from repeating the past event, and how you motivate yourself to make amends.
This argument is a non starter. Most mistakes and correction have absolutely no remorse in the equation. The motivation to correct mistakes can come from many places.
Human beings are motivated by emotion: it is the mechanism by which we make ourselves act, the strings on the puppet. Athiests are no less emotional than theists, and even rationalists must be emotionally motivated. What the rationalist does is not avoid emotion, but rather, construct the emotions that will lead to the desired goal.
So, your motivation to be an atheist is emotional?
Guilt is one way to make yourself do what you have decided you should be doing. Thus, it is perfectly rational.
Guilt is a lousy way to make you do anything. Actions should be done based on rational thinking, not emotion. To act rationally is the opposite of acting emotionally.
I decided that I should switch to non-fat milk instead of whole milk, for health reasons. After much cajoling and practice, I now can barely stand the taste of whole milk, and I actually enjoy the taste of non-fat. This is an example of me using emotion to get myself to do what I want.
No, it is an example of using your critical thinking skills against your original liking (emotion) of whole milk.
Dancing David wrote:
Again you are basing the train of logic on some assumption tha atheists are totaly rational, what if I don't believe in god for some irrational reason , like I think burritos are the sole source of divinity. I would still be an atheist and still not subject to the logic of 'atheist must be rational'.
I have yet to meet an atheist who claims they have decided there is no god based on emotion or irrationality.
Mercutio wrote
Um, did you miss the if clause? Did you understand the difference between should and do? I was not ceding the point, I was pointing out the irrelevance of the point.
I didn't mean to imply that you agreed, only that that is where I want to go.
Valmorian wrote:
Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?
No, I'm not asking to discard *all* of them, just remorse.
No, I think I keep all of my irrational beliefs intact.
Loki wrote:
DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.
Yes, let's explore that.
Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose?
The strongest evidence I have is that remorse plays *cero* part in most mistakes-corrections in human behavior. Further, I asserting that the *only way* to correct a mistake is via critical thinking. Emotions have no part in solving a problem.
You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value?
No, I linking morality with the afterlife. Morality has no value if there is no afterlife or god.
What leads you to believe this?
I'm starting with remorse. I will show remorse is absolutely and totally unnecessary if there is no god.
Socrates
Unregistered
S
Christian said:Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?
Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?
Let's get started
The beauty of Nihilism and Naturalistic Existentialism is that we are free to create our own value system in a manner we see fit. I have absolute power over my value system and sense of morality and virtue. I decide what is good and what is bad. I assume responsibility for my choices of right and wrong; I don't have to refer to a collection of myths to make that decision for me.
Indeed, it is in my experiences with tragedy and grief that I find what is good and what is bad.
You imply that without God there is no ground of value. That isn't true. My heart is my measure of right and wrong. It is my love and compassion for my neighbor that causes me to feel grief and remorse.
But, you ask why would an atheist be justified in feeling remorse? It is our birthright to feel anything we desire because we have deemed it so.
Love,
Socrates
Christian said:
Farfetched claims, Christian.
First, it would be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that logic and consistency are necessary or expected elements of anyone's views. Hardly a simple matter.
Second, you would need to demonstrate that the position of the atheist in this regard is somehow relevantly different than anyone else. It has already been acknowledged, for example, that athiests bleed. So what? Everyone does.
Third, you mention something called "the good". Now what is that? Are you sure you can get everyone on board for that puppy? I don't agree with my wife on the matter.
And fourth, you are being coy by pretending that you are not asserting that religion is better.
After you address these points, you have my permission to BEGIN your assault.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Gosh, this thread moves fast, heheh.
My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans, quite the contrary: The feeling for morality is the source of religion. And I find that this is documented by the way societies have been shown to evolve from simple tribal groups to complex cultures. Monotheistic (and other morality regulating) religions do not appear till well into the developement of a complex society.
Hans
Now, we can discuss the exact function and components of remorse (actually that has already been done), but you miss (or evade?) my point: Your question was "Why do atheists feel --" and my answer was: It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.Christian said:
My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans, quite the contrary: The feeling for morality is the source of religion. And I find that this is documented by the way societies have been shown to evolve from simple tribal groups to complex cultures. Monotheistic (and other morality regulating) religions do not appear till well into the developement of a complex society.
Hans
PogoPedant
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 763
Christian,
First off, I want to apologize for not addressing your three points of contention about (on?) my evolutionary rant earlier.
You wanted me to explain why we feel remorse in some situations and not others. I can't say I know, but in the vein of my earlier post, I suppose one could argue that too much remorse leaves a person incapable of action. Thus the stronger individual is the one who feels remorse when remorse is an adequate response. This might not be such a great defence, but it's the best I can come up with; I'm much better at attacking than defending.
The two other points, I can't remember...
I'll get back to those if I can both get this post going, and not loose my connection. (Curse this dial-up daemon).
Moreover, emotion can be quite important even in critical thinking. My own interest in mathematics came from one semester of intense problemsolving; every time I managed to crack a proof I was hit by a sense of elation; happy-chemicals were released in my brain. So I was conditioned by myself, through emotions, to continue with math.
If you had said that remorse plays zero part in mistake-correction in humans, I could have countered by showing you one single instance of remorse being useful. However, you claim that remorse have zero part in most error-correction. That way you undermined your argument.
If remorse has no effect on most error correction, it must have some non-zero effect on some error-correction. Provided that effect is positive, remorse is not useless and your argument fails.
I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.
First off, I want to apologize for not addressing your three points of contention about (on?) my evolutionary rant earlier.
You wanted me to explain why we feel remorse in some situations and not others. I can't say I know, but in the vein of my earlier post, I suppose one could argue that too much remorse leaves a person incapable of action. Thus the stronger individual is the one who feels remorse when remorse is an adequate response. This might not be such a great defence, but it's the best I can come up with; I'm much better at attacking than defending.
The two other points, I can't remember...
I'll get back to those if I can both get this post going, and not loose my connection. (Curse this dial-up daemon).Humans learn from mistakes long before we develop critical faculties. Once burned, twice shy: A two year old that burns his hand on a stove will not go near a stove again in a long time. He has learned to fear it.Christian said:
Moreover, emotion can be quite important even in critical thinking. My own interest in mathematics came from one semester of intense problemsolving; every time I managed to crack a proof I was hit by a sense of elation; happy-chemicals were released in my brain. So I was conditioned by myself, through emotions, to continue with math.
Claiming that guilt is a lousy mechanism does nothing to show that it isn't an actual mechanism. I had some training with the Glock handgun when I was dressed in green. That Glock was a lousy gun (commonly referred to as a thrown weapon), but it's still a gun.
From an evolutionary point of view, it could be argued that the mere fact that remorse is an emotion present in a highly successful species, suggests that it has purpose. But that might be begging the question or some such fallacy.
If you had said that remorse plays zero part in mistake-correction in humans, I could have countered by showing you one single instance of remorse being useful. However, you claim that remorse have zero part in most error-correction. That way you undermined your argument.
If remorse has no effect on most error correction, it must have some non-zero effect on some error-correction. Provided that effect is positive, remorse is not useless and your argument fails.
I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Christian:
Well there is the boatlaod of assumptions, and a cartful of what you think but still no meat to your arguement.
Remorse is not based upon rational thought, no emotions are, yet they are totaly valid and useful to rational people.
Also you don't know very many atheists do you, most of the ones I know are atheists for totaly irrational reasons, mainly like the idea of god makes them mad, or the church pissed them off or they think and feel that the church is hypocritical. Seriously just as many athesists are atheists for all the wrong reasons as there are theists for the wrong reasons.
Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.
So far your logic seems to be:
Emotions are irrational,
Atheists are rational
Therefore atheists have no use for emotions.
I think that you are headed somewhere and I would like to see it. So I'll ask you
Do you have to believe in God to have morals?
Peace dancing david
PS Please make your point.
Well there is the boatlaod of assumptions, and a cartful of what you think but still no meat to your arguement.
Remorse is not based upon rational thought, no emotions are, yet they are totaly valid and useful to rational people.
Also you don't know very many atheists do you, most of the ones I know are atheists for totaly irrational reasons, mainly like the idea of god makes them mad, or the church pissed them off or they think and feel that the church is hypocritical. Seriously just as many athesists are atheists for all the wrong reasons as there are theists for the wrong reasons.
Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.
So far your logic seems to be:
Emotions are irrational,
Atheists are rational
Therefore atheists have no use for emotions.
I think that you are headed somewhere and I would like to see it. So I'll ask you
Do you have to believe in God to have morals?
Peace dancing david
PS Please make your point.
Christian Remorse likely has some evolutionary advantage, The emotional equivalent to physical pain.
Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.
e.g You are back in the stone age, you father has repeatedly told you not to throw your spear until you see the white of their eyes, but of course what does that old fart know. You throw way too early, miss and the entire heard of antelope bolt. The feeling of remorse you now have, along with the hunger, forces you to remember the lesson.
Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.
e.g You are back in the stone age, you father has repeatedly told you not to throw your spear until you see the white of their eyes, but of course what does that old fart know. You throw way too early, miss and the entire heard of antelope bolt. The feeling of remorse you now have, along with the hunger, forces you to remember the lesson.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
What does ' feeling remorse ' have to do with believing in invisible beings, for which their is no non-anecdotal evidence, of their existance?