Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[Dave1001]

not transparently, but functionally. At least I hope Doctors Without Borders attempts to make their decisions based on scientific, evidenced based principles.

I see. Is being an atheist part of your selection criteria for your personal physicians?

Being a functional atheist, sure. Before being put under anesthesia, you have a choice of 2 surgeons: one is reading the latest issue of "Skeptical Inquirer", the other is reading "Revelations". Which of the 2 do you choose?*


*You don't have the option of choosing a third surgeon, or selecting one based on any other criteria.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm choosing the guy who's reading Revelations. He's likely a skeptic trying the read up so he can more intelligently debate the next doomsayer he runs across. The doctor reading Skeptical Inquirer, on the other hand, is probably a 911 Truther who saw the words "911 CONSPIRACY" splashed across the cover while he was at the bookstore and bought it looking for some validation. Boy was he in for a surprise.

 

[hammegk]

And which faith, exactly, is shared amongst the members of Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders?

The faith in the the groups' moral superiority being a reflection of their own; let's call it hubris.

Mate, I hate to tell ya, but you're on a loser this time.

.... Atheists do charitable works because they want to.

...Giving anything useful - money, objects, time, ideas - for the sake of giving is selfless.

Talk -- or "ideas" as you prefer-- is especially cheap. Got some good real world examples of real atheists in action?

 

[joobz]

Yes, but being a cynic, I'd always wonder whether the christian feels good because he's done a good act or if it's because he thinks he's just nailed a few brownie points with his god.

But this leads to the question of "is there really a selfless act?" Maybe an atheist who sacrifices their life for someone. Christians couldn't make this claim.

I think that's a fairly extreme example! Giving anything useful - money, objects, time, ideas - for the sake of giving is selfless.

But that's the point. I could always say that giving money, objects, time... makes that person feel good. They get something out of it making it not selfless.

However, an atheist believes nothing exists after death. To give their life, they get nothing. No blessings in heaven. No better afterlife. and since they are dead, they don't even get the feeling good part.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I see. How many? Doing what? Where? Funding sources? Amounts? Time spent? etcetc.

How should I know? I just know you're wrong, because I have examples of atheists that do good works.

~~ Paul

 

[Sceptic Realist]

But that's the point. I could always say that giving money, objects, time... makes that person feel good. They get something out of it making it not selfless.

I guess that's true. You would have to do something you do not want to do for someone else in order for it to be a truly selfless act. However, someone may do this, then feel good about themselves afterward. Does that automatically change that act away from selflessness?

 

[hammegk]

How should I know? I just know you're wrong, because I have examples of atheists that do good works.

~~ Paul

Nothing like anecdotes (as we say here). OTOH, given 6 billion of us, we can probably find ax-murders that do or have done "good works" too.

I do not deny atheists are human and have many character traits not dependent on their stance on god that affect their behaviors. What they should have difficulty doing is assigning good works to their atheism with atheism providing no positive incentive sfaik. Theists at least can profess a faith based component for their acts, and do form effective social groups based on their theism.

 

[Checkmite]

The faith in the the groups' moral superiority being a reflection of their own; let's call it hubris.

So it is hubris that compells charity from religious organizations. I'm not sure that trait is so enviable.

 

[Tricky]

Hey, can I call 'em?

(12-10-06)
The faith in the the groups' moral superiority being a reflection of their own; let's call it hubris.

(12-9-06)
Come on, Josh. Surely you have learned by now that belief, faith and even interest are all nouns that can be used interchangeably.

If you believe that helping the needy is good or have an interest in doing so, that is a faith.

(For those who might think I'm agreeing with Hammy, my post was intended as a satire of those who indiscriminately throw out the word "faith" so they can put any beliefs on a level with their religious ones.)

 

[hammegk]

So it is hubris that compells charity from religious organizations. I'm not sure that trait is so enviable.

If hubris is what drives members of religious groups to perform acts of charity, that does seem atheistic, huh?

(For those who might think I'm agreeing with Hammy, my post was intended as a satire of those who indiscriminately throw out the word "faith" so they can put any beliefs on a level with their religious ones.)

Such as the faith that reality's monism is "matter"?

 

[The Atheist]

But that's the point. I could always say that giving money, objects, time... makes that person feel good. They get something out of it making it not selfless.

Unless that's a reason for giving in the first place, it can't count, because the satisfaction will/may come after the event and I don't think it's necessary that giving results in good feelings.

However, an atheist believes nothing exists after death. To give their life, they get nothing. No blessings in heaven. No better afterlife. and since they are dead, they don't even get the feeling good part.

Same basis as your other one if you carry that logic. It could be seen as being even more important to an atheist - be remembered as a hero, your name lives on even if the body doesn't.

So, there are no selfless acts.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nothing like anecdotes (as we say here). OTOH, given 6 billion of us, we can probably find ax-murders that do or have done "good works" too.

Thanks for equating ax-murderers and atheists. But you're right, so you should stop making broad-brush statements about groups of people.

What they should have difficulty doing is assigning good works to their atheism with atheism providing no positive incentive sfaik.

Correct. Their good works would have to be assigned to something other than their lack of belief in god. Perhaps a desire to do good works?

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Such as the faith that reality's monism is "matter"?

LOL. Well, it needs a name, Hammy. Are you annoyed because the "monism" is something else which has the exact same properties as matter, but should have a different name?

 

[joobz]

Same basis as your other one if you carry that logic. It could be seen as being even more important to an atheist - be remembered as a hero, your name lives on even if the body doesn't.

So, there are no selfless acts.

you're right. That was just a thought I had last night. I didn't think of the desire of being revered after death.

Although, I have to say that I'm not such a cynic. It's easy to make the "no selfless acts" claim. But I still have faith in the human condition.

 

[The Atheist]

What they should have difficulty doing is assigning good works to their atheism with atheism providing no positive incentive sfaik.

Talk -- or "ideas" as you prefer-- is especially cheap. Got some good real world examples of real atheists in action?

Well, I guess you'd know about the price of talk, so I'll take your word for it.

I know of a hard-core atheist group which makes no fuss about its private charitable work. Not seeking publicity for it, why would they? Time, money and physical resources are supplied, and it's done in the belief that it's incumbent upon everyone to do as much as possible to help the less fortunate on this planet.

Hardly an atheist charity, but a group of atheists who are doing charitable work. And yes, it is because they are atheists that the work gets done - without their shared atheism, the group wouldn't have even got to know each other, far less worked together toward common goals.

 

[hammegk]

In view of what I sense is a rather unsavory reputation the appellation "atheist" carries, it's too bad they choose to hide their good works from public acclaim.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps I'll start calling myself an abunnyist.

~~ Paul

 

[The Atheist]

In view of what I sense is a rather unsavory reputation the appellation "atheist" carries, it's too bad they choose to hide their good works from public acclaim.

Now, you see that all depends where you live. Over here, being a christian would actually carry a more unsavoury reputation than being an atheist.

I'll ensure your point is discussed, though - it's worth considation, if simply because of the fact that there aren't openly atheist groups showing charitable aims.

 

[hammegk]

Now, you see that all depends where you live. Over here, being a christian would actually carry a more unsavoury reputation than being an atheist.

Interesting stats for nz: Anglican 14.9%, Roman Catholic 12.4%, Presbyterian 10.9%, Methodist 2.9%, Pentecostal 1.7%, Baptist 1.3%, other Christian 9.4%, other 3.3%, unspecified 17.2%, none 26% (2001 census).

Yet who among you finds xians "unsavory", and why?

I'll ensure your point is discussed, though - it's worth considation, if simply because of the fact that there aren't openly atheist groups showing charitable aims.

You're welcome.

 

[The Atheist]

Interesting stats for nz: Anglican 14.9%, Roman Catholic 12.4%, Presbyterian 10.9%, Methodist 2.9%, Pentecostal 1.7%, Baptist 1.3%, other Christian 9.4%, other 3.3%, unspecified 17.2%, none 26% (2001 census).

Yet who among you finds xians "unsavory", and why?

You're welcome.

NZ's a funny place - Australia's very similar when it comes to religion. While just over 40% of people identify themselves with mainstream christianity, only a miniscule number of them attend church - ever. I watched an Anglican vicar welcome his THREE parishioners to a service at one church yesterday. Most of those 40-odd% wouldn't class themselves as "christian" if asked - it's more of a reflex action, "Mum and dad were Anglicans, so I must be." The vast majority of these people will also have secular funerals, conducted at a funeral chapel rather than a church.

Religion is so low on the radar here that people who are openly christian are seen as a bit odd. Plus, we've had a number of fundamentals attract really bad press here in recent times and they are seen as very cultish.