Hey, Atheists...

[Ophiolite]

-
​

I was just asking about The Old Testament as it seems like you just referenced the words of Jesus

Yes, that's because it is many of the words of Jesus that I have found very positive and inspiring, but - unlike you - I believe them to be the words of a man, not a God. For me, this does not diminish their value in any way, if anything it enhances them.

 

[Bradskii]

3. And remarkably, for the first time in more than a decade, I find myself agreeing with @d taylor:

Except that he restricted the influences as coming from religion. And specifically Christianity. I would have agreed with him as well if he'd have said Buddhism or philosophy or some other reflection on morality.

 

[Bradskii]

That internal moral compass, do you think it is the result of inherited survival strategies? Do empathy and solidarity have personal survival value?

I would have thought that it was obviously the case. Solidarity is a given. And as far as empathy, it is a huge advantage being able to consider what someone else is thinking so you'll have a good idea what they are likely to do.

 

[Bradskii]

-

​

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life.

Having no personal experience of your God I can only go by what you tell me. In which case, no - I don't like it at all.

 

[Ophiolite]

Except that he restricted the influences as coming from religion. And specifically Christianity. I would have agreed with him as well if he'd have said Buddhism or philosophy or some other reflection on morality.

Your point is well made, but I was so astounded that the Venn diagrams of the opinions of @d taylor and myself overlapped at all, I thought it worthy of mention.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your point is well made, but I was so astounded that the Venn diagrams of the opinions of @d taylor and myself overlapped at all, I thought it worthy of mention.

Why wouldn't it be expected for there to be any overlap?

 

[NxNW]

-

​

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life.

This is false.

So they pronounce God as nonexistent.

This is also false.

If God would do the way they think things should be done, then they would again believe in God.

So is this.

A lack of belief in the supernatural has nothing to do with liking, or not liking, the way things are.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why wouldn't it be expected for there to be any overlap?

Because in the decades (I think it is now decades, rather than years) I have been reading posts by @d taylor I have never found any with which I was in agreement. When one experiences such consistency of irreconcilable differences it is genuinely surprising to encounter a tiny bit of common ground.

 

[FireDragon76]

Atheists are generally modernists, and in that tradition self-preservation and social compact is the basis of morality. Deviations from this are ephemeral, and are usually based on the vestiges of Christian culture.

Kant, Plato, and even Aristotle tend to be too "transcendent" for modern atheistic tastes. Hobbes is really their cornerstone. The only rigorous case for naturalistic ethics in recent history comes from R. M. Hare, but that line was largely not taken up. Rawls is culturally important, but he really collapses back into Hobbes.

Edit: See, for example, Shelly Kagan's contractarianism (9:40).

Hobbes wasn't an atheist, though. He was more of an idiosyncratic Protestant making an argument for the English Protestant establishment.

Hobbes had a pretty dark view, if you actually read what he had to say. He prefigures the kind of strongman politics we see today in places like the US and Hungary.

 

[Meowzltov]

-

​

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life.

That's just false. You can't dislike how someone does something if they are fictitious. It's like someone saying tat the reason they don't believe in Voldemort is because they don't like the way he does evil things.

So they pronounce God as nonexistent. If God would do the way they think things should be done, then they would again believe in God.

I have a philosophy. I actually read it on another forum where I was lurking but personally resonated with it. When you can accurately communicate how another SEES THEMSELVES, it is only then that you have truly listened. And when the other sees that you understand them, THEN they are more likely to listen to what you have to say in return.

You have not adequately listened to Atheists and are misrepresenting them. They are simply going to tune you out.

Here is another rule of thumb: teh reason people make attacks against the character of their interlocuter is because they feel threatened by their points, and character assassination makes them feel that they are not required to respond.

I'm a hardcore monotheist, but quite honestly, atheists make many good points, and those good points need to be acknowledged, or else we are just being dishonest with ourselves.

 

[Meowzltov]

That internal moral compass, do you think it is the result of inherited survival strategies? Do empathy and solidarity have personal survival value?

Absolutely. While individual selection favors selfishness, group selection favors cooperation, meaning that traits like empathy would be genetically passed on. After all, cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups or individuals every time. The fact that there is conflict between what works for an individual and what works for a group is exactly why you find BOTH selfishness and empathy among human beings.

 

[d taylor]

Because in the decades (I think it is now decades, rather than years) I have been reading posts by @d taylor I have never found any with which I was in agreement. When one experiences such consistency of irreconcilable differences it is genuinely surprising to encounter a tiny bit of common ground.

-
​

Well it is not just you i often disagree with. Being a free grace, faith alone in Jesus alone believer and add on top of that a flat stationary earth God created creation believer. I find very few i agree with maybe 1%

 

[Meowzltov]

And how do you empirically measure that?

It wouldn't work to design a study of something as broad as "improvement." But if you narrowed it to this or that particular way a person could improve, it could be done.

I'm not a researcher, so I'm sure someone more qualified might come up with better ideas. But here are some of mine.

Let's say we are researching whether the willingness to help others is effected by a religious conversion.

1. You could compare a group of converts to people from their same group who have not converted and measure if there is any statistically significant difference.

2. You could compare the before and after of a convert based on archival records, such as their comments on Facebook, their donations to charity, or their arrest record.

3. Find a group of people who are CONSIDERING conversion, and then follow them, noting whether their willingness to help others increases after conversion. The control group would be those who considered conversion and decided against it.

 

[Meowzltov]

Its begging the question. Your already assuming as a priori that empirical evidence is the only evidence.

I suppose it depends on how high you want to set the bar for what you consider evidence. The BEST evidence is empirical. There are other reasons people make choices, but they are more likely to result in error.

 

[d taylor]

That's just false. You can't dislike how someone does something if they are fictitious. It's like someone saying tat the reason they don't believe in Voldemort is because they don't like the way he does evil things.

I have a philosophy. I actually read it on another forum where I was lurking but personally resonated with it. When you can accurately communicate how another SEES THEMSELVES, it is only then that you have truly listened. And when the other sees that you understand them, THEN they are more likely to listen to what you have to say in return.

You have not adequately listened to Atheists and are misrepresenting them. They are simply going to tune you out.

Here is another rule of thumb: teh reason people make attacks against the character of their interlocuter is because they feel threatened by their points, and character assassination makes them feel that they are not required to respond.

I'm a hardcore monotheist, but quite honestly, atheists make many good points, and those good points need to be acknowledged, or else we are just being dishonest with ourselves.

-
​

Atheist are not a concern of mine. I do not seek out atheist to evangelize. I look for people who are looking for God's free gift of Eternal life, but just do not know what to do to receive God's free gift.