Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
What evolutionary benefit does empathy towards other people create? Or empathy towards another species?

Parental empathy aside.

It produces a larger, stronger tribe. In showing a tribesman sympathy and helping him now, he is likely to be another strong, healthy member of the tribe when another tribe comes threatening our land and we need to defend it.

Empathy towards animals facilitates inter-species co-operation (humans and dogs coming to work together was a tremendous boost to both species).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
What is the benefit/purpose of evolution?

As Kovnik Obama says - there isn't one. It is a process we observe, what comes of it it just what comes of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment, empathy wouldn't help our species. Why give away resources that I gathered because I have a genetic advantage of some kind and give them to somebody that is too weak? Wouldn't that diminish my genetic advantage and hurt the species?

Only if one assumes that the weakest of the tribe are only weak because they are genetically inferior. They could simply be younger, unlucky (didn't find anything to eat) or temporarily sick/injured.

Keeping a tribe large and full of healthy members is much more important than the possible long term benefit of drawing out weaker genes.

And note that getting fed by the sympathy of other tribesmen doesn't mean you get to pass your genes on. The alpha males still get all the booty.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?

Unlimited empathy would produce an evolutionary detriment.

Note that humans are not unlimited in their empathy. Instead our empathy is up to a point, and highly situational.

**d-usa**

Gotcha.

And just to clarify: I know I am one of the Christians that is willing to debate with Atheists on here. So I just wanted to make sure that my status as a "Christian" and my asking questions and throwing scenarios out there isn't creating the impression that I don't believe in evolution. I have just never spend all that much time studying it beyond the "strong genes give us an advantage, so we pass them on, weak genes get killed off" basic level.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
"There were no Christian serial killers, because if you believe in Jesus you don't kill. So if somebody is a serial killer then it shows he wasn't really Christian!"

Was it something like that?

Yeah, but there was another step before that. The guy was entirely unaware of the serial killers who did have Christian backgrounds/beliefs, and when those killers were pointed out he did the no true scotsman thing like you guessed

I can see the desire for an Atheist like the author to want to prove that you can have morality without religion. But dressing it up like a pseudo religion ('virtues/commandments" and meeting in a "church") probably doesn't help to advance his goal. It just makes the waters muddy again.

It isn't just dressing it up like in religious trappings, it's that work like his has been already done perfectly well in humanism. The issue being, though, that humanism is secular rather than atheist, it looks to establish proper human behaviour without making any comment on whether or not there's a God.

To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.

Putting on your gathering in a church is just a trick to get a bit more media coverage, I think.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:

To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.

Sometimes I become annoyed by that, but then I think about how many atheists quote Nietzsche, and about how so many of them are now gazing deeply into their own abyss.

That's when I smile, and go about my day.

**Hordini**

SilverMK2 wrote:

That being the case, religion is a reflection of humanity's desires, needs and wishes, not some divine message of guidance.

Why can't it be both?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:

To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.

Sometimes I become annoyed by that, but then I think about how many atheists quote Nietzsche, and about how so many of them are now gazing deeply into their own abyss.

That's when I smile, and go about my day.

Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."

Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.

**dogma**

Hordini wrote:

Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."

Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.

Nietzsche is possibly philosophy's greatest woobie. His actual life aside, the degree to which he was (and is) misinterpreted is a crime against a bright man.

The common "God is dead" quote emphasizes this. Nietzsche viewed the establishment (grounded in religion) as harmful, and wanted to believe* it was at an end, and wanted man to be forced to rise above it in order to become Übermensch (men without the need for God). Then came National Socialism. And then came idiot college kids that have never read The Gay Science or Thus Spoke Zarathustra**.

*I think he knew it wasn't.

**Not you, for the sake of clarity.

**Hordini**

dogma wrote:
Hordini wrote:

Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."

Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.

Nietzsche is possibly philosophy's greatest woobie. His actual life aside, the degree to which he was (and is) misinterpreted is a crime against a bright man.

The common "God is dead" quote emphasizes this. Nietzsche viewed the establishment (grounded in religion) as harmful, and wanted to believe* it was at an end, and wanted man to be forced to rise above it in order to become Übermensch (men without the need for God). Then came National Socialism. And then came idiot college kids that have never read The Gay Science or Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

*I think he knew it wasn't.

Yeah, one of my professor's who does a lot of research on Nietzsche said basically the same thing. That is, that he is misinterpreted like crazy. I've wondered if it's due to reading him in translation. As a native English speaker, one of the weirdest experiences I've had in academia was reading some Nietzsche in German, then reading a translation of the same text in English, and realizing that it was actually easier to read it in German and that the German version of the text made way more sense than the English version. I thought I would be saving myself some time and effort by reading it in English and about a paragraph or two into the English text I was like, "Lol, feth this."

That's not to say that the German version is easy, by any stretch. It's definitely not light reading. But I don't know, something about the English text just seemed weird to me.

**Fafnir**

I once tried to read Zarathustra, but the translation was so god-awful that it never got particularly far before everything just stopped making sense entirely.

...That said, I don't quote Nietzsche, so I think it's all okay in the end.
Also, to add to how much of a woobie he was, after he died, didn't his bigoted sister edit the gak out of his works to make them into the Nazi calling card they ended up being for a while?

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
Maybe go back and re-read those virtues. They're not particularly Christian.

I think what you mean is, "they're not explicitly Christian." Of course, my comment was that their relevance is possible in a culture shaped by Christianity.

**Hedgehog**

For a (very) simplistic scenario which might encourage empathy, try the Prisoner's Dilemma.

On an entirely individual level, it generally makes sense to choose the 'betray' option - but if everyone does that then everyone loses out. However, once you start applying the concept to a society rather than an individual, it makes sense for the co-operative traits to survive. Except that for a few individuals living in an otherwise cooperative society, betrayal can still help, primarily because most other people are cooperative.

Now if you actually take a look at mankind, a small proportion of people are psychopaths - that is they display significantly reduced or no empathy. This is presumably an optimal proportion - any more and the cooperative behaviour would break down, disadvantaging everyone. any less and an evolutionary niche is missed that would otherwise benefit some individuals.

Empathy can therefore be looked upon as an evolutionary trait that ensures the survival of societies - and societies then benefit an individual's survival. Those displaying reduced empathy are actually somewhat parasitical - living off their host (society) without benefiting that society.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
I think what you mean is, "they're not explicitly Christian." Of course, my comment was that their relevance is possible in a culture shaped by Christianity.

No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.

Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?

They take care of the kids, while you're off raiding the other village. But then again at this level of civilization, everyone's dead by the time they are 30...

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.

Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.

You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.

**rockerbikie**

An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

rockerbikie wrote:
An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.

Are you a pagan?

**rockerbikie**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.

Are you a pagan?

By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

rockerbikie wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.

Are you a pagan?

By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.

That's pretty neat!

**rockerbikie**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.

Are you a pagan?

By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.

That's pretty neat!

Check out Asatru Folk Assembly if you are curious in what I believe. Some Nazi scumbags try to be an Asatruan but they can't be a true on because my religion teaches tolerance between races and culture. The gods and humans tolerate each other despite their differences. Why should we not tolerate each other.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Yeah, I know a bit about the neo-pagan/reconstructionist/awesome religions, but not enough to take the plunge myself (yet!). Personally leaning towards a Celtic direction instead of Norse myself. I hate the Nazi scumbags in the religion, they're only harming the movement.

**rockerbikie**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Yeah, I know a bit about the neo-pagan/reconstructionist/awesome religions, but not enough to take the plunge myself (yet!). Personally leaning towards a Celtic direction instead of Norse myself. I hate the Nazi scumbags in the religion, they're only harming the movement.

I have taken a look at the Norse, Celtic, Slavic, Russian, Greek/Roman and Persian. I warn you man, Wiccans have stolen a lot of Celtic culture. Pick the one which feels the most right for you. I picked Norse for example because I am descended from the line of Yngling.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Cool, thanks for that! From the house of Yngling? That's sick! I am of mixed blood, but my Irish side probably is a bit of Norse, Viking and Celtic (coming from Dublin and Tipperary). I'll look into all of them. And I'll try my best to avoid Wicca!

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.

Sure, the context here has a heavy Christian context. Hence framing them as 10 commandments and all the rest.

The point being, so what? That doesn't mean we only reached those values because of the Christian upbringing (otherwise you'd have to argue that no such values are found outside of a Western context, which you've already conceded isn't true).

**Monster Rain**

It seems obvious to me that since these commandments or whatever we are calling them came from the "western context" that this is the only context that is actually relevant to their origin.

**DacGerm**

Manchu wrote:
sebster wrote:
No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.

Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.
You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.

The notion that morals come from Christianity makes me chuckle, especially if what your reading is the bible. Yes I admit there are some nice stories that can be cherry-picked which demonstrate good morals but there are others which are very immoral, at the time it was written let alone nowadays.

Although this comes from a mathematical point of view it does often hold water in real life: In order to prove that something is true you are required to prove all cases, in order to prove something is false you need only one example which is false.

I'm including an email my Dad sent me, I apologize for the wall of text but I found it very enlightening (no pun intended).

TL;DR There are many examples in the bible that are down-right immoral, morals must be part of the human condition via evolution as explained earlier in thread and not given to us via this manuscript or a divine being.

Just in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter.

Homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following
response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a U.S. man, and
posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura: Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
"degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God, if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-
room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is
expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football, if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).I know you have studied these
things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such
matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for
reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,Dept.
Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special EducationUniversity of
Virginia

PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

EDIT: Spelling

**Ahtman**

That argument was made against using Leviticus as an excuse to hate homosexuals, and doesn't really work as good example of rejecting the Bible as an immoral work. It also doesn't apply to many, if not most Christians. It feels like something an angst riddled kid would copy and paste from another website either in an attempt to shock, and/or that didn't understand the context, but thought it seemed edgy.

Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy, even other atheists.

**d-usa**

Thinking that old covenant Jewish law applies to Christians seems to be pretty common...

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Christianity IS a Semitic religion though, and the Old Testament is the Torah, so why not?

**d-usa**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Christianity IS a Semitic religion though, and the Old Testament is the Torah, so why not?

Because the majority of Christians are not Jewish?

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Well, if part of your holy book is the Jewish holy book, then shouldn't you have very similar principles and laws, should you be from a pure Christian or Jewish country?

**Ahtman**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, if part of your holy book is the Jewish holy book, then shouldn't you have very similar principles and laws, should you be from a pure Christian or Jewish country?

No. Understanding history doesn't mean being chained to it. It is akin to thinking that because Nazi Germany is in a history book that Germans must still adhere to Nazism. It is about lineage, and how one gets from point A to B.