Atheism as a handicap to people skills/compassion

MatthewVII

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58803534&postcount=46

Interesting point brought up on another thread that I'd like a bit more clarification on by the Christian and non-Christian population.

The point raised by Hurin is that Christians will always have an upper hand on atheists when it comes to relating to people, having good people skills, and being compassionate.

personally I think this is certainly untrue, I believe both groups capable of equal compassion and equal coldness.

What do Christians possess which makes them objectively superior to their atheist counterparts?

Zombrex

This just seems to be the old appeal to authority argument, Christians know what is actually right and wrong because a higher authority than them (God) has decided, where as atheists just have to make it up themselves. And because God is perfect he is never wrong, where as humans can be.

It is a bit like a kid saying that such and such is true because their mother said so, expecting the other kids to accept that and stop arguing with him (something that actually happened to me quite a bit with one kid who was always using their mother as an authority on everything, when I was younger)

AtomicHorror

The problem you'll run into in testing your position is that both groups are likely to define the terms we're measuring (relatability, people skills and compassion) according to different moral and value systems. So there's something of a challenge in there.

MatthewVII

My own view on it would be that I would see strict adherence to Christian teachings as a possible negative influence. Somthing like this post, whilst I'm not in any way judging PDN's views, is indicative of this sort of stance that Christians are obliged to take which isn't always equal to being compassionate, caring etc.

philologos

Atheism isn't a handicap. It is rather that spiritual enlightenment can bring about great results for people in how they see the world, and witness to others in their daily lives. It's not that atheists are inferior to theists, not by any means.

MatthewVII, PDN's post is appropriate as marriage is the recognition of a relationship before God in the Christian tradition. The compassionate thing for a Christian to say is, look, you love eachother, why not bring it before God and solidify your relationship and then consider having a child. I think that was actually rather considerate and thoughtful of PDN to say.

PDN

I know some Christians who have awful people skills, and I know some atheists who have very good people skills.

As for compassion, I think both atheists and Christians are capable of acts of compassion and works of philosophy.

One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same.

Also, I know thousands of people whose experience is that they became more compassionate and more motivated to help others since they converted to Christianity. But I rarely if ever hear that someone became more comassionate as a result of them becoming an atheist.

Surveys have shown that that increased frequency of church attendance (irrespective of the variety of religion concerned) correlates with increased giving to charities and increased activity in volunteerism. No doubt someone will object that religious people only do these things in order to win converts, or in order to win brownie points, but my own experience is that is not the case. Anyway, when you are homeless and sleeping on the streets (as I once was) you are just happy that someone gives you a cup of soup or provides shelter for the night, you aren't worried about their motivation for helping you.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I know some Christians who have awful people skills, and I know some atheists who have very good people skills.

As for compassion, I think both atheists and Christians are capable of acts of compassion and works of philosophy.

One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same.

To be fair, there's not all that many of us, we're quite spread out, and we're generally not organised into very large groups. We also don't make collections and do not get funding.

PDN wrote: »

Surveys have shown that that increased frequency of church attendance (irrespective of the variety of religion concerned) correlates with increased giving to charities and increased activity in volunteerism.

Links? Genuine interest here. Preferably with comparisons to large, non-religious organisations as controls. Also, if it's irrespective of the religion then what is the source of the argument that Christians specifically have an edge? If all religions are equal in that regard, even if they have an edge over atheism, that sorta negates the influence of any given religion and means the effect is just due to organisation and belief in a nondescript spiritual authority.

PDN wrote: »

No doubt someone will object that religious people only do these things in order to win converts, or in order to win brownie points, but my own experience is that is not the case.

Or to be saved? I know it's meant to be about faith, but people's minds often don't work that way.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same.

How about Governments in countries where there is a separation of church and state? Sure, they arn't athiest but they're also not motivated by their religious belief.

One could argue that churches get into the business of education and healthcare, not for altruistic reasons, but because the young and the ill are more receptive to their message.

Phototoxin

personally I think this is certainly untrue, I believe both groups capable of equal compassion and equal coldness.

A trip to Catholic Answers Forums will reinforce that coldness in my experience. As will a visit to your local uni's CU in my experience also. Just disagree.

And because God is perfect he is never wrong, where as humans can be.

couldnt they be wrong in their choice of deity ?

Quote:
Surveys have shown that that increased frequency of church attendance (irrespective of the variety of religion concerned) correlates with increased giving to charities and increased activity in volunteerism
Links? Genuine interest here. Preferably with comparisons to large, non-religious organisations as controls. Also, if it's irrespective of the religion then what the source of the argument that Christians specifically have an edge? If all religions are equal in that regard, even if they have an edge over atheism, that sorta negates the influence of any given religion and means the effect is just due to organisation and belief in a nondescript spiritual authority,

Well pointed out.

Quote:
No doubt someone will object that religious people only do these things in order to win converts, or in order to win brownie points, but my own experience is that is not the case.
Or to be saved? I know it's meant to be about faith, but people's minds often don't work that way.

Actually faith is justified by works... so to have a justifiable faith one must endevour to do good also. Simply saying 'I believe' then sitting on your bum 'til judgement day wont cut it.

AtomicHorror

Phototoxin wrote: »

Actually faith is justified by works... so to have a justifiable faith one must endevour to do good also. Simply saying 'I believe' then sitting on your bum 'til judgement day wont cut it.

Well then there's your motive for doing good. Salvation. Not saying it's wrong, but it sure doesn't put those people on the moral high ground versus atheists.

Your quotes are a bit of a mess there- were you agreeing with me on some points?

seamus

PDN wrote: »

One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same.

Atheism is by its very nature, low on organisation, because there's very little reason to come together.
I would say that charitable acts are perhaps partially driven by christian "code", but getting involved in the community and helping out in general I would argue is symptom of any kind of vocational organisation. The Santa Strike Force is a good example of this - people coming together to provide a charitable service, linked by nothing more than a casual online aquaintance.

I would say that these acts are more often than not driven by a single individual who decides, "I have a lot of people at my disposal here, maybe we can do some good", rather than a group decision to get out there and help people, and the same dynamic is true of any voluntary organisation, religious or not.

Also, I know thousands of people whose experience is that they became more compassionate and more motivated to help others since they converted to Christianity.

Chicken and egg? Perhaps people convert to Christianity because of a personality shift which compels them to help others, and they find that they can identify with christian ideals. The same as recovering alcoholics who say that "finding Christ" compelled them to drop the booze, when I would argue that perhaps the need to drop the booze compelled them to focus their energies on Christ.

But I rarely if ever hear that someone became more comassionate as a result of them becoming an atheist.

In my experience, a lot of people become somewhat more "zen", when they take the step to admit that they're atheist, and tend to be a lot more hands off about the religion issue.

Surveys have shown that that increased frequency of church attendance (irrespective of the variety of religion concerned) correlates with increased giving to charities and increased activity in volunteerism.

It's highly probable that you could survey any voluntary community and find the exact same thing. Even look at clubs - football clubs, martial arts clubs, etc - and you'll find that increased frequency of club involvement correlates with increased frequency of charitable involvement. My argument is that charitable spirit is a symptom of group/club involvement as opposed to any higher spiritual awareness.

In short, being religious doesn't make you any nicer to other people.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well then there's your motive for doing good. Salvation. Not saying it's wrong, but it sure doesn't put those people on the moral high ground versus atheists.

Your quotes are a bit of a mess there- were you agreeing with me on some points?

I'd totally disagree with this interpretation. Faith naturally brings forth works, and salvation is a gift not something to be earned. If you accept Christianity truly, one is to naturally expect that their heart will be changed to cause them to promote good works. It isn't to do with salvation.

sorella

Widen that to "secular" and you will see a great difference; ie not doing it for the love of Jesus.

I am thinking especially of the Chernobyl Children's Trust here in Ireland.
http://www.chernobylchildrenstrust.com/

And there are many such.

Blessings this night

"One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same."

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd totally disagree with this interpretation. Faith naturally brings forth works,

Always? It's not possible to have total faith but just be too lazy to do good works?

Jakkass wrote: »

and salvation is a gift not something to be earned.

I'm not disputing the dogma, Jakkass. I'm speculating on the motive actually held by people.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you accept Christianity truly, one is to naturally expect that their heart will be changed to cause them to promote good works. It isn't to do with salvation.

I'm not saying that the desire for salvation is the only motive for good works nor that it is a motive supported by dogma. But saying "it isn't to do with salvation" seems pretty certain. You sure there are no Christians out there doing good works, on some level, for their own benefit?

sorella

If this was not so utterly sad it would be funny.

Jesus is alive simply. And we love because He loves us enough to die for us.

So we are inspired and enabled to pass on that love and that giving to others. In His Holy Name Who is Lord.

And yes, many are enabled to get free from drink and drugs because of the healing power of the Lord Jesus, Who is God.

Lives are transformed. Reborn.

Please God that one day you will see and know this huge love and power, and take it to your heart and life.

Blessings this night...

"Chicken and egg? Perhaps people convert to Christianity because of a personality shift which compels them to help others, and they find that they can identify with christian ideals. The same as recovering alcoholics who say that "finding Christ" compelled them to drop the booze, when I would argue that perhaps the need to drop the booze compelled them to focus their energies on Christ"

AtomicHorror

sorella wrote: »

Widen that to "secular" and you will see a great difference; ie not doing it for the love of Jesus.

I am thinking especially of the Chernobyl Children's Trust here in Ireland.
http://www.chernobylchildrenstrust.com/

And there are many such.

I'm confused, are you saying that secular organisations still do significant good works or disputing it?

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You sure there are no Christians out there doing good works, on some level, for their own benefit?

There's no denying that there are massive benefits to helping others and doing good things. These benefits are only gained, if the motivation is not selfish in the first place. Personally, I think if someone is motivated by saving themself, they wont be helping others very long. We have a propensity towards what makes us happy, and only if our heart is in the right place, will helping others make us happy. So if we have Love for our brothers and sisters, and we give to them, we actually benefit in that it makes us happy. If we help them so that 'we' will be happy, I don't think that we would actually be happy. Love is the key, and like Paul said, without it, its all nothingness.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm confused, are you saying that secular organisations still do significant good works or disputing it?

I gathered it was backed up by her point. I'd back it up too. I'm sure there are many organisations which are devoid of religion that help others. I think the point though, is the Christian value promotes and encourages charity etc, Atheism encourages nothing. So from a personality point of view, Atheism of itself is a fairly worthless thing. Its a belief that all proposed Gods don't exist, or whatever. Whereas, true Christianity is more than an opinion, its a lifestyle.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

I gathered it was backed up by her point. I'd back it up too. I'm sure there are many organisations which are devoid of religion that help others. I think the point though, is the Christian value promotes and encourages charity etc, Atheism encourages nothing. So from a personality point of view, Atheism of itself is a fairly worthless thing. Its a belief that all proposed Gods don't exist, or whatever. Whereas, true Christianity is more than an opinion, its a lifestyle.

Well that is because atheism is merely a stance on one issue. You see it as a significant one and one which drives you. But it's only a little different from a number of stances you yourself hold. You don't believe in a whole bunch of gods and supernatural phenomena. Those stances alone do not "encourage" anything either, but I'm sure they're rather essential to what follows. The morality and purpose you choose. In this case, Christianity.

Atheists seem quite well able to adopt philosophies, by their own reason alone, which encourage perfectly moral behaviour including charity. Humanism would be a good example of a meaning/moral framework that follows from atheism. Atheism itself is probably not a fair target when we talk about morals, purpose and behaviour.

If Christianity is really the deal breaker, then it seems kinda odd that charity adverts don't appeal to that specifically in some way. They broadly appeal to human sympathy, empathy, guilt... is there evidence to suggest that Christians specifically react more to some of these things?

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Humanism would be a good example of a meaning/moral framework that follows from atheism.

Humanism is unrelated to athiesm, you may as well say that cheesemaking follows on from atheism.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Atheism itself is probably not a fair target when we talk about morals, purpose and behaviour.

On the contrary it is, religion provides a motivation to people to do charitable works. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all actively encourage charitable works (with it been a requirement of the later), you can argue if you wish its motived by an intangible carrot dangled before them. But it does provide a stimulus to people who otherwise would not do so.
Atheism removes that carrot/threat from people, you've nothing to lose and nothing to gain by doing charitable works. But perhaps it can be argued that in doing so it highlights true selfless acts of kindness once the element of spiritual blackmail is removed.

AtomicHorror

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Humanism is unrelated to athiesm, you may as well say that cheesemaking follows on from atheism.

Sorry, specifically secular or atheistic humanism. As opposed to moving on to say, nihilism. Or your proposed Godless Cheesemaking. A movement I would support.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

On the contrary it is, religion provides a motivation to people to do charitable works. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all actively encourage charitable works (with it been a requirement of the later), you can argue if you wish its motived by an intangible carrot dangled before them. But it does provide a stimulus to people who otherwise would not do so.
Atheism removes that carrot/threat from people, you've nothing to lose and nothing to gain by doing charitable works. But perhaps it can be argued that in doing so it highlights true selfless acts of kindness once the element of spiritual blackmail is removed.

Yeah, but when you reject God you're not picking automatically picking up a moral framework or a life purpose. It's a negative position. The morals and drive towards charity (or lack of it) comes next, or if you're lucky, was always there but independent of your belief.

Rev Hellfire

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or your proposed Godless Cheesemaking. A movement I would support.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

MatthewVII

sorella wrote: »

If this was not so utterly sad it would be funny.

Jesus is alive simply. And we love because He loves us enough to die for us.

So we are inspired and enabled to pass on that love and that giving to others. In His Holy Name Who is Lord.

And yes, many are enabled to get free from drink and drugs because of the healing power of the Lord Jesus, Who is God.

Lives are transformed. Reborn.

Please God that one day you will see and know this huge love and power, and take it to your heart and life.

Blessings this night...

Does someone who quits alcohol because of the "healing power of the Lord Jesus, Who is God" differ significantly from someone who quits alcohol because they go to a GP/psychiatrist/alternative therapist for psychological or medical treatment/support etc? Both would start a completely new life. Is it true to assume that someone who believes Jesus was the reason for their change will be more compassionate than someone who believes that good medical advice was? I would have assumed that someone who quit through a combination of their own willpower and the help of their fellow man would have a more solid foundation than someone who quit because he believes in a higher power.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Always? It's not possible to have total faith but just be too lazy to do good works?

The Bible says "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:20), and "whoever does not pick up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:38) and finally "let your light shine before others" (Matthew 5:16). These are two things that I am working on in my faith, I'm not there yet, and this will take time for me to be where I want to be with God.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not disputing the dogma, Jakkass. I'm speculating on the motive actually held by people.

The intention is also important.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not saying that the desire for salvation is the only motive for good works nor that it is a motive supported by dogma. But saying "it isn't to do with salvation" seems pretty certain. You sure there are no Christians out there doing good works, on some level, for their own benefit?

Well, the reasoning behind doing good works isn't for salvation. Salvation isn't earned according to the Biblical text but rather it is a gift from the Lord (Romans 3:28). By doing good we are only doing what we ought to be doing as people of faith (Luke 17:10), it's not something to boast about.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no denying that there are massive benefits to helping others and doing good things. These benefits are only gained, if the motivation is not selfish in the first place.

Maybe your hypothetical spiritual rewards are not gained if the motivation is selfish, but the Earthly gains are made either way. Unless the selfishness is obvious to the other party.

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, I think if someone is motivated by saving themself, they wont be helping others very long.

Why do you think that? If a person is convinced that their works are a way to salvation (and I know you contend that they're not) then why should they ever feel the need to stop? That should only happen if they come to think that the works are in vain in terms of their self interest.

JimiTime wrote: »

We have a propensity towards what makes us happy, and only if our heart is in the right place, will helping others make us happy.

How so? Reciprocal altruism works despite the motive being ultimately selfish.

JimiTime wrote: »

So if we have Love for our brothers and sisters, and we give to them, we actually benefit in that it makes us happy. If we help them so that 'we' will be happy, I don't think that we would actually be happy.

But aren't those two things just the same thing? Our love for people is typically not a choice. We help them because that makes us feel good.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible says "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:20), and "whoever does not pick up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:38) and finally "let your light shine before others" (Matthew 5:16). These are two things that I am working on in my faith, I'm not there yet, and this will take time for me to be where I want to be with God.

Yes, I get that works are an expression of faith. They can work as a surrogate measure of it. However you follow that with a statement which suggests that your works don't currently reflect your faith but that you're working on it. Which brings us back to question of whether the very faithful can in some cases be a little lacking on the works front.

Jakkass wrote: »

The intention is also important.

Yes, I know that this is the dogma. Again, not disputing that, but rather questioning why some Christians do good works and whether that really reflects a moral edge over atheists.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, the reasoning behind doing good works isn't for salvation. Salvation isn't earned according to the Biblical text but rather it is a gift from the Lord (Romans 3:28). By doing good we are only doing what we ought to be doing as people of faith (Luke 17:10), it's not something to boast about.

We're going in circles. I know this and I'm not disputing it. I'm suggesting that some Christians may be acting in their own self-interest whilst still having total faith.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, I get that works are an expression of faith. They can work as a surrogate measure of it. However you follow that with a statement which suggests that your works don't currently reflect your faith but that you're working on it. Which brings us back to question of whether the very faithful can in some cases be a little lacking on the works front.

As for what I mean by I am working on it, I believe that faith is something that grows within a person. For example I suppose many Christians who have accepted Christ sooner than I have have seen great growth in their lives such as Fanny Craddock, PDN and others who would be older than I am and perhaps further along the path of faith than I am. I've seen improvements in my life, and in my conscience and how I view other people around me since I've accepted Christianity though, and I can only hope that this continues, and I can only hope that I can shine before others in the way that Jesus truly meant it.

So if my comment following the original comment seemed contradictory it's only because I have a certain understanding of how faith works. I'd be interested to see if any other Christians have a dispute with this.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, I know that this is the dogma. Again, not disputing that, but rather questioning why some Christians do good works and whether that really reflects a moral edge over atheists.

This is the ideal of Christianity, and if people are doing things to boost their ego I think that they are falling away from the original message. I think you and I can fully relate to how this has happened in global Christianity in the past. However, this isn't relevant. You seem to be comparing some Christians to atheists now, whereas the thread was made in the intention of comparing Christianity in general to atheism in general not isolated cases of either.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're going in circles. I know this and I'm not disputing it. I'm suggesting that some Christians may be acting in their own self-interest whilst still having total faith.

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with this. I think if someone has full faith in the Gospel, and want God to honestly change their lives they will eventually be transformed towards the Biblical understanding of it. I believe truly that the Spirit lives in us.

Mickeroo

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no denying that there are massive benefits to helping others and doing good things. These benefits are only gained, if the motivation is not selfish in the first place. Personally, I think if someone is motivated by saving themself, they wont be helping others very long. We have a propensity towards what makes us happy, and only if our heart is in the right place, will helping others make us happy. So if we have Love for our brothers and sisters, and we give to them, we actually benefit in that it makes us happy. If we help them so that 'we' will be happy, I don't think that we would actually be happy. Love is the key, and like Paul said, without it, its all nothingness.

All charity at it's root is selfish in a way, deep down people help others because when you help someone it makes you feel good, this is not a bad thing in any way it's just human nature, and it's wonderful. Morals also fall under this. The notion that atheists are any less moralistic than christians or people of any other religion is quite ridiculous, indeed such things as racism/homophobia/fundamentalism are quite rare characteristics in atheists whereas these flaws are quite prominent in religious communities, the pope himself being openly homophobic. We have morals because human society would not be able to function without them, if you go around stealing or hurting people all the time you wouldn't last very long. And i agree that love is the key,but it's got nothing to with God.:)

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the ideal of Christianity, and if people are doing things to boost their ego I think that they are falling away from the original message.

Agreed of course.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you and I can fully relate to how this has happened in global Christianity in the past.

Agreed.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, this isn't relevant. You seem to be comparing some Christians to atheists now, whereas the thread was made in the intention of comparing Christianity in general to atheism in general not isolated cases of either.

But I'm not convinced that we are talking about isolated cases here. The problem is that this is a pretty difficult thing to test.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with this. I think if someone has full faith in the Gospel, and want God to honestly change their lives they will eventually be transformed towards the Biblical understanding of it. I believe truly that the Spirit lives in us.

I'm sure you think and believe these things, but can we test them? If we're going to make an assertion about the average difference between atheists and Christians then we need to be able to rely on more than what we think and believe.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the point though, is the Christian value promotes and encourages charity etc, Atheism encourages nothing. So from a personality point of view, Atheism of itself is a fairly worthless thing. Its a belief that all proposed Gods don't exist, or whatever. Whereas, true Christianity is more than an opinion, its a lifestyle.

True. But that doesn't imply (not saying you are saying this, some other posters seemed to have suggested it) that atheists don't do charity.

No one would wonder where all the vegetarian African Aid Charities are, or conclude that because there aren't any then vegetarians must not care that much about saving African babies.

I know plenty of atheists who regularly give to, or do work, for charities, but they don't give to the "Atheist charity" in the same way that a Christian might work for a Christian charity that clearly identifies them as a Christian.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I know plenty of atheists who regularly give to, or do work, for charities, but they don't give to the "Atheist charity" in the same way that a Christian might work for a Christian charity that clearly identifies them as a Christian.

I agree. I feel I must stick up for atheists on this one, there are many of them who do a lot of charity work. Credit where credit is due. e.g. Bob Geldof. Atheist through and through and he has a true heart of charity as he has proven over the years.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

True. But that doesn't imply (not saying you are saying this, some other posters seemed to have suggested it) that atheists don't do charity.

100% agree.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But aren't those two things just the same thing? Our love for people is typically not a choice. We help them because that makes us feel good.

No. Our love for people 'can' be a choice. Most of us have a natural love for our family and friends. With most of us, that love does not extend to strangers. We must 'choose' to work on this love. Its what Jesus says, 'Even the men of the Nations love their own, I say to you Love your enemy'.

As for you saying wehelp them because it makes us feel good, I'll speak for myself in saying that this is not so. It goes back to my point, which I'll try again to clarify.

We can be motivated by 'love', to do something. 'A' perk of this, is that we can feel good. That is different than being motivated by wanting to feel good.
Sometimes doing the loving thing can bring bad consequences, and the good feeling can be seriously diminished. If our motivation is the feel good factor, then we probably wont last too long doing it. Love however, is not selfish. It does not look for approval, or praise. It merely Loves. It can have wonderful consequence, such as reciprocal love, or it can have horrendous consequence, such as torture and death, such as Christ. Love, is anything but selfish.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree. I feel I must stick up for atheists on this one, there are many of them who do a lot of charity work. Credit where credit is due. e.g. Bob Geldof. Atheist through and through and he has a true heart of charity as he has proven over the years.

Quite true. As I've said, it's not about atheism so much as it is about the moral/value system you adopt once you've rejected God. From the atheist perspective, the value of human life and human suffering were what inspired the religious morals in the first place, so hardly surprising that a good proportion of us retain that same set of values.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

...the value of human life and human suffering were what inspired the religious morals in the first place,

That is so debatable its not even funny but probably for another thread at another time Or maybe you wold like to show some evidence that this is truly the case. I'm all ears

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58803534&postcount=46

Interesting point brought up on another thread that I'd like a bit more clarification on by the Christian and non-Christian population.

The point raised by Hurin is that Christians will always have an upper hand on atheists when it comes to relating to people, having good people skills, and being compassionate.

No. As I stressed ad nauseum that is not what I said. It's a good straw man to make me look stupid, but it's not what I said. That is, I think that you will always be subpar to what you are capable of because you are an atheist. I don't expect agreement, but it's what I think.

I think that the religious (and I'm talking genuine practising faith here, not just raised and never rebelled against it) doctor who is cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring would likely be worse in these qualities were he an atheist doctor.

I think that people's temperaments are largely determined by their upbringing, and that those of kinder temperament generally got luckier in early life than those of unkind demeanor. But faith, I think, can steer both kinds of people towards greater levels of empathy.

That still means that the person who lost out in upbringing, but then embraced faith, may well be less kind than the atheist to whom great kindness comes "naturally". My claims do not rule that out.

JimiTime

Húrin wrote: »

No. As I stressed ad nauseum that is not what I said. It's a good straw man to make me look stupid, but it's not what I said. That is, I think that you will always be subpar to what you are capable of because I am atheist. I don't expect agreement, but it's what I think.

I think that the religious (and I'm talking genuine practising faith here, not just raised and never rebelled against it) doctor who is cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring would likely be worse in these qualities were he an atheist doctor.

I think that people's temperaments are largely determined by their upbringing, and that those of kinder temperament generally got luckier in early life than those of unkind demeanor. But faith, I think, can steer both kinds of people towards greater levels of empathy.

That still means that the person who lost out in upbringing, but then embraced faith, may well be less kind than the atheist to whom great kindness comes "naturally". My claims do not rule that out.

Interesting point actually. One that, on first inspection anyway, I agree with.

sukikettle

What stirs people to be compassionate is a secure knowledge of the love of God and a fearlessness to execute his will. Perseverance through one's own trials creates true charity.Bob Geldof is driven by a horizontal vision...the man is not looking upward and thereby he nullifys his good deed while all around others benefit and turn their eyes upward in gratitude and Bob is still cynical and angry

Soul Winner

sukikettle wrote: »

What stirs people to be compassionate is a secure knowledge of the love of God and a fearlessness to execute his will. Perseverance through one's own trials creates true charity.Bob Geldof is driven by a horizontal vision...the man is not looking upward and thereby he nullifys his good deed while all around others benefit and turn their eyes upward in gratitude and Bob is still cynical and angry

Maybe so, but that would be true for most of us, most of the time as well wouldn't it? Bob is very like Jesus IMO. Jesus was moved with compassion for the multitudes and He fed them. Bob also was moved with compassion for the multitudes in Ethiopia in the 80's and his work originated in that and has been constant ever since. You have to give the man credit no matter what way he was looking.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

One major difference I see is that Christians band together to do works of compassion and charity specifically because of their Christian faith, whereas atheists do not do such things specifically because of their unbelief. For example, churches set up hospitals, orphanages etc. , but I don't see many atheist organisations doing the same.

Well to be fair, there are secular charities. I know of no atheist charities, but there are numerous secular ones.

seamus wrote: »

Chicken and egg? Perhaps people convert to Christianity because of a personality shift which compels them to help others, and they find that they can identify with christian ideals.

Agreeing with Christian ideals and morals is very different from thinking the story behind it all is true. And that again is different from experiencing the holy spirit.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Always? It's not possible to have total faith but just be too lazy to do good works?

Yes.

I'm not disputing the dogma, Jakkass. I'm speculating on the motive actually held by people.

Cognitive bias at its starkest. It would be like me saying that atheists do good works mainly to impress other people.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Maybe your hypothetical spiritual rewards are not gained if the motivation is selfish, but the Earthly gains are made either way. Unless the selfishness is obvious to the other party.

Indeed, this is what Jesus said.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're going in circles. I know this and I'm not disputing it. I'm suggesting that some Christians may be acting in their own self-interest whilst still having total faith.

The Christian's self-interest is to put faith completely in Christ. If you're doing something else on the side for insurance then you don't have complete faith in Christ to serve your interests.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is so debatable its not even funny but probably for another thread at another time Or maybe you wold like to show some evidence that this is truly the case. I'm all ears

Well there were very similar moral systems to the Judeo-Christian ones long before Judaism came on the scene. It is hard to view it the other way around, we know that things like empathy existed in human cultures before religion.

I know you guys will say that that is because God has influenced all human conscience since before time etc etc

But I think Atomic was coming from an atheist perspective on this one.

sukikettle

I don't have to give him anything...the bible says works without faith and faith without works are pointless. In case it slipped your notice Ethiopia and two thirds of the world exist in poverty??Imagine with the power left here through His Son what Bob might have accomplished

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

No. As I stressed ad nauseum that is not what I said. It's a good straw man to make me look stupid, but it's not what I said. That is, I think that you will always be subpar to what you are capable of because you are an atheist. I don't expect agreement, but it's what I think.

I think that the religious (and I'm talking genuine practising faith here, not just raised and never rebelled against it) doctor who is cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring would likely be worse in these qualities were he an atheist doctor.

I think that people's temperaments are largely determined by their upbringing, and that those of kinder temperament generally got luckier in early life than those of unkind demeanor. But faith, I think, can steer both kinds of people towards greater levels of empathy.

That still means that the person who lost out in upbringing, but then embraced faith, may well be less kind than the atheist to whom great kindness comes "naturally". My claims do not rule that out.

I would be cautious of that idea. I know people who have turned to religion in a genuine attempt to deal with emotional and mental problems they had and ended up being more screwed up in the religion than outside of the religion.

The idea that religion helps people I think is a quite dangerous one, that is basically how cults such as Scientologists, manage to get emotionally unstable people to turn to them.

I think a person is far better off going to a professional councillor than to a religion to deal with any issues they have.

sukikettle

Thats a lot of old ****e Wick...I've been with secular counsellors and they're parent-hating sex/mental/physical abuse seekers. There is peace to be found in faith with God.

jill_valentine

sukikettle wrote: »

Thats a lot of old ****e Wick...I've been with secular counsellors and they're parent-hating sex/mental/physical abuse seekers. There is peace to be found in faith with God.

There is not enough "WTF?!?!" on the internet to do this post justice.

Some fairly serious issues at work there, to be honest...

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is so debatable its not even funny but probably for another thread at another time Or maybe you wold like to show some evidence that this is truly the case. I'm all ears

Putting aside abortion, warfare and capital punishment, murder is taboo in every culture that I'm aware of. That seems to hold throughout history. That seems to me to be evidence that (for the most part) human beings value human life. The application of that value is flakey, but this is down to how people understand life and how that interacts with other values.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

Surveys have shown that that increased frequency of church attendance (irrespective of the variety of religion concerned) correlates with increased giving to charities and increased activity in volunteerism.

I would also like to see these data. :pac:

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Putting aside abortion, warfare and capital punishment, murder is taboo in every culture that I'm aware of. That seems to hold throughout history. That seems to me to be evidence that (for the most part) human beings value human life. The application of that value is flakey, but this is down to how people understand life and how that interacts with other values.

Humm... certainly there have been many cultures where such terrible things as murder (at least what we would now define as murder) were acceptable - if not essential. There are some notable examples where murder was a distinct goal for the men pulling the strings. One doesn't even have to look to the usual suspects to find this type of behaviour.

Fanny Cradock

What is is with certain people tonight?

sukikettle wrote: »

Thats a lot of old ****e Wick...I've been with secular counsellors and they're parent-hating sex/mental/physical abuse seekers. There is peace to be found in faith with God.

Enough of the erroneous generalisations, please!

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

...murder is taboo in every culture that I'm aware of. That seems to hold throughout history. That seems to me to be evidence that (for the most part) human beings value human life.

Well yeah they do value life, but why? If all we exist for is to propagate DNA as Dawkins observes then why evolve such traits as 'valuing' human life? Wouldn't that be an inconvenience to the process of natural selection, if indeed natural selection is the process whereby we have evolved, which is blind as to what results from its selecting process by which I mean it has no set goals for selecting the traits that it selects to keep and the ones to remove? So what could possibly be the evolutionary advantage for evolving a trait that values human life as a moral value when there is no overriding guiding principle external to what is evolving to inform it of such? Why evolve morals?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The application of that value is flakey, but this is down to how people understand life and how that interacts with other values.

You're right, that is flakey.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yeah they do value life, but why? If all we exist for is to propagate DNA as Dawkins observes then why evolve such traits as 'valuing' human life? Wouldn't that be an inconvenience to the process of natural selection, if indeed natural selection is the process whereby we have evolved, which is blind as to what results from its selecting process by which I mean it has no set goals for selecting the traits that it selects to keep and the ones to remove? So what could possibly be the evolutionary advantage for evolving a trait that values human life as a moral value when there is no overriding guiding principle external to what is evolving to inform it of such? Why evolve morals?

Altruism is a very successful survival strategy. I would recommend "the selfish gene" by Dawkins. Especially the chapter "Nice guys finish first".