What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by stocken
On the contrary. Showing mercy (in the matter of belief, mind you) will only hold you back. If you're afraid to hurt others, fine. But never, ever, show mercy to yourself because you want something to be true. That's not questioning. That's called re-assuring on false premises.

The way I see it.

I'm afraid I cannot follow you.

First of all what is the difference between showing mercy in the matter of belief and in the "other" matter ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why is empathy necessary for operating in groups?

Are you being thick? Do you know what empathy is?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's your problem, isn't it? I'm not arguing anything at all.

You claimed:

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I really don't understand why an imaginative, compassionate person wouldn't cherish another's life...not to mention all other life...seeing themselves in all other things

which is the setting for an argument. I'm asking you to flesh it out.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]There is a difference, though.

Are you sure? I've pointed out to BdN in another thread that some people in the modern West have a tendency to be "anything BUT Christian".

If I know that basic assumptions that I've made in my life may be based on wanting to believe, I can do something about it.

That they "may" be based on ...[text shortened]... beliefs over and over again? Or have you just settled for anything-but-Christianity?[/b]

The last question is very good. I'll think about that one. I don't think I'm trying to be anything but christian, but I'd have to think about it before saying that with certainty.

Your argument about something "may" be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean it "is" that way, is not completely in line with what I've said. Or I'm very vague. I mean this and nothing else:

If it may be wrong, it must be questioned and analyzed 'til there's no way it may be, but it is or it isn't. That could be a life-time of questioning, but I'm prepared to do that. I'm not saying you must do the same. It's my point of view. And the hard part is usually discovering what assumptions may be wrong because I want to believe they're not. It usually involves a merciless friend (or foe for that matter).

---

Oooh, and this one's hard. Am I really saying that theists either choose not to question their belief, or do so superficially? Guess I am. Although, it's hard to admit that I could be such an arrogant bastard. Again, you've given me something to think about LH. And I will. :

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You claimed:

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]I really don't understand why an imaginative, compassionate person wouldn't cherish another's life...not to mention all other life...seeing themselves in all other things

which is the setting for an argument. I'm asking you to flesh it out.[/b]

It doesn't need fleshing out, any more than it makes sense to ask why your God chose to make murder wrong rather than right.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm afraid I cannot follow you.

First of all what is the difference between showing mercy in the matter of belief and in the "other" matter ?

I should add to the discussion, that showing no mercy in a specific matter of belief, is not the same as having no empathy. Think about it. It's for the very reason that I empathize that I will tell you things the way I see it, even if it may ruin your faith. Likewise, I expect people to pull me down from my high horses, without mercy, if they have good questions that I can't answer. (I seem to have put myself on such high horses right now, so go for it.)

Also consider this. If I ask a question and you take it seriously enough to wander into the do-do-land (the mental landscape I call my home), you might find an answer that could re-assure you of your faith in a new way. If you reached that conclusion, fully understanding the question, that's a good thing. Is it not?

I do see a point in what you're saying though. If I show no mercy, simply to destroy, then that would be of no value to me or society at large.

Originally posted by dottewell
It doesn't need fleshing out, any more than it makes sense to ask why your God chose to make murder wrong rather than right.

God is not available in this discussion so we can question His motives and request substantiation on unclear points. BDN is very well capable of answering for his own statements - and substantiating where requested.

Originally posted by stocken
I should add to the discussion, that showing no mercy in a specific matter of belief, is not the same as having no empathy. Think about it. It's for the very reason that I empathize that I will tell you things the way I see it, even if it may ruin your faith. Likewise, I expect people to pull me down from my high horses, without mercy, if they have good ques show no mercy, simply to destroy, then that would be of no value to me or society at large.

I'm talking about showing mercy to yourself in case you did something wrong. If you start investigating yourself you might find things you indeed did wrong according to your set of beliefs.

Now suppose you changed your views on a certain moral matter. In the past you practised this particular matter without any moral problems but you now come to the conclusion you were wrong. You have to accept on the basis of your new insights you have accumulated guilt. How do you deal with that insight and that guilt ?

Originally posted by Halitose
God is not available in this discussion so we can question His motives and request substantiation on unclear points. BDN is very well capable of answering for his own statements - and substantiating where requested.

God is not available in this discussion so we can question His motives and request substantiation on unclear points.

Of course he is; if we are questioning what gives foundations to our morality, God is no more of a foundation-stone than anything else.

BDN is very well capable of answering for his own statements - and substantiating where requested.

Who asked you?

Originally posted by dottewell
Why do you do good acts? What makes them good?

Basically, this is what I think.

Good is anything that nourishes me or the environment around me. Bad is anything that doesn't. Evil is therefore only evil from my perspective if it somehow threatens my very existence.

Taking this into a bigger context, I would include the people around me. The one's I love and/or need. So, now, good is anything that's pro us, and evil is any negation of the same.

I can only draw the obvious conclusion that anything of destructive nature that happens in this world is evil and anything else is good (conveniantly disregarding the fact that destruction often leads to new things that has an existential right in themselves). Because everyone in this world is part of my environment (albeit not the immediate one).

(There's a string orchestra slowly building up in the background...)

So, showing compassion makes sense in that it helps preserve life. And life is the very essence of what we are at the moment.

(A fan-fair of trumpets slowly emerging from the angelic bed of floating string music...)

Now, in this life...

(Bam, Bam...)

...there's clearly a need to understand...

(Da-da-da-daaaaam...)

...our purpose and the reason for the divine essence that's filling us all to the brim of ecstasy...

(hoooooooooo... a gospel choire replacing the menacing drums)

...and the fact is clear. There's no purpose or meaning. It's just a very, very beautiful thing. Life. And I wish to preserve it and hang on to it for as long as possible, and I wish the same for those around me.

(aaaaaaaaaaaaah.... aaaah.... aaah... ah...)

Compassion, thus, along with all the moral laws that I accept, is built on the assumption that we should preserve life (for our own good if nothing else).

(The end)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why is empathy necessary for operating in groups?

I saw a good example of this in a documentary about evolution a while ago.

A group of cavemen where hunting a giant moose and one of them got injured when he speared the moose. The other cavemen carried him back to their cave where they took care of him. Not because god told them to do so but because it served their own interest …he could help them on their next hunt.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I saw a good example of this in a documentary about evolution a while ago.

A group of cavemen where hunting a giant moose and one of them got injured when he speared the moose. The other cavemen carried him back to their cave where they took care of him. Not because god told them to do so but because it served their own interest …he could help them on their next hunt.

That's not empathy but good old pragmatism.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm talking about showing mercy to yourself in case you did something wrong. If you start investigating yourself you might find things you indeed did wrong according to your set of beliefs.

Now suppose you changed your views on a certain moral matter. You changed your set of beliefs. In the past you practised this particular matter without any moral pro ...[text shortened]... our new insights you have accumulated guilt. How do you deal with that insight and that guilt ?

I will only feel guilt, if I knew all along that what I did was wrong. If I realize I've been a fool, I may feel bad about it. But now that I know better (or think I do), I can try and set things straight. If possible. I can't feel guilty about it.

However, if I suspected all along that something's not right with whatever moral law I'm following, I would feel really bad about myself if I didn't sit down and think about it before taking any kind of action.

(And please don't ask me what I'd do if my very life depended on it. Like, would I break the moral law to "preserve life and not harm others" if my life depended on it. I'd like to say no, but I haven't been in that situation yet.)

Originally posted by stocken
Basically, this is what I think.

Good is anything that nourishes me or the environment around me. Bad is anything that doesn't. Evil is therefore only evil from my perspective if it somehow threatens my very existence.

Taking this into a bigger context, I would include the people around me. The one's I love and/or need. So, now, good is anything that's ...[text shortened]... assumption that we should preserve life (for our own good if nothing else).

(The end)

Do you believe then in the Sanctity of Life ?

Originally posted by dottewell
I think people overstate the role of reason in ethics. There are reasons to perform specific acts, but the framework is simply there. It is impossible to ask and answer questions about the foundations of ethics.

Why is it right to be compassionate? It just is. No other answer (utilitarian, Kantian, Christian) is sufficient.

There is no good and evil. What most people call good is something you do to serve their self interest at the cost of your own. What most people call evil is something you do that serves your self interest at the cost of theirs.