What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
That's not empathy but good old pragmatism.

Obviously this was not thought out by these cavemen. They just followed their empathy without realising it was in their own interest to do so.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Obviously this was not thought out by these cavemen. They just followed their empathy without realising it was in their own interest to do so.

Then why "empathy" ? They didn't bring him to the cave because they liked or loved him, but because they needed him in their hunting. Maybe they didn't like him at all ....

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you being thick? Do you know what empathy is?

Answer the question.

Do you know what constitutes a "purpose" ?

Do you consider the "survival of the fittest" the purpose of evolution ? You apparently do ... but marauder, evolution does not have a purpose.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you believe then in the Sanctity of Life ?

Oh no you don't. 😉

If by sanctity of life you mean life is sacred, and by sacred you mean it must not be harmed, yes. If you're talking about anything else, I'm not with you, because I've just realized I'm anything BUT religious. 🙂

Or was it christian? Anything BUT christian... Oh, dear... I seem to have lost a few memory ingrams... overload... error.................

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Then why "empathy" ? They didn't bring him to the cave because they liked or loved him, but because they needed him in their hunting. Maybe they didn't like him at all ....

Call it empathy or compassion, I was just trying to point out the role of altruistic behaviour in evolution...

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll ask you to please stop taking single sentences out of context and answering them in part. My paragraphs are meant to discuss one main idea; stop chopping them up into soundbites. I have to respond in kind because of the way you structure your statements, but it is a poor way to communicate a central idea.

1) You concede you have no eviden you killed if you don't believe in it. I'm not sure if that's fitting or ironic.

Stop whingeing about style - this isn't a high school debate.

You concede you have no evidence. The rest of your statement is a non sequitur;

What evidence have you provided us so far? Pot-kettle-black.

People create beliefs and then they filter reality through their beliefs. If the first person who came up with the idea of religion said " There can't just be this life; there has to be more" that's an appealling idea, isn't it? So people want to believe it, so they do. Then they tell their children to believe it and they do. Simple

This is what I've pointed out to stocken as well - people do not believe something simply because they want to. They may very well want to believe in X, but unless there is a justification for X other than their desire for it, they will not believe it.

Another example - a lion is facing me in the jungle. As appealing as the idea that "This lion can't eat me, surely it will let me go" is, I will not believe it unless I have another reason to do so (e.g. this lion is sleeping, or this lion is very badly injured etc.)

All the examples I've brought up so far - the lay-offs, the conman, the lion - have one common factor. There was always an independent reasonable argument for the final belief that the person holds. Further, the reasonableness of this argument does not depend on the person's motivation for arriving at it.

My hypothesis is internally consistent and you know it. Besides that, it accords with what we know about ourselves and our nature.

No, it doesn't. See above.

EDIT: Regarding the last point, that may be true in some parts of the world - but it certainly isn't true in your home country. Indeed, in Europe, the pressure is on people to be irreligious. So why are people still religious?

Originally posted by stocken
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 ...[text shortened]... bastard. Again, you've given me something to think about LH. And I will. :

One of the common themes I've found in this forum is how, when you strip away the actual positions they hold, fundamentally similar theists and atheists are in their way of thinking.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you being thick? Do you know what empathy is?

Are you being bone-headed? Can't you give a straight answer?

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.

Yes, that's your POV - but that's not what BdN implied.

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]

Oh, I really couldn't be bothered to go back over all that territory. Don't you have a map?

(Please tell me what I was implying).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Stop whingeing about style - this isn't a high school debate.

[b]You concede you have no evidence. The rest of your statement is a non sequitur;

What evidence have you provided us so far? Pot-kettle-black.

People create beliefs and then they filter reality through their beliefs. If the first person who came up with the idea of religion pressure is on people to be irreligious. So why are people still religious?[/b]

This is what I've pointed out to stocken as well

When I said your conman analogy pretty much dunks it, so I'll rest my case, I meant you were proving my point.

See, our need to believe in something may always clowd our perception. So, if a conman comes up to me, selling something that I'd really like, telling me everything is OK, I'd like so much to believe in him/her, that I may overlook the obvious. That's what I mean by believing because you want to believe.

Obviously, if I understand right away that the whole thing is a hoax, I wouldn't allow myself to be tricked.

It's not hard to imagine that people living in times when danger lurked around every corner (or tree), wanted to believe there is a purpose to everything, and that there's some power watching over and protecting them. It's not hard to imagine people still wanting that to be true.

But like you said yourself. The fact that they want to believe that, doesn't necessarily make it so. Belief is not about knowing. So, whether you are aware of it or not, your beliefs may be unjustified and you may cling to them because you desperately want to. Now, I'm not gonna repeat my mistake here, so I'll just say: I could be wrong.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Obviously this was not thought out by these cavemen. They just followed their empathy without realising it was in their own interest to do so.

I'll dispute that on two counts:

1. Presumably the cavemen you are talking about were Cro-Magnon, which means they have the same capacity for rational thinking that we do. Is there any reason to assume that they did not think through the outcome of their actions in this case?

Further, cavemen were quite resourceful and pragmatic when it came to their tools and living conditions. Again, is there any reason to think they could not be pragmatic about social situations?

2. Besides, empathy is a response of the intellect. If they did not think through their actions, then they were operating on instinct, not empathy.

Originally posted by stocken
Obviously, if I understand right away that the whole thing is a hoax, I wouldn't allow myself to be tricked.

Unless you go along with him--to see how he does it.

That happened to me once. I nearly ended up in hot water...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2. Besides, empathy is a response of the intellect. If they did not think through their actions, then they were operating on instinct, not empathy.

The intellect? You don't understand empathy at all.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
One of the common themes I've found in this forum is how, when you strip away the actual positions they hold, fundamentally similar theists and atheists are in their way of thinking.

That's because we're all the same species. Presumably. 🙂