[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

DrTaco, your understanding of scripture is superficial... [--snip--]

Fair enough. I'm the first to admit that I'm no religious scholar, and lpkmckenna seems to disagree with you, but I won't pursue this portion any further without doing some more research.

I do have some questions for atheists:
1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

Personally, yes, but for very specific reasons. For many years, I followed a "my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are my own damn business" doctrine. My "outing", as you put it, was influenced by living in a suburb of Phoenix, a very fundamentalist Christian area. Quite frankly, I couldn't tolerate sitting by in silence while some of my friends and neighbors misconstrued scientific facts and spoke negatively about non-believers. Since then, I still avoid bringing up the topic of religion, but I will often interject my own beliefs into an ongoing conversation. So I'm not quite as militant about it as Dawkins suggests, but I'm not ashamed of my opinions either.

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

It would be foolish for me to say, with 100% confidence, that there is no Creator, but Occam's Razor applies here. Once upon a time, when man's accumulated scientific knowledge amounted to squat, the simplest answer for the existence of the universe was some variation of a Creator. However, as scientific discoveries have been made over the centuries, the role of God has become smaller and smaller, to the point where some people seem to be actively searching for ways to make Him relevant in the modern world.

So yes, it's possible that God created the entire universe as it exists, or that He kicked off the Big Bang, but it is far simpler to eliminate Him from the equation altogether. And to me, that makes life and the universe even more majestic and beautiful, as it's the only thing we have.

3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?

Not at all! I'm even serving as a groomsman in a friends Christian wedding in August. I completely understand the desire to believe in a higher being -- it's comforting to know that there is a plan and purpose to everything. I tend not to view a moderately religious person any differently than I view another atheist. However, once you cross the fuzzy line into fundamentalism (of any religion), my opinion of you may begin to shift. Basically, I find it difficult to respect someone who outright denies logic and reason in favor of a thousands-year-old book. And once you start using religion to justify sexism/racism/bigotry, my accepting demeanor goes right out the window.

Basically, as long as your religious beliefs don't adversely affect the way you treat other people, I fully respect your right to have them.

But these broad generalizations are often more trouble than they're worth, so I try as hard as I can to view each person on their own merits. Otherwise I couldn't have a fundamental Christian as one of my closest friends: he and I know that our world views are inherently incompatible, so we just avoid the subject altogether... for the most part. He'll sneak in a line about Jesus, and I'll make a reference to evolution, and we'll just glare at each other before laughing and moving on.

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

Tough to say. Like someone else mentioned, it depends on the nature of the Creator and the manner in which he/she were to reveal him/herself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Atheists:

1. Were your parents/family religious?
2. Have you ever been at the end of your rope (you know, where people sometimes turn to god, maybe as a last resort)?
3. Do you have a community similar to the non-religious social aspects of church? What is it?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Regardless of which side is objectively correct at any one time or on any one issue, no matter what either side actually believes, does, or says.


That's not the reason that was given.

I disagree with your assertions. I don't agree with someone just because they are a Democrat. Neither do I agree with someone just because they are an Atheist. I don't disagree with someone just because they are Christian.

I'm with the Catholic Church on the Arizona immigration law.
I often disagree with Al Sharpton when he calls out racism.
I don't care for Atheist who try to ban Christmas or the word 'God' from everywhere.

As long as I feel minority rights are not violated.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who created God? Who or what created the Universe?

I don't feel the need to say "someone" created the universe. The universe just is. I'd much rather spend my time discovering what happened post-creation than focus on that one moment, particularly when it's clear that we still know so little about the time in-between.

What if you're wrong?

Depends what the right answer was. If Christians are right, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Which will suck, but hey, what can you do? But what if Islam is correct? Or Judaism? Or Hinduism? Or Pastafarianism? Or any of a thousand dead religions that were once thought to be absolutely correct but are now all but forgotten?

Once you presume that one religion is correct, you must also assume that all other religions are wrong. But which one is right? If you picked the wrong one, your fate will be the same as mine. I hate to quote Dawkins in an atheism thread (so cliché), but it's appropriate:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Your odds of being right are no higher than mine.

[hyteckit]

I have come to the conclusion that some Christians here are too sensitive to criticism toward their own religion.

Any criticism of Christianity amounts to hate for religion.

Believe it or not, I was listening to a religious song 'Hallelujah' last night thinking how great it was. After reading one of my favorite news site 'Christian Science Monitor' of course.

Oh, and there are many religious/spiritual themed movies that I like regardless of the religion.

[BadKosh]

W.C. Fields, a lifelong Atheist was on his deathbed reading the Bible. when asked why, he said "looking for loopholes".

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

W.C. Fields, a lifelong Atheist was on his deathbed reading the Bible. when asked why, he said "looking for loopholes".

But again, why a Bible? Why not a Qur'an?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

W.C. Fields, a lifelong Atheist was on his deathbed reading the Bible. when asked why, he said "looking for loopholes".

BadKosh needs to learn what a question is.

Anyway. Don't know who WC Fields is, but he sure seems like a funny guy.

'looking for loopholes'. Haha.. that would be something I would say when I'm dying.


Just read the wikipedia page about him.

He is a comedian! Haha...

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Do you think if religion never existed in the world, that somehow humanity would have evolved into a pro-social, democratic society on its own?

Probably, yes. At least, as much (or little) as we’ve managed to with religion around.

Or, do you think these values are an effect of relgious influence--even if the person themselves is an atheist?

Hard to say, of course, but the modern pro-social, democratic model of society seems to be more flourishing in areas where religion is less pervasive and atheism more common than in strongly religious areas (very broad generalisation here).

Of course, we’ll never really know, since religion has existed throughout our known history; but just like I don’t think morality is limited to being conditioned by religion, I don’t think the pro-social makeup of most societies today is rooted in religion. If religion hadn’t been there, it would just have been something else that would have created similar needs for society to be constructed in similar ways.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Ill clarify the reason I ask... In other threads he makes no attempt to tactfully hide his disparaging viewpoints towards religious people. His vitriol is often too shallow to be considered sarcastic, which is what hes trying to pass it off as now from his comment above.... So it makes me wonder if other atheists have this deep inner hatred towards the "stupidity" and "ignorance" of people who believe in "a Santa Clause for adults"; but are better at tactfully hiding it in order to appear more respectable. You can be honest here on the internet.

There are all kinds of people, but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that someone who you think represents a group a people (here: atheists) is really representative of a group of people. While I don't want to get into the details here and discuss hyteckit's points of views in particular, it's fair to say that he has his opinion and others have their own. I also don't lump together, say, Christians with radical Christian extremists and think of them as representing you (if you are a Christian; if you're not, substitute your own religion for the word `Christian').

So please, don't make the mistake of thinking atheists loathe religious people because some do.

I don't know whether Dawkins represents me, I haven't read any of his books and just heard a few interviews and read a few articles on specific issues. He wasn't instrumental in me becoming who I am now, it was my own journey that has led me to where I am now.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Do you think if religion never existed in the world, that somehow humanity would have evolved into a pro-social, democratic society on its own? Or, do you think these values are an effect of relgious influence--even if the person themselves is an atheist?

I think religion was instrumental in giving structure to society before modern states were born. In my opinion, if you look at most major religions, they teach very similar things (you shouldn't kill, steal, you should be kind to one another, etc.). They were also an attempt to explain the basic mysteries of life before there were well-devleloped scientific theories. Common rituals were strengthening the bonds between people. But I think religions were just a cumulation of notions that have existed before: people have developed a code of ethics which has made its way into a religion, but I don't think people want to be ethical because of religion.

So, in a way, they were the basis for modern society. However, I think modern democracies have evolved, because society has moved beyond religion in certain aspects of life during the Age of Enlightenment. At that time, religion was stifling growth of human societies. If history in the Middle East had taken a different turn, perhaps the center of scientific knowledge would be there today.

In short: I think religion was a necessary precursor to modern states and modern humanistic philosophy, but modern democracy has been able to develop only because people went beyond religion in some areas.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Atheists:

1. Were your parents/family religious?

My parents/grandparents/siblings are all Christian. I was raised going to church every Sunday until I was in my early teens. I was baptized and (to make my mother happy) went through the confirmation (Presbyterian) process as well. All the while it never made any sense to me. I have no recollection of ever believing in a god. I used to sit in the church and look around me wondering what these people were taking about. It was all very strange.

2. Have you ever been at the end of your rope (you know, where people sometimes turn to god, maybe as a last resort)?

Yes. Many times. I'm there now. The fact that I can't live in the US with my partner continues to cause me much pain.

3. Do you have a community similar to the non-religious social aspects of church? What is it?

Right now no. But that is more because I've lived in 4 different countries in the last 5 years… haven't had much of a chance to establish a foundation. Prior to that I did.


I have a question for other Atheists. Did you ever believe in a god?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Have you ever been at the end of your rope?

Yes. Many times. I'm there now. The fact that I can't live in the US with my partner continues to cause me much pain.

I don't want to be too nosy, so be as specific as you're comfortable, but could you describe the degree? Are you homeless/hungry/destitute/in physical harm or danger?

The reason I asked is that sometimes I wonder if atheism is a luxury that we in modern times can afford, because we are wealthy enough that we never have to wonder where our next meal will come from or if we'll live through the night/winter. I am fortunate enough that I have never had to personally find out, and I hope I never will. But I respect the fact that others in this world aren't as lucky as I am, and I wonder if any of them are atheists. Regardless of whether or not there actually is a god, believing in one might be a necessary psychological component of human survival, when it comes right down to the wire. Mind over matter and whatnot.

Right now no. But that is more because I've lived in 4 different countries in the last 5 years… haven't had much of a chance to establish a foundation. Prior to that I did.

So what was it? Did it have a structure, similar to church picnics or mixers or whatever it is churchgoers do when they're not praying?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't want to be too nosy, so be as specific as you're comfortable, but could you describe the degree? Are you homeless/hungry/destitute/in physical harm or danger?

Nope. Just at my wits end. I've been forced to leave the country I love (and all my friends and family) just so I can be with the man I love. I should never have had to make that choice. My frustration and anger builds daily and I struggle with ever increasing bouts of depression. I'm held hostage by the bozos in Washington who refuse to take any action to change immigration law and the closed minded bigots throughout the US that feel because of my sexual nature I don't deserve the same rights that they do.

The reason I asked is that sometimes I wonder if atheism is a luxury that we in modern times can afford, because we are wealthy enough that we never have to wonder where our next meal will come from or if we'll live through the night/winter. I am fortunate enough that I have never had to personally find out, and I hope I never will. But I respect the fact that others in this world aren't as lucky as I am, and I wonder if any of them are atheists. Regardless of whether or not there actually is a god, believing in one might be a necessary psychological component of human survival, when it comes right down to the wire. Mind over matter and whatnot.

You've really lost me on this one. So one needs to be miserable to believe in a god?

So what was it? Did it have a structure, similar to church picnics or mixers or whatever it is churchgoers do when they're not praying?

A gay and lesbian social group. Made a lot of great friends and participated in all kinds of social events (winery tours, sports events, etc.) Additionally, I lived in a very friendly (and rather conservative) neighborhood that had no trouble including me and my partner (barbecues, happy hours, etc.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Chongo, if you want to read a quality work by a Catholic, Gary Wills is the best Catholic writer alive today.

He's a Cafeteria Catholic

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What do you think of kids in a high school/college setting refusing to read the Bible as a piece of literature? Are they whiny brats trying to get out of doing homework or completely within their rights?

One of the most interesting electives I took at my university was a theology class that covered the Old Testament. The material was presented and discussed in a historical context. In that, this is a book written by people translated and revised many times and still has an enormous impact on civilization today. The absence of the typical “this is the absolute word of God” element associated with devoutly religious folk when they use passages from the book as an excuse not to learn something new made the whole concept of religion very exciting to learn about. I guess my point is that the preachy types with their black and white Heaven and Hell perspective are their own worst enemies when it comes to getting the non-religious involved with their reality of a higher power. Anyway, I highly recommend reading the Bible from a literary and historical perspective.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

You've really lost me on this one. So one needs to be miserable to believe in a god?

No, but it helps j/k

No I mean at the precipice of destruction, believing in god confers a certain selective advantage maybe. It's just a theory.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

Like how our money doesn't say "In God We Trust", and our pledge of allegiance doesn't state "under God", and how there is no more Christmas or Easter?

Those kinds of egg shells?

I haven't read through the whole thread, and I'm sure someone has noted both of these facts, but "In God We Trust" has an interesting history—it doesn't really appear on US coin currency until the Civil War and not on paper currency until 1957.

"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

I'm really fascinated by the things we think have been around forever, but which have only been around for 50 years or so.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Atheists:

1. Were your parents/family religious?

Yes. My mother is a church organist and my father is a choir director. I attended church every sunday until I was about 15.

2. Have you ever been at the end of your rope (you know, where people sometimes turn to god, maybe as a last resort)?

No. Not during deadly car accidents. Not during terrorist attacks.

3. Do you have a community similar to the non-religious social aspects of church? What is it?

Not really. This is the one thing that I kind of miss, but I just can't bring myself to go hang out with the Universalist Unitarians, who I regard as atheists who can't make the leap.

[BadKosh]

So, is there no "Good" or "Evil" ?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, is there no "Good" or "Evil" ?

not objectively, no.

[el chupacabra]

I came up with more questions for you, and since you didnt answer my last one I just combined it in this post.
Anyone who has the same perspective as Paco can answer..

Paco500
I take solace in the fact that there is no being in the sky that chooses to reign down terror and despair on his creation. The notion that any kind of intelligence could create such wonders only to screw with it boggles my mind.

How has he screwed with it?

but they can cause a lot of pain and suffering as well. It's easy to say that most of the wars, atrocities, etc. were done in the name of religion, however, many very bad things have been done in the name of science and the pursuit of power as well. There are a lot of bad people in the world and not all of them are religious.

Do you seriously think that the world would be more peaceful without religion?

I suppose it depends on the nature of the creator. If his/her/its character is as described in the major monotheistic religions I suppose I would be dumbfounded and angry. If I could keep my wits about me in the face of such a revelation, I would refuse to bow down and worship for what he/she/it has done to his/her/its creation.

What is the character that you believe is described in the monotheistic religions that makes you angry?
If there is a creator what has it done to its creation that would make you angry?

These beliefs that if god exists he is evil seem to be a common thought among atheists and I dont understand it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

not objectively, no.

I used to think that, but I don't any longer. I've met people who devote their lives to doing harm, pursuing the depths of evil. There's nothing they won't do to satisfy whatever urge they have. Granted, they're rare, but they are out there.

[Oisín]

^ But you’re still defining what good and evil is from a (more or less) subjective stance, aren’t you? Obviously, to these people, they’re not being evil, since nobody would really want to do anything they themselves find evil (they might do it anyway, but they wouldn’t devote their lives to it).

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

How has he screwed with it?

I think he meant perhaps not so much directly screwed with it as allowed itself to be screwed up so much. Creating something as beautiful as the universe and (from our perspective infinitely more important) the Earth, only to let us puny little humans do such a bang-up job of screwing it up.

Do you seriously think that the world would be more peaceful without religion?

Probably not, no. As a species, we seem to have some sort of very highly developed instinct to fight, maim, kill, and squander each other every chance we get. Religion can no doubt prove an effective reason/justification for this in many instances, but as Paco mentioned, so can science and a bajillion other things. Without religion, we’d probably just have found some other rationalisation or justification for being arses to each other.

These beliefs that if god exists he is evil seem to be a common thought among atheists and I dont understand it.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that God (the one from Judaism/Christianity/Islam, mainly) is evil, just that he’s not the infallible being religions usually make him out to be. Allowing part of your own creation to attempt to destroy your own creation is definitely not infallibility to me, at least.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

^ But you’re still defining what good and evil is from a (more or less) subjective stance, aren’t you? Obviously, to these people, they’re not being evil, since nobody would really want to do anything they themselves find evil (they might do it anyway, but they wouldn’t devote their lives to it).

That's kinda the point. Yes, they see themselves as evil. Their motivation is to be evil.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Do you seriously think that the world would be more peaceful without religion?

Yes and no.
A lot of atrocities are committed in the name of all sorts of causes, but I find that the rigidness, inflexibility and most importantly lack of tolerance that is prevalent in many types of flavors of mainstream religions contributes.

I don't think religion needs to be banned from the lives of the people, but rather that most religions need to be modernized to remain relevant. If you look at most of the mainstream religions, you find that they are usually not democratically organized (think of the Vatican) and that women, for instance, have very little to say (again, think of the Vatican or most flavors of Islam).

As I said before, religion to me is a human invention to make sense of life so its existence or absence doesn't make us better or worse human beings.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

These beliefs that if god exists he is evil seem to be a common thought among atheists and I dont understand it.

I understand the post differently: god ≠ good doesn't imply good = evil. God ≠ good is just saying that god isn't pure good.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I used to think that, but I don't any longer. I've met people who devote their lives to doing harm, pursuing the depths of evil. There's nothing they won't do to satisfy whatever urge they have. Granted, they're rare, but they are out there.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair is a good example.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm sure the fact that you picked an atheist is pure coincidence.

[Shaddim]

If I were to pick an "evil" atheist, I'd choose Stalin or Pol Pot. They weren't evil for the sake of evil, though. No matter how twisted we see them as being, at some point they believed they were doing the right thing.

[Chongo]

I used O'Hair because her son believed she was evil for evils sake and fit Shaddim's comment

I used to think that, but I don't any longer. I've met people who devote their lives to doing harm, pursuing the depths of evil. There's nothing they won't do to satisfy whatever urge they have. Granted, they're rare, but they are out there.

Christopher Hitchens considered Mother Teresa the most evil woman in the world.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If I were to pick an "evil" atheist, I'd choose Stalin or Pol Pot. They weren't evil for the sake of evil, though. No matter how twisted we see them as being, at some point they believed they were doing the right thing.

Or Mao and his "Cultural Revolution"

[OreoCookie]

@Chongo
That's still not a question.

[Shaddim]

Hitchens will say anything to sell stories, he's an attention whore of the highest order.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chongo
That's still not a question.

Is this a question?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is this a question?

Yes, but its not a useful one for the topic.

[DrTacoMD]

Well see, defining good and evil is complicated. Sure, we all agree that these people are evil, but against what standard? We say they are evil because they kill, lie, steal, and generally harm other people -- because their actions are orthogonal to our systems of morals.

But that doesn't really address the underlying issue: where did these morals come from? Were they carved in stone and handed to us by God? Or are they simply the manifestation of our own desire to not be on the receiving end of these "evils"? After all, almost every religion on the planet has something akin to the Golden Rule, suggesting that you treat others as you wish to be treated.

My opinion is that it's a combination of the latter, and of "natural selection" at a cultural level. A society that condones, or even idolizes, these selfish actions cannot last long before it tears itself apart. Meanwhile, a culture that promotes selflessness, honesty, and charity (even if it's practiced imperfectly) will grow stronger and last longer. Thus, a culture with similar morals to our own (and by "our own", I mean most societies on earth) will be "fitter" than one that does not.

Actually, that would be a great experiment: have two groups of people, one that is rewarded for selfishness and the other for selflessness, and somehow "rate" them, either in competitive games or some other way. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that such studies have already been done, but I don't really have the time to look right now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Well see, defining good and evil is complicated.
...
After all, almost every religion on the planet has something akin to the Golden Rule, suggesting that you treat others as you wish to be treated.

That doesn't sound complicated at all. Good and Evil are nothing more than the presence or absence of empathy (respectively). If people do things only ever thinking about themselves and their own interests, then they're Evil. If they regularly do things in the interests of others (including what they believe to be God), then they're Good. If they do both (as most people do), they're a combination. Simple. The rest of your post, that I cut out, is consistent with this simplification.

[DrTacoMD]

Ah, I apologize: I didn't quite complete making my point. Yes, the extremes of good and evil are pretty easy to define, at least in my opinion (and yours as well). The complications come from the gray areas. Is it evil to steal food so you don't starve? How about so your children don't starve? Killing an innocent man in cold blood is evil, but what about allowing him to die via inaction?

Most religions attempt to paint good and evil as Pure Good versus Pure Evil, but the two extremes are very rare in everyday life. That's why I would argue that good and evil are not absolute, but relative, and thus do not neatly line up with many religious teachings.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If they do both (as most people do), they're a combination.

But how does that mesh with the Christian idea of Heaven and Hell? In the end, there would have to be some point that says "You must be this Good to enter". That's one reason I don't buy into the Christian afterlife: most people can't be easily classified as either Good or Evil (and Purgatory doesn't count, since it's not directly mentioned in the Bible).

[OreoCookie]

I don't think Good vs. Evil comes down to empathy (or lack thereof), I think it's too simple a distinction to make. (I could come up with a number of counter examples showing there are other factors involved.) Simpler rules are easier to sell, but life, very often, isn't all that simple.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

The complications come from the gray areas. Is it evil to steal food so you don't starve? How about so your children don't starve? Killing an innocent man in cold blood is evil, but what about allowing him to die via inaction?

I disagree that these are any more complicated. 1, does the man stealing the bread have empathy for others? He has empathy for his children, so yes. He probably has empathy for his "victim," the baker, he considers the interests of the baker and he concludes that they simply aren't as great as his. But he does give them due weight. For example, if he murdered the baker to steal the bread, that would be evil. Why? Because using disproportionate force just to acquire the bread shows that he has no empathy for the baker. Simply asking if there is or is not empathy gives us the obvious answer to the question. 2, edit: oops, I read this too quickly at first, so here is a change: The only thing that is tricky about this is because you are only considering actions, not motivations. Whatever you do, if it is motivated by empathy, it is good. If you let someone die from inaction because you empathize but simply can't make it work, that's good. If you do exactly the same thing but it's because you don't empathize with the person, then it's evil. Simple as that. I think that if you come up with any other explanation, it will be using the same criteria with different words. I'll show you: you said this is a gray area, so under what circumstances do YOU think it would be good or evil, and how are they inconsistent with a simple condition of having or lacking empathy?

most people can't be easily classified as either Good or Evil

But people's actions can be. The idea of good and evil people is obviously just a strategy to urge people to carry out good actions. Even if a person (as a collection of actions) is nearly always ambiguous, the actions themselves are not.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think Good vs. Evil comes down to empathy (or lack thereof), I think it's too simple a distinction to make. (I could come up with a number of counter examples showing there are other factors involved.) Simpler rules are easier to sell, but life, very often, isn't all that simple.

I don't think it's too simple. Give your examples, I will explain how empathy provides the answer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think it's too simple. Give your examples, I will explain how empathy provides the answer.

I'd change the word "empathy" which is a measure of concern for another with "selfishness", which is simply a higher regard for one's self. You explain this concept in detail, but I'd still use "selfishness" as the gauge of evil over "empathy". Simply put, stealing is injurious to the victim regardless of the intent. While there may be a generally acceptable justification for the thievery (feeding your own children), you did not rely on the "goodness" of others instead taking matters into your own hands. The justification assumes there was no other way to meet the needs of his children than to cause harm to another.

To reverse-engineer the principle; a person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another is "selfless" and/or "good", the opposite in your example being "selfish", "bad", or "evil". IMO as a non-atheist.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd change the word "empathy" which is a measure of concern for another with "selfishness", which is simply a higher regard for one's self. You explain this concept in detail, but I'd still use "selfishness" as the gauge of evil over "empathy". Simply put, stealing is injurious to the victim regardless of the intent. While there may be a generally acceptable justification for the thievery (feeding your own children), you did not rely on the "goodness" of others instead taking matters into your own hands. The justification assumes there was no other way to meet the needs of his children than to cause harm to another.

To reverse-engineer the principle; a person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another is "selfless" and/or "good", the opposite in your example being "selfish", "bad", or "evil". IMO as a non-atheist.

I don't think a standard of "selflessness" is any different from "empathy." For one thing, yes I was assuming that there was no other way, as this example is classically given as something that is "good" (despite conventional definitions of "good" such as "not harming others" and "not breaking the law"). If in this example, the man refused charity in favor of stealing bread for his starving family, I don't think anyone anywhere would use it as an example of something "good." The premise that there was no other way was implied, I think.

For a second thing, your "person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another" is still going to bring harm to another, under certain circumstances. It's those circumstances that people are tripping over, whether the watchword is "empathy" or "selflessness." Can you give an example of something that would pass the "empathy" test but fail the "selflessness" test? I don't think that a bread-stealer who acts out of empathy is being selfish, do you? If so could you explain a little?

[DrTacoMD]

I know you two are having a bit of a debate here, but I'd like to interject by saying that the fact that this debate is even occurring supports my claim.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If in this example, the man refused charity in favor of stealing bread for his starving family, I don't think anyone anywhere would use it as an example of something "good." The premise that there was no other way was implied, I think.

I intentionally left the situation simple, leaving room for interpretation. Yours, of course, is still a simplification, in order to more easily categorize the behavior (I'll use that term to describe the combination of actions and intent) of the starving man.

Now, as an exercise, I'll make the situation a bit more specific. Let's say this man has been living paycheck to paycheck for years, supporting his three young children (all under ten). He was recently laid off from work, and has been unable to find more work. He actively accepts donations from strangers, but refuses to actively seek them out. Finally, his hunger and the hunger of his children becomes too much, and he steals a loaf of bread from a baker, without physically harming the baker or any other property.

And even in this far more specific example, there are still countless missing details. Has he been looking for work? Why was he making so little money to begin with? Is he educated? If not, was that his choice? And what about the baker? Did he even know about the theft? Did the theft affect him at all?

There are a million little details that significantly affect our reactions to the story. And interestingly enough, the more details you add, the more people will disagree about the Goodness or Evilness of the man's behavior. And rightly so: these details paint a rich, vivid, and realistic picture of a man with decades of history, hundreds of connections to the rest of the world, and a deep and secret inner life. Each detail adds one more element to an increasingly complex narrative.

In the end, no action or intention can be judged in a vacuum -- every behavior has a longer story than anyone can fully appreciate. And even if you could somehow weave all these threads together, you would be left with a story too complex to be simply placed into one of two possible buckets.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For a second thing, your "person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another" is still going to bring harm to another, under certain circumstances. It's those circumstances that people are tripping over, whether the watchword is "empathy" or "selflessness." Can you give an example of something that would pass the "empathy" test but fail the "selflessness" test? I don't think that a bread-stealer who acts out of empathy is being selfish, do you? If so could you explain a little.

He has to be acting out of selfishness to steal. In your example using empathy, you acknowledge that his needs are greater than the baker's. He has empathy, but it must be abandoned to serve himself; selfishness. Empathy is not an adequate word IMO because by definition, it is the lack of it in your example that is necessary before the act is palatable to the would-be thief. If there is one who is unwilling to abandon empathy to serve himself, he is selfless. To you, there's a justification "for his kids", but at what expense to the baker? History teaches us that this degree of empathy declines with each act. Your kids are your interest. There is an antithesis to your example of stealing for your kids and it's not killing for your kids. It is avoiding the natural urge to place your interests above someone else's.

I can't think of specific examples and I understand that it seems I'm splitting hairs. In many respects I am saying the exact same thing and I appreciate your view of this concept's simplicity. I just think selfless/selfish is a more elegant or complete way to define good and evil. This falls in the same vein as morals. It may be perfectly natural to simply take what you need, but just about any example I can think of shows one succumbing to primal instinct and the other not. IMO, that's what makes morals distinct and distinctly human. Selfless or selfmore... errr, ish.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

There are a million little details that significantly affect our reactions to the story. And interestingly enough, the more details you add, the more people will disagree about the Goodness or Evilness of the man's behavior.

That's because none of those details dictate whether the action is good or evil. The only purpose of all these details is to use them to deduce the answer to one unifying question: was the man acting out of empathy or selfishness (opposite sides of the same coin; I am comfortable with either word)?

Since it is impossible for other people to empirically know the man's true feelings or motivations or whether he is deceiving them, they have to guess using these rule-of-thumb details, and of course since the rules-of-thumb are imperfect, people disagree over which details carry more weight, and in which direction. But the question everyone is trying to answer using these details is the same, and it's a simple one. Was he acting out of selflessness/empathy for others? That's all that matters.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He has to be acting out of selfishness to steal.

not if he has starving kids and no other options (right? isn't that what you said before?). Robin hood scenario?

In your example using empathy, you acknowledge that his needs are greater than the baker's. He has empathy, but it must be abandoned to serve himself; selfishness.

I guess we have a different idea of what empathy means. To me it means that he honestly appreciates the perspective of the baker and weighs the needs needs of both fairly. To you it apparently means he always puts all the interests of the baker before his own no matter what the circumstances, no exceptions. I don't think the thief has to lack empathy in order to steal. Rather, the thief knows that the bread will need to be stolen (defense of others and himself, or he will starve), but he softens the blow to the baker by taking only what he immediately needs, doesn't cause collateral damage, etc. In other words, he designs his actions to minimize harm while still saving the children (or himself, but I didn't write the children in there). If he lacked empathy, not only would he not be giving precious life-saving food away to others (the children), but his actions would be designed to attain the most profit while spending no energy on the bakers' interests; he would smash windows and take all the bread possible as well as the money and other property. Now these are details we ask about the situation, to try to deduce whether the thief had empathy for the baker, during this time of desperation, or whether he just didn't give a crap about the baker at all.

Wait ebuddy, do you consider stealing bread to save one's starving family good or evil?

Empathy is not an adequate word IMO because by definition, it is the lack of it in your example that is necessary before the act is palatable to the would-be thief. If there is one who is unwilling to abandon empathy to serve himself, he is selfless. To you, there's a justification "for his kids", but at what expense to the baker? History teaches us that this degree of empathy declines with each act.

So does "goodness." The slippery slope doesn't mean we can't be "good" at the top of the slope and "evil" at the bottom of it.

I can't think of specific examples and I understand that it seems I'm splitting hairs. In many respects I am saying the exact same thing and I appreciate your view of this concept's simplicity. I just think selfless/selfish is a more elegant or complete way to define good and evil.

I'm comfortable with either. I really just want to learn what the difference is supposed to be, in case I'm using them wrong. If you think of an example to show that they're different, I will be all ears.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

not if he has starving kids and no other options (right? isn't that what you said before?). Robin hood scenario?

I acknowledge the primal need and the subsequent action as simply "less-bad" than one who would steal to steal. It is still stealing. The antithesis of stealing is giving or at least, not stealing. I'm assuming we understand that good and evil fall within a continuum right? I'm not saying the man who steals bread is Pol Pot, but even if we define good and evil by either Jesus Christ or Pol Pot, we are talking about ultimate selflessness vs complete selfishness. Empathy or lacking empathy just doesn't strike me as an elegant way to simplify the concept because empathy is merely a byproduct of selflessness; taking yourself and your primal needs out of the equation.

I guess we have a different idea of what empathy means. To me it means that he honestly appreciates the perspective of the baker and weighs the needs needs of both fairly.

He is not weighing the needs of both fairly. He is augmenting his needs above that of the baker's as you mentioned. His children are his interest, not the baker's. He has elevated his interests above the baker's.

To you it apparently means he always puts all the interests of the baker before his own no matter what the circumstances, no exceptions.

This would be the exact opposite, yes. One who would and one who would not.

I don't think the thief has to lack empathy in order to steal. Rather, the thief knows that the bread will need to be stolen (defense of others and himself, or he will starve), but he softens the blow to the baker by taking only what he immediately needs, doesn't cause collateral damage, etc. In other words, he designs his actions to minimize harm while still saving the children (or himself, but I didn't write the children in there). If he lacked empathy, not only would he not be giving precious life-saving food away to others (the children), but his actions would be designed to attain the most profit while spending no energy on the bakers' interests; he would smash windows and take all the bread possible as well as the money and other property. Now these are details we ask about the situation, to try to deduce whether the thief had empathy for the baker, during this time of desperation, or whether he just didn't give a crap about the baker at all.

But this is simply a greater degree of bad. In your above example, that is not the opposite of stealing bread. It is merely a more wanton thievery. The opposite of stealing would be not stealing or giving.

Wait ebuddy, do you consider stealing bread to save one's starving family good or evil?

Do you consider stealing for your children not stealing?

So does "goodness." The slippery slope doesn't mean we can't be "good" at the top of the slope and "evil" at the bottom of it.

I'm comfortable with either. I really just want to learn what the difference is supposed to be, in case I'm using them wrong. If you think of an example to show that they're different, I will be all ears.

I'm just trying to take your simplicity argument and making it simpler.

[msuper69]

From an episode of MASH * * * *

Hawkeye: "You're an Atheist?"

Patient: "Swear to God."

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think it's too simple. Give your examples, I will explain how empathy provides the answer.

This simple distinction breaks down as soon as you feel empathy towards two or more people: do you steal food from someone who is starving himself just to save your family? Is it more important to be loyal to your wife than to your children? If a good friend is involved in a bad situation, do you interfere against his will or respect his right of self-determination? Should you tell someone the shocking truth or carry the burden in silence?

Even if you feel empathy for someone, what is to be done about it may differ from person to person and culture to culture. So feeling empathy doesn't imply you're doing `the right thing.'

Empathy as a criterion isn't all that bad, but I think it's just not the whole story. As a matter of fact, any single criterion is insufficient: if you take selflessness, you still have to determine when you shouldn't (or can't) be selfless. In many cases the problematic point is self-sustenance: is it better to sacrifice yourself for something or live for something?