scombrid

Would a life of crime really bring the atheist more benefits? In wild dogs in Africa subordinates often lead hunts. When they make a kill they will often call the rest of the pack to the kill before they're satiated. Being subordinate, they often get shoved off of the kill that they made once the other arrive. Wouldn't it be more profitable to the dog to eat his fill before calling in the pack? Why the social order if it's always more profitable to be a thief? Do wild canids have an edict from god the tells them to be good to each other or is there some benefit to the social order?

southernhybrid

I don't think it would make that much difference for many of the reasons already stated. I think I would probably have a lot more cool friends though.

When it comes right down to it, it's the fanatics that are the problem. Fanatics can be atheist or theist.

Seraphim

By Shake

I know that there are theists who aren't Xian. Give me some credit here, please. My remarks were about the differences between theists (including Xians!) and non-theists. Maybe you need to read it again.

My reply : Unfortunately you cannot mix both up. While non-Abrahamic religions and teachings attend to be open-minded and more toward personal development toward path to God, Abrahamic religions are more toward blind acceptance, thus produce a more close-minded society.

I'm no prisoner to Xianity! Haven't been for many years. I suppose you know what the "proper picture" is. Maybe you could enlighten us.

My reply : you don't have to be IN Christianity to be in its prison. Your mindset is a prison enough. You were a child growing up in a Christian home, are you not?
Most grown ups develops their chains of thoughts by what they experienced during their childhood, which includes religion perspective. It is not easy to change this perspective since it is buried deeper inside of you. This was what I meant by seeing in "proper picture" - a picture without those restrains which still exist within yourself.

I can't deny what I don't understand. You're saying European nations didn't have religion backing them up? That's bullshit.

My reply : What I'm stating is that European society did had religion backing them up, but their social developments (science and technology) wasn't fully back-up by religion like it did in the East. Matter a fact, West (where Christianity flourished) is the ONLY place scientists were prosecuted by clergymen.

Take example of Medicine. European medicine most of the time have nothing to do with religion, and even now, the treatment by homoepathy methods (brought by religion) are seen as an outdated method. In the East, medicine came to an amazing development with such methods as Ayurveda and Acupunture which is accepted.

An atheist world could go any number of ways and it certainly doesn't have to be this lowest common denominator theory that you are pushing. I suspect an atheist world would have most of the very same secular laws in place that are around today. The blue laws would probably be gone, but it wouldn't be some lawless, anarchist-type world that you seem to think it would be.

My reply : I made my assumption based on what I have seen here. Are you going to deny that debate on which is morale and which is not is an everyday topic around here? Are you denying that since there is restriction by theists' rules and regulations, there are people here who considers suicides?
This forum is a perfect place where you can reflect on the world which you seek, so far, I've only seen chaos and confusion ... nothing more.

You can enjoy life very well without breaking laws or doing immoral things. Many of us atheists do that all the time. Your use of the word enjoy in the quotation marks does seem to imply that you are indeed making a moral judgement about atheists (and theists), and a broad one at that. The notion of death should be enough for us to enjoy our lives to the fullest, but we don't have to do anything immoral or illegal to enjoy life.

My reply : Yes ... true. YOU are enjoying life without doing anything immoral or illegal. That is not the question here. Question is - HOW sure are you that your CHILDREN will do the same? And their children and the next generation onwards?

Example - prematial sex during 1950s in USA and Europe. It was an isolated cases in 1950s where prematial sex was the conducted, by 1960s, it was a trend and by 1970s, it was an epidemic. The consequences of this "actions" is AIDS which appeared in 1980s.

In less than ONE generational gap, so much problem appeared IN an Theists society where they conducted something that by right is immoral by their religion's standard (and still is in the East). How sure are you that your future generations will not be in such a state if you take out theists principles out of their life?

One last question - Do you think of yourself to be so Holy that you could lead your future generation properly?

Let me know when your views have grown beyond the simplistic black-and-white world that you live in.

My reply : Hmph ... let me know when you step out of your prison to the real world ...

By Valmorian

If this is valid, why are atheists not overly represented in prison census readings?

My reply : What kindda question is that? Do you think just because one person prays to God that he will suddenly become Holy and let go of ALL desires?
Desires leads one (whether a person is a theists OR Atheists) toward path of suffering - including crime.
The question is like - census of those who die in the automobile accidents are higher among theists SO God doesn't exists.

But logical speaking, I can suggest (ONLY) two possibilities :

1. that amount of people in one state/region who are atheists are lowers thus the census in the prison is lower.

2. Atheists are more careful in how they spent their lives since they assume that when they die, there is no afterlife.

By scombrid

Could a life of crime really bring the atheist more benefits? In wild dogs in Africa subordinates often lead hunts. When they make a kill they will often call the rest of the pack to the kill before they're satiated. Being subordinate, they often get shoved off of the kill that they made once the other arrive. Wouldn't it be more profitable to the dog to eat his fill before calling in the pack? Why the social order if it's always more profitable to be a thief? Do wild canids have an edict from god the tells them to be good to each other or is there some benefit to the social order?

My reply : O_o You are comparing a Human with wild dogs from Africa? You got something against Humans?

This is a BAD analog actually. Wild dogs (all other animals as well actually) hunt others for food because they need it to survive. Humans do crime not because they are starving (unless you are in a 3rd World country where food is scarce). Most of them, especially in the West and more advance countries in the East are doing crime because they have more benefits by it and despite of risks of getting caught, it is still worth risking it for the sake of benefits.

OBKB

Until the server and the served realize the tools that teach segregation of sentient beings is abolished we can not be civilized.

Seraphim

Until the server and the served realize the tools that teach segregation of sentient beings is abolished we can not be civilized.

My question : Meaning? Who is the server and who is been served?

scombrid

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce. The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

Seraphim

By scombrid

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

My reply : I still find it a poor analog for anything since animals are a poor study case of human beings.

Straving dogs don't need ten commandments to keep them from stealing, but they do it either way. There is no right or wrong in animals world, only survival of the fittest. The stronger one will prey upon the smaller, weaker ones for sake of survival - Jungle Laws for lower intelligent species.

[b] For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce . The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

My reply : Sorry ... but your concept of "stealing" among dogs are incorrect.
1. Dogs do not fonder about consequences because there is no consequence to ponder. If two dogs starves and it come across a food source, which ever the strongest will subdue the weaker one for it. It will not sit down and think about the consequences of it action.

2. Some members of dogs and cat familys do leave the group to find its own area to hunt and raise their youngs. Not all species stay in one group for ever. At least, that's what I understood from watching National Geography.

3. Wrath of the group? There is no wrath of a group in a dog society, at least as National Geography had photography so far. There is ONLY survival of the fittest where only the strongest survives.
There is however a hieraki of social ladder - Male Alpha, Female Alpha and lower members. The Male and female Alpha usually the leaders and they and their "childrens" usually have the biggest share of the catch.

If you friend takes your stereo and run, he maybe lose your support, but in your society, it is a small lost. In dog's society, you're a lower member of your society and your friend who stole is an Alpha male and you have no rights to voice your opinion because your status as a lower member ... all because there is no Ten Commandment.

Seraphim

By scombrid

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

My reply : I still find it a poor analog for anything since animals are a poor study case of human beings.

Straving dogs don't need ten commandments to keep them from stealing, but they do it either way. There is no right or wrong in animals world, only survival of the fittest. The stronger one will prey upon the smaller, weaker ones for sake of survival - Jungle Laws for lower intelligent species.

[b] For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce . The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

My reply : Sorry ... but your concept of "stealing" among dogs are incorrect.
1. Dogs do not fonder about consequences because there is no consequence to ponder. If two dogs starves and it come across a food source, which ever the strongest will subdue the weaker one for it. It will not sit down and think about the consequences of it action.

2. Some members of dogs and cat familys do leave the group to find its own area to hunt and raise their youngs. Not all species stay in one group for ever. At least, that's what I understood from watching National Geography.

3. Wrath of the group? There is no wrath of a group in a dog society, at least as National Geography had photography so far. There is ONLY survival of the fittest where only the strongest survives.
There is however a hieraki of social ladder - Male Alpha, Female Alpha and lower members. The Male and female Alpha usually the leaders and they and their "childrens" usually have the biggest share of the catch.

If you friend takes your stereo and run, he maybe lose your support, but in your society, it is a small lost. In dog's society, you're a lower member of your society and your friend who stole is an Alpha male and you have no rights to voice your opinion because your status as a lower member ... all because there is no Ten Commandment.

orac

There is only one difference between a christian and an atheist: one believes in a deity and an afterlife, the other doesn't. At most, an atheist world is one where the threat of post-death punishment doesn't exist. If that is the only basis you have for morality, I can see why you'ld want to keep a belief in God.

If there are reasons that don't require God or an afterlife, then why wouldn't they apply even if people stop believing in God?

Btw, are you trying to argue that the only reason a christian is a good person is their fear of punishment? That's not a complimentary view of christians


Here's some examples of reasons to do good things that don't rely on God or an afterlife of any description:

• If I'm nice to other people, then other people will be nice to me.
  
• If I cooperate with other people, together we can do things that I couldn't do on my own. (Do you want a bigger slice of a small pie, or a small slice of a huge pie? Most people can understand that if the pie gets bigger, everyone can have a larger amount, even if the slice they get is a smaller percentage of the total.)
  
• I don't recall any plausible authority instructing me to hate everyone who's different to me. If they're not hurting me, why should I waste my life hurting them, when I could be enjoying myself?
  
• They're my friends. I care about them. I want them to like me, too. Why on earth would I want to hurt them?

Belief in God is not required in order to be a decent person.


Actions have consequences before you die, too.

If everyone suddenly only did what made them feel good at the time, society wouldn't last long, and everyone would lose the benefits of civilisation. Most people can (with help) learn to understand this, and figure out that a little self-sacrifice will lead to greater benefits. The tragedy of the commons is only a problem until people realise what's going on - once they understand the problem, people tend to work together to ensure that their own benefits aren't destroyed by their own greed.

Punishment in an afterlife (that not everyone believes in anyway) is not a requirement for civilisation or morality.

Seraphim

By orac

There is only one difference between a christian and an atheist: one believes in a deity and an afterlife, the other doesn't. At most, an atheist world is one where the threat of post-death punishment doesn't exist. If that is the only basis you have for morality, I can see why you'ld want to keep a belief in God.

My reply : Lack of threat of post-death punishment is now exchanged with possible increase in premature death - namely by suicides since people who has nothing to look forwards to in live could choose to end it rather than living it.

What does Atheism offers to people who has nothing to look forward to?

Btw, are you trying to argue that the only reason a christian is a good person is their fear of punishment? That's not a complimentary view of christians

My reply : Hmph ...
1. I'm not a Christian.
2. I don't tell lie, only what I think is true.
3. You want facts or fiction? Making compliments to others is not fact, so why make them?

Here's some examples of reasons to do good things that don't rely on God or an afterlife of any description:

If I'm nice to other people, then other people will be nice to me.

My question : Exactly which did planet you drop to Earth from? You cannot possible be this naive. People will be nice to you as long as you have something to offer them. Not everyone will offer their help to you when you see it ... I learn it the hard way, even in theist world.

If I cooperate with other people, together we can do things that I couldn't do on my own. (Do you want a bigger slice of a small pie, or a small slice of a huge pie? Most people can understand that if the pie gets bigger, everyone can have a larger amount, even if the slice they get is a smaller percentage of the total.)

My reply : Fair share to ALL? Nonsense ... even in theist world which trying to promote brotherhood among themselves, fair sharing is not something everyone could give and take. Greed is human factor and being theists or atheists will not change it.

I don't recall any plausible authority instructing me to hate everyone who's different to me. If they're not hurting me, why should I waste my life hurting them, when I could be enjoying myself?

My reply : Another naive statement ... people look at other people different not because God instruct them to do so ... it is their nature and Ego as such.
No one wants to be same as the next guy, everyone wants to to be different, special ... in animal world, it is called being Alpha where one individual tries to dominate another. Being atheist or theists will not change that because it is Human nature.

They're my friends. I care about them. I want them to like me, too. Why on earth would I want to hurt them?

My question : You can care for them, how sure are you that they will care for you and behave just as you behave with them?
Greed, Ego, Domination of others is ALL human nature, it has nothing to do with being atheists or theist, it has everything to be a human.

Belief in God is not required in order to be a decent person.

My reply : True.

Actions have consequences before you die, too.

If everyone suddenly only 1. did what made them feel good at the time, society wouldn't last long, and everyone would lose the benefits of civilisation . Most people can (with help) learn to understand this, and figure out that 2. a little self-sacrifice will lead to greater benefits . The tragedy of the commons is only a problem until people realise what's going on - once they understand the problem, people tend to work together to ensure that their own benefits aren't destroyed by their own greed.

My reply : how naive ... Go back to whichever world you came from ... Earth is not suitable for you ... too many corrupted souls here.

1. Tell that to those who wish to have atheist world. Do you think they will listen to you and do what is right? Maybe they could, but their children? Being born in a world where Good and Bad is determined by man, will they still listen to you and work for benefits of civilisation?

2. Really? Why don't we take a look at the world now? People still buying ivory, whale meat, mink coats, etc despite of various protests. WHY? Because they are theists? NO, because they can buy and they can afford it.

Why should they sacrifice while the person next to him can sacrifice something in his behalf?
Because of it is decent? Sorry - such value has no price in the market.
Because it is the right thing to do? Who says? I wish to buy a mink coat and I don't give a crap how many animals die for it because for me it is a right thing.
Because of God? You yourself there is no God, so why should I waste my life sacrificing something if the next person could do so?

Punishment in an afterlife (that not everyone believes in anyway) is not a requirement for civilisation or morality.

My reply : Fear of punishment is NOT what bring faith ...it only brings fear. If you think having faith means fear damnation, you don't know anything about faith.