theantibuddha wrote:You don't care about much so it's hardly surprising. If you really want to shock me you'll have to show empathy or consideration.
I care about a lot of things.
But, again, my intention for answering hypothetical questions was never to shock you. Heck, you weren't even in that discussion until after I gave my answers. So excuse me for not catering to you personally, sir.
theantibuddha wrote:You call THAT a pun? Shakespeare is rolling in his grave.
I apologize, I didn't think I would have to note the
intense sarcasm dripping off of that statement. Judas Priest, you want me to write it down on a piece of paper and send it to you through the mail?
theantibuddha wrote:Even if you became an atheist that doesn't grant you the skill nor the ability to harm me, even if you're sufficiently insane to have the desire.
You're right. I have the skill and ability to harm you as it is. But I keep myself under control, because 1.) I am not indeed insane, and 2.) It would be against my beliefs.
theantibuddha wrote:The pope, a nobel physicist and the archangel Michael together couldn't convince you there wasn't a god if they had ten thousand pages of proof in a power-point presentation so it's really not much of a concern.
I'm not Catholic and do not believe in the divinity of the Pope, and physicists can be wrong (all humans are once in awhile
).
But if the archangel Michael came down with a ten-thousand page Power Point presentation, I would at least have to take a step back and evaluate myself in the aftermath of what had just happened.
theantibuddha wrote:Oh forgive me. In that case you're already insane and merely prevented from acting upon it by your religious beliefs, much apologies if I falsely ascribed sanity to you.
Or I am sane, but do not engage in certain activities because I control myself in accordnance with -- and not necessarily
because of-- my religious beliefs. Those activities range from having extramarital sex to committing a mass murder-suicide.
theantibuddha wrote:Again, your lack of caring is hardly shocking at this point.
You really enjoy taking things out of context, don't you? Too bad it's not a sport, you could go pro in it.
My lack of caring is in regards to pleasing you. Whether my answers make you giddy inside or red in the face is not of my concern-- they are my answers nonetheless, and I'm afraid I will not change them because they may not be to your liking.
Now, I do care about things. I care about people. If you were lying on the ground dying of dehydration, I would give you some water. Even if it was all the water I had and it would mean I would soon be on the ground dehydrated.*
*I should probably clarify, before you attempt to infer anything further into that example, that it is just an
example, and nothing more-- in no way does it imply that my opinion of "caring" is based upon saving someone from dehydration. It just an example.
Eorl wrote:Logic alone is enough on which to develop a moral code similar to the Christian code and of most societies on the planet.
Exactly. But it has serious flaws.
Whose logic? Yours? Maybe my logic differs from yours? Who's to say whose logic is right? Maybe I can justify murder, whereas you may say it's wrong? Who's?
Eorl wrote:Also, communication and empathy are the strong human connections that make civilization possible, and it is this that makes us actively want to see other people happy, rather than to hurt them. Yes I help a lady across the street for my own selfish gain because I feel good about it, but not because it means I score extra points upstairs.
Exactly! That communication and empathy are strong human connections that Christians believe are
God-given-- so, when you hypothetically ask what I would do if I learned there was no God, I take into account that it would mean those connections are also falsehoods. You see what I'm getting at?
So, by my "if there was no God I would stop caring" answer, I didn't mean that I only care about mankind
because of my religion. I care about people. I think I could safely say, from your comments in this discussion, that you also care about people. And I don't do it because I think I will "score extra points upstairs"-- I do it because it's what my conscience
tells me to do, and I don't ignore its convictions.
Eorl wrote:What is so hard to understand about humanity that you guys find impossible to seperate from the concept of gods?
Because we believe God gave us humans a conscience, and thus, without that God, then we'd have no conscience-- it'd be a falsehood.
JLNobody wrote:I have no "explanation" for our capacity for empathy and compassion; it is a marvelous wonder.
And that's a difference between us. I believe that God, when he created man, gave them that capacity, for the exact socialization reasons you cited in your post.
JLNobody wrote:But since it is sufficiently rare, society must depend on legal punishment, social shame and psychological guilt as the principal foundations of acceptable demeanor.
And that's why it so often fails-- why do you think there's a judicial system in the United States to interpret laws? Because without the foundation of a God for a definitive moral structure, then the justification behind all the "rules" of society is in the minds of man-- and we all know just from reading each other's statements that we all think differently, which brings us to the sticky stuff about "who's right"?
cicerone wrote:However, much of man's history is replete with man's inhumanity to man.
And that's part of the "sticky stuff"-- who's right?
That's the basis for the holy wars throughout history-- who's religion is right? Unfortunately, in most of those instances, the members of those religions break off from the doctrines and justify themselves some of the most intense inhumanity to their fellow man in all of history.
), a nice little attack at me because he believes I have blind faith. It's a pity he couldn't exercise himself the empathy he so wanted me "shock" him with earlier.
