Money doesn't mean much to me.
Tit for tat.
Become my servant until your death and will serve you upon mine.
Would you sign?
What do you mean? Giving someone the shirt off your back is selfless.I cant emagine an example of "acting selflessly"... well... unless some sort of "magic" is involved.!!!
Jesus is a pretty good example. If we are to take account of his life literally, he acted selflessly quite a bit.Of course... an do you have an example of an abnormal person who woud not weigh the odds.???
Except you aren't silent, are you? Like at least a dozen other people, you feel it's important to explain your viewpoint.
So you want to split hairs? Ok: I have no opinion about my own reaction in the scenario you imagine for me. I only have an opinion of why you project your own ideology onto me. There. Does that make you feel better? After all, this is all about you.I have no opinion of the hypothetical you raised,
Demonstrably false.
Not at all. I spent a few minutes reading the posts of people I respect for their intelligence, trying to figure out what your game is, pretty certain you will never cut to the chase.You've spent quite a bit of time composing a post,
Read my post again. To clarify: you posed a leading question which is dishonest.so it's certainly not true that you find this discussion nonsense or trivial. So, why did you not vote? It costs you nothing.
In other words, you are superstitious after all, contrary to your denial to the contrary. :shrug: Otherwise, why play games?What I'm examining here, is the suspicion that a lot of people have strong convictions as long as those convictions are not put to a test.
This is why more atheists ought to drop their imagined scientific skepticism, and state outright that God cannot possibly exist since there exists no definition of God which is not a human fabrication. Once we agree to what we all know to be true, the sham creationist proposition that many atheists allow out of a sort of a chic token to religious freedom -- if not atonement to a god of scientific skepticism -- will no longer be mollycoddled out of a sense of gentile egalitarianism. It will be treated as it deserves, as a dangerous propaganda, cruelly inflicted on vulnerable minds, and as a program used to harness political, social and economic capital. And when I say dangerous I mean dangerously effective, as are all the indelible ideologies written onto the human defense mechanism.The moment they are asked to put their money where their mouth is, even symbolically, you often find out that they rationalize a million reasons why they suddenly don't happen to have any money.
No, that's your fundamental fallacy. There is a standing objection to your entire formulation of the thread, as a propaganda ploy. It's rhetorically invalid as a leading question, which is the type of tactic a propaganda artist typically uses. Try stating something that at least adheres to some modicum of respect for the intelligence of readers.There are exactly three outcomes in this thread:
1. those who sign and rationalize why
2. those who do not sign and rationalize why
3. those who do not participate at all and have no need to explain
Like it or not, you fall into category 2.
Let the record reflect that Photizo just admitted that he is God.Photizo said:It's working out pretty good:Play God much? How's that working for you so far?
"And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus...When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
See you then...
I'm not sure how you get to superstition or propaganda. I've been quite up front about my motives and my reason for starting this thread, so I'll thank you not to try to cast aspersions upon my motivation.I do ascribe an importance to opposing superstition and propaganda, which seems to be your end game. I only entered here to express my viewpoint in opposition to your opinion that 7 people were "waffling". My statement is that your proposition is a hypothetical admitting to an absurdity contrary to purporting to be an atheist. Hence you seem to be adopting the superstitious world view. Or are you the one who is waffling?
On the contrary, it is you who is bifurcating bunnies. You offer your opinion on the topic, but claim it is a special type of opinion, not quite like all the other opinions. I'm simply saying an opinion offered is an opinion offered.So you want to split hairs?
I was pretty up front about that too. But then, that's mostly raising a question for discussion is, isn't it? The quest for input.After all, this is all about you.
I have cut to the chase. We are discussing what I want to discuss. By all means, if you want to wait in the wings, do so.... figure out what your game is, pretty certain you will never cut to the chase.
Framing it as a leading question does not in-and-of-itself, make it dishonest.you posed a leading question which is dishonest.
We are ALL playing this game*. We ALL know what's going on. I'm making very sure each and every contributor sees me dig a hole in the forest, then cover it with leaves, then ask them to approach and describe what they do.In other words, you are superstitious after all, contrary to your denial to the contrary. :shrug: Otherwise, why play games?
If you don't think I'm treating you with a modicum of respect, you need not come here to say so. Not participating is the appropriate way to do that.Try stating something that at least adheres to some modicum of respect for the intelligence of readers.
There are exactly three outcomes in this thread:
1. those who sign and rationalize why
2. those who do not sign and rationalize why
3. those who do not participate at all and have no need to explain
Capitulation to bullying, in an argument, has its own objections - somebody refusing to say "uncle" under pressure is not rationalizing some kind of objection to the word "uncle".
Making knowingly corrupt or invalid assertions, cooperating in the establishment of false dichotomies and the like, may even be damaging to the soul - which as an atheist I believe can be damaged by cowardice and deliberate collusion with manipulative device.
That is a flawed argument. It is based on the false assertion that God protects everyone from anything all the time - including deliberately jumping off a cliff. This is demonstrably false, and not even the most devout Christian would claim otherwise.it is Satan who attempts to box the prophet in with such false choices: if you believe God protects you, you would jump off this cliff and prove it / if you don't jump, you are admitting doubt no matter how you rationalize it; that kind of thing.
The very premise of the "trap" is the seriousness of harm to one's soul - being atheistic, such harm appears to me more serious than it may appear to the theistic, who have easier access to remediation.
What fourth?So you need to add a fourth, to this list
Let the record reflect that Photizo just admitted that he is God.
What are you talking about? As is clear above, I am of the opinion that souls exist, and can be harmed. Furthermore, I take the harm seriously - with no God to bail me out, I have to.dave said:How can harm come to something that one is certain does not exist?
No, your suggestion is misleading - one's character is not at all equivalent to one's soul.dave said:Or are you using a second non-supernatural definition of "soul"? Might I suggest a different word? Say, "character"?
Yes. It is also flawed when you use it, as here.dave said:That is a flawed argument.
Not at all. Read the original in the Christian Bible, where the prophet Jesus of Nazareth deals with the argument at its root in a couple of places. He also, btw, describes the nature of the entity presenting such argument as legitimate.dave said:It is based on the false assertion that God protects everyone from anything all the time - -
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I cant emagine an example of "acting selflessly"... well... unless some sort of "magic" is involved.!!!
Giving someone the shirt off your back is selfless.
Giving someone the last sip of your canteen in the desert is selfless.
Holding your baby's head above water while you drown is selfless.
cluelusshusbund
...do you have an example of an abnormal person who woud not weigh the odds.???
Dave
Jesus is a pretty good example. If we are to take account of his life literally, he acted selflessly quite a bit.
Oh. Okay. I thought you were arguing from the point of view of an atheist, who does not believe in a soul.What are you talking about? As is clear above, I am of the opinion that souls exist, and can be harmed. Furthermore, I take the harm seriously - with no God to bail me out, I have to.
You're missing the point. From an atheist stand-point, the soul does not exist. But they cannot prove the truth or falsehood of that until their death.Yes. It is also flawed when you use it, as here. Not at all. Read the original in the Christian Bible, where the prophet Jesus of Nazareth deals with the argument at its root in a couple of places. He also, btw, describes the nature of the entity presenting such argument as legitimate.
It isn't really about 'personal payoff'; it's more about 'how kind can I be before the deed's interference in my own well-being outweighs my compassion'.Woud you make any of those sacrifices unless ther was at least an equal personal payoff.???
I'm afraid there are people much more able to answer that question than I.Give an example of Bible Jesus actin selflessly.!!!
...the whole point of this thread is this: as an atheist, are you so certain that their is no eternal soul, that you will (symbolically) sign it away? The risk of being wrong (i.e. turns out you do have an eternal soul after all) is that you spend the rest of eternity enslaved to (whoever holds the contract).
Money doesn't mean much to me.
Tit for tat.
Become my servant until your death and I will serve you upon mine.
Would you sign?
It isn't really about 'personal payoff'; it's more about 'how kind can I be before the deed's interference in my own well-being outweighs my compassion'.
Oh. He cared for the lepers. He risked his own health to do so.
One who worships the money god will be amply rewarded. One who worships the other God will be stripped naked and left in the streets.Real wealth is mind. Knowledge. Don't let dollar bills drive the misconception of wealth.
I've heard this argument before; I think it's lame.Luckily for the lepers... Jesuses payoff was to for-fill his desire to be kind... weighed aganst the low risk of becomin ill.!!!
One who worships the money god will be amply rewarded. One who worships the other God will be stripped naked and left in the streets.
Feeling good about it is not the reason, but it is a stimulus. 'Expected' reciprocity is the actual (evolutionary) reason.I've heard this argument before; I think it's lame.
A have a friend "E" that claims it is logically impossible to commit a selfless act. "E" claims all acts that are supposedly selfless actually benefit the doer, because they feel better about themselves.
I think that's a misinterpretation of selflessness. No one said you can't be pleased by committing a selfless act, the key to a selfless act is that you put others' needs and wants before your own - not that you have none.
If E were correct, it would mean I give away my canteen primarily because it makes me feel better to do so.
Think about this:
Two of us, A and B. in the desert. I give my colleague B my canteen and, before he can drink any, he trips and drops it, bouncing over a cliff.
E thinks that my act, while seeming selfless, is really selfish.
Is it? Do I derive pleasure merely from the offer of water? Or is it only meaningful if my B's suffering is actually relieved?
A proper definition of selflessness means it really is about the other person's relief. It is not about how I feel about my own deed.