You must not have much faith in humanity at all, if you really think someone needs a powerful supernatural being motivating them to guilt at not being charitable. Or in fact that people are charitable at all because of guilt.
I can see how you might’ve arrived at that conclusion, but I don’t think it has any basis in reality. I could argue that since most atheists or agnostics I’ve met in general seem to tend towards more left-wing politics, and since the left-wing traditionally supports more social welfare and social services, that in fact, atheists feel more a responsibility towards their fellow humans since they believe this is the only life we have and every person deserves to have at least some level of minimum needs and quality of life met.
I don’t think either your theory or my hypothetical one is true to reality.
There are a lot of religious who seem all to ready to dismiss things as “God’s will” and plenty of atheists/humanists who feel a deep-seated responsibility to take care of the earth and improve society as a whole.
Well I didn’t mean to insult. I am an atheist myself and I don’t find the possibility that atheists are less charitable (because they have at least one less reason to be charitable) insulting.
But if most people in the Netherlands don’t believe then surely it is no surprise that most of the donations from the Netherlands came from non-believers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same is true of Britain.
I’m not saying atheists are heartless bastards. I am saying they might (MIGHT) be statistically less charitable as a group.
And If that turns out to be untrue then that’s a good thing.
Well, I know some Christian people who don’t give anything to charity because they believe that God is trying to punish those people and they don’t want to interfer with His judgement, so there are arguments made either way.
For the record, I give more now that I am atheist than I did when I was religious.
One of the many things I love about the Netherlands. Maybe when American society has matured as far as the Dutch have we will reach that level of rationality. I sure hope so, but it’s at least 400 years away, I think.
I recognise human nature as a significant motivator to be charitable. My argument, which I admit is weak, is that belief in a supernatural being is just one extra motivator. That in the average case the theist might be more charitable than the atheist because he has slightly more reason to be. An extra obligation.
Look, I didn’t think what I said was so bad. It was in reply to someone who had some strong views about wrongs done in the name of religion and that existed because of religion. I was trying to say that plenty of good is done in the name of religion also. And that even though I don’t believe in god, I suspect that religion has had a positive effect on the world as well as a negative one.
gum why are you being an asshole about this? Why have you got a chip on your shoulder? I am not saying there are no atheist charitable organisations. I am not saying atheists have nothing to work for. I am not even saying religion has had a positive effect. I am Hypothesising!
Could you please warn a person he’s Hypothesising! Nothing in your posts suggested that. In fact, your posts smell of bigotry towards atheïsts. Even if you claim you’re one yourself. Are you sure about that?
Don’t you feel today might be a good day to be a theïst?
Maybe tomorrow, after some nice, complicated, filled with more-than-four-syllable-words post by a non-believer, you’ll be an atheïst again?
“I suspect that religion has had a positive effect on the world as well as a negative one.”
“That in the average case the theist might be more charitable than the atheist because he has slightly more reason to be”
“I’m not saying atheists are heartless bastards. I am saying they might (MIGHT) be statistically less charitable as a group.”
“Also, Atheists don’t have a powerful being watching their every move. Therefore possibly have less reason to feel guilt at not being charitable. It’s a weak argument I know, but as I said it was a while ago.”
(bolding added to emphasise hints at hypothesis)
I am an atheist. Hypothesising that religion might have been a necesary part of the progression of human society to it’s current state is not biggotry towards atheists. And notice I said ‘might’ again.
I think it’s kind of silly to argue that nothing good has come out of faith-based society, because clearly a lot has. What’s perhaps silly is to argue nothing good can come from a secular society. Many do so, however by suggesting faith is absolutely essential for lawful and moral civilization. I do not think this is so, but I have no proof, because there are no functionally secular societies, either presently, or in their conception. What’s clear is that faith-based societies do appear to inevitably give rise to all sorts of things that are not good. Would secular societies be any worse? I rather doubt it. At best, I’d say faith is unessential for lawful and moral civilization. It would be nice to put that hypothesis to the test, but I doubt I’ll ever see it in my lifetime.
It’s like saying there might be more people driving over 70MPH on Germany’s autobahn than people driving over 70 on Britain’s motorways because the Germans have one less reason to stay under 70. (the lack of a speed limit)
It’s only an hypothesis. And it could easily be wrong.
I am sure that you are aware that first hand eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and that many have had what are surely contradictory accounts.
More importantly, do you think others should believe because of your account? Is there anything independently checkable, such as a prophesy which you wrote down which came true? And do you think others should be forced to change their behavior based on your experience?
If the proper circumstances arise, I will witness. It is up to them to decide what to do with it.
I have had moments where I could swear I was reliving a dream, but I think it’s more likely that it was just deja vu and that there’s no meaning attached to it.
