Discrimination against Atheists

[jotabe]

I don't know the meaning of "tl;dr", and i wouldn't want to speak in his behalf, but if his reply was so short is because you said:
"using self-sacrifice in small instances, the individual is living more fully physically, spiritually, and psychologically"
what means that this self-sacrifice isn't such, since htere is a personal gain for the "self-sacrificing individual".

If you acknowledge it as a natural impulse, something we can't help because it's part of human nature, then it's even more worthless, because it would be a trait we get from evolution, a trait that it has been conserved because it gives us a better chance of survival.

[Firegirl]

tl:dr means too long: didn't read.
Self-sacrifice may have conflicting motivation, but it is not Bad or selfish in the sense that AB is postulating. One of the things that gets lost in such discussions on whether the individual benefitting from the self-sacrificing outweights (and thus could be called 'bad' for some as some call that being selfish) the benefits that the people that the individual is self-sacrifing for. Unfortunately this boils down to whether or not the individual is more valued than the group in terms of motives and priority.

[jotabe]

It is not only relevant if the individual will be favored by the group through this self-sacrificing behaviour. It matters if the individual will feel better for it. If you feel good for what you do, you become a more stable, happier person. And that's a benefit too.
I guess the key to real self-sacrifice is free-willingly do something that benefits someone else by hurting yourself, without anyone else knowing (not even the person who receives the good deed), and then feeling bad about it. At least, according to A_B

[Jebus]

If you do a good deed without the intention of getting anything out of it, but then it inadvertantly makes you feel good about yourself, does that negate the altruistic intent?

[hive_king]

Not to mention, as thinking, rational creatures we have formed communities. As parts of a community, we have a duty to do our part in that community.

[Firegirl]

Really what's this strange, quirky concept called Duty? I've never heard of it, before. Elaborate please . Sure humans have communal tendencies, but human tendencies are not always for promoting the group over the individual. I accept that altruism results in the individual benefitting in some way, but the point that I would like to make is merely that that is not a bad thing as A_B seems to make altruism out to be.

[Boothby]

Jota,,

and all love comes from God.

So, there's nothing all that special about mankind, then? Humankind's ability to love has nothing to do with us, but it's all about God?

Is that like praising a bucket because it holds water so well? Big freakin' deal. That's what I love about religion: it denigrates people. Atheism honors people.

[jotabe]

We aren't that special. Humans are cruel by nature. Just watch how children behave: that's our true nature.

[suminonA]

Humans are cruel by nature. Just watch how children behave: that's our true nature.

Sorry jotabe, but that doesn’t follow. You might say that “children are cruel by nature”. I’d agree with that. I’d explain that by their ignorance, their incapacity to see “the bigger picture”, beyond their self interest. Yet childhood (in this pejorative sense) is just a phase in a person’s life. Or it should be.

But even if humans are born ridiculously ignorant into this world, they do have a special “nature”: that of being able to learn. They analyze, systemize and remember past experiences. Some learn from their experience and from that of others. Some are even intelligent individuals. But let’s not go into extremes.

Just make an effort and don’t judge humans by their ignorant representatives. The wise ones are not that scarce as you might imply.

BTW, most of the theists believe that their favorite deity created “Man” in its image. Does that mean that those deities are as “childish” as humans are?

A.

[Boothby]

"they do have a special “nature”: that of being able to learn. They analyze, systemize and remember past experiences. Some learn from their experience and from that of others"

So do many animals, to varying degrees. Humans just tend to be better at it. It's not a unique gift, it's just more advanced.


"Does that mean that those deities are as “childish” as humans are?"

But of course! Don't you look at religions? So many of the gods (and Gods) are incredibly childish. Look at the Greek and Roman Gods. Look at the J/C God of the Old Testament--He was one nasty, cruel, vindictive SOB.

[Vergil]

Sorry, but to go back to the altruism idea. What does a person gain for his self, if he dies for another person? I mean, even people who do not believe in an "afterlife" have given up their own lives for others? Why, if altruism doesn't exist? I am kind of reminded of what Jean-Paul Sartre said, "Death is philosophy's only problem."