Why do Atheists Bother?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#1,041
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#1,041
Human said:
Helping suffering by alleviating hunger by giving food is not the same thing as removing the human ability to suffer at all. Relate the means and the end together, because compartmentalization gives you false correlations of the ends being equally justifiable regardless of the means. That's what I'm saying.

The desire not to suffer unconsensually is innate in all of us. Nobody wants to hunger unless they have decided they will. Nobody wants to be whipped with a bull-whip unless that's your thing.

As for 'how can all of us dying be bad', well, I for one have a desire to survive! Don't you?
Click to expand...
"Helping suffering by alleviating hunger by giving food is not the same thing as removing the human ability to suffer at all."

I understood you to be endorsing a morality based on reducing suffering... to me, it sounds like now you want to have some suffering... certain kinds of suffering...






"The desire not to suffer unconsensually is innate in all of us."

I agree with that... the desire to reduce suffering in others is not innate in all of us, I think.








"As for 'how can all of us dying be bad', well, I for one have a desire to survive! Don't you?"

Yes, I also have a desire to survive... but... basing a morality on that desire for personal survival is different from basing it on reducing suffering.
 
H

Human

Banned
#1,043
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#1,043
Dan_473 said:
"Helping suffering by alleviating hunger by giving food is not the same thing as removing the human ability to suffer at all."

I understood you to be endorsing a morality based on reducing suffering... to me, it sounds like now you want to have some suffering... certain kinds of suffering...
Click to expand...
Taking away the ability to suffer by burning someone's brain is very different from helping someone who is actually suffering eg. giving a hungry person food, not killing anyone, not causing someone physical pain, not being a jerk, not deliberately hurting people, not stealing their money or possessions, not physically or mentally assaulting them, understanding them, letting them know you're there for them, and generally helping people. Wanting to remove the ability to suffer at all by going Dr. Frankenstein on people, is not the same as wanting to alleviate existent suffering.






"The desire not to suffer unconsensually is innate in all of us."

I agree with that... the desire to reduce suffering in others is not innate in all of us, I think.
Click to expand...
It is to some degree, in everyone. Some more than others, however, and some in ways that are twisted, for instance, wanting to burn people's brains to stop them having any ability to suffer, or ''putting the witch out of her misery'' by say burning her at the stake.








"As for 'how can all of us dying be bad', well, I for one have a desire to survive! Don't you?"

Yes, I also have a desire to survive... but... basing a morality on that desire for personal survival is different from basing it on reducing suffering.
Click to expand...
I don't base my morality off a desire to survive, I continue to live because I desire to survive.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#1,044
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#1,044
Human said:
Do you want to suffer unconsensually? That is, would you think it a lovely occurence for someone to come in your house, rape your wife and murder you and your family? I wouldn't, so why would I want to do that to anyone else?
Click to expand...
"I wouldn't, so why would I want to do that to anyone else?"

To me, this sounds like a moral standard built on not doing to others what you don't want done to yourself.
 
H

Human

Banned
#1,045
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#1,045
Dan_473 said:
"I wouldn't, so why would I want to do that to anyone else?"

To me, this sounds like a moral standard built on not doing to others what you don't want done to yourself.
Click to expand...
A teaching that existed thousands of years before Jesus was around mate. It's pretty obvious, and has been to people for ages. It's one facet of a moral standard built on empathy, coming from the desire for a world that's better than this one, a desire for less suffering for myself, therefore a realization that others' suffering is just as unpleasant as mine is.
 
Dan_473

Dan_473

Senior Member
#1,046
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#1,046
ColinCat said:
There are many reason I don't take part in such activities. In some case its empathy for the victims or the children they leave behind, in other cases I don't want a criminal record or I don't want to spend a life in jail.. I'd much rather spend it with my family.

I don't see how god comes into any of that.
Click to expand...
"I don't see how god comes into any of that."

To me, it doesn't prove there's a god... it does mean to me that without any god, things are only wrong if you think they are...








"I'd much rather spend it with my family."

That's why I prefaced it with "if I thought that it would lead to greater overall happiness."
 
Percepi

Percepi

Banned
#1,047
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#1,047
To me, it doesn't prove there's a god... it does mean to me that without any god, things are only wrong if you think they are...
Click to expand...
That's precisely what ColinCat was trying to explain. As a matter of fact, things are only wrong if we think of them as wrong. So what purpose is there in having concepts of right and wrong to begin with if it all comes down to opinion? As ColinCat stated, his sense of right and wrong is based off of the outcomes of his action and his emotions.

I've been up all night and I'm starting to get a headache, so I'll go into more detail about morality later on.
 
C

ColinCat

Banned
#1,048
Sep 14, 2014
966
2
0
#1,048
Percepi said:
I've been up all night and I'm starting to get a headache, so I'll go into more detail about morality later on.
Click to expand...
That's what you get for staying up all night doing immoral, atheist things.
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,049
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,049
ColinCat said:
There are many reason I don't take part in such activities. In some case its empathy for the victims or the children they leave behind, in other cases I don't want a criminal record or I don't want to spend a life in jail.. I'd much rather spend it with my family.

I don't see how god comes into any of that.
Click to expand...
were you brought up in a vacuum ....just because you don't see something does not not mean it does not exist... you did not suddenly stumble upon morality....it does not ooze out from you because of some chemical reaction...we learn these things because they are practised in our society everyday......both good and evil...that is like saying a child growing up having never heard speech will one day by some chemical reaction suddenly learn language and speak...
 
C

ColinCat

Banned
#1,050
Sep 14, 2014
966
2
0
#1,050
newbirth said:
were you brought up in a vacuum ....just because you don't see something does not not mean it does not exist... you did not suddenly stumble upon morality....it does not ooze out from you because of some chemical reaction...we learn these things because they are practised in our society everyday......both good and evil...that is like saying a child growing up having never heard speech will one day by some chemical reaction suddenly learn language and speak...
Click to expand...
Ermm.. At what point did I say that my morals appeared out of a chemical reaction?

Sounds like your arguing with someone else.
 
Red_Tory

Red_Tory

Senior Member
#1,051
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
#1,051
Human said:
Do you want to suffer unconsensually? That is, would you think it a lovely occurence for someone to come in your house, rape your wife and murder you and your family? I wouldn't, so why would I want to do that to anyone else?
Click to expand...
So as I gather from this, the general argument is:

1. I don't want to suffer without giving my prior consent
Therefore, I should not make others suffer without them giving their prior consent

Seems like a non-sequitur - "I don't want to suffer without giving consent" is not logically equivalent to "I shouldn't make others suffer without my consent," so obviously there needs to be at least one intermediary step in the argument. Could you elaborate a little bit more?
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,052
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,052
Human said:
A teaching that existed thousands of years before Jesus was around mate. It's pretty obvious, and has been to people for ages. It's one facet of a moral standard built on empathy, coming from the desire for a world that's better than this one, a desire for less suffering for myself, therefore a realization that others' suffering is just as unpleasant as mine is.
Click to expand...
scripture teaches ...he created the world and everything in it...so how could the teaching be around before him??? and that is the concept borne from him...
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,053
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,053
Percepi said:
That's precisely what ColinCat was trying to explain. As a matter of fact, things are only wrong if we think of them as wrong. So what purpose is there in having concepts of right and wrong to begin with if it all comes down to opinion? As ColinCat stated, his sense of right and wrong is based off of the outcomes of his action and his emotions.

I've been up all night and I'm starting to get a headache, so I'll go into more detail about morality later on.
Click to expand...
you may think it is wrong for someone to kill you ....someone may think it is wrong not to kill you...who's wrong is right and who's wrong is wrong??? since both are justified in their opinion.....and his sense of right and wrong is based off of the outcomes of his action and his emotions.
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,054
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,054
ColinCat said:
Ermm.. At what point did I say that my morals appeared out of a chemical reaction?

Sounds like your arguing with someone else.
Click to expand...
the statement is general and would include all who think morality does not come from God's teaching...you should read more of the thread to fully understand the discussion because we are all chemical based...so whether you know it or not the end result is either you believe morality comes from God's teaching or a chemical reaction in your brain.....know what you are discussing....
 
H

Human

Banned
#1,055
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#1,055
Red_Tory said:
So as I gather from this, the general argument is:

1. I don't want to suffer without giving my prior consent
Therefore, I should not make others suffer without them giving their prior consent

Seems like a non-sequitur - "I don't want to suffer without giving consent" is not logically equivalent to "I shouldn't make others suffer without my consent," so obviously there needs to be at least one intermediary step in the argument. Could you elaborate a little bit more?
Click to expand...
If you can't empathize, that's your issue, not mine.

If I don't like being forced to suffer without consent, it stands to reason that others feel similarly. I can think of not one person in history who enjoyed to suffer without their prior consent. Can you? Do you know anyone on planet Earth who walks around shouting ''Hey, I don't want to be murdered, raped or pillaged (no consent given) but I wouldn't mind being murdered, raped and pillaged!!''

If I don't like it, why would anyone else? Why would I want to do it to anyone else if it's not beneficial in any way?
 
H

Human

Banned
#1,056
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
#1,056
newbirth said:
scripture teaches ...he created the world and everything in it...so how could the teaching be around before him??? and that is the concept borne from him...
Click to expand...
Because Genesis came around 3600 years ago, but religion has been around long before that. The Hindus taught ''don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to you'' more than a thousand years before the first pages of Genesis were even written.
 
Percepi

Percepi

Banned
#1,057
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#1,057
newbirth said:
you may think it is wrong for someone to kill you ....someone may think it is wrong not to kill you...who's wrong is right and who's wrong is wrong??? since both are justified in their opinion.....and his sense of right and wrong is based off of the outcomes of his action and his emotions.
Click to expand...
It may be a while before I respond to this. I spent about 35 minutes typing up a very detailed response and it was all deleted when I accidentally backed out of the page. I'll try to respond to this eventually. If the topic moves on before then, I'll send you a PM. If I forget and you want to hear what I have to say, just send me a PM.
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,058
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,058
Human said:
Because Genesis came around 3600 years ago, but religion has been around long before that. The Hindus taught ''don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to you'' more than a thousand years before the first pages of Genesis were even written.
Click to expand...
By your estimation
Genesis came around 3600 years ago
Click to expand...
man was created in the genesis...your belief is that religion came before man?
 
N

newbirth

Banned
#1,059
Mar 28, 2014
4,300
31
0
#1,059
Percepi said:
It may be a while before I respond to this. I spent about 35 minutes typing up a very detailed response and it was all deleted when I accidentally backed out of the page. I'll try to respond to this eventually. If the topic moves on before then, I'll send you a PM. If I forget and you want to hear what I have to say, just send me a PM.
Click to expand...
fair enough...
 
Red_Tory

Red_Tory

Senior Member
#1,060
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
#1,060
Human said:
Why would I want to do it to anyone else if it's not beneficial in any way?
Click to expand...
It can be beneficial in many ways, to both the person inflicting the suffering and the person sustaining it. There are many instances in which suffering is necessary to obtain a good (or avert an evil), and there are also cases in which people are unable to give consent. For instance, if a surgeon were to perform a painful yet necessary operation on the sole infant survivor of an orphanage fire, that might be said to be "inflicting suffering without prior consent."

It isn't a failure to empathize per se, but rather a recognition that placing emphasis on suffering itself in a moral system ultimately places the cart before the horse. Do you think it would make more sense to consider actual well-being as an appropriate metric as opposed to suffering (or pleasure)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.