Altruism

[Borachio]

It's a very strange use of the word "meta", don't you think?

I'm really not sure it goes with atheism. How can you be a meta atheist? Someone who's transcended atheism?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a very strange use of the word "meta", don't you think?

I'm really not sure it goes with atheism. How can you be a meta atheist? Someone who's transcended atheism?

Why not? I don't agree with his descriptors, or the term 'pop atheist' which is clearly intended to be demeaning of what he considers lesser beings, but transcending atheism seems easy enough.

Religious guy: "There is a god.
Atheist: "There is not a god.

Meta atheist: "I don't want to argue about whether there's a god because it doesn't really matter."

The meta atheist is unfortunately indistinguishable from the meta religionist.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. I could accept that. If only it were how the word is being used in the article I linked.

Dawkins doesn't seem to think that belief in God, or not, doesn't really matter.

As far as I can tell, in his opinion, it's a superstition that mankind would be better off without. Which is certainly a point of view it has to be said.

I, on the other hand, at the moment,* don't think it really matters whether someone believes in God or not. I think it only matters what people do.

I wouldn't describe myself as meta atheist though.


*All and any of my views are subject to change in the light of new knowledge, or just on a whim, really.

 

[Crackerbox]

A pop atheist really doesn't understand atheism whatsoever. A pop atheist will identify atheism as a lack of belief in god. A lack of belief is not a philosophical option in philosophy. One can either have a belief, have a disbelief, or one is undecided. A lack of belief is undefined in philosophy. As such, it's the weasel's way out, for by not declaring one's beliefs, one can perpetually say that, "The burden of proof is on you." It's intellectual cowardice.

Secondly, a pop atheist immediately takes upon a logical fallacy by saying their belief is an absence of belief in god. In reality by definition, no one believes in gods, for by definition they are imaginary beings created by humanity within myths. As such, it's stating the obvious.

A pop atheist hasn't a clue about atheism.

An atheist has an active disbelief in GOD, almost always the Abrahamic GOD from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as that BEING represents the main spiritual beliefs of billions. That is what an atheist disbelieves in.
...
Why is altruism related to this discussion of Christianity and some varieties of atheism? While Darwin noted that it was innate in some exceptional individuals for altruism to be an instinctive response, and while evolutionary biologists are seeing evidence of altruism even in common insects, other atheists like Ayan Rand totally reject altruism. In her Objectivist atheist philosophy, altruism in not only a denial of Self, but is the worst possible sin of that philosophy.

Rand's atheist philosophy is akin to the very worst sins in the Bible. Over and over, the origin of Sin (missing the mark much like archery) is Pride, which is solely concerned for the Self. Pride and Rand are about Selfishness not Selflessness. Christianity is about Selflessness. Jesus, who is the only begotten Son of GOD, exemplifies selflessness. All of Jesus' actions are about altruism.

In contrast, Lucifer, who begins as an angel of Light, the Prince of the Heavenly Host, rebels due to the sin of Pride...and so a third of the angels fell. Satanic thought, whether atheistic in the Church of Satan, or in other Satanic spiritual systems that glorify Lucifer, is chiefly about the Self.

“In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Psalm 10:4

12 “How [d] you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, [e] son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
13 You said in your heart,
[f] ‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
[g] I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;3
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’
15 [h] But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit. Isaiah 14:12:15

As soon as a belief system strays into a near worshipful stance of exemplifying the virtue of the Self as the highest belief...then it become Satanic.

Altruism is defined in philosophy as selfless. There can be no argument about this. As soon as we divorce the word selfless from altruism, then it loses a central aspect of its definition. It would be like saying, "But what if Truth is False?" or "What if Right is Wrong?" It creates logical conundrums in philosophy.

I've shown you philantrophy studies that over and over point to religiousity (the depth of the passion of the believer in spirituality) as the marker for individuals who donate time, talent, or treasure. The more one is concentrated on the Self, the less one gives to the community.

Yes, there are some individuals who are exceptional and who donate time, talent, or treasure (altruism's three main manifestations) since it is innate or instinctual in some. But without spirituality, you don't see it happen all that much.

What is the meaning of Life found in Christianity? We are to better ourselves with knowledge and skills so that we may help others as much as possible, humble ourselves, and facilitate positive change within our community. Christianity is about relationships that bring about friendship and romance, not focused upon selfishness and only bettering the Self to dominate others.

Christianity is about learning as much as possible in skills and knowledge so that we can be better servants to GOD. As soon as we get puffed up about ourselves due to pride in our skills and knowledge, then we segregate ourselves, even estrange ourselves from GOD and the Body of Christ (the believers in Christ i.e. the church), and the Children of GOD (all of Humanity).

What Ayn Rand most despised is the very altruism that embodies these truths taught to us by Jesus the Annointed One.

What Rand despises, evolutionary biologists EMBRACE. Altruism is there WITHOUT Spirituality. A philosophical atheist who sees that, a scientist who understands that, can be atheists and be as great an Altruist as any spiritual one.

The irreligious are not atheists. If you look at census data, they identify specifically as irreligious as they do not pigeon-hole themselves into an active disbelief in GOD. For them, they shrug their shoulders, as spiritual belief has no meaning to them. There are many irreligious who are altruists, whether in individual ways, community ways, or even in global ways.

It is writ large upon human instinct to be altruists just as simpler species, and so only by rejecting that instinct is Selfishness elevated. Selfishness goes against the very instinctual responses for parenting, and certainly goes against the need for community.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm. I could accept that. If only it were how the word is being used in the article I linked.

Dawkins doesn't seem to think that belief in God, or not, doesn't really matter.

As far as I can tell, in his opinion, it's a superstition that mankind would be better off without. Which is certainly a point of view it has to be said.

I, on the other hand, at the moment,* don't think it really matters whether someone believes in God or not. I think it only matters what people do.

I wouldn't describe myself as meta atheist though.


*All and any of my views are subject to change in the light of new knowledge, or just on a whim, really.

No doubt. I wasn't suggesting that my idea of transcending atheism was anything like the proposal in the article. In retrospect since they are indistinguishable I prefer the term meta religionist rather than putting a single religion in prominence.

 

[Borachio]

I've shown you philantrophy studies that over and over point to religiousity (the depth of the passion of the believer in spirituality) as the marker for individuals who donate time, talent, or treasure.

Have you? If you have, then I've missed them. And I've even asked you to provide a link to any. Which you've neglected to do. (I'm beginning to think, pointedly.)

What is the meaning of Life found in Christianity? We are to better ourselves with knowledge and skills so that we may help others as much as possible, humble ourselves, and facilitate positive change within our community. Christianity is about relationships that bring about friendship and romance, not focused upon selfishness and only bettering the Self to dominate others.

I don't think this is unique to Christianity by any means. It's at least a common factor amongst Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism, as well as Christianity.

And I've even heard the idea expressed by atheists, secularists, and just straight-thinking folks with no philosophical pretensions at all.

It may even be a universal idea. (Perish the thought! Wash my mouth out with soap and water!)

 

[Yeekim]

I just want to make a mention of this great book:
http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Nicest-Altruism-Human-Along/dp/1615192204/?tag=psychcentral

If the OP is interested in altruism, I really recommend you try to find it.

 

[Borachio]

Stefan Klein! That rings a bell for some reason.

edit: ah yes, the Science of Happiness. I've a really strong feeling I've read that. But I can't remember anything about it! I wonder if it's on my bookshelf somewhere.

But yeah. I'll give Survival of the Nicest a look too. Thanks.

 

[Crackerbox]

If one is a Buddhist, then central to that spiritual discipline is altruism. Read:
http://www.khenposodargye.org/2013/11/the-altruism-of-buddhism/

Spoiler :

"I don’t know if you are familiar with “Bodhichitta”. If you have a thorough understanding of Bodhichitta, you will not experience too much hardship in your future path of life. You will not be encircled by the notion of selfhood such that you cannot see the broader sky. It is of course justifiable to love oneself and one’s family as a worldly person. However, this kind of love is of little value if it is never extended to concerns for other people.

So what is Bodhichitta? In the ultimate sense, it is the vow for all sentient beings in the world to rid their sufferings, gain happiness, and attain perfect Buddhahood. This is the most elevated aspiration, but very difficult to achieve. Some who have studied Buddhist sutras and practiced Buddhist Dharma all their life, are only good at saying so. Not only will they not do anything to benefit a person not in good relationships with them, they cannot even arouse the thought to make him happy, let alone toward all the sentient beings.

If you could not remember the rest of our exchange today but “Bodhichitta”, then the time you are spending here is not in vain. “Bodhichitta” is a terminology in Buddhism, but if we do not understand this, we will not be able to study Mahayana Buddhism at all. I have met many scholars of Buddhism, they all talk about “Bodhichitta” all the time. But in reality, they cannot even define it in words, let alone put it in practice. Bodhichitta is the fundamental root of Mahayana. It would be a pity if we do not understand the profound meaning of Bodhichitta but only see it superficially and confuse it with compassion, kindness and benevolence.

There are two types of Bodhicitta: the intention and application aspects of Bodhicitta. The intention aspect of Bodhichitta is the vow to benefit all sentient beings in the world and help them attain Buddhahood; whereas the application aspect of Bodhicitta is to actually perform innumerable activities of the Six Transcendent Perfections based on such vows.

This kind of Bodhichitta needs to be carried out in real life after you have understood it theoretically. It must not be limited to just lip service without a single moment’s practice. If you have actually practiced Bodhichitta, it will not only be beneficial to the peace of the world and happiness of all sentient beings, but also to yourself physically and mentally in particular. As it is stated in the “Mahaparinirvana Sutra” : “Anyone who has meditated on Bodhichitta just momentarily, even the Buddha cannot measure all kinds of merits brought by such practice”, meaning that even the Buddha cannot measure the enormous merit of meditating on Bodhichitta just momentarily."

Not all Buddhism is sacred. Secular forms exist in which little to no mention of Gods is mentioned. More emphasis is placed upon the bodhisattva, the enlightened soul who refuses escape but desires to stay on the Earth to help other souls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva
"In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व bodhisattva; Pali: बोधिसत्त bodhisatta) is an enlightened (bodhi) being (sattva). Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.[1] According to Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is one of the four sublime states a human can achieve in life (the others being an Arhat, Buddha, or Pratyekabuddha).[2]"

So one could either be a sacred or secular Buddhist and believe in altruism. If a bodhisattva exists, then surely Thich Nhat Hanh is such a being.

Link to video.

An atheist is much MORE than a lack of belief in god. An atheist is rather one who disbelieves in GOD and yet could be an altruist and concerned about compassion for others. Or one could be an atheist and primarily concerned about the Self and totally reject altruism as something revolting.

If you're a pop atheist who just labels yourself as one who has a lack of belief in god, then I wonder if you know what atheism is whatsoever? That has never been the basis for identifying as an atheist in history. It's a sham popular phrase that places zero intellectual demands upon a person, and I have to ask, "Why bother?" It's a dead-end and meaningless.

Much of what Thich Nhat Hanh says about Mindfulness, living in the Here and Now, suffering, and altrusim is compatible with Christianity. We can journey with those who have such similarities and they are not competing with us. Thomas Merton, the Roman Catholic studied with Buddhists for he felt the presence of GOD and Christ there.

Would that we all would feel such tolerance and work together to reduce suffering and perform works of altruism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just out of curiosity...

If I posted a wall of text headed Christianity: Read is there anyone who thinks that by reading it they are likely to suddenly understand something previously impenetrable about Christianity?

As a side note, is there anyone who wants to designate Crackerbox as our go to source on Buddhism?

 

[Crackerbox]

Just out of curiosity...

If I posted a wall of text headed Christianity: Read is there anyone who thinks that by reading it they are likely to suddenly understand something previously impenetrable about Christianity?

As a side note, is there anyone who wants to designate Crackerbox as our go to source on Buddhism?

I often highlight text that is not my own words. Anyone can choose to ignore me, to block me, to skim, whatever. No one is forced to read my words, nor what I quote.

Here's my challenge though. If you do read those words, might you understand some point more rather than rely upon what you THOUGHT was the meaning?

Altruism can be found in most sacred traditions, in the sciences, in atheist writings in history. It's just that some modern and postmodern atheists philosophers reject it.

When I read the same old nonsense purporting to be atheism, I wonder what those scientists and philosophers who identified as atheists would say to those posts? They'd likely be dumbfounded.

The ancient atheist philosopher Seneca believed that a consequence of altruism is an inevitable form of reciprocity regardless if that was what the altruist sought. Today, that's called reciprocal altruism within the Biological Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
"In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. The concept was initially developed by Robert Trivers to explain the evolution of cooperation as instances of mutually altruistic acts. The concept is close to the strategy of "tit for tat" used in game theory."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here's my challenge though. If you do read those words, might you understand some point more rather than rely upon what you THOUGHT was the meaning?

Here's my challenge. Tell me what YOU think, in some reasonably concise fashion. I genuinely do not come here for "look what I found on the internet today". If I wanted to do a research project on Buddhism I wouldn't be here. I also wouldn't be counting on you (no offense) as a guide to resource material. If my project were on Christianity, maybe, but even for that I'd probably just go Google.

 

[Crackerbox]

Here's my challenge. Tell me what YOU think, in some reasonably concise fashion. I genuinely do not come here for "look what I found on the internet today". If I wanted to do a research project on Buddhism I wouldn't be here. I also wouldn't be counting on you (no offense) as a guide to resource material. If my project were on Christianity, maybe, but even for that I'd probably just go Google.

A product of the MTV generation that has perpetual attention deficit syndrome. You must be joking. You want a sound bite when it's a philosophical discussion. Open a philosophy text and see how few sound bites there are.

I'm not going to dumb down my statements nor be overly concise to funnel it into a pithy sentence. This is the inevitable result of postmodern texting.

Skip it if it's too challenging for you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A product of the MTV generation that has perpetual attention deficit syndrome. You must be joking. You want a sound bite when it's a philosophical discussion. Open a philosophy text and see how few sound bites there are.

I'm not going to dumb down my statements nor be overly concise to funnel it into a pithy sentence. This is the inevitable result of postmodern texting.

Skip it if it's too challenging for you.

Or if having waded through a few of them has proven not worth the effort. As I said, I'm here for a discussion, not a slide show presentation...or a textbook for that matter. If you can't express yourself that's clearly not my problem.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

These actually fit together fairly well.

Star Trek fan of one degree: "It's a great show."
Innocent bystander: "Never really cared for it."
Star Trek fan of one degree: "To each their own."

Star Trek fan of another degree: "It's a great show."
Innocent bystander: "never really cared for it."
Star Trek fan of another degree:

At root, there are fans who are confident in their faith, and others who insist that their faith be justified by being shared and take anyone not sharing as an obstacle. Just like in religion.

Heh, you should see the squabbles over at TrekBBS over Prime Trek and nuTrek, and the Babylon 5 fans who insist that the DS9 production team stole JMS's ideas. Back in 2009 I posted there that I loathe nuTrek and to this day there are people there who act like I'd kicked their grandmother and torched their favorite holy book. It's why I have an ignore list there that contains several dozen names. But in the end, it's a bunch of arguments about a handful of TV series and a baker's dozen of movies. Nowadays I get my Star Trek fix more from fanfic and fan films than from the pro stuff.

Secondly, a pop atheist immediately takes upon a logical fallacy by saying their belief is an absence of belief in god. In reality by definition, no one believes in gods, for by definition they are imaginary beings created by humanity within myths. As such, it's stating the obvious.

A pop atheist hasn't a clue about atheism.

An atheist has an active disbelief in GOD, almost always the Abrahamic GOD from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as that BEING represents the main spiritual beliefs of billions. That is what an atheist disbelieves in.

You're showing hypocrisy here. You say no one believes in gods, yet you believe in one. It doesn't matter which one, since ALL of them are/were human-created. I give your deity no more right to a capital G (or other letters) than any other when I use the word god or gods.

Christianity is about Selflessness. Jesus, who is the only begotten Son of GOD, exemplifies selflessness. All of Jesus' actions are about altruism.

There seem to be a lot of self-proclaimed 'Christians' who have trouble with this concept. Explain to me what is altruistic about all the fancy and expensive trappings of some churches and cathedrals when there may be desperately poor and sick people just a block or two away. A truly altruistic religion would strip these places, sell the trappings (gold, jewels, expensive furniture, etc.) and put the money to use caring for the sick, providing practical guidance to people, and offering what would really be of use.

Satanic thought, whether atheistic in the Church of Satan...

I looked that up, after you mentioned it in the other thread. It's nothing but a cult, with as much validity as Scientology. The only way to become a member is to buy at least two of the books written by the leader, and there's no way to interview current members and ask them what it's actually like. And then of course there's the carrot where it hints of greater perks for a donation, all major credit cards plus Paypal accepted.

At least it says that sex with children is wrong. If they actually keep that practice, that's one thing they've got over some people in the Catholic church.

Yes, there are some individuals who are exceptional and who donate time, talent, or treasure (altruism's three main manifestations) since it is innate or instinctual in some. But without spirituality, you don't see it happen all that much.

Awhile back I was reading about an atheist organization that tried to donate a whack of money to the American Cancer Society, and the donation was refused because the ACS didn't want to have to admit that they took donations from an organized atheist group. Foundation Beyond Belief would have donated a sizable chunk of money by anyone's standards, but because of this anti-atheist bias, ACS missed out. The money went to a different cancer-related charity.

Christianity is about relationships that bring about friendship and romance, not focused upon selfishness and only bettering the Self to dominate others.

Friendship and romance? I don't remember reading that in the New Testament. I'm sure you can link the chapters and verses (no need for a blue-fonted billboard to smack me with; a link will do).

Christianity is about learning as much as possible in skills and knowledge so that we can be better servants to GOD. As soon as we get puffed up about ourselves due to pride in our skills and knowledge, then we segregate ourselves, even estrange ourselves from GOD and the Body of Christ (the believers in Christ i.e. the church), and the Children of GOD (all of Humanity).

I thought Christianity was about being nice to other people and bringing about friendship and romance. As for whose child I am, I already know that. No deity's name appears on my birth certificate.

The irreligious are not atheists.

You interviewed all of them to be sure, did you? Every one? You do realize that not all atheists feel ready to come out, even on a census form, since most people don't realize that there are very few individuals who actually see the census data for a specific individual or address all at the same time. When I worked as a census taker for the municipal census, the only three people who saw the entire file on each person were myself, my supervisor (who gave each page a quick check to make sure I hadn't forgotten anything) and the person who entered the data into the computer. After that the data associated with each name/address gets sent to whatever department it has to do with. The school boards, for instance, only care about the ages of the children and their addresses so they know if they need to build any new schools in the relatively near future, and how many new teachers to hire. The kids' names are never part of it.

If the census asks about a person's religious affiliation, it's a similar thing - are there enough services in place for these people? There are never any names attached, but most people don't know that. They assume that "the government" will find out they're atheist and if they're not ready to 'go public' about it, they may be afraid to say so. It's a bit more anonymous to just say "I'm not religious" than to get specific and say "I'm atheist." Especially in a country where it seems quite acceptable for even the President to openly denigrate atheists.

Mind you, I'm talking about the Canadian system of doing the census. Maybe the American one is less concerned with peoples' privacy.

And I've even heard the idea expressed by atheists, secularists, and just straight-thinking folks with no philosophical pretensions at all.

It may even be a universal idea. (Perish the thought! Wash my mouth out with soap and water!)

Yeah, grab the soap. We'd both better use it. I want to leave the world a better place than I found it, at least the part of it I can control. Any day in which I have accomplished at least one act that has benefited another life form besides myself is a day not wasted.

 

[Crackerbox]

Or if having waded through a few of them has proven not worth the effort. As I said, I'm here for a discussion, not a slide show presentation...or a textbook for that matter. If you can't express yourself that's clearly not my problem.

Given my education, and my occupational responsibilities, then communication hasn't been an issue. Thanks for making that the topic rather than the philosophy of altruism. Why not pm me instead.
...
The teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with expensive cathedrals. That's about all we agree up Valka. What you're asking for, I could easily supply, if you were generally interested in it. But you're not, you've made it a point to be hostile about Christianity. That's too bad.

Christianity is a spiritual system of altruism. It is about relationships (with each other through friendships and romance as well as relationships with GOD as Master to servant). The individual goal is to better oneself to be a better servant, and being a servant is about altruism for the Children of God. I can't make it any simpler than this.

On the other hand, I've gone out of my way to discuss atheism from the Sciences as well as from Philosophy. I have no problem with these kinds of atheists. Those who define themselves as the irreligious on census forms are from whom new adherents come from for Christianity. As such, they're the ones most likely to encounter, and I welcome that.

If I do have a definte bias against someone, it's some dork who can't communicate what they believe, yet calls themselves an atheist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Given my education, and my occupational responsibilities, then communication hasn't been an issue. Thanks for making that the topic rather than the philosophy of altruism. Why not pm me instead.

Just so you know, around here claims of education and occupation go nowhere, because anyone can claim anything. Everyone here is judged exclusively by what and how they post.

If you want to make a statement on the philosophy of altruism, make one...but don't bother sending me a reading list. Particularly skip the reading list on a related subject that I have every reason to believe I have more experience with than you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I often highlight text that is not my own words. Anyone can choose to ignore me, to block me, to skim, whatever. No one is forced to read my words, nor what I quote.

That's what the quote function is for. You should make use of that, instead of hitting people with a wall of colored text. You're doing the online equivalent of waving a sign in peoples' faces and then wondering why we're annoyed.

A product of the MTV generation that has perpetual attention deficit syndrome. You must be joking. You want a sound bite when it's a philosophical discussion. Open a philosophy text and see how few sound bites there are.

I'm not going to dumb down my statements nor be overly concise to funnel it into a pithy sentence. This is the inevitable result of postmodern texting.

Skip it if it's too challenging for you.

The point is that they're not your statements. You're copy/pasting and you seem to think that if you dress it up with colored font, that's supposed to make it more readable.

As for the "MTV generation"... I don't know how old Timsup2nothin is, but from what he's said elsewhere, I'm fairly sure he's not fresh out of high school. As for myself, I'm going to be 52 in June. MTV was never part of my life.

 

[Crackerbox]

So quit bellyaching and skip my posts, Tim. I'm not interested in making single sentence entries to please you. I don't write for you, Tim. It's not all about you, Tim.

And Valka, isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black? Talk about walls of text! See post #155.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So quit bellyaching and skip my posts, Tim. I'm not interested in making single sentence entries to please you. I don't write for you, Tim. It's not all about you, Tim.

I know. It's all about the lurkers. When it comes to getting your point across to the lurkers turning the forum into a copy paste festival isn't gonna get it done, trust me. Or don't. Up to you.

In the immortal words of Pliny the Elder,

True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read; and in so living as to make the world happier for our living in it.

A cut and paste up just doesn't deserve to be read, so I don't.

By the way, the last (and lesser known) part of that quote pretty much says that altruism is vainglorious, doesn't it?