Altruism

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

Something the veteran (long-term) members here know about me: When I ask a question or request information, it's because I really want to know. And you keep missing the point that very often it's not what the message itself is, but how it's presented that atheists get upset about. That's why I don't usually mind talking to Mormons - they're quiet, polite people for the most part, and not once have I been told by a Mormon that I'm going to hell for not believing as they do, or that I'd better "rethink" my choices in life because I majored in anthropology.

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.

Well, then you can't have definite bias against any of the atheists here, because we've all repeatedly told you what we believe.

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.

That's rather rude. Would Jesus have said this, if he were on this forum?

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

That's a normal post like hundreds of others made on this site every single day. It's in normal-sized font, none of it is in color, and the quote function is used appropriately. After 10 years here, I think I'm qualified to judge what is and is not a normal, appropriate post.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not all Buddhism is sacred. Secular forms exist in which little to no mention of Gods is mentioned.

That's an interesting use of terms. I'd say that nearly all Buddhism relies on the soul's existence as axiomatic. To me, that makes their logic non-secular. I'm not disagreeing with you, since I now know what you mean (and that's all I need, to get your gist)

An atheist is much MORE than a lack of belief in god. An atheist is rather one who disbelieves in GOD

There's a hiccup here, though. We use the word 'god' (small g) in order to distinguish that the god is specifically described according to a specific mythology. Christian god, Norse god, etc. But, it also works in mythologies that have multiple deities.

You can talk about GOD if you want, but this is a separate idea. Once you start putting a specific faiths attributes onto GOD, we're now talking about that faith's god.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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

Fills the forum with cut and pastes?

 

[Crackerbox]

I'm truly amused with these responses. Providing evidence of claims is pretty standard in the academic world. One's mere opinion has no intellectual weight without evidence from sources.

The fact that colored text somehow irritates you is extremely amusing since it's a feature of the forum. My posts are no longer than Valka's and yet she's irritated. Priceless.

If you think my words are unkind, then I know you haven't read Jesus' words. He compares hypocrites to vipers and says they're akin to white polished tombs with the corruption of the dead within. He uses a whip in the marketplace. He says he came to bring a sword. He says his teachings would divide families.

My words are far kinder and gentler than my Master's words.

Link to video.
I don't think you know him at all, and your command of the Bible is certainly not something to be desired. I would remedy that with Biblical evidence, but it offends your sensibilities. There is no great source of altruism than Jesus the Christ.

So keep on discussing if altruism is really selfless. Keep on disregarding the very basic altruism that lies within Seneca, Darwin, evolutionary biology, and reciprocal altruism. Forget that without spirituality there would be nearly no altruism in America according to the statisticians.

What a bizarre conversation. How weird to talk of altruism in this manner. It's a conversation minus evidence, minus spirituality, minus atheist philosophy, and merely a gabfest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Providing evidence of claims is pretty standard in the academic world.

Guess where we aren't.

C'mon.

Three guesses.

Go ahead!


Ding ding ding!!!!!!

That's right!

We distinctly aren't in the academic world!!!!

We're on an internet forum!!!!

 

[Crackerbox]

I find your answer extremely disappointing, Tim. Anyone can make a wildassed claim. Without evidence to back up claims, then words are pretty well meaningless. Sorry, I come from a background of higher education. There one simply must back up claims with evidence. Otherwise it's like saying blah, blah, blah i.e. simply meaningless and having zero value.

One can write the most beautiful prose, even be as compelling as any grifter, and yet, without some evidence, it's just blather.

To talk about any subject with draws from Scriptural teachings, and then not to demonstrate the source which confirms it, welll this is absolutely contrary to the history of Christianity. That's the road to heresy right there in a nutshell by making some wild claim about the Bible without Scriptural basis for it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm truly amused with these responses. Providing evidence of claims is pretty standard in the academic world. One's mere opinion has no intellectual weight without evidence from sources.

The fact that colored text somehow irritates you is extremely amusing since it's a feature of the forum. My posts are no longer than Valka's and yet she's irritated. Priceless.

I've stated why I'm annoyed. It's not as much what you say as how you say it. What part of that is difficult to understand?

If you think my words are unkind, then I know you haven't read Jesus' words. He compares hypocrites to vipers and says they're akin to white polished tombs with the corruption of the dead within. He uses a whip in the marketplace. He says he came to bring a sword. He says his teachings would divide families.

I'm fairly sure that the New Testament doesn't say "Go forth on internet discussion boards and be smug in my name."

I don't think you know him at all, and your command of the Bible is certainly not something to be desired. I would remedy that with Biblical evidence, but it offends your sensibilities. There is no great source of altruism than Jesus the Christ.

I never claimed I "knew" him. I do know the reputation he's supposed to have, as a guy who wandered around telling people to be considerate of one another, and to do unto others as they'd have people do unto them. Even my atheist grandfather approved of what is commonly thought of as the "Golden Rule."

So keep on discussing if altruism is really selfless. Keep on disregarding the very basic altruism that lies within Seneca, Darwin, evolutionary biology, and reciprocal altruism. Forget that without spirituality there would be nearly no altruism in America according to the statisticians.

People do altruistic acts for a variety of reasons. People self-identify as "irreligious" for a variety of reasons. Some are likely to be actual religious people who believe in a deity but haven't participated in church or whatever other organized activities their faith may have so they feel like a hypocrite to say they belong to such-and-such a religion. Some are likely to be atheists who are genuinely afraid to come out even on a relatively anonymous census form. You just don't know, so you can't smugly claim them all for one side.

What a bizarre conversation. How weird to talk of altruism in this manner. It's a conversation minus evidence, minus spirituality, minus atheist philosophy, and merely a gabfest.

You are aware that this is the off-topic section of a computer gaming forum, and not a lecture hall, right? There are some customs of this site that you have been openly thumbing your nose at, while ignoring the fact that people come from many walks of life here, and many countries, cultures, and beliefs. It should tell you something that both Timsup2nothin and I are annoyed with you, and normally the two of us disagree on just about everything.

This has been an educational experience for me, but undoubtedly not in the way you anticipated.

 

[Crackerbox]

I've stated why I'm annoyed. It's not as much what you say as how you say it. What part of that is difficult to understand?


I'm fairly sure that the New Testament doesn't say "Go forth on internet discussion boards and be smug in my name."


I never claimed I "knew" him. I do know the reputation he's supposed to have, as a guy who wandered around telling people to be considerate of one another, and to do unto others as they'd have people do unto them. Even my atheist grandfather approved of what is commonly thought of as the "Golden Rule."


People do altruistic acts for a variety of reasons. People self-identify as "irreligious" for a variety of reasons. Some are likely to be actual religious people who believe in a deity but haven't participated in church or whatever other organized activities their faith may have so they feel like a hypocrite to say they belong to such-and-such a religion. Some are likely to be atheists who are genuinely afraid to come out even on a relatively anonymous census form. You just don't know, so you can't smugly claim them all for one side.


You are aware that this is the off-topic section of a computer gaming forum, and not a lecture hall, right? There are some customs of this site that you have been openly thumbing your nose at, while ignoring the fact that people come from many walks of life here, and many countries, cultures, and beliefs. It should tell you something that both Timsup2nothin and I are annoyed with you, and normally the two of us disagree on just about everything.

This has been an educational experience for me, but undoubtedly not in the way you anticipated.

Valka, you must be more concise and not write a wall of text!

Smug! Oh how priceless. Isn't that what you were doing when you said I wasn't being like Jesus. You're killing me. ROFL. You have no idea what Jesus is like, then lecture me that I'm not like Jesus and thinking somehow that would sting! Hahahaha. You're cracking me up.

Smug, dear means excessive pride in one achievements. No one would ever call me smug in person. My life has been marked by sacrifice for GOD and the Children of God. I have no pride in my achievements. All for Jesus, dear.

Thanks for making my day.

...and just because I can...
"30 He must increase, but I must decrease. The Gospel of John 3:30

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I find your answer extremely disappointing, Tim. Anyone can make a wildassed claim. Without evidence to back up claims, then words are pretty well meaningless. Sorry, I come from a background of higher education. There one simply must back up claims with evidence. Otherwise it's like saying blah, blah, blah i.e. simply meaningless and having zero value.

One can write the most beautiful prose, even be as compelling as any grifter, and yet, without some evidence, it's just blather.

To talk about any subject with draws from Scriptural teachings, and then not to demonstrate the source which confirms it, welll this is absolutely contrary to the history of Christianity. That's the road to heresy right there in a nutshell by making some wild claim about the Bible without Scriptural basis for it.

Here's the funny part...

As in any open conversation, people have to make judgements as they go along. "This person makes sense" "That person can be counted on for a funny one liner" "That person might say something so dubious that I'll have to fact check it"...judgements judgements judgements.

For you to think that people on this forum are incapable of fact checking without walls of text provided by you is so blithely arrogant that it is almost beyond belief, but due to another factor it becomes believable.

In the world of open conversation with total recording recall you can't get away with near as much as in typical cocktail party banter. Everything said is still up there, twenty, thirty, a hundred posts back. Consistency is required, and brother do you have plenty of that. So this particular bit of arrogance is not only believable, it isn't even a surprise.

But take my word for it, despite you being so much more educated than us poor waifs, we know how to fact check. So feel free to join the conversation without feeling like you need an overhead projector for your little lectures.

@Valka...you called it smug while I went with arrogant...good to see we are back to normal and disagreeing!

 

[Crackerbox]

No, Tim. The funny part is that you think it's not necessary to add evidence for your posts nor mine. The funny part is that you really think I care what you think of me. ROFL.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where did I say that I think you care what I think of you? I'm crystal clear that you have no concern for what anyone thinks of you. You are clearly here to make a bad impression and reflect as poorly on your claimed religion as you possibly can. That has very little to do with me.

 

[Borachio]

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?

Ha!

Here's my challenge to you, Mr Box: Read these words of your own that I've quoted above, and take them very seriously at all times. They are good advice.

Because, honestly, I've seen precious little of you doing it so far. If anyone at all leaps to a conclusion about what they think someone has said rather than what was actually said, it's you!

Still, maybe it's not my place to say it. (Although such a consideration doesn't normally stop me.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Smug, dear means excessive pride in one achievements. No one would ever call me smug in person. My life has been marked by sacrifice for GOD and the Children of God.

You seem pretty proud of those sacrifices.

I come from a background of higher education.

Given my education, and my occupational responsibilities, then communication hasn't been an issue.

And your education.

And your occupation.

That's just from one page in this thread. If I went through the rest of the threads you've been active in I could produce an absolute great wall of China of text.

 

[El_Machinae]

If we suggest Jesus 'knew' his final fate as Christians envision it, I'm not sure we can call him 'most' altruistic. The Bodhisattva seem to have a significantly larger scope, since their goodness is towards all sentients, no?

edit to avoid dp

Tim, you have to be very careful if only out of empathy. In discussions of altruism (or environmentalism, or whatever), some people don't play fair. They'll constantly imply that you should put your money where your mouth is, but then if you try to give peeks of your life (showing that you practice what you preach), you'll then get berated as 'smug' or 'holier than thou'. It's a very (!) hard line to walk, somehow giving the impression that you personally try very hard but also think it would be better if people acted like you. A much easier line to walk is the 'haw haw, u so smug!' taunt afterwards.

At some point, a person actually can say "what I do is better than what you do". I mean, it's the natural outcome of what happens when someone tries to apply Kantian ethics. Now, if someone is being smug and rude along different dimensions, that's totally a different thing. But it still suggests that it's prudent to be careful when confronting this smugness, to target it correctly.

I find the concept altruism really interesting, mainly 'cause I think it's an essential way to get the world where I want it to be in time. I found the Ebola outbreak last year quite fascinating, given how many people basically only wanted "the government" to save us (by restricting human rights of other people). The game-winning move was a massive influx of aid in order to snuff the outbreak as fast as possible, followed by a concerted effort to deploy a vaccine. But people didn't seem to want that, they preferred to trickle in aid and employ soldiers to cause quarantine regions and heap scorn on anyone who potentially spread the virus (no matter what they sacrificed to help contain it).

I was boggled, but moreso on right-wing forums. The 'libertarian' mantra is that 'charity should be used to handle tasks requiring government intervention', but I found so many people whose main instinct was to empower bureaucrats with guns to herd healthy people in with sick people. Nearly no one was saying "charity is VASTLY cheaper here!" or "early aid protects human rights" or "the Free Market will not provide a vaccine without a wealthy customer". (I found it weird, too, since I was trying to sway right-wing Christians. It's funny how your words won't sway if you only think you understand your audience)

Meanwhile, vastly more people died than necessary. Many more borders closed than necessary. We poo-pooed geometric increases in bureaucrats' authority. The aggregate risk increased much higher than it needed to be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If we suggest Jesus 'knew' his final fate as Christians envision it, I'm not sure we can call him 'most' altruistic. The Bodhisattva seem to have a significantly larger scope, since their goodness is towards all sentients, no?

edit to avoid dp

Tim, you have to be very careful if only out of empathy. In discussions of altruism (or environmentalism, or whatever), some people don't play fair. They'll constantly imply that you should put your money where your mouth is, but then if you try to give peeks of your life (showing that you practice what you preach), you'll then get berated as 'smug' or 'holier than thou'. It's a very (!) hard line to walk, somehow giving the impression that you personally try very hard but also think it would be better if people acted like you. A much easier line to walk is the 'haw haw, u so smug!' taunt afterwards.

At some point, a person actually can say "what I do is better than what you do". I mean, it's the natural outcome of what happens when someone tries to apply Kantian ethics. Now, if someone is being smug and rude along different dimensions, that's totally a different thing. But it still suggests that it's prudent to be careful when confronting this smugness, to target it correctly.

I find the concept altruism really interesting, mainly 'cause I think it's an essential way to get the world where I want it to be in time. I found the Ebola outbreak last year quite fascinating, given how many people basically only wanted "the government" to save us (by restricting human rights of other people). The game-winning move was a massive influx of aid in order to snuff the outbreak as fast as possible, followed by a concerted effort to deploy a vaccine. But people didn't seem to want that, they preferred to trickle in aid and employ soldiers to cause quarantine regions and heap scorn on anyone who potentially spread the virus (no matter what they sacrificed to help contain it).

I was boggled, but moreso on right-wing forums. The 'libertarian' mantra is that 'charity should be used to handle tasks requiring government intervention', but I found so many people whose main instinct was to empower bureaucrats with guns to herd healthy people in with sick people. Nearly no one was saying "charity is VASTLY cheaper here!" or "early aid protects human rights" or "the Free Market will not provide a vaccine without a wealthy customer". (I found it weird, too, since I was trying to sway right-wing Christians. It's funny how your words won't sway if you only think you understand your audience)

Meanwhile, vastly more people died than necessary. Many more borders closed than necessary. We poo-pooed geometric increases in bureaucrats' authority. The aggregate risk increased much higher than it needed to be.

If you look at the referenced posts you will see they had nothing to do with altruistic contribution. They were strictly info bits thrown in as an attempt to add credibility weight to opinions which were not being met with the desired response. Pure credential flashing, in a medium where we all know such credentials can't be verified in the first place so they are generally not used anyway.

Back to the meat of your comments on altruism. I think the main difference between you and I is that I don't have a "where I want the world to be". I operate from "things are working out as intended, and since it is not my place to determine the intent I just go along for the ride". I'll do my best to exert influence, most notably I am gearing up to participate in another US presidential campaign, but I look at it more as a pass time than a nudging of the world in a "positive" direction, because I am in no position to predict outcomes or make the call on what is positive.

Rush aid into Africa to more quickly contain the ebola outbreak? Among those saved may be the next power mad sociopath to seize power and commit genocide. Or the next Ghandi, whose demonstration of peaceful revolution for independence ended up blessing the world with two hostile nations glowering over a long and contested border who both have nuclear weapons.

I help my neighbor when they are in need because it makes me feel good to be helpful, and because you have to be a neighbor to have a neighbor. I help my friends when they are in need for the same reasons. Is that altruism?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I guess if you have no urge to make the world better then you're not going to have as much altruistic opportunity. "Ehn, whatevs" regarding human tragedy might be a great way of getting peace of mind, but it's a horrific waste of opportunity.

If you help your neighbour because it makes you feel good and you are playing game-theory with reciprocity, then it's more altruistic than being solely a free rider, basically. But it's less altruistic than seeking opportunities to make things pro-actively better or deliberate belt-tightening to help someone worse off than you. I mean, it's a system that makes the world a better place, since it's engaging in win/win social exchange with your neighbour, who then has more capacity to do the same to his neighbour. But it's also very hard to make your net-drain less than your net-contribution.

In the end governments and charities did mobilize vaccine research and aid efforts. It was just vastly more costly than it needed to be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I guess if you have no urge to make the world better then you're not going to have as much altruistic opportunity. "Ehn, whatevs" regarding human tragedy might be a great way of getting peace of mind, but it's a horrific waste of opportunity.

If you help your neighbour because it makes you feel good and you are playing game-theory with reciprocity, then it's more altruistic than being solely a free rider, basically. But it's less altruistic than seeking opportunities to make things pro-actively better or deliberate belt-tightening to help someone worse off than you. I mean, it's a system that makes the world a better place, since it's engaging in win/win social exchange with your neighbour, who then has more capacity to do the same to his neighbour. But it's also very hard to make your net-drain less than your net-contribution.

In the end governments and charities did mobilize vaccine research and aid efforts. It was just vastly more costly than it needed to be.

While I appreciate the compliment implied in this confidence, I have to ask what makes you think I am qualified to determine what actions will make things "pro-actively better"?

You seem to be ignoring my example of Ghandi, as well as not considering the potential of saving the next genocidal dictator that I pointed out. Your response that "eh whatevs" may bring peace of mind regarding human tragedy but wastes opportunity is a bit off the mark in my opinion. I assert that I for certain, and most probably you, are in no position to suggest what is or is not 'better' in the long run.

If you have a skill set oriented towards containment of disease, by all means contain disease. If you feel good about your efforts based on the individual lives that are saved, great. I in no way want to take that away from you. I just think that overlaying that with a pretense of prescient knowledge of some 'greater good' being served falls into the realm of fooling yourself, and I try not to fool myself.

 

[Borachio]

I personally don't think considerations of helping a future Ghandi or Hitler are worth taking into account when it comes to helping out people altruistically.

I think you've just got to do it (if at all), and trust that it will turn out OK.

Doctors, for instance, don't generally look at a patient and make their decisions whether to treat them, or not, based on the likelihood of they're being, or becoming, Ghandi or Hitler. I hope.

Though it's true, I think, that we don't and can't know the ultimate consequences of any of our actions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I personally don't think considerations of helping a future Ghandi or Hitler are worth taking into account when it comes to helping out people altruistically.

I think you've just got to do it (if at all), and trust that it will turn out OK.

Doctors, for instance, don't generally look at a patient and make their decisions whether to treat them, or not, based on the likelihood of they're being, or becoming, Ghandi or Hitler. I hope.

Though it's true, I think, that we don't and can't know the ultimate consequences of any of our actions.

I use those examples to demonstrate the futility of trying to operate based on a premise of 'greater good', not to advocate using them to justify inaction based on a possible 'greater bad'.

My operation is driven by individual good. Might the neighbor I help turn out to be a mass murderer? I suppose, or they may turn out to father the chemist that invents the universal cancer cell killing drug. But I help them because they are my neighbor, not out of a false sense of guiding the destiny of humanity.

 

[Borachio]

I help them because they are my neighbor, not out of a false sense of guiding the destiny of humanity.

Yes. I think I largely agree with that sentiment.

I'd go further, and suggest that quantifying altruistic acts is impossible too. Although I think Mr Machinae disagrees with me.