Altruism

[warpus]

I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will discuss GOD in every topic as GOD is at the core of my beliefs. Nothing anyone says will halt that practice. It's no different than the constant barrage of atheists that I see all of the time.

Really, they come to your front door and try to convert you away from Christianity?

Well, that's a first.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, but we'll barge into any online theology discussion we wanna!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will discuss GOD in every topic as GOD is at the core of my beliefs. Nothing anyone says will halt that practice. It's no different than the constant barrage of atheists that I see all of the time.

If you don't like it, too bad.

Once upon a time there was a poster here who was a devout follower of the deity known as Ron Paul. He would bring that name into every thread he posted in, whether it had anything to do with American politics or not. Incessantly, month after month, year after year. Finally everyone had had enough, and this poster is no longer here.

Here's a suggestion: choose your proselytizing grounds carefully. It's not necessary to preach in every thread.

A rant about evolution and some odd Christians who disbelieve in it, has nothing to do with altruism. But in typical atheist fashion, it pops up and we're all subjected to it, so if I must deal with that nonsense, then if I mention pertinent Biblical verses, you must put up with my own beliefs that relate to the subject. I have seldom seen an atheist taken to task for wild tangents about Christianity that have zip to do with the topic.

Copy/pasting biblical verses in bold blue font so they practically smack people in the face is more than "mentioning." I don't copy/paste bold color-fonted quotes from Carl Sagan's books, since that would be considered pretty much the same as a post in all-caps. It's considered shouting, and that's rude.

There are some significant atheists who donate through their foundations, but atheists simply do not volunteer, donate their talents, nor their funds in any way close to spiritual folks.

The phenomena has been studied for years by nonprofits to try to figure out what kind of marketing would be necessary to penetrate that atheist market.

What kind of marketing do they use currently?

I think you'd find by looking at direct marketing studies on philantropy you'd see Mormons, Jews, Christians, and Muslim as the top givers. Atheists are so far down the list as to be a real puzzler for nonprofits. The irreligious give far more.

You said it yourself in the other thread: Atheists are as unique as snowflakes. One person's reason for donating is not the same as another person's reason. I have donated to animal charities - time, money, and volunteering - in large part because I grew up around animals and they depend on humans for happy, healthy lives. Another atheist might think that's nuts - because his/her focus might be on a medical charity. Or the local food bank. Or maybe that person would like to donate but can't afford to, so offers volunteer services instead. Or maybe the person doesn't donate either time, labor, money, or goods. Or maybe the person does all of those but neglects to mention he or she is atheist, because why should that even matter?

I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will discuss GOD in every topic as GOD is at the core of my beliefs. Nothing anyone says will halt that practice. It's no different than the constant barrage of atheists that I see all of the time.

Really, they come to your front door and try to convert you away from Christianity?

Well, that's a first.

Wow, a "constant barrage." I wasn't aware that warpus, El Machinae, and I (plus any others who have posted in the same threads as you since you joined last month) constitute a "barrage." And we don't even live anywhere near each other in RL. Guys, think what we could accomplish if we had a meetup somewhere - we could go doorknocking, and spread the word of atheism! *starts packing Carl Sagan books*

 

[warpus]

I think it's odd to try to market something "to the atheist market". That's almost never going to work. Most atheists don't really have much in common - we're all over the map. Heck, some of us are spiritual, and some of us are even religious..

 

[Borachio]

I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will discuss GOD in every topic as GOD is at the core of my beliefs. Nothing anyone says will halt that practice. It's no different than the constant barrage of atheists that I see all of the time.

If you don't like it, too bad.

It's certainly pertinent to altruism. (Which is why I started the thread in the first place, btw.)

But is it pertinent to everything? Or don't you have views on things which it isn't pertinent to? Like global warming for example?

If you're going to mention your particular brand of Christianity (and I'm not sure what that is yet; are you a Baptist, maybe?) every time you post anything, I've got to ask why you'd do so? And isn't it likely to be counterproductive to any purpose you might have?

Sometimes a little goes a long way, and a little can be more effective than walls of text, which are all too often ignored. As I'm sure you will have realized by now.

Still, maybe you post here just for your own amusement? Much like most of the rest of us.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I find it hilarious how every time deification of science is denied it is always Carl Sagan who gets named as the non-deity. It appears as if he is seen as the true son of science, the path and the way.

I think it's odd to try to market something "to the atheist market". That's almost never going to work. Most atheists don't really have much in common - we're all over the map. Heck, some of us are spiritual, and some of us are even religious..

This is an accurate assessment of the problem, if there is a problem. The active church member provides a lever of commonality that can be used to move them towards altruistic behavior ("tithe or burn in hell" seems remarkably simpler than selling cars, to an old car salesman like myself). That same commonality lever inclines church members to accept 'non member' as providing just as much commonality as 'member' does, which is not really true. There is no such lever that applies universally, so any organization that is primarily experienced with marketing to their particular 'common lever' market of church members is going to be singularly ill suited to the task, since marketing has to be applied across a broad front of techniques if you want to get widespread participation in an altruistic enterprise.

Crackerbox is somewhat demonstrating this right here. The "I will blast blue text Bible verses at every turn of the page" is a one trick marketing pony that might bring an occasional stray soul to Christ...if he happens to bump into a soul that is astray because they have lived under a rock with no bibles until yesterday when they found the internet. But most people are going to take his actions not as the proselytizing called for by his faith, but as at least quasi intentional effrontery that has more of an antagonizing effect than the proselytizing effect he is called to be producing. In my opinion it is a show of proselytizing rather than a genuine Christian effort, but of course I'm not the judge.

 

[El_Machinae]

I also proselytize quite a bit, and I find that there's often a struggle. Unless you proselytize using proper psychological tools, you can even go so far as to hurt your goals, if only because it makes them less likely to listen to the next guy down the road who can phrase things better.

And it's very hard to not come across as shrill. My concern isn't shared by my audience, and I feel ever more desperate to communicate that urgency in time. I should be putting serious effort into communicating my worry convincingly, and that means crafting the message for the audience and encouraging them to be pro-active in ways that both trundle us forwards AND encourage them to invest more in the solutions as time goes on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Marketing was easy for me, because I always recognized myself as a hired gun...even when I wasn't.

Spoiler :

Explanation of that cryptic remark available on request.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Marketing was easy for me, because I always recognized myself as a hired gun...even when I wasn't.

Spoiler :

Explanation of that cryptic remark available on request.

Request ...

By PM if you prefer

On the smugness thing...It just occured to me that asserting "there is no way to prove any position as truth so asserting any position is smug" ... Is in-and-of-itself smug right?

So essentially, all positions are smug (<-- including this one)

But if all positions are smug, then no position is smug (relatively speaking). So then we are back to the attitude of the person presenting the position rather than the "smugness" of the substance of any particular position.

At least that seems right... but I just came up with that so if anyone has thoughts I would love to hear

 

[Crackerbox]

And what in the world do most of these posts have to do with altruism? Isn't it obvious why atheists don't donate time, talent, and treasure? Many of them don't believe it exists! That the word "altruism" is a sham based upon a reward of a "good feeling". This despite innumerable definitions of selflessness being part of the meaning for altruism and altruists!

A world without spirituality would equate to a world without altruism. That's perfectly clear from all of the philantropy studies.

One would presume by these weak atheist arguments that all atheists feel this way, when in fact, a cornerstone of evolutionary biology and atheist philosophy is altruism.

See: Biological Altruism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Spoiler :

In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called &#8216;altruistic&#8217; if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other &#8216;helper&#8217; birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own&#8212;so have personal fitness of zero&#8212;but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling, as Darwin himself realized. Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others. But by behaving altruistically an animal reduces its own fitness, so should be at a selective disadvantage vis-à-vis one which behaves selfishly. To see this, imagine that some members of a group of Vervet monkeys give alarm calls when they see predators, but others do not. Other things being equal, the latter will have an advantage. By selfishly refusing to give an alarm call, a monkey can reduce the chance that it will itself be attacked, while at the same time benefiting from the alarm calls of others. So we should expect natural selection to favour those monkeys that do not give alarm calls over those that do. But this raises an immediate puzzle. How did the alarm-calling behaviour evolve in the first place, and why has it not been eliminated by natural selection? How can the existence of altruism be reconciled with basic Darwinian principles?

I'm not at all impressed by the pop atheism I've seen so far. It's nothing like the atheist philosophers from the Humanities nor the Sciences. The only reasonable conclusion from these weak atheism posts is that the posters don't truly know atheism whatsoever!

Any atheist who embraces evolution should be among the top donaters of time, talent, and treasure. Why not, as it benefits the species of Humanity as well as the altruism in organizations that assist all of the other species like The Nature Conservancy?

Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

Right. OK. Let's go with this direction.

So would you describe yourself as a selfless person, Mr Box?

 

[warpus]

A world without spirituality would equate to a world without altruism. That's perfectly clear from all of the philantropy studies.

One would presume by these weak atheist arguments that all atheists feel this way, when in fact, a cornerstone of evolutionary biology and atheist philosophy is altruism.

That's curious that you first say that spirituality is needed for altruism, but in the very next paragraph you admit that altruism can arise out of biological processes alone.

 

[Crackerbox]

That's curious that you first say that spirituality is needed for altruism, but in the very next paragraph you admit that altruism can arise out of biological processes alone.

Isn't that curious? You see, many atheists in history who were in the Sciences or the Humanities came to the conclusion that altruism is innate within not only humans, but even in common insects.

And yet, the average person who defines themselves as an atheist...doesn't donate time, talent, and treasure. This is a real problem to solve for the nonprofits who would love to get new funding, have atheists volunteer, and have atheists donate their talents to the organization.

So my theory is that the average person who claims to be an atheist, really doesn't understand atheism at all. If they only read about evolutionary biology AND altruism within it, then it would be self-evident that all of those species are born with an instinct to act altruistically.

Then it naturally follows to volunteer.

My guess is that some atheists who are vocal and trying to get atheist churches formed and who are already volunteers have intuited this. But they're very rare birds based upon the philantropy studies. The studies show the higher the level of religiousity (devotion to their spiritual system, be that devout Buddhists or Muslims, or Christians, etc), the more they volunteer, donate, and offer their specialized services. The lower the score of religiousity, the lower the amount of giving.

This is why I maintain that atheism is not defined as a lack of belief in god. atheism is defined as an active disbelief in GOD. But it doesn't stop there. The natural unfolding of atheism is to seek an alternative philosophy due to the absence of GOD. If there is no Supreme Creator, then each human is responsible for each individual. But then it follows that humans are just another higher species, the apex predator, and so there is a responsibility to care for the other species to manage the ecosystem.

That altruism. It's imprinted on the mind of each human being within atheism.

If one only mantains that atheism is the absence of belief in god, then this form of pop atheism is worthless and meaningless.

Pop atheism attempt to defy Christians and defines itself as "not them". Well, instead a believer, and especially a passionate believer develops their own philosophy. Otherwise one's idea of Self is defined through the lens of Christianity. How weird and lame for atheists to do that.

 

[Borachio]

Which philanthropy studies are these?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a mistake to think that the Theory of Evolution implies we should be altrustic. Now, we certainly have an evolutionary drive to be altruistic (especially within the 'in-group'), so "taking care of family and friends" is a type of altruism, but even baboons do that.

Now, you can and can't blame 'atheism' for the lack of altruism shown by those with atheist leanings. "Atheism" itself isn't very philosophically encompassing, 'reasons to be good' is not within its umbrella. But the problem is that there aren't other obvious naturalistic reasons to be altruistic, and yeah, this is a real issue. The humanists will claim 'things would be better if things were better', but the philosophy itself doesn't create the drive to move past our baboon-level urges to be good to those we like.

 

[Crackerbox]

Even a common bee or ant has altruistic drives according to evolutionary biology. Altruism is innate. Species as simple as an ant will sacrifice themselves to save the colony. They will feed their young. Some will milk aphids and this means caring for the aphids in a symboitic relationships. That doesn't just benefit the individual ant, but the entire colony.

The evolution of the common worker bee has allowed it to have a stinger for protection, but to use it means a suicidal selfless act to save the colony? Why? When a bee stings an intruder, it disembowels itself! Altruism is instinctual in the bee.

Link to video.
Altruism should be an aspect of any atheist system. But it's not. The pop atheists spokespersons of the 21 Century have taken over and convinced young atheists that one need only dislike Christianity and have an absence of belief (a nonsensical term in philosophy) in god.

As soon as the atheist claims a belief in evolution, then immediately if they actually read about evolutionary biology, then they should claim altruism as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing that there's an evolutionary cause behind altruistic instincts. But this is not a reason (in and of itself) to be altruistic. Now, the science aspect of it can be used to figure out why we enjoy it, and how to encourage and foster those feelings.

I'm not denying that it would be better if people had an easier time finding the drive to be altrustic using purely naturalistic axioms. Now, I think in the long-term (to put it mildly), and I think that long-term thinking has a great deal to offer on this front. But, the majority of people find transhumanism counter-instinctual, so it's tough to get traction.

 

[Borachio]

Even a common bee or ant has altruistic drives according to evolutionary biology. Altruism is innate. Species as simple as an ant will sacrifice themselves to save the colony. They will feed their young. Some will milk aphids and this means caring for the aphids in a symboitic relationships. That doesn't just benefit the individual ant, but the entire colony.

But most ants in a colony are sterile females.

The evolution of the common worker bee has allowed it to have a stinger for protection, but to use it means a suicidal selfless act to save the colony? Why? When a bee stings an intruder, it disembowels itself! Altruism is instinctual in the bee.

http://earthsky.org/earth/why-do-bees-die-after-they-sting-you

And again, most bees in a colony, including all the common worker bees are sterile females.

It's probably mistaken to impute intention of any kind, never mind an altruistic one, to ants and bees. I simply don't think they "think" in those sorts of terms, at all.

 

[Crackerbox]

http://www.mindful.org/in-body-and-mind/psychology/survival-of-the-kindest
"In 1871, eleven years before his death, Charles Darwin published what has been called his &#8220;greatest unread book,&#8221; The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. His little-known discussion of sympathy in this book reveals a facet of Darwin&#8217;s thinking that is contrary to the competitive, ruthless, and selfish view of human nature that has been mistakenly attributed to the Darwinian perspective.

In the fourth chapter, entitled &#8220;Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals,&#8221; Darwin explained the origin of what he called &#8220;sympathy&#8221; (which today would be termed empathy, altruism, or compassion), describing how humans and other animals come to the aid of others in distress. While he acknowledged that such actions were most likely to occur within the family group, he wrote that the highest moral achievement is concern for the welfare of all living beings, both human and nonhuman.

It should be no surprise, given Charles Darwin&#8217;s commitment to the continuity of species, that he claimed that concern for the welfare of others is not a uniquely human characteristic. Darwin tells the following story: &#8220;Several years ago a keeper at the Zoological Gardens showed me some deep and scarcely healed wounds on the nape of his own neck, inflicted on him whilst kneeling on the floor, by a fierce baboon. The little American monkey who was a warm friend of this keeper, lived in the same compartment, and was dreadfully afraid of the great baboon. Nevertheless, as soon as he saw his friend in peril, he rushed to the rescue, and by screams and bites so distracted the baboon that the man was able to escape.&#8221; This incident is consistent with F.B.M. de Waal&#8217;s 2004 study, &#8220;On the Possibility of Animal Empathy.&#8221;

The likelihood of such actions, Darwin said, is greatest when the helper is related to the person needing help. &#8220;It is evident in the first place,&#8221; he wrote in The Descent of Man, &#8220;that with mankind the instinctive impulses have different degrees of strength; a savage will risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community, but will be wholly indifferent about a stranger; a young and timid mother urged by the maternal instinct will, without a moment&#8217;s hesitation, run the greatest danger for her own infant&#8230;&#8221;

Darwin recognized, however, that exceptional people will help total strangers in distress, not just kin or loved ones. &#8220;Nevertheless many a civilized man who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation and plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a stranger. In this case man is impelled by the same instinctive motive, which made the heroic little American monkey, formerly described, save his keeper by attacking the great and dreadful baboon.&#8221; Darwin&#8217;s line of thinking has been borne out by K.R. Munroe&#8217;s 1996 study of exceptional individuals who rescue strangers at risk of their own life, The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of A Common Humanity.

Darwin did not consider why compassion toward strangers, even at the risk of one&#8217;s life, is present in only some people. Is there a genetic predisposition for such concerns, or does it result solely from upbringing, or from some mix of nature and nurture? Nor did Darwin write about whether it is possible to cultivate such stranger-compassion in those who do not have it."

The patron saint of atheists was NOT merely the author of the Theory of Evolution, but also believed that altruism is innate.

Link to video.

But moneys will share their food when they need not do it.

Link to video.

If you're a human, particularly an atheist human, who feels no need to be altruistic, then you wouldn't fit into Darwin's exceptional human category, for those kinds of humans are altruists who will help a stranger even when there is no rationale for doing so.

 

[Borachio]

Who are these human beings, particularly atheist human beings, who feel no need to be altruistic?

Just who is saying altruism isn't innate?