Thinking as an atheist - Being selfish is the most rational

[SergeantSplat]

Wa Alaykum As-Salam.

Your assessment of the atheist mindset is largely correct. In essence, "you have only this one life, live it to the fullest". I wouldn't agree that drinking beer and having sex all day satisfies that... reading many books sounds more like it, but that's subjective.

Your only real mistake is the assumption that helping others is not gratifying by itself. Even without reward. Even without recognition. Just the pleasure of helping someone in need is reason enough to do it.

[AzmodanKijur]

Indeed. We are a social animal. We seek the attention and approval of our own kind. This makes the act of aiding our own a pleasure all of its own. This nonsense that we are not kind without god is asinine.

Excellent point, Sergeant. :)

[1324123432]

You are accountable to yourself and that is enough.

[1324123432]

"the example used of helping a guy isn't very good, because its human nature to help him, but he has a point"

If he dosen't have a good example then wtf. I dont understand. There is NO purpose in life. We exist because we do and the life we choose to lead is our own. The consiquences are not always directed at us but also those around us.

Why does life have to be about a different existance? Is this one not good enough for you? The other existance that you hope exists where you dont die?

[RenegadeMaster07]

an example is a way of making it easier to understand the point.

Unfortuantely this example is poorly chosen and actually throws other things in the way instead of simplifying what he is trying to say.

He is simply saying that you can live your whatever way you want, and at the end you die you. And your not held accountable for your actions after death. So why should you live for other people. That is the only point he is trying to make, but he has failed at doing this with a poor example.

[jpbroder]

The purpose of your life is to produce viable offspring and ensure their survival.

So go find an attractive person(Attractive=good genes) have a good career(ensure offspring recieve necessary care), and fuck like crazy (thats where babies come from).

[RationalFuture]

Well, of course not... who would think it's a bully organization.

I mean, it's only when you are not in it that you are going to hell for all eternity.

[RenegadeMaster07]

you can be as flippant as you want but thats not how it is. First of all you have to know about the heavenly revolution when Lucifer became a fallen angel.

You have to understand the creation of hell in the first place. It wasn't what God wanted.

Then when God created man, Satan corrupted man heart and took away his purity, making him shame, selfishness and anger. God was dissappointed in man and banished him from the garden of eden as he had broken the rules.

[RenegadeMaster07]

This is fair. Man had a perfect life but he was corrupted by sin. Sin has no place in the kingdom of heaven so man has been stuck on earth ever since.

God then created a way for man to return to heaven and be with him. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins and to allow us to be pure again so we may rejoin the Father.

And all you have to do is accept the Lord as your saviour and he will take away your sin and allow you to enter heavens gates once again.

[RenegadeMaster07]

and that is only part of God's plan. Evil still exists on earth and God will allow it to rule on earth once again with the rise of the Anti-Christ. The son of Satan. He will have economic power over the world in a New World Order, and the world will perish under his command for several years (7 if i remember) and then Jesus will return once more to destroy him and all the other evil on earth.

[RenegadeMaster07]

now you may be picturing the devil flying around setting fire to everything and killing people, but this isn't a cartoon. He will rise through government and be supported by a false religious leader. I'm not goin to go into all the details.

Another thing is the afterlife God has promised. We will not simply float around in heaven feeling amazing forever.

It's my understanding that God's plan is to make us rulers of great nations.

Christianity is a relationship with God. Not a religion.

[RationalFuture]

But if I don't accept the lord I go to hell for eternal torment EVEN IF I WAS GOOD TO EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH...

thanks for the fairness.

[RenegadeMaster07]

you talk about fairness in the same way you are taught in school. Don't cut in line because its not fair on those who have waited. This is a great way to think on the basis of civilisation but you're missing the fundamental reason why you cannot enter heavens gates.

And I have already told you.

[RenegadeMaster07]

"Sin has no place in the kingdom of heaven so man has been stuck on earth ever since."

Until the problem of sin is gone from within you then you cannot enter heavens gates. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

You can be good if you want to be, but you are still a sinner.

Jesus explained "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

Meaning we can't return to heaven without accepting Jesus as our saviour.

[RationalFuture]

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

which is what you expect a Fascist to say - only what I say counts and none of your excuses work. Only I am right.

When Christian doctrine is taken to this level it becomes the most despicable attempt at benign theocratic rule, which is commonly referred to as a dystopia.

[RenegadeMaster07]

A fascist is just a man. Jesus was not just a man, and he is not forcing you to do anything. He did not create hell for those who do not do his bidding, God created it as a prison for the fallen angels. I have already explained that.

You seem to find it easy to accept that gravity makes you fall and the sun makes you warm. Yet you refuse to accept the rules of the spiritual world. Sin cannot exist in heaven, but you have sin. Until that sin is removed from you, you cannot return to heaven.

[RenegadeMaster07]

This is all Jesus is trying to say. He is explaining that the only way to return to heaven is by putting your trust him and allowing him to remove your sin.

What he is saying is that there is NO OTHER WAY TO GET RID OF YOUR SINS. That's no ones fault, its just the way it is. If you cannot accept that, (accept Jesus) then you cannot get rid of your sin, and then you cannot return to heaven.

[RenegadeMaster07]

So what happens to your soul then? Well if you have refused to get rid of your sin and turned away from God (totally your choice, and you make this choice in your lifetime) then you are at the mercy of evil. And you will experience torment and suffer at the hands of that evil.

And you will experience the second death. Which means you will not exist in hell in for eternity. you will cease to exist. (check out the video "The Good News about Hell" and you can decide for urself if its eternal)

[RationalFuture]

Fear is the mother of all gods ~ Epicurus.

Oh, and by the way according to your all loving godly message all the Greek philosophers, all the people of Africa and Asia and the Americas are currently in hell being tortured for all eternity simply because of the fact of an accident of birth... Fairness and eternal goodness at their best once again...

[RationalFuture]

I refuse the imposed idea of having a sin in the fist place. The whole origin sin thing is sick to the backbone and ridden with sadism.

You just can't convince me that by constantly living to redeem yourself of something you didn't commit in the first place and had no guilt whatsoever for, you can possibly live a happy life.

This is a life of fear and self mutilation and fear is the most crippling of all emotions.

[RationalFuture]

If you prove that sin exists...

If you prove that Jesus was not just a man...

Wait a minute, wasn't Jesus God in the first place ?

+ there are not rules of the spiritual world unless we make them up, as we did with the spiritual world in the first place...

[RationalFuture]

Yes he is forcing me to do something.

All of that doctrine is based on the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, also known as "You are either with us or or you are a Communist".

It's just that yours isn't at all that shining, it just says "You are either with Jesus or you'll be tortured for all eternity"

What sort of a choice is that? What sort of a loving being is that ? What sort of a universal message is that ?

Whatever it is, it isn't one of love and compassion.

[RenegadeMaster07]

so what your saying is that God should instead allow you to live out your live in hate of God, doing sinful things against his name and living your life completely your own way.

And then, say "right mate, you coming to heaven now?" It's just not going to happen.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" I can't just repeat this stuff forever.

And maybe you don't believe in being born with sin, but can you honestly say you haven't sinned since birth? I know you have.

[RenegadeMaster07]

I don't get whats so difficult for you to accept. Because i really can't explain it any clearer.

-Lucifer turned against God.

-God created man.

-Satan corrupted man with sin. Man has free will in this.

-God banished man from Eden. As sin has no place in heaven.

-You have sin (born with or otherwise, whichever is easier for you to admit).

-You cannot enter heaven with sin.

-Jesus died for your sin.

-You must accept that to return to heaven.

What do you not understand?

[RationalFuture]

As usual, you missed the whole point.

Anyway, show me the evidence (yes, that dreaded word) that any of this happened :)

If you want to keep it that way, and if you want me to accept the notion of sin, yes, I have sinned.

Give me one reason, though, why should the whole of humanity suffer because of a curious woman in the beginning... Is sin genetic now, or god didn't know about genes and the Lamarckian fallacy until we actually DISCOVERED it.

[RationalFuture]

No, I didn't agree to the sin thing, I said if you want to think in the Christian way, yes I have sinned. This isn't accepting.

I haven't sinned, because in my world there is not such thing. Sin is just God's way of making anything look wrong. Some sins are wrong, some aren't. That's the way with anything, and I am just sorry that you think about it in terms of black and white.

[RenegadeMaster07]

sin is a word for something that is wrong. So saying "some sins are wrong, some aren't" doesnt make any sense.

The only way i see it in black and white is that sin is wrong and not sinning is right. That makes perfect sense, as sin means "something that is wrong".

Other than that i don't know how you see my views as black and white. Simply because i believe in the whole bible instead of just the parts that suit me.

Science works in practical use, in creation theory's it can't be proved.

[RationalFuture]

Yes, it does make sense, because I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN... how hard is that to comprehend ?

What you call sin is not sin to me, or any non-Christian, which is about 4/5 of the world

How would pride be wrong, if you work for it, thus improving yourself to the point of deserving your pride ?

Why would faith be right, if what you believe is wrong ?

[RenegadeMaster07]

sin is simply the bibles way of talking about something that is wrong.

So if its wrong, it doesnt matter if u believe in sin, its wrong. Murder being the clearest example i can think of. That is wrong, doesnt matter if you believe in sin or not.

And what i said about science. I mean when your trying to work out how to build something or cure something, then obviously it works. Creation Theories can't be proved, they can only be proved "wrong". How can u ever be sure tis factual?

[RationalFuture]

I still don't get what do you mean with the Creation thing... and they are not science in any way.

Ok, I am fine with murder, I agree.

I am fine with stealing, I agree...

How about homosexuality ? Why is it wrong ? (apart from the homophobia of the people who wrote and compiled the bible)

[RenegadeMaster07]

Well all the scientists theorys like the big bang could be proven wrong again in the future. Yet at the moment, this is their "evidence" why there is no God. Later they might prove some other creation theory, but how can we be sure that one is right either. It goes on and on, and we can't ever go back in time and know for sure.

And all these other things are science. Electrictronics and physics. They're just not astrophysics.

[RenegadeMaster07]

the homosexuality thing is wrong because its not what God intended. If it was we'd all be the same race and able to reproduce. (which leads to the interesting fictional argument, woudl we mate with eachother or ourselves..)

Even from another point of view. Its unatural. It is claimed that people are "born" homosexual. I don't believe this at all. There are 2 possibilites. 1 is a mental thing, when you convince yourself that you are for psychological reason. The other is a hormonal imbalance.

[RenegadeMaster07]

Either way its not the way it was meant to be.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't tolerate homosexuals. Personally i only have a problem when someone is femine and loud and in your face. Whether they're gay or not, thats just irritating. There's no reason why being gay should make you a stereotype.. but thats for another day.

[RenegadeMaster07]

I also don't think homosexuals should hate religion because it says one aspect of their life is wrong, because that doesnt mean the religion is false because it doesnt agree 100% with you.

There are gay christians out there. Yes its slightly hypocritical, but homosexuality isn't 1 sin above all others. There are christians who have sinned in other ways, sex before marriage. Often this is before they were saved, but i imagine the homosexuals in alot of cases were before they were saved.

[RenegadeMaster07]

the most obvious example i can think of is christians who are constantly blasphemous. everythings "Oh My God!!". Now because you just found out your friends wearing the same out fit as you, thats no reason to shout God's name like a swearword. That's using his name in vain..(vein?).

[RationalFuture]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, remember ? If you so much follow Jesus, why bother with the homophobes of the old testament in the first place ?

[RenegadeMaster07]

yes christianity is more based on the new testament, but that doesn't mean the old testament is irrelevant. It just doesn't teach the story of Jesus the man. It still teaches of God.

[RenegadeMaster07]

Anyway, i'm struggling to keep track of all this, as im having 2 such discussions in other videos. So i'm giving up this back and forth. We don't agree that much is obvious. Although i have enjoyed talking to you none the less. If my faith went unchallenged i wouldnt have such lively conversation. :)

And one thing id like to point out that i find funny. The guy who made this video is not Christian, but everyones arguing about christianity instead of his faith lol.

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

[RationalFuture]

Erm, I hadn't watched this video at all, I was replying to the comments :)

[RenegadeMaster07]

And its probably just as well you didnt watch the video, it just seems to be annoying everyone lol. Because he has used a poor example. I can see what he saying but he's not done a good job of expressing it to say the least :)

And its clear he's not been listened to cos someone must'v started the christian argument lol. Everytime i return to this page and hear "Salam" i laugh lol, cos no one in the comments has even noticed lol.

[RationalFuture]

If you had opened the wiki article entitled "Homosexual orientation" and looked "Theories of causality", you will see that it is anything but unnatural.

Natural = occurring in nature.

Do we have homosexual animals ? Yes. Homosexuality is a normal part of nature.

Your god is nothing but yet another hurdle in the way of happiness for absolutely normal men and women.

[RationalFuture]

So, all the science could be proven wrong and should not be trusted as an answer, even though we owe our lives to those theories, but the 2000 year old creation thing which any child would laugh at, clearly is the only true way ? (of course disregarding the fact that there are hundreds of such stories of the same period) ?

Seriously, think for yourself.

[RenegadeMaster07]

That is a matter of faith though. And its not 2000 years its more like 6000, might be more actually.

I can put my faith in the creation story of God because it hasn't ever changed. The creation theorys of men may never ever be correct, how can i have faith in that? Personally i can't.

And we don't owe our lives to creation theorys. Perhaps to medical discoveries, but these are seperate things entirely. Iv been told im a hypocrite for using a computer and not trusting in the big bang. BS!

[RationalFuture]

So you can't put your faith in something that changes in order to reflect fully the emerging evidence, but you will put your faith in something that hasn't changed in N'thousands of years ?

Isn't it obvious that in 2000 years our science will be changed to reflect new discoveries and the creation thing will be in the exact same place ?

I call that boring :) and "poverty stricken".

[RenegadeMaster07]

yes but if God says one thing, he stays with that, because obviously who'd know better thant he creator himself. So the fact that this reason has never changed makes it pretty solid.

Science is flaky. You can say they change the theory constantly to support evidence, but they may never have the right answer, so i can't have faith in that.

Also we can't understand what it means when God created something. Perhaps he created the sun in an reaction just like scientists have proved.

[RenegadeMaster07]

that doesnt disprove science and it doesnt disprove God. Science understands how somethign works, but that doesn't mean God didn't do it.

If i burned down a house (i dont do that tho lol). Scientists could explain the whole reaction. It doesn't mean i didn't do it.

Hopefully that gives you a new perspective on this. I'm not trying to convince you, its your choice, but that is at least an interesting POV^^.

[RationalFuture]

"Science understands how something works, but that doesn't mean God didn't do it."

it also doesn't mean he did it :)

God is the answer when we don't know the answer.

[RenegadeMaster07]

but even when we do know, God is still the answer. :)

[RenegadeMaster07]

There is a story about a man in a flood. The flood rose to his knees and the rescue raft came and asked him to come. But he said no, The Lord will save me.

it rose to the second floor of his house. Another life raft came, and he wouldn't go. He said "The Lord will save me".

When it reached the roof, a helicopter came. And again he said "No, The Lord will save me"

He drowned. He then asked God, why didnt u save me?

God said "i sent 2 boats and a helictoper, what more do you want!"

[RenegadeMaster07]

I found this quite funny. Because this story shows how people expect angels to come down from the sky and do miracles for them. It's very unrealistic as you didn't grow up in a world of angels.

And it shows how God works with the world around us. "God works in mysterious ways" i didn't wanna say it but its exactly what im trying to say lol :P

So even though we know how to build a boat, and drive that boat, that doesn't mean God had nothing to do with it.

[RationalFuture]

Yes, it's funny. One of the positive things about Christianity is that it's great base for humour (with so much to poke at, how wouldn't it be ? :)

Ok, if you take that seriously, though, how would you explain me driving the helicopter ?

(if you still say god had something to do with it, well, you'll have to deal with my entirely secular ethical behaviour, since I was born in a secular family and god was never part of the "being good" game. Logic and common sense were, though, all the time.)

[RenegadeMaster07]

yeh you drove the helicopter, you know how to, but that doesnt mean it was God's will for you to do that.

What are you talking about Lighting? I never said anything about that.

[AzmodanKijur]

Wrong. Man sent the rescue materials. If we use your reasoning, then god MADE those people come, meaning he interfered with that FREE WILL you people always seem to claim god is so hung up on.

You can't have it both ways. Either god controls people thus no free will or he does not, which means acts of KINDNESS are our own. There are no gods and no amount of heart warming stories will change that.

[RationalFuture]

erm, no, Lighting is called by difference in electron charges;

the sky isn't perforated with divine light coming through the holes, it actually is just the blue scattered colour of light passing through the atmosphere and the starts being seen behind that... :)

Everything we know about works without skyhooks (god). And even if we find god at some point, the chance of him being your god are equal to 1 / watch?v=zZVRpqm0Cl0

:):):)

[RationalFuture]

"Science works in practical use, in creation theory's it can't be proved."

what on Earth does that mean ??

[RationalFuture]

Yes you can repeat it forever, and yes it will mean nothing forever, it is as simple as that.

Fear is the mother of all gods.

[RenegadeMaster07]

At the same time, you have also missed the point, but at least you now admit to the sin.

Sin exists in man, thats it. We are not being punished on the sins of one woman, we are being punished because of our own sin. But since sin has entered the human race, we are born with it.

And enough of the ginetics, sin is spiritual, there is not a gene for sin.

You may think christians believe in God to provide security in life, and thats sometimes true, but i think thats why u cling to science.

[RationalFuture]

Err, I "cling" to science only because it works. That's it.

If you want security, yes you do cling to science - all the medication you'll ever receive is there because of it.

But I don't want security. I want truth.

(paraphrase):

If you want security - believe,

If you want truth - inquire. ~ Nietzsche

[RationalFuture]

"It wasn't what God wanted."

then he's not omnipotent

[RenegadeMaster07]

yes he is. :)

as i said, you have to understand the creation of hell in the first place.

Lucifer went against God. This is an Angel turning against God. Now he is a fallen Angel. And this wasn't what God wanted.

[WeenieManX]

If you have no conscience, it's not because of you being a theist or atheist.

[1324123432]

So, your religion has you afraid, doing things to avoid being punished because you are told they are right and that you are a fallen being living a wrong existance and have to accept the brutal sacrfice of someone else to have a chance of not "burning" in hell forever.

Christanity is not bulling you into anything at all, I sware.

"I make my own choices and do what would be most fulfilling"

Now you sound like the atheists this guy is describing.

[RenegadeMaster07]

of course i do, i am also a human. lets say everyone does whats most fulfilling to them. That doesn't make me like the athiest at all, i do not do the same things or believe the same things, but maybe the reason i do them is the same. A search for fulfillment.

the guy in the video is an example that athiests have no afterlife to think of, so why should they care about consequences. but the example used of helping a guy isn't very good, because its human nature to help him, but he has a point

[1324123432]

"I don't belive in rewards or punishments"

I can't get a promotion at work, nor can I get put in jail for killing 3000 people.

Lets think religious;

No matter what I do, as long as I say I accept god, I can do whatever I want and be forgiven. Anyone that dosen't belive, is not as worthy of me or of having a productive and rewarding life.

Just because you can't think of a reason to live other than to SERVE, dosen't mean I can't choose to experience life instead of kill myself.

[RenegadeMaster07]

he has ignored human emotions and desires because they are just a first thought. In the long run it is not of benefit to you. Which is why TV villians take this approach, their selfishness is magnified.

And Christians also experience life. There are many more things to my life than going to church. I attend raves, i go to LAN party's and much more. I don't drink out of personal choice, but my religion permits it. Alchoholism is not allowed. And who would want that anyway? lol.

[tolerancelastic]

why on earth are you taking for granted that the atheist in question has to be hedonistic? as i said, the pleasure/benefit the atheist has to forgo does not have to be something hedonistic. it could be a summer vacation or honeymoon in spain with his spouse or an interview of a potential job. but the thing is, you have to bring in hedonism to disprove me.

[tolerancelastic]

and regarding "helping others helps yourself in the long run."

as i have said before, even if helping others does indeed help yourself in the long run, it is bound to be marginal compared with the costs of forgoing the immediate gratification. its simple cos-benefit analysis. therefore, helping that guy remains irrational for an atheist.

[tolerancelastic]

btw, i delay immediate gratification for long term rewards because it is rational.

it is rational because for a theist, the long-term rewards (in the after-life) far outweighs the costs of forgoing immediate pleasure in this life.

i don't think i can explain it any better than this.

[tolerancelastic]

another thing. everyone seems to ignore one condition i set in my video. i specifically said that in order to help the person in need, the atheist would have to give up immediate pleasure which he could've gained if he didn't help out. so, those of you who are saying that you would help this person in the hope that it will somehow benefit you in the long-run, is being irrational.

[tolerancelastic]

the point of this video is not to prove that all atheists are selfish.

the point is, an atheist is unselfish when he is irrational. on the other hand, a theist is unselfish because he is rational.

[dax2525]

People, I think this guy has received more consideration than he deserves. he is clearly a closed-minded brain-washed yahoo who really doesn't understand what he is babbling about and i simply repeating someone else's rhetoric. It's pointless to reason with this person.

[dax2525]

Also, if you look at the posts above you can see how he gives up on every single conversation where he has gotten into a position where he cannot reason his small silly viewpoint.

[tolerancelastic]

dude, i don't have time to go through and reply to every single comments. i have proved my point time and again and after a certain stage, if someone doesn't stop replying, we all go around in circles.

[tolerancelastic]

Summary

Some atheists here are trying very hard to come up with a rational reason to help the guy.

On the other hand, some other atheists are claiming to be morally superior than theists because they say they don't need look forward to any reward (or rational reason) before they help that person.

This is hilarious! Looks like you guys need to sort it out between yourselves first. Ha ha!

[CMrace]

Your attempt at intimidation and reaching for alterior motives will not make you right! The human race has moved beyond the philosophy that might makes right.

I believe your laughter masks insecurity. We DO believe in morality, not in hedonism. We STAND for the human race and PROGRESS. We believe that humans are GOOD and don't need punishment or reward to know what's right.

Believe what you want, but please consider humanity. Enough blood has been spilled.

[CMrace]

I also want you to know that your acknowledgment of me helping "the guy" only proves my point about rational and enlightened self interest. People are always more powerful than any god when they work together for good and right. Consider your position. You admit to me there is little pleasure in serving god. Have you considered leading?

[tolerancelastic]

stop putting words in my mouth. i said, serving is more rational than pleasurable. there are lots of people who gain satisfaction from obeying god. but primarily, they do it because its the most rational thing to do. i never said there is "little" pleasure in serving God.

[KasparHauser4]

part 1

Now there is a difference bettween individual isolated acts of charity and working for long term social goals to create a civilization in which we can lessen the meanness and violence cause by inequities.

[KasparHauser4]

part2

The reason why "SOME" atheists work to resolve social inequites is that they realize that they are not alone in this civilization and their long term happiness is bound up with the happiness of those around them. (if you were the only man with food in a house full of starving men you would see this principle easier)

[gibletparade]

Fine, leave your head in the bronze age.

Why would anyone expect all atheists to agree on anything in particular? Atheism is the lack of belief in something, not a common belief in something. You really need to understand some definitions.

Anyway, I've said a different thing. That is is not safe to presume that the reason you think you do things is anything to do with the cause of you doing them.

Have you read the "Selfish Gene"? Selfish genes produce altruistic individuals.

[tolerancelastic]

all i was trying to say is that atheists are trying to prove that there is a rational reason to help that guy. basically, the atheists are trying to prove that there is sth in it for them too! that if they help out the guy, somehow they will eventually gain from it in the long run.

[tolerancelastic]

so yes, the atheists are also looking for a "reward". what does that say abt them? are they morally inferior just because they too get motivated by a reward? not at all!!

its not about who is morally inferior or superior to whom. its about who is being rational.

[gibletparade]

I'm an atheist, and I think it's a dodgy assumption that all atheists behave entirely rationally all the time. No human being does. Actions are also affected from emotions, driven by hormones, which are proteins, expressed from DNA.

So actions are affected pretty directly by genes, and it is genes that are the very coinage of evolution. Consider that what makes the genes survive is not always what is most rational for an individual. Selfish gene; altruistic phenotype = classic Dawkins.

[gibletparade]

... but, acting in the way in which you would hope others would act, is the very rational core of morality, and is very much how both theists and atheists behave in my experience.

Theists believe it when they are told they act this way because they are believers, and so have trouble believing atheists when they say they have worked it out for themselves.

I think the reality is humans have evolved morals, and we simply rationalise those morals differently based on beliefs or lack thereof.

[tolerancelastic]

i never assumed that all atheists behave rationally all the time. in fact i did the opposite.

[gibletparade]

"Think rationally as an atheist" at about 4.25

[gibletparade]

Actually more like 4.16. Then something like "you don't believe in any spiritual reward after death" - quite right, but it doesn't mean we don't expect any spiritual reward *before* death.

Ok, so you're saying "being selfish is the most rational thing", and that atheists don't simply behave selfishly, therefore atheists aren't rational?

Are you being rational when you say atheists "don't believe in accountability"? No.

[tolerancelastic]

dude towards the end of the video i specifically said that i know very well that not all atheists behave selfishly (and therefore, rationally).

and obviously, when i said that atheists dont believe in accountability, i meant that they dont believe in accountability after death. of course you're accountable in this for the things you do. but this accountability is not all-encompassing. for example, nobody can hold you accountable if you dont help out the guy.

[KasparHauser4]

Who are you to decide for any group what is or is not rational for them to do?

[gibletparade]

Of course somebody can hold you accountable if you don't help the guy! In fact 2 people can. One is the guy, and another is you.

Guilt has evolved. Your genes are more likely to survive if you have guilt. The way we rationalISE it, whether it's "because god told me and I think he'll hurt me forever" or "because I think for myself" is irrelevant. Importantly, there's no god neccessary in either case.

[tolerancelastic]

No, the guy can not hold you acountable because he doesn't know you. he is a total random stranger.

[CapeandCowl]

Dude...you make so many mistakes about atheism, including the "I don't believe in accountability." That is just wrong. An atheist believes in being accountable to other people, rather than an invisible sky god.

And having one life is not frightening. It means we have ONE chance to make the world a better place.

As for the rest, do yourself a favor and read up on Bertrand Russell and Epicurus.

[tolerancelastic]

can someone hold you accountable if you don't help that guy? Nope.

among others, the idea of not being able to see your loved ones agin is frightening. But i guess that depends on people.

[CapeandCowl]

so what you are saying is that you only help people because you think god is always watching you? Would that not speak volumes about you?

[tolerancelastic]

no i dont help people only because i know God is always watching me. but the point is, even if i did, that would not have been an irrational thing to do.

[CMrace]

Atheists define their own purposes. I self define my purpose as helping humanity learn and grow. My "eternal life" depends on teaching people who will also help mankind grow.

I am accountable morally because I must think about ethics and my interactions with others, not rely on a God to tell me and forgive me when I 'sin'. There is no forgiveness for me, I must learn and not repeat my mistakes.

I have only only life to live so I will make it a good one, for me and others.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic:

You seem to think that an atheist should be a hedonist. If you knew there was no God would you go really around raping, stealing, drinking, murdering and such? Is belief in God all that keeps you from being an animal?

Hedonism has terrible consequences: try it if you don't believe me. When you have STD's, Liver damage, no friends, no family, jail time, no legacy you will see.

[tolerancelastic]

no i don't think that. as i said, pleasures could mean a lot of things. harmless things such as reading books or watching movies or being successful in life etc.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic "pleasures could mean a lot of things."

In that case: How is following a God not a source of pleasure? What is the difference between a choice and a pleasure? How do you know?

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic "pleasures could mean a lot of things."

My reward for "selfishly" choosing my own ethics is the satisfaction of a happy life, free mind, and openess to GROW and CHANGE my morals.

How is it less selfish to follow a God because of the reward of heaven or the fear of hell? I can't imagine people following a God without a reward.

Would you obey your God if there were no heaven or hell? WHY?

[tolerancelastic]

How many people would obey the traffic laws if there were no speed cameras and fines or possibility of an accident?

The punishment for disobeying the traffic law are fines and accidents. The reward for obeying the law is a safe journey.

Believe it or not, the concept of punishment and reward is everywhere.

[tolerancelastic]

now, regarding the question whether i would obey "my" God if there were no heaven or hell.

btw, there is no "my" God. what if "the" God said there was no heaven or hell? well, then that would imply that God doesn't care if i obey him or not. Law without enforement is kinda pointless, which is why we have "$x penalty if law is broken".

so, i guess it would be a "rational" thing to be selfish if God really didn't care about what we do. right?

[KaelHunter]

It is never rational to screw people over, those who do are moraly bankrupt no matter which faith or none faith you belong to. I'm Agnostic and I would help someone if they needed it, i'm often too helpful for my own good and I don't believe in any of your bronze age myth books.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic: "How many peop"

I think we are going in circles. When there are no traffic speed laws (as is the case in Germany) people still drive at reasonable speeds because they don't like the consequences of death. Hedonism has consequences.

We need to define what we are talking about when we say hedonism. If hedonism is just doing what you want, than everything including belief in God is hedonism. (You must at least want to believe in God more than you want to go to hell)

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic: "How many peop"

I would define hedonism the same a wiki does

"Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind."

Does this definition work for you? If not what do you suggest?

[tolerancelastic]

a theist will not be selfish but rather he will help that person BECAUSE he is rational. because the theist believes/knows that he will be rewarded for it by God.

if you believe in God, then following His laws is more rational than pleasurable, if you know what i mean. it is highly irrational if a believer doesnt help others when he has the opportunity, knowing very well that God will reward him for it.

[tolerancelastic]

when a rational theist is "selfish" (or "rational"), he helps that person in need and therefore, he is not being selfish. on the other hand, when a rational atheist is being "selfish" (or "rational"), he doesn't help that person and therefore he is being selfish.

i hope you recognize the difference. peace...

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic

You state: "a rational atheist is being "selfish"... he doesn't help that person.

This statement is not "enlightened self interest (ESI)"

"ESI states that persons who act to further the interests of others, ultimately serve their own self-interest."

If the atheist followed ESI, he would help the person.

I am a teacher. I help people learn about math and themselves because smarter people make a better society for me to live in.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic "a theist will.."

I don't see any difference between the theist philosophy you present and atheistic "enlightened self interest."

The theist is good "because the theist believes/knows that he will be rewarded for it by God."

the atheist is good for the reward of avoiding the consequences of hedonism and building strong relationships with others.

Both philosophies trade immediate pleasure for long term rewards. Can you explain how they are different?

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic:

I mean no offense, but I think your belief in God and reliance on an imposed set of moral beliefs has impaired your ability to think about morality in the context of you outside of a group of followers.

If you wiki on "Enlightened self-interest" you may discover there are other godless but moral philosophies out there. Let me know what you think.

peace

[tolerancelastic]

thanx. i've just gone through the wiki article. actually, i've already addressed some of the issues of "enlightened self-interest" in response to another user. things like its long-term societal benefits rather than short-term individual gains.

and btw, i think you are wrong. i guess you very well know that fundemental economic theory is based on the assumption that consumers are "rational". so yeah, i dont think my belief in God had a major contribution in this video.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic thanx. "i've just"

We agree on this point. I don't necessarily agree with the economic big picture of enlightened self interest. Economics is to complicated in my opinion to boil down to any purist philosophy.

I do believe that enlightened self interest works on an individual level. Don't you? If you disagree WHY?

[tolerancelastic]

actually, i would question the validity of enlightened self interest in the first place. i think what Adam Smith said was more realistic and more practical.

he pointed out that we all strive to achieve our rational self-interest, and in doing so, make the society better. so its the opposite of "enlightened self-interest". and i have to say it makes more sense. and remember, its also a "godless" philosophy.

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic: "actually, i would question"

My understanding is that enlightened self interest and rational self interest are the same thing.

Would you explain to me why you believe they are different and what the difference is?

[tolerancelastic]

in rational self-interest, you yourself come first, which is rational. your primary goal is to satisfy your own needs. when you do that, you indirectly benefit others.

on the other hand, when it comes to enlightened self interest, you sacrifice your own desires/needs in order to help others, hoping that it will eventually benefit you in the long run.

BIG difference!

[CMrace]

tolerancelastic "in rational self-inte..." I am confused because wiki states they are the same. at ht tp:/ /en.wi kipedia.o rg/wi ki/Rat ional_sel fishness I am confused by your interpretation of enlightened self interest (ESI). Altruism is not part of any definition I can find for ESI anywhere. What source are you using? In any case, I refer to my previous post for my definition of ESI.

[tolerancelastic]

from wiki: "Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."

this is different from rational self-interest. and by rational self-interest, i meant what Adam Smith said, that people fulfill their own needs first and foremost and in doing so, end up helping others.

[dax2525]

Just take the situation you are thinking of and consider: what if everyone helped in those situations without expecting recognition? Clearly, everyone's life would be better. Survival would be more likely if everyone helped eachother (hence evolution of society)

[tolerancelastic]

sorry it doesn't work that way in reality. to say the least, because of "free-rider problem" or "tragedy of the commons" etc etc. there is a reason why taxation is not voluntary.

a rational atheist would first and foremost think only about himself. as i've already said, any gain from helping would be minimal and distant compared with the great value of the forgone pleasure.

[tolerancelastic]

and also, dont forget that the gain (if any) will most likely pay off in the long-run. but as they say in economics, in the long-run, we are all dead. a rational atheist does not care how well the society evolvs in the long-run. by then he will be rotting in his grave.

this is another reason why forgoing the immediate pleasure to help a random stranger is irrational for an atheist.

[dax2525]

Sorry man, you are oversimplifying. You are assuming the atheist will be rational about this but not in assessing the self interest on a global scale. Might want to read Locke. Taxation is voluntary in a democracy for rational people. People inherently care about how the society is evolving because it impacts the survival probability of their children, so evolution is in effect.

[tolerancelastic]

no, i'm saying that even if the atheist was rational on a global scale, a cost-benefit analysis would tell him that the return he would get in the long run would be marginal compared with the high costs of forgoing the immediate benefits. so if he were rational, he would choose to do the thing which yields the most return, and in this case, it is not helping the guy.

[dax2525]

Well that depends on what it takes to help the guy. in most cases i can imagine (money that would make a difference on survival scale, blood donation, anonymous non-essential organ donation) the long term outweighs the short term. I suppose if you had to give your life, than youre right.

[dax2525]

I think we might be agree on everything and not understanding each other :)

[tolerancelastic]

again.

"i did state the condition that helping the random stranger does NOT yield social recognition and therefore, is UNABLE to promote societal standard of helping people. so your 2nd point is invalid."

[tolerancelastic]

in a nutshell, you tried to rationally justify helping that guy based on the assumption that it will somehow promote societal standard. however, that violates the "no social recognition" conditions i set. nobody can know that you have helped that guy and therefore, promotion of societal standard simply is an impossibility.

[dax2525]

nevermind we dont agree. You said only that you will recieve no recognition. but obviously the guy who recieves anonymous help will be more likely to offer such help himself. since youre increasing the guys chances of survival by helping, you are also swaying the society towards such actions (he will remain part of society)

[tolerancelastic]

no recognition obviously means that nobody can know. if anyone knew, then they would have automatically recognized your help.

also, even if you help the guy, he does not become capable of returning the favour to the society all of a sudden.

[tolerancelastic]

and lastly, and most importantly, i hope you do realize that your personal gain (if any) from you helping the guy is so remote that its almost negligible. even if you somehow gain anything at all in the future, the costs of letting go of the immediate pleasure (which is of great value to you) will far outweigh the gain from

helping.

therefore, a simple cost-benefit analysis proves that it is highly irrational for an atheist to help that guy.

[dax2525]

1) the purpose life is not just to maximize pleasure, but to ensure long term survival of your gene

2) if the sole purpose of life is pleasure by helping the guy you promote a societal standard of helping people, and therefore buy an insurance policy in case you or a loved one needs similar kind of help in the future, thereby maximizing your enjoyment in the long run.

[tolerancelastic]

1) cool. thats even better. in a way that is actually survival of the fittest. all the more reason to be extremely selfish.

2) however, i did state the condition that helping the random stranger does NOT yield social recognition and therefore, is UNABLE to promote societal standard of helping people. so your 2nd point is invalid.

[tolerancelastic]

either way, you've actually proven my point in a way. you're helping the guy because it will somehow maximize your enjoyment in the future. you're being rational and therefore, you're being selfish. my point is still proven.

[dax2525]

Yes. I do not desagree with you. Im am simply illustating that it is very rational to help that guy.

[tolerancelastic]

Well, actually, its kinda rational to help that guy only if you ignore one of the conditions set by me in the video.

[dax2525]

Hmmm dont see one. care to point it out?

[tolerancelastic]

i did. read my previous replies to you.

[1ofTheMuslims]

another great vid bro

[tolerancelastic]

thanx bro. jak

[BeMyBro]

great point bro.

Jazak Allah Khair.

[tolerancelastic]

thanx for watching. peace..