All aboard the atheist bus ....

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You've misunderstood me. Bbarr asked what I believed a soul added to an animal's life and I explained why I made the distinction between a creature with a soul and one without:

I've never actually stated what I believe. In fact, the Bible says that animals do have souls. My intention in this thread was to postulate the atheistic Communist Party definition of man and challenge atheists to disprove it.

Comprende?

No, I do not comprende.
Your first post in this thread contains:

If we divest a human being of his or her soul, and consider ourselves animals, would you consider that progress?

...

Or, would you consider it progress if we elevate the human being above the mere animal; if we considered him an entity in possession of a soul and made in the image of God?

Clearly you were implying that humans have souls and animals don't. You also imply that atheism is backward in thinking that humans don't.
The whole idea of hiding behind communist literature came later, and I never really saw the relevance anyway. Why would you define a soul according to communist literature? Why would atheists be interested in disproving the Communist Party definition of man when nobody here is a communist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I do not comprende.
Your first post in this thread contains:

If we divest a human being of his or her soul, and consider ourselves animals, would you consider that progress?

...

Or, would you consider it progress if we elevate the human being above the mere animal; if we considered him an entity in possession of a soul and made in the i nterested in disproving the Communist Party definition of man when nobody here is a communist?

Why would you define a soul according to communist literature?

It was an experiment. I've been reading communist party literature lately regarding psychopolitics and mind-control techniques/philosophy.

Why would atheists be interested in disproving the Communist Party definition of man when nobody here is a communist?

I was curious if anyone would be able to from an atheistic standpoint.

EDIT: ...which you did (at least sufficiently enough for me).

Originally posted by bbarr
Chomsky refuted this brute behaviorism back in 1959, with his review of Skinner's book 'Verbal Behavior', and updated the refutation in his own book 'Rules and Representations'. Check out the Poverty of Stimulus argument if you're interested in the details. If you like what you read, check out Jerry Fodor's excellent books "Psychological Explanation" and "The Language of Thought".

Very cool, thanks.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I was curious if anyone would be able to from an atheistic standpoint.

EDIT: ...which you did (at least sufficiently enough for me).

Now I comprende comrade.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, you clearly believe in the wrong God, and as we well know most Gods are very jealous and do not like people believing in competitors. I think I am far more likely to find favor.

[b]and do elaborate on the selfish reasons. what selfish reasons do i have for believing in god.
You told us yourself that your main reason for believing is to ...[text shortened]... al safety blanket.
You choose to believe even though it is to the general detriment of society.[/b]

then let's look at it another way, is there a selfless reason for not believing?

is there a selfless act of compassion? when somebody does a good deed is it selfless or he wants to feel good about doing good?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then let's look at it another way, is there a selfless reason for not believing?

is there a selfless act of compassion? when somebody does a good deed is it selfless or he wants to feel good about doing good?

I think this reverses the proper order of explanation. It is not that compassionate people alleviate suffering because of the pleasure it personally provides, but rather that compassionate people derive pleasure from alleviating suffering because they value people being free from suffering. Psychically integrated people tend to derive pleasure from the successful pursuit of that which they value, but that doesn't entail that they pursue that which they value for the pleasure they derive.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then let's look at it another way, is there a selfless reason for not believing?

There are certainly compassionate reasons. There is also the pursuit of the truth which I wouldn't really describe as selfish.

is there a selfless act of compassion? when somebody does a good deed is it selfless or he wants to feel good about doing good?
Most definitely. Just because you feel good about something does not mean that is why you do it. We are not condition-response machines that try to maximize personal pleasure.
I often do what I believe to be right because I believe it to be right, I do not try to justify it further than than nor do I do it in order to derive pleasure from it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are certainly compassionate reasons. There is also the pursuit of the truth which I wouldn't really describe as selfish.

[b]is there a selfless act of compassion? when somebody does a good deed is it selfless or he wants to feel good about doing good?
Most definitely. Just because you feel good about something does not mean that is why you d ...[text shortened]... do not try to justify it further than than nor do I do it in order to derive pleasure from it.[/b]

the act of doing good is always selfish. you feel good about it, you feel satisfied for doing the right thing, you get recognition. to put it simply, you feel good about the result. you do the deed for the result. if the result would be undesirable, you wouldn't do it.

if in some case you really don't think about the result then you made an miscalculated act, random if you will, and it is by chance that you performed a good deed.

Just because you feel good about something does not mean that is why you do it.
not what i meant. like i said above, you do a good deed because the result of that deed is appealing to you. it could hurt you but benefit others and still you would do it for the result and not for the act itself.

so my point is that every action you do that is not random and you agree with it is selfish in certain degrees.

so yeah, i am not completely selfless in believing in god.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the act of doing good is always selfish. you feel good about it, you feel satisfied for doing the right thing, you get recognition. to put it simply, you feel good about the result. you do the deed for the result. if the result would be undesirable, you wouldn't do it.

if in some case you really don't think about the result then you made an miscalculate ...[text shortened]... is selfish in certain degrees.

so yeah, i am not completely selfless in believing in god.

edit: "the act of doing good is always selfish. you feel good about it, you feel satisfied for doing the right thing, you get recognition. to put it simply, you feel good about the result. you do the deed for the result. if the result would be undesirable, you wouldn't do it."

Hey Zahlanzi pal,

Surely you can "act good" and at the same time feel miserable; bbarr a bit earlier had a point too.

The act of doing good seems to me more like a yin-yang forced condition: with your "free will" you built your morality, then your morality eliminates your free will and forces you to act; so in any case you act wihtout taking into account whether the result is desirable or undesirable -you do not take into account the taste of your emotions.

Originally posted by bbarr
I think this reverses the proper order of explanation. It is not that compassionate people alleviate suffering because of the pleasure it personally provides, but rather that compassionate people derive pleasure from alleviating suffering because they value people being free from suffering. Psychically integrated people tend to derive pleasure from the succe ...[text shortened]... e, but that doesn't entail that they pursue that which they value for the pleasure they derive.

i agree with this reasoning. mostly.

he called me selfish for following the exact moral values as him, just because i named my moral system "god" and said it comforts me to personify it. because of that reason, by his argument, i can never be selfless for doing the same things as him, whereas he does it solely by selfless means without expecting any rewards. i was pointing out that the prospect of reward exists, and just because one doesn't ask for it, it doesn't make one completely selfless.

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "the act of doing good is always selfish. you feel good about it, you feel satisfied for doing the right thing, you get recognition. to put it simply, you feel good about the result. you do the deed for the result. if the result would be undesirable, you wouldn't do it."

Hey Zahlanzi pal,

Surely you can "act good" and at the same time feel m ...[text shortened]... ult is desirable or undesirable -you do not take into account the taste of your emotions.

morality doesn't make you do what you don't want, better said it shouldn't. morality is there to ensure you choose what is right for the most people and not just what is right for you.

about feeling miserable: if only we could be presented with choices that only make us feel good. if i push a child out of the way of a speeding truck, it would suck. but i still would get to feel good about saving the child as i go splat on the truck's windshield. i didn't do it for the feel good moment about saving the child. i did it for the result. i find the result of saving a child and dieing acceptable.