andrel wrote:
> That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out 
> what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns out 
> that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken the 
> non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping others."
> 
> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
> not carry across cultures?
> 

Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone 
that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.

>> That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced 
>> around a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, 
> 
> given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
> 
I provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists 
where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't 
fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing" 
something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read 
it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way 
he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful", 
in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events 
mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or 
linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get 
from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad 
enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting 
me!!"

If that is all it takes.. We are all screwed.

>> The doctors stated that she would either be still born, or only live a 
>> short time. The chaplain's statements about the matter:
>>
>> 1. Thumbs up to the christians that chose to follow their own creed of 
>> loving others.
>>
>> 2. The two who they helped might not have made it without such help 
>> and compassionate people with them.
>>
>> 3. Not impressed with the god in the story, who seemed to be unable to 
>> do anything at all that the doctors didn't already predict.
>>
>> 4. "Four, I wish that the friendships that abound in this story would 
>> have been accomplished without the framework of religion to constrain 
>> them. This story speaks poignantly of both the power and the depth of 
>> human empathy and compassion. Danny, Danielle and Bobbi didn’t need a 
>> deity; they needed other people. The Christians didn’t need a deity; 
>> they had tremendous strength and love within themselves. Danny, 
>> Danielle, the pastor and all of the church people have sold themselves 
>> short. Instead of recognizing their own virtue, they believe that the 
>> source of all their goodness is a small god who performs pitifully 
>> small miracles. That’s almost as tragic as the death of baby Bobbi."
>>
>> Mind, the first poster on the reply thread suggested that #1 may have 
>> been a bit "artificial", in that many such people are far more 
>> interested in getting people "into" the club, and saving souls, than 
>> truly showing compassion, without strings attached. And, he is right. 
>> Its very hard to tell the difference some times.
> 
> There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the 
> church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that 
> that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation of 
> their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if someone 
> would question my intentions in this way.
> 
No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the 
"author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he 
even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to 
prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face 
value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not 
possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem 
is, a lot of them "do", then claim that having the alterior motive makes 
  what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same 
thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".

> To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist and 
> is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact closely 
> for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. Sometimes 
> that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes into it and 
> sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not result in 
> anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that the internal 
> changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave friendly 
> towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We might hope 
> that the other follows our example, but that does not make any of us 
> missionaries.

True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the 
fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain 
religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of 
compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem 
for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It 
means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect, 
even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those 
religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect 
people to behave.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message