Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[Ramadhan]

What do you mean by 'still' necessary? It might be a typo on your part but yes, charity is necessary to be morally upright only once a person's income has reached a certain threshold. The exact amount is unknown to me but I am leaning towards something very very high

Ok. Your opinion underlined is rather different than your previous claim that

Giving charity is neither necessary nor sufficient to being a morally upright person

It's a little bit better, although still looks very stingy to me as you added the last sentence (about the treshold being very very high).

Let's ask the world's population, who they choose as their neighbor:
a. a normal person with limited income who gives charity
b. a normal person with high income (but still under your income charity-treshold) who does not give charity

 

[Pygoscelis]

Ok. Your opinion underlined is rather different than your previous claim that

No it isn't. It is only different than what you read into it.

It's a little bit better, although still looks very stingy to me as you added the last sentence (about the treshold being very very high).

He mentioned the AMOUNT being very very high, not the threshold. He could mean the amount donated. Again, your prejudice is showing by reading something that isn't there.

 

[Ramadhan]

No it isn't. It is only different than what you read into it.

I see that you consider this:

charity is necessary to be morally upright only once a person's income has reached a certain threshold

to be the same as:

Giving charity is neither necessary nor sufficient to being a morally upright person

So, what were you reading, pygo?

He mentioned the AMOUNT being very very high, not the threshold. He could mean the amount donated. Again, your prejudice is showing by reading something that isn't there.

This is what lynx wrote:

What do you mean by 'still' necessary? It might be a typo on your part but yes, charity is necessary to be morally upright only once a person's income has reached a certain threshold. The exact amount is unknown to me but I am leaning towards something very very high

English maybe my third or fourth language (I remember you made fun of me in the other thread about english being not my first language, before you deleted it. so who's prejudiced now), but now I truly believe my reading comprehension is better than yours.

"the exact amount" certainly referred to "certain treshold" as it followed right after the part and it is more logical. I was asking him specifically in the post preceding his post about the treshold.

As I said before, this conversation with both of you only cemented the conclusions derived by studies after studies about the stinginess of atheists/non-religious.,

 

[Pygoscelis]

As I said before, this conversation with both of you only cemented the conclusions

This is what we call confirmation bias.

 

[جوري]

by reading something that isn't there.

and this is what we call a rhetorical excursion-- Perhaps in the secret societies of atheists meanings and words get to evolve to provide a respectable leeway for fools, but the rest of us read the comments here in the exact same manner as br. Naidamar has elucidated!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

Ok. Your opinion underlined is rather different than your previous claim that

It's a little bit better, although still looks very stingy to me as you added the last sentence (about the treshold being very very high).

The first claim that you are underlining is an explanation of the previous claim. You agree that giving charity is not sufficient for a morally upright character and I have explained that it can't be necessary since poor people cannot afford to give charity so therefore giving charity is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a morally upright person unless you maintain poor people cannot be morally upright. In other words, it's necessary for SOME people to give charity but not for everyone. It might be stingy but I think i have good reasons for creating a high threshold which I will not get into unless you want to a start a new thread entitled 'how much should we give and why' ;D

Let's ask the world's population, who they choose as their neighbor:
a. a normal person with limited income who gives charity
b. a normal person with high income (but still under your income charity-treshold) who does not give charity

You can go and ask that if you have the means to conduct such a survey if it will satisfy your curiosity. Personally I don't think most people would care either way. In any case, I am not sure what your point is. Why does it matter who people want for their neighbors? People can live next to whoever they want; if they like to live next to charity-giving people then good for them?

@Pygo and naidamar

I hope this isn't turning into a discussion about what Lynx says because I don't represent anyone but myself :\ If there's something not understood in one of my posts I will be more than happy to clarify what I am saying.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Yes, Lynx. You may want to clarify.

Your first post (to which naidamar reacted and I interjected) was ambiguous in whether you meant people are not required (to be moral) to give to charity until a certain level of wealth, or whether you meant they should give a certain amount. The muslims here read it through their bias to mean the former. I pointed out is could be the latter.

Your new post confounds this further, as now you explicitly refer to "threshhold" being high and yet also refer to how much to give. You can bet that they will read this as conclusive proof that you don't want people giving to charity unless they are rich. I am doubtful that is your intention.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Let's ask the world's population, who they choose as their neighbor:
a. a normal person with limited income who gives charity
b. a normal person with high income (but still under your income charity-treshold) who does not give charity

Actually, most of them would probably choose B. Living next to a person with higher income raises property values and means more money is in the community. Person B may hire them to do a job and pay them well (all through Person B's entirely selfish motives), whereas person A may not (even though he is completely moral and generous).

Motive matters. Judging actions by their fruits (as our Christian friends would put it) can be deceptive. It is not very moral to do something that happens to help somebody else, if your intention and motivation wasn't to help that somebody else. If you give to charity for the tax breaks or for some sort of prize, that isn't terribly moral.

The reverse also applies. If you accidentally hurt somebody even though your motivation was to help them, that isn't immoral. This is why although I oppose missionary work (because it disrespects the people you claim to be helping and does them no actual good) I can not call it evil, as the people doing it legitimately believe that they are saving souls from hellfire. They mean well. They are not evil even though their actions can result in some terrible things.

The reward/punishment dynamic is amoral and can be used to shape behaviour towards any end. This is not morality. Morality transcends this. Morality is not a Skinner box.

 

[truthseeker63]

Yes i have worried.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I think if the person worries about it is one good way to tell an atheist from an agnostic who is not atheist. For the atheist to worry about hell etc is no more rational than for the Muslim to worry about Hades.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ good analogy, i was thinking the same


its like me worrying that a big cheese monster will suddenly attack me.



its why I dont expect atheists to worry.... but it forces me to dwelve into a world of virtual emotion where i attempt to understand the feelings which reside in an atheist...


ive always thought understanding someone is the best way to reach them, but no matter how hard I try i cant imagine a world without God.


so i guess its the same for them vice versa and this means they can never understand our bliss, and we can never understand their... bliss?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed. And I can not imagine a world with a God existing. So much so that for many years I truly believed that nobody actually believed in God, and that it was just something people pretended to believe for the warm feeling or the social acceptance. I have since met theists who clearly believe that there is no such thing as an atheist, and that we atheists are all just rebelling against God etc. It is hard to imagine the other point of view, regardless of which we each hold.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Indeed. And I can not imagine a world with a God existing. So much so that for many years I truly believed that nobody actually believed in God, and that it was just something people pretended to believe for the warm feeling or the social acceptance. I have since met theists who clearly believe that there is no such thing as an atheist, and that we atheists are all just rebelling against God etc. It is hard to imagine the other point of view, regardless of which we each hold.

But if you've moved from disbelieving that anyone could actually be a believer in a divine being, to accepting it as so even if you don't understand that belief yourself, then you are making progress. And I don't mean by that progress toward becoming a believer yourself; I simply celebrate your own progress toward being a more understanding and fully engaged human being able to better to relate to your brothers and sisters in humanity. Would that we all might grow in that respect (believer and unbeliever alike).

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well let's not congratulate me in this regard too quickly.

I still believe that there are a LOT of closeted atheists, claiming to be believers for the sense of community and to keep people happy and avoid social ostracization. I believe that on the census the people falling into the category of "none" or "atheist" is highy under represented. And I believe that the pews and mosques and synagogues have far far more atheists and agnostics in them than the true christians, muslims and jews would ever imagine.

I just now recognize that some people really DO believe this stuff, as astonding as I find that.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well let's not congratulate me in this regard too quickly.

I still believe that there are a LOT of closeted atheists, claiming to be believers for the sense of community and to keep people happy and avoid social ostracization. I believe that on the census the people falling into the category of "none" or "atheist" is highy under represented. And I believe that the pews and mosques and synagogues have far far more atheists and agnostics in them than the true christians, muslims and jews would ever imagine.

I just now recognize that some people really DO believe this stuff, as astonding as I find that.

No problem. I actually agree with you on the first part. Additionally, I think that many of us are more cultural believers than cognitive believers -- best way I have of explaining why religions can remain so geographically deliniated in a world with mass global communication. But it was with regard to the second part that I was applauding your growth. Many people never ever get there.

 

[Ramadhan]

And I believe that the pews and mosques and synagogues have far far more atheists and agnostics in them than the true christians, muslims and jews would ever imagine.

I don't know about pews or synagogues, but I have to ask you something:

why would there be far more agnostics and atheists in mosques than the true muslims ever imagine?

Because for me, it is almost unthinkable that there's agnostics and athiests performing ibada in mosques, unless (which is more likely), you have certain incorrect interpretation of what mosques are, influenced by christian-church concept.

 

[جوري]

I don't know about pews or synagogues, but I have to ask you something:

so true.. why stand like this:

in the middle of the streets when the mosques are full when you can simply pretend to be a Muslim at home?

atheists.. I really don't know how they think..

today a colleague of mine who is an atheist (Lebanese) told me he lost his father two weeks ago and that his grief is so overwhelming because that was just it.. he wants to believe that he'll see his father again and that we're not just physical beings but spiritual ones..
I suppose they just wait to the last minute to ask of life's big questions and what a shame that is.. truly a shame..

 

[Trumble]

I suppose they just wait to the last minute to ask of life's big questions and what a shame that is.. truly a shame..

No, they ask the questions long before that. They just find different answers.

 

[Ramadhan]

No, they ask the questions long before that. They just find different answers.

You only find out the answers after you die.

Oh, I forgot, of course you have. According to your religion buddhism, you have died before and reborn.

How was the afterlife?
Out of curiosity, how many lifetimes have you had?

 

[Ramadhan]

atheists.. I really don't know how they think..

I know how they think.
They think without evidence. Just read some of their posts in this forums alone.