FYI - I do not perform based on punishment either, the church is finally understanding a love based relationship
What’s the point of life if one does not believe in a deity? Obviously from a strictly animal point of view it’s food, sex, and death; but we’ve got minds, we’re social animals. The meaning of life is whatever we want it to be – including, in many cases, the love of something beyond life.
Yes but this side stepping. When, how did the animal “turn off” and "love"evolve?
For myself personally, it’s ‘live well and in the service of humanity, enjoy the time I have and depart from it gracefully, and look good doing it’ (ah, vanity, thy name is me…).
Service to one’s fellows is not contingent on theology, and history shows us plenty of examples of theists and non-theists alike ignoring the rest of humanity in favor of themselves. Even ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is not a theological teaching but a social one (it’s also some fine advice).
Actually loving thy brother as thy self is religious based. It is rooted in humans being a creation of God, thus we are all children of God and thus our neighbor is our brother.
Even dying for others’ sake can be seen as good; it’s just a part of taking that service to others seriously.
Again a side step, when, why, how did the animal “turn off”? How can a true atheist value any thing above his personal life?
Non-theists are not necessarily Objectivists; we don’t have to look out for #1 all the time, and we can make sacrifices just as well as any religious can – even the ultimate one. If anything it means more coming from one who does not believe in life after death: the believer dies believing he or she will rise again anyway, while the heathen says goodbye forever.
Why? why would your heathen select to die for others? what is or could be his driving motivation. The key word above is “can”, as in physically can, we are looking for “will” Why will he make that choice.
Does such service enrich one’s life? Not directly. It is not laying up building supplies for our condos in paradise. It just makes this world better for all of us – a rather more selfless goal, isn’t it? Denying the self so that others may benefit, instead of denying the self so you can collect on it after you die, while others benefit as a side effect?
There are plenty of reasons for the lack of non-theist humanitarian organizations (although to hear people here, the various branches of the UN and the ACLU should count…).
Maybe the only reason for non-theist humanitraian organizations is there are no true atheist? Maybe the religous teachings on Natural Law explain why renown atheist must deny Natural Law coming from their very heart. So they often comply with Natural Law yet on the surface wish to deny the reason for their sacrafice?
First, non-theism is by its very nature disorganized. There are no sacraments, no rites and rituals, no scriptures – only lack of belief in a deity. It’d be like having a Church of People Who Eat Potato Chips. No organization, no infrastructure, no framework upon which to build a unified humanitarian arm in the name of godlessness.
And this will lay the footing for what you write below
Second, non-theism has really only picked up anything resembling numbers in the last couple hundred years. Religions have had vast numbers of devotees for millennia.
Odds are this condition reverses on and off through history, however even when isolated people have been contacted through out history they already have a religion, when we find them. Interesting no?
Third, people don’t like non-theists. Atheists are the least trusted minority in America today – below blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, and homosexuals. People get fired from their jobs for not believing in any deity, or worse. We’ve only just now managed to get a US representative to admit to non-belief in a deity, for crying out loud! There is no belief system, no hierarchy, no infrastructure, only a couple hundred years of anything even beginning to approach acceptance -
Maybe it comes from 1) believing an atheist must put themselves first, 2) they are denying the Natural Law within themselves (moral compass), and 3)they are not ready for trust (this do to their own decisions of denial)
- and you’re asking ‘where is your analogue to a mostly beloved, jet-setting, internationally acclaimed leader and founder of a worldwide institution?’?
sorry I do not understand this reference
Also, whatever’s talking about evolutionary psychology. It’s a young science yet, but an interesting one