Sense of supiority

[Nilloc James]

I am sorry if you are Christan and this does not apply to you.

I have noticed a disturbing trend of Christians believing they are better than all of faiths or lack of.

Would one please say why they believe/disbelieve this in the case of those who do not.

[Jester]

Not at all. In contrast, I've seen you around quite a bit, and from what I've seen, you seem like a very reasonable person. Reasoned comments are always welcome.

Many thanks, then. I appreciate the kind words.

I do not personally feel discrimination for my position on the subject of religion, but I believe it is because I am not vocal enough to warrant it. I currently have no set career path and I am far from being financially comfortable, so on the off chance that a prospective employer might dismiss me on the grounds of my atheism, I keep it to myself outside of cyberspace and close friends.

Hmmm... I can't say I know if that is a danger or not, only that I hope not. Being a believer in free exchange of ideas - I've always believed that everyone voicing their beliefs is better than no one doing it (which seems to be the popular solution at times).
But, that seems like a bit of inconclusive ramble, so I'll stop there.

Moreover, I'm not certain that this applies particularly to religious acts (for the record, I'm not certain of the opposite either - Jesus Christ, for example, seemed to think that the highly 'religious' were more evil than the prostitutes and slum-lords).

I think a separate thread could be started on this topic, though I doubt there is any science or evidence to back up claims made on such a topic, so from what I can see it would simply be a discussion of differing opinions. It would be an interesting discussion, though. If anyone feels compelled to start a thread on the subject, let me know. I'd be glad to join in.

I'll agree with that assessment, but went ahead and opened it, and am interested in seeing which thoughts come up.

I do apologize for my over-generalization of christianity.

No apologies necessary. Generalization is, in my opinion, unavoidable in this type of forum.

The statement's intent, however, applies to your response. Christianity would seem, if anything, to be a hindrance in the quest for altruism, simply because it adds more motives for any action.

The studies I've seen have all indicated that there is very little difference in the degree of altruistic behavior between Christians and non-theists. My personal opinion is that it is a help for some and a hindrance for others (and, of course, that those for whom it is a help are closer to having it right).

I would agree that they may not actively think about personal gain, but I suspect that these actions to please god are not truly altruistic, either. While one may not think about pleasing god when acting, one invariably forecasts how the action will make one feel, whether consciously or subconsciously.

I have no objection to the idea that this is likely for all religious acts. I'm not personally convinced that it is certain, however. I do believe that people do behave altruistically toward others when they genuinely care about said other. I see no reason why this same sort of motivation cannot also apply in one's behavior toward God. I make no argument that this is generally, or even often, the case - merely that it is possible.

This all ties in with my belief that no action is truly and purely selfless.

Of course, if this is correct, then that would refute my point above. I do believe that there are things which people value outside of their use to us (that is the philosophical definition of beauty), which would lead to altruistic acts: people seeking to preserve or improve upon something because, they believe, it has a value of it's own.
Either that, or I'm being blindly optimistic.

[Nilloc James]

Of course, if this is correct, then that would refute my point above. I do believe that there are things which people value outside of their use to us (that is the philosophical definition of beauty), which would lead to altruistic acts: people seeking to preserve or improve upon something because, they believe, it has a value of it's own.
Either that, or I'm being blindly optimistic.

Could you provide an example of that?

[Jester]

Here is the thing Jester, why do many people assume they are not worthy of exceptional love?

In my opinion, because we're only human. Being accepted by something far greater than we can imagine, let alone become, would seem to be more than we've earned to many.

Perhaps myself and many people I know have that in real life, are fortunate as we do have human beings we share our lives with who just accept us for who WE are and not what THEY could want us to be.

I have been fortunate enough to experience this as well. The more I realize how loved I am, the less deserving I feel of it, and the more grateful and genuinely impressed I am with those who do choose to love. This is what I had meant to communicate regarding God.

Perhaps though, you and I have different interpretations of what love is.

I suppose we all have our individual understandings.

To me it is feel warm and safe, to respect eachothers opinions whether they are on the same page or not, or even the same book.

I agree with all of this, except perhaps 'safe'. Love, to me, involves risk.

Love to me is about equality and not dominance by one party, threatening all sorts of wrath if you don't tow their line.

I'm not sure I understand this. (Let me clarify).
First and foremost, I completely agree that threats over behavior is not inherent to love. I believe that love can involve discipline (such as a parent-child relationship), but don't believe in any way that demanding certain behavior without genuine compassion for the other is love.
What I don't understand is the use of the word "equality". Is that to say that all people in a relationship are to have equal rights, or that they are all to have equal love for one another. I don't see that the first is always desirable (again, parent-child). The second should be, but (not surprisingly) my position as a theist is that God loves each of us far more than we love him, meaning that he is more than fair to that end.

Love is not about abuse.

With that, I will thoroughly agree. I'm not sure what I did to imply otherwise, but would be glad to correct my mistake.

Love is not about fearing.

Again, I agree, though I'm guessing that the thought is the phrase "fear of the Lord" as it applies to the Bible. Generally, I find that the problem is not with the understanding of love, but with the understanding of fear. Biblically, fear refers to understanding what God could and should do if he were going to be fair, and is expected to disappear immediately when one realizes that he is too loving to do it. As such, there is no indication in the Bible that love is about fearing, but that it is the means by which fear is conquered.

How do you see love, jester?

I hope my comments above satisfy. Definitely, I'll grant that we may not see perfectly eye-to-eye on such a broad topic as love, but feel that my understanding of it is far more pleasant than some suspect.

[Jester]

Of course, if this is correct, then that would refute my point above. I do believe that there are things which people value outside of their use to us (that is the philosophical definition of beauty), which would lead to altruistic acts: people seeking to preserve or improve upon something because, they believe, it has a value of it's own.

Could you provide an example of that?

Hmmm, let me see....
The most clear-cut example that comes to mind is the hero sacrificing his life to protect a person, country, ideal, etc.
In such a case, he/she is giving greatly to something without gaining even the chance to enjoy it.

[Nilloc James]

Of course, if this is correct, then that would refute my point above. I do believe that there are things which people value outside of their use to us (that is the philosophical definition of beauty), which would lead to altruistic acts: people seeking to preserve or improve upon something because, they believe, it has a value of it's own.

Could you provide an example of that?

Hmmm, let me see....
The most clear-cut example that comes to mind is the hero sacrificing his life to protect a person, country, ideal, etc.
In such a case, he/she is giving greatly to something without gaining even the chance to enjoy it.

Thanks, that is prehaps the only example though, and in that case he is going down in history. So it could be a selfish attempt to get his name in the history books depending on who sacrificed themselves.

Thanks again for the example though.

[Jester]

Thanks, that is prehaps the only example though, and in that case he is going down in history. So it could be a selfish attempt to get his name in the history books depending on who sacrificed themselves.

Thanks again for the example though.

I suppose that is a fair enough answer, though I would venture that such things have been done from those who have no real hope of getting their names in a book. These kinds of crisis don't always occur in a way that lends itself to such notoriety.

Personally, I'd say that there are many cases of altruism in human behavior (though probably less than we like to think about ourselves), but any that do not immediately result in the death of the individual could easily be accused of having some ulterior motive. I don't feel that such motives must be the entire motivation, however, and personally remain unconvinced by the idea that this paradigm can adequately explain sacrificial behavior (such as the afore-mentioned heroism).

[Nilloc James]

Thanks, that is prehaps the only example though, and in that case he is going down in history. So it could be a selfish attempt to get his name in the history books depending on who sacrificed themselves.

Thanks again for the example though.

I suppose that is a fair enough answer, though I would venture that such things have been done from those who have no real hope of getting their names in a book. These kinds of crisis don't always occur in a way that lends itself to such notoriety.

Personally, I'd say that there are many cases of altruism in human behavior (though probably less than we like to think about ourselves), but any that do not immediately result in the death of the individual could easily be accused of having some ulterior motive. I don't feel that such motives must be the entire motivation, however, and personally remain unconvinced by the idea that this paradigm can adequately explain sacrificial behavior (such as the afore-mentioned heroism).

Is it fair to say a large portion of human behavior comes from benifits to our selves with afew selfless execeptions?

[Jester]

Is it fair to say a large portion of human behavior comes from benifits to our selves with afew selfless execeptions?

By my thinking (insofar as that is important), this is absolutely correct.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it fair to say a large portion of human behavior comes from benifits to our selves with afew selfless execeptions?

By my thinking (insofar as that is important), this is absolutely correct.

I agree -- with the provision that "selflessness" refers to specific actions and does not attempt to characterize individuals. I doubt that any human can be regarded as "selfless" in entirety " though some are more inclined in that direction than others.

I would add that the characteristic is not unique or exclusive to any group.

[Nilloc James]

.

Is it fair to say a large portion of human behavior comes from benifits to our selves with afew selfless execeptions?

I would add that the characteristic is not unique or exclusive to any group.

Very true, however that does not stop people from beleiving some really odd things about other faiths or lack of.