The Atheist Preacher

[Angry Floof]

Well, alright then. I really had hoped we could discuss this without attacking each other. My bad.

I was discussing this topic with a friend last night who, let's say is a much more strident atheist than I am. We mildly disagreed but then we gave each other a hug. So, cyber hugs to those who don't agree with me.

In the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along"....... I know. I guess that's wishful thinking, sort of like religion.

Well, the Ferengi aren't real people, but if they were, I'd hold them accountable, too.

 

[steve_bank]

To me it is simple. Atheist preacher equates to moral philosopher. Futureists are in a sense prophets without gods. Secular prophets.

To preach has many meanings, not just religious. In the context of the forum it would mean presenting a moral philosophy or a code.

If someone calls themselves atheist preacher I assume some kind of moral philosophy without deities and supernatural.

Atheist Christian I wood assume someone rejecting divinity of Jesus and espousing the general moral principles attributed to Jesus. Universal love. Treat others like you want to be treated. Charity. At the time of Nicaea the question of divinity was still up in the air.

A discussion on seculare moral philosophies versus Christianity would be a good discussion.

I tried to start it on philosophy several times asking if you reject religion what then is the basis of your morality. No reposes.

Atheist Preacher is a matter of definitions, like it always is on these questions. The length debate on meaning and interpretation begins.

If someone defines themselves as atheist preacher then he or she has to define itr. Atheist itself has variations in meaning. Atheist agnostic. Weak or strong atheist.

Before the debate begins define terms. Otherwise debate wanders all over the place. That is generally lacking, an OP is started with general use of words.

 

[skepticalbip]

...snip...

Atheist Christian I wood assume someone rejecting divinity of Jesus and espousing the general moral principles attributed to Jesus. Universal love. Treat others like you want to be treated. Charity. At the time of Nicaea the question of divinity was still up in the air.

I still see "atheist Christian" as an oxymoron. Someone who espouses "the general moral principles attributed to Jesus" but not the divinity of Jesus could call themselves an "atheist humanist" though. You are right that at the time of Nicene Council the question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated. However, the agreed doctrine by the conclusion was the Nicene Creed which declares the divinity of Jesus. Thus a Christian is someone who accepts his divinity... someone who doesn't but accepts the teachings would be a humanist.

OTOH, there is nothing wrong with a label of "atheist preacher". I have known a couple.

 

[Angry Floof]

To me it is simple. Atheist preacher equates to moral philosopher. Futureists are in a sense prophets without gods. Secular prophets.

To preach has many meanings, not just religious. In the context of the forum it would mean presenting a moral philosophy or a code.

If someone calls themselves atheist preacher I assume some kind of moral philosophy without deities and supernatural.

Atheist Christian I wood assume someone rejecting divinity of Jesus and espousing the general moral principles attributed to Jesus. Universal love. Treat others like you want to be treated. Charity. At the time of Nicaea the question of divinity was still up in the air.

You made a big deal of human nature earlier, but now you portray a very human and very potentially abusive cultural environment as something strictly philosophical. Nice, but I've been talking about a human cultural environment where certain religious concepts serve to create that environment in a way that is potentially abusive and encourages and protects abusers.

Regardless of whatever niceties you want to think are at play (IF ONLY Christian churches cared about the teachings of Jesus Christ), you cannot ignore the fact that religious congregations and communities are little societies that are structured according to religious teachings, which vary wildly and pretty much anything can be supported by an ancient and convoluted text. And we can examine those teachings and concepts and look at how they manifest in those very real human beings, their relationships, and events/situations.

Whatever "philosophy" encourages a group to protect an abuser while demonizing and attacking his young female victim is inhumane, or at the very least, sorely lacking in its ability to promote and protect the peace and well being of the tribe.

A discussion on seculare moral philosophies versus Christianity would be a good discussion.

That's what I've been doing. Authority worship, punishment of questioning, demonizing of out-groups, us vs. them or "saved vs. unsaved" perceptive framework, insistence on conformity, etc. I could go on and list more and in more detail if you really do want such a discussion.

I tried to start it on philosophy several times asking if you reject religion what then is the basis of your morality. No reposes.

You didn't ask me that question. Can you show me the post where you asked this question?

Morality is based in human experience and conscience, in questioning and willingness to be uncomfortable, in willingness to recognize where IMmorality might exist as seeds within yourself. You already have within your ordinary humanness the capacity for a moral landscape that is vastly superior and more aware than Christianity. It's just not easy or rote. Obedience to imposed rules without question is the opposite of a conscientious moral reckoning.

But, again, you will not find that in any Christian pastor's teachings, for what should be obvious reasons.

Atheist Preacher is a matter of definitions, like it always is on these questions. The length debate on meaning and interpretation begins.

"Preacher" is a word that comes from religion, which almost always contains a supernatural or metaphysical narrative. The thread title makes sense because someone without that supernatural element being called a preacher is kind of non sequitur, and so Southernhybrid's questions are meant, as I understand her, to explore that perceived non sequitur. I see nothing controversial about the phrase in this context.

If someone defines themselves as atheist preacher then he or she has to define itr. Atheist itself has variations in meaning. Atheist agnostic. Weak or strong atheist.

Before the debate begins define terms. Otherwise debate wanders all over the place. That is generally lacking, an OP is started with general use of words.

"Atheist" just means a person who is aware that they do not believe in gods. To someone steeped in a religious framework, it might be difficult to recognize that "atheist" is not a religious identity. For me personally, I'm not even an atheist. That is not an accurate way to look at it because it's not my identity. I'm not an atheist at all until the subject comes up. Our language usage has sort of dictated that I be described as an atheist as if it is an identity, but it really is not. The word, or the lack of belief that it conveys, is not what I am. It does not describe what I am as a being. In fact, "atheist" is irrelevant to who and what I am. It's only in the narrow context of religious minds that it even needs to be a word at all. I'm a human. I have a lot of group identities, but none of them are more basic and central to who or what I am than "human."

This has been expressed so many times in so many ways by so many atheists just here on this board. And it is a point that is actually crucial to any argument between atheists and religious believers because that attachment to a limited and distorted sense of identity that does not include all humans is one of the most poisonous tenets of religions like Christianity. The Christian social dominance culture insists that you're different from the rest of the world in some way because you've been taught to identify with a magical story about human sacrifice, torture, supernatural birth, and that this somehow makes you good enough for eternal heaven but not good enough to recognize that your humanness is the same as every other human being who ever existed.

On top of that hijacking of your basic sense of self, depending on the flavor of Christianity, you can add all manner of cognitive pitfalls and inhumane concepts and edicts that, again, create environments in which abusers can thrive and the congregation is conditioned to not fight back or hold them accountable.

Definitely human nature going on there, as you pointed out earlier, but guess what? You know the people who do stand up and question and hold abusers accountable? They're usually secular or outsiders not conditioned to play along with the indoctrination, but even when they are from within the group, they are human beings operating under human nature, too. It's human nature to not want to change your mind, but it's also human nature to change your mind. It's human nature to continue doing something abusive or shady if no one stops you, but it's also human nature to stop people being abusive or shady.

If you want to rely on "it's just human nature to form backward, inhumane religious subcultures," then you necessarily have to acknowledge that any change for the better in human societies is also brought about by human nature. It's really a choice, isn't it?

 

[steve_bank]

...snip...

Atheist Christian I wood assume someone rejecting divinity of Jesus and espousing the general moral principles attributed to Jesus. Universal love. Treat others like you want to be treated. Charity. At the time of Nicaea the question of divinity was still up in the air.

I still see "atheist Christian" as an oxymoron. Someone who espouses "the general moral principles attributed to Jesus" but not the divinity of Jesus could call themselves an "atheist humanist" though. You are right that at the time of Nicene Council the question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated. However, the agreed doctrine by the conclusion was the Nicene Creed which declares the divinity of Jesus. Thus a Christian is someone who accepts his divinity... someone who doesn't but accepts the teachings would be a humanist.

OTOH, there is nothing wrong with a label of "atheist preacher". I have known a couple.

I agree on the divinity if you believe scripture is word of god. I also think that if one acepts the bible as word of god one can not be gay and Christian, but I have no problem with a gay Christian. We all have freedom to choose a belief and invent one.

I watched a show on the material that did not get into the bible cannon. There was a lot of writings that rejected divinity. As I understand it the council was generally about geo-theocracy. Power politics. The creed was essentially a loyalty oath o the new theology.

 

[skepticalbip]

...snip...

Atheist Christian I wood assume someone rejecting divinity of Jesus and espousing the general moral principles attributed to Jesus. Universal love. Treat others like you want to be treated. Charity. At the time of Nicaea the question of divinity was still up in the air.

I still see "atheist Christian" as an oxymoron. Someone who espouses "the general moral principles attributed to Jesus" but not the divinity of Jesus could call themselves an "atheist humanist" though. You are right that at the time of Nicene Council the question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated. However, the agreed doctrine by the conclusion was the Nicene Creed which declares the divinity of Jesus. Thus a Christian is someone who accepts his divinity... someone who doesn't but accepts the teachings would be a humanist.

OTOH, there is nothing wrong with a label of "atheist preacher". I have known a couple.

I agree on the divinity if you believe scripture is word of god. I also think that if one acepts the bible as word of god one can not be gay and Christian, but I have no problem with a gay Christian. We all have freedom to choose a belief and invent one.

You seem to be conflating beliefs and actions. Someone can devoutly believe in the divinity of Jesus (thus a Christian) and yet only pay lip service to the teachings. In fact it isn't at all uncommon for Christians to do exactly that. OTOH, someone can live the teachings (be a humanist) and reject the divinity of Jesus.

I watched a show on the material that did not get into the bible cannon. There was a lot of writings that rejected divinity. As I understand it the council was generally about geo-theocracy. Power politics. The creed was essentially a loyalty oath o the new theology.

Organized religion is, in practice, politics.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree on the divinity if you believe scripture is word of god. I also think that if one acepts the bible as word of god one can not be gay and Christian, but I have no problem with a gay Christian. We all have freedom to choose a belief and invent one.

You seem to be conflating beliefs and actions. Someone can devoutly believe in the divinity of Jesus (thus a Christian) and yet only pay lip service to the teachings. In fact it isn't at all uncommon for Christians to do exactly that. OTOH, someone can live the teachings (be a humanist) and reject the divinity of Jesus.

I watched a show on the material that did not get into the bible cannon. There was a lot of writings that rejected divinity. As I understand it the council was generally about geo-theocracy. Power politics. The creed was essentially a loyalty oath o the new theology.

Organized religion is, in practice, politics.

It is. It's tribalism. If people think religion is necessary for social cohesion, then a religion that is useful and relevant to the actual world we now live in has to be a religion that includes all human beings and life on earth within the tribal identity. Anything else is us vs. them conflict.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You seem to be conflating beliefs and actions. Someone can devoutly believe in the divinity of Jesus (thus a Christian) and yet only pay lip service to the teachings. In fact it isn't at all uncommon for Christians to do exactly that. OTOH, someone can live the teachings (be a humanist) and reject the divinity of Jesus.

Organized religion is, in practice, politics.

It is. It's tribalism. If people think religion is necessary for social cohesion, then a religion that is useful and relevant to the actual world we now live in has to be a religion that includes all human beings and life on earth within the tribal identity. Anything else is us vs. them conflict.

Obviously, you get it, enough anyway as demonstrated by the ability to make that statement. What keeps so many people from never getting to the point you just demonstrated?

So long as enough people can identify with something like divinity, which is just magic, which is fantasy, which points to an intellectual deficiency, which results in all manner of poor decision making, not much is going to change. It's like expecting first-graders to organize and educate themselves.

Now toss in emotions. Marx said religion was an opiate but emotions are the opiate, or perhaps more specifically dopamine is the opiate. Maybe we should all take meds.

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

 

[Angry Floof]

You seem to be conflating beliefs and actions. Someone can devoutly believe in the divinity of Jesus (thus a Christian) and yet only pay lip service to the teachings. In fact it isn't at all uncommon for Christians to do exactly that. OTOH, someone can live the teachings (be a humanist) and reject the divinity of Jesus.

Organized religion is, in practice, politics.

It is. It's tribalism. If people think religion is necessary for social cohesion, then a religion that is useful and relevant to the actual world we now live in has to be a religion that includes all human beings and life on earth within the tribal identity. Anything else is us vs. them conflict.

Obviously, you get it, enough anyway as demonstrated by the ability to make that statement. What keeps so many people from never getting to the point you just demonstrated?

So long as enough people can identify with something like divinity, which is just magic, which is fantasy, which points to an intellectual deficiency, which results in all manner of poor decision making, not much is going to change. It's like expecting first-graders to organize and educate themselves.

Now toss in emotions. Marx said religion was an opiate but emotions are the opiate, or perhaps more specifically dopamine is the opiate. Maybe we should all take meds.

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'm not so much concerned with individual people's beliefs regarding God or divinity. I take the Quaker view of respect for autonomy, taking seriously the belief that everyone, even children, must be free to interpret the divine entirely through their own subjective experience and reflection, something not to be interfered with by others, even though we do that unintentionally in many ways.

What I object to, and refuse to give in to ideas that it's futile, is specific institutions and ideological groups that prey on others under the guise of offering that divinity or something like it.

Capitalism is a similar ideology that we can observe in its effects on the behavior and beliefs of individual humans and groups. Think of all the corporations that have caused harm and suffering of others in the pursuit of profits. Look at how tobacco companies, for example, have not only continued to sell a poisonous product in spite of warnings and put a lot of effort and money into marketing strategies that could dive deep into society and manipulate people into buying and becoming addicted to their product.

The longer they went on with their activities, the more they felt entitled to continue. That is an aspect of human nature that Steve inadvertently introduced to the discussion. He wanted to say belief is human nature, but in the context of my arguments, it's really entitlement and unwillingness to examine one's own motivations and what they contribute to beyond their personal gratifications and narrative.

Not only did tobacco companies want to continue their abuse of consumers (and still do), they fought tooth and nail to cover up wrongdoing, distort or hide evidence, demonize critics, and express outrage at the intrusion of society into their business. Any reduction in the harm caused by tobacco companies was brought about by people outside of that corporate subculture. In other words, by other human beings willing to hold them accountable when they themselves were too self satisfied by their riches and success to do it themselves.

In the context of religious institutions, we atheists and a smattering of courageous and independent minded religious believers who hold corrupt churches and their leaders accountable. THAT is also human nature, but it's a part that is conveniently ignored by religious apologists.

You can go on all day about how selfishness rules, and it would appear so, but it doesn't. Wider society, the group, will always be there to counteract selfishness. That's human nature. And it works both ways. Individuals speak up at great risk to challenge unjust societies, and societies hold corrupt individuals accountable. Doesn't always work well and nothing is guaranteed, but whenever a corrupt group or individual is held accountable, it is by other human beings. No God as yet has stopped a rapist priest. To whatever extent perverted priests or greedy corporations have ever been held accountable, it's been by other human beings. Not by the God of either money or the Bible, or any other.

Religion's power is not just in the manipulative tactics it employes, but in the pedestal of unaccountability we've allowed it to sit on. Powerful corporations protected by not just money but cultural zealotry for capitalism are hard to bring to heel, and so is religion for much the same reasons.

Whether someone takes a stance for or against corrupt power is a matter of conscience, and people of conscience, people who hold power accountable even at great risk, do indeed make a difference, although negativity bias, another reflex of human nature worthy of examination and overcoming, would have us not notice that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Obviously, you get it, enough anyway as demonstrated by the ability to make that statement. What keeps so many people from never getting to the point you just demonstrated?

So long as enough people can identify with something like divinity, which is just magic, which is fantasy, which points to an intellectual deficiency, which results in all manner of poor decision making, not much is going to change. It's like expecting first-graders to organize and educate themselves.

Now toss in emotions. Marx said religion was an opiate but emotions are the opiate, or perhaps more specifically dopamine is the opiate. Maybe we should all take meds.

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'm not so much concerned with individual people's beliefs regarding God or divinity. I take the Quaker view of respect for autonomy, taking seriously the belief that everyone, even children, must be free to interpret the divine entirely through their own subjective experience and reflection, something not to be interfered with by others, even though we do that unintentionally in many ways.

What I object to, and refuse to give in to ideas that it's futile, is specific institutions and ideological groups that prey on others under the guise of offering that divinity or something like it.

They do that because they do not recognize their insanity. That's my contention. They don't see their behavior in a larger, humanity-wide context and so do not see it as destructive. The lunatics without self-awareness are running the asylum.

We probably agree that the sane persons not pushing back hard enough is also an insanity, though to a lesser degree because it is only indirectly destructive. So what is causing both of those behaviors? What is the root cause?

 

[Angry Floof]

Obviously, you get it, enough anyway as demonstrated by the ability to make that statement. What keeps so many people from never getting to the point you just demonstrated?

So long as enough people can identify with something like divinity, which is just magic, which is fantasy, which points to an intellectual deficiency, which results in all manner of poor decision making, not much is going to change. It's like expecting first-graders to organize and educate themselves.

Now toss in emotions. Marx said religion was an opiate but emotions are the opiate, or perhaps more specifically dopamine is the opiate. Maybe we should all take meds.

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'm not so much concerned with individual people's beliefs regarding God or divinity. I take the Quaker view of respect for autonomy, taking seriously the belief that everyone, even children, must be free to interpret the divine entirely through their own subjective experience and reflection, something not to be interfered with by others, even though we do that unintentionally in many ways.

What I object to, and refuse to give in to ideas that it's futile, is specific institutions and ideological groups that prey on others under the guise of offering that divinity or something like it.

They do that because they do not recognize their insanity. That's my contention. They don't see their behavior in a larger, humanity-wide context and so do not see it as destructive. The lunatics without self-awareness are running the asylum.

We probably agree that the sane persons not pushing back hard enough is also an insanity, though to a lesser degree because it is only indirectly destructive. So what is causing both of those behaviors? What is the root cause?

Limitations of human nature, I guess, but my point again is that it's not an absolute limitation. We are nothing if not adaptable and plastic. If we weren't, we wouldn't be able to create such institutions as legal systems or economies or principles or culture. We can think beyond our personal bubbles, and now more than ever our personal bubbles are informed by a wider world through technological connectivity and exposure to information and different ideas and lifestyles.

The environment of small, relatively isolated groups gave rise to the kind of social structures the religions like Christianity perpetuate. The leader/father figure is in charge and everyone answers to him. If he's wise and strong, he has a good chance of keeping his people happy while protecting them from danger or starvation. But that's also an environment where he and other strong members of the group can abuse the rest with impunity. At least, unless or until the group itself rises up against the abuse successfully. If they do, the society changes having had this experience of allowing abuse and will not allow it again, at least until time passes enough to forget about it.

We don't live in that world anymore. Technology and population growth have put us virtually in each other's faces globally. A pastor in a small town might still have a great deal of control over his flock's minds and behaviors, but more and more, his messages can and do reach a wider audience, and it's an audience that is not conditioned to revere him or his teachings, and is not captive in the group and helpless to speak out.

I risk almost nothing in speaking out against some preacher in Kansas who posts his sermons online (which is stupid, if he has any clue what really gives him his power, part of which is a level of isolation). Potentially millions of women, for example, can hear all about his backward, misogynistic religious teachings and give him a level of backlash not possible before the information age.

The world we now live in make such subcultures unsustainable. I'm sure a lot of churches and preachers feel like they are not too uncomfortably affected by the wider world challenging them and their ideology and will continue on lying to people and keeping them as ignorant and separate as possible for a while. But once it becomes really intrusive and uncomfortable, as it inevitably will unless they move to a new church in Jonestown or under a rock, when they feel cornered, their options are to adapt peacefully or continue demonizing and resisting and, as they so often do, calling for violence against the outside world.

Who knows how we will adapt to the world we've created. Our brains certainly didn't evolve in tribes of seven billion, and clearly a lot of brains are relying on old tricks that used to work and just stepping up the amplitude. (This is called extinction bursts, if you don't already know that.) The only question is whether the burst of once-useful but now malignant survival reflexes kill us all before our collective behaviors change.

Whatever the answer, it's worthwhile to speak up against corrupt institutions and inhumane ideologies, and to continue calling out bad behavior and the irrational and false justifications for it.

 

[rousseau]

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'd add an addendum here - if everyone is insane, then insane is normal and the intellectual is actually the outlier. I've found this to be true. Insanity isn't a good adjective of the human-race - the idea that we're rational, and capable of controlling our destiny entirely is misleading, anthropocentric, and would lead us to that conclusion. But we're not rational or capable of controlling our destiny entirely, so irrational is just how we'd define ourselves.

Voltaire once said 'men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all'. Don't know why, but that ones always stuck with me.

So I think there's something more fundamental going on when we look at the movement of history, and to me that thing is that our instincts are actually more fundamental to our nature than our 'intellect'. What's keeping people alive and propagating are survival instincts, and survival instincts usually mean conforming to social norms (lack of intellect), as well as a certain deficit of empathy for people who don't serve us any material gain. That's fundamentally the problem. No matter how many people are sacrificing their own well-being for the greater good, there are far more people who are naturally ambivalent, and those seeking good are likely not actually accomplishing that much. Primarily because they're forced to seek their own interests just to survive.

 

[Angry Floof]

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'd add an addendum here - if everyone is insane, then insane is normal and the intellectual is actually the outlier. I've found this to be true. Insanity isn't a good adjective of the human-race - the idea that we're rational, and capable of controlling our destiny entirely is misleading, anthropocentric, and would lead us to that conclusion. But we're not rational or capable of controlling our destiny entirely, so irrational is just how we'd define ourselves.

Voltaire once said 'men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all'. Don't know why, but that ones always stuck with me.

So I think there's something more fundamental going on when we look at the movement of history, and to me that thing is that our instincts are actually more fundamental to our nature than our 'intellect'. What's keeping people alive and propagating are survival instincts, and survival instincts usually mean conforming to social norms (lack of intellect), as well as a certain deficit of empathy for people who don't serve us any material gain. That's fundamentally the problem. No matter how many people are sacrificing their own well-being for the greater good, there are far more people who are naturally ambivalent, and those seeking good are likely not actually accomplishing that much. Primarily because they're forced to seek their own interests just to survive.

I don't know why this seems like such a difficult concept, but seeking the interests of the group is also seeking one's own interests, and operates on the same level as any other instinct. It's in our DNA to seek the comfort of the group and also to contribute to the comfort of others in the group. It's weird that so many otherwise intelligent people want to characterize this aspect of our instinctive behavior as somehow less than, or something we have to put some extra work or intellect into.

We fight and steal, but we also take care of each other. I would argue the latter is actually more powerful a driver to how our individual behaviors and choices arise as collective behaviors. Just because it's not as sexy or noticeable or impinging on our nervous systems as violence doesn't mean it's not just as powerful a driver.

When atrocity or widespread injustice or suffering occur, individuals who otherwise had little reason to look up from their self interests will do so, and more often than not, land on the side of moral justice. This is the arc of the moral universe MLK mentioned.

And again, we are nothing if not adaptable. When cycles of atrocity and then healing and regrowth occur often enough, our responses become more ingrained. And that's just on the instinctive level. We also know how to write stuff down so we don't forget, not to mention having the capacity to reflect and analyze and plan for the next atrocity while at the same time creatively problem solve toward prevention.

I feel like I'm the only one here who has any positive regard for humanity at all.

Negativity bias, people! There's always, always going to be possibilities that negativity bias would have you miss.

 

[rousseau]

My brother and I agree that humanity is insane, as demonstrated by behavior. We also agree that not enough of us recognize that we're insane to make a difference.

I'd add an addendum here - if everyone is insane, then insane is normal and the intellectual is actually the outlier. I've found this to be true. Insanity isn't a good adjective of the human-race - the idea that we're rational, and capable of controlling our destiny entirely is misleading, anthropocentric, and would lead us to that conclusion. But we're not rational or capable of controlling our destiny entirely, so irrational is just how we'd define ourselves.

Voltaire once said 'men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all'. Don't know why, but that ones always stuck with me.

So I think there's something more fundamental going on when we look at the movement of history, and to me that thing is that our instincts are actually more fundamental to our nature than our 'intellect'. What's keeping people alive and propagating are survival instincts, and survival instincts usually mean conforming to social norms (lack of intellect), as well as a certain deficit of empathy for people who don't serve us any material gain. That's fundamentally the problem. No matter how many people are sacrificing their own well-being for the greater good, there are far more people who are naturally ambivalent, and those seeking good are likely not actually accomplishing that much. Primarily because they're forced to seek their own interests just to survive.

I don't know why this seems like such a difficult concept, but seeking the interests of the group is also seeking one's own interests, and operates on the same level as any other instinct. It's in our DNA to seek the comfort of the group and also to contribute to the comfort of others in the group. It's weird that so many otherwise intelligent people want to characterize this aspect of our instinctive behavior as somehow less than, or something we have to put some extra work or intellect into.

We fight and steal, but we also take care of each other. I would argue the latter is actually more powerful a driver to how our individual behaviors and choices arise as collective behaviors. Just because it's not as sexy or noticeable or impinging on our nervous systems as violence doesn't mean it's not just as powerful a driver.

When atrocity or widespread injustice or suffering occur, individuals who otherwise had little reason to look up from their self interests will do so, and more often than not, land on the side of moral justice. This is the arc of the moral universe MLK mentioned.

And again, we are nothing if not adaptable. When cycles of atrocity and then healing and regrowth occur often enough, our responses become more ingrained. And that's just on the instinctive level. We also know how to write stuff down so we don't forget, not to mention having the capacity to reflect and analyze and plan for the next atrocity while at the same time creatively problem solve toward prevention.

I feel like I'm the only one here who has any positive regard for humanity at all.

Negativity bias, people! There's always, always going to be possibilities that negativity bias would have you miss.

I agree that seeking the interests of the group is also in our own interest, but I'd add that seeking out our own interests is a far, more powerful force, so powerful that it's invisible, benign and just looks like every day life. People acting in their own interest doesn't need to mean blatant atrocity or injustice, it can just mean choosing to drive despite global warming, to live in a bigger home than one needs, or even choosing to have children at the expense of contributing to the lives of others. In these subtle, invisible ways we spend most of our energy on ourselves, not others. In another thread I argued that most of us do wish to help others, but in practice our energy to do so is limited.

I don't consider that negativity, I consider that realism. I don't feel particularly ashamed of the human race, I feel like we are exactly what we are, and should be.

And so when we tie this back to evolution we see that spending most of our energy on ourselves is adaptive, and that human nature tends toward a kind of cooperative, subtle sociopathy. Few of us are actual sociopaths, but almost none of us are genuinely benevolent to an extent that we would sacrifice our own life for others.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't know why this seems like such a difficult concept, but seeking the interests of the group is also seeking one's own interests, and operates on the same level as any other instinct. It's in our DNA to seek the comfort of the group and also to contribute to the comfort of others in the group. It's weird that so many otherwise intelligent people want to characterize this aspect of our instinctive behavior as somehow less than, or something we have to put some extra work or intellect into.

We fight and steal, but we also take care of each other. I would argue the latter is actually more powerful a driver to how our individual behaviors and choices arise as collective behaviors. Just because it's not as sexy or noticeable or impinging on our nervous systems as violence doesn't mean it's not just as powerful a driver.

When atrocity or widespread injustice or suffering occur, individuals who otherwise had little reason to look up from their self interests will do so, and more often than not, land on the side of moral justice. This is the arc of the moral universe MLK mentioned.

And again, we are nothing if not adaptable. When cycles of atrocity and then healing and regrowth occur often enough, our responses become more ingrained. And that's just on the instinctive level. We also know how to write stuff down so we don't forget, not to mention having the capacity to reflect and analyze and plan for the next atrocity while at the same time creatively problem solve toward prevention.

I feel like I'm the only one here who has any positive regard for humanity at all.

Negativity bias, people! There's always, always going to be possibilities that negativity bias would have you miss.

I agree that seeking the interests of the group is also in our own interest, but I'd add that seeking out our own interests is a far, more powerful force, so powerful that it's invisible, benign and just looks like every day life. People acting in their own interest doesn't need to mean blatant atrocity or injustice, it can just mean choosing to drive despite global warming, to live in a bigger home than one needs, or even choosing to have children at the expense of contributing to the lives of others. In these subtle, invisible ways we spend most of our energy on ourselves, not others. In another thread I argued that most of us do wish to help others, but in practice our energy to do so is limited.

I don't consider that negativity, I consider that realism. I don't feel particularly ashamed of the human race, I feel like we are exactly what we are, and should be.

And so when we tie this back to evolution we see that spending most of our energy on ourselves is adaptive, and that human nature tends toward a kind of cooperative, subtle sociopathy. Few of us are actual sociopaths, but almost none of us are genuinely benevolent to an extent that we would sacrifice our own life for others.

You're saying that selfishness is more powerful than the need to be part of a stable group that helps meet the individual's needs? Remember, we are a species that has existed for eons as a social mammal, for far longer than we've been homo sapiens. If the urge to cooperate within the group were such a weak one, how is it now such a dominant trait?

Also remember that conscious choices and conscious self-explanations for our choices are the tip of an iceberg. How much of what we do is actually animal brain making choices that do benefit the group that we're not aware of? What was it that prompted the first homo sapiens that fed another tribe member as their broken leg healed to do so?

Side note: That would actually be a good question for those rare folks who move out into the wilderness and cut off human contact for years at a time. You can't easily be aware of your own conditioning and subconscious drives when the satisfaction of those drives is constantly there, such as the need to be with other humans for someone who has never been without human contact regularly and when they need it. But take that steady contact away and you're forced to face whatever animal brain responses arise due to the lack of it.

 

[rousseau]

I don't know why this seems like such a difficult concept, but seeking the interests of the group is also seeking one's own interests, and operates on the same level as any other instinct. It's in our DNA to seek the comfort of the group and also to contribute to the comfort of others in the group. It's weird that so many otherwise intelligent people want to characterize this aspect of our instinctive behavior as somehow less than, or something we have to put some extra work or intellect into.

We fight and steal, but we also take care of each other. I would argue the latter is actually more powerful a driver to how our individual behaviors and choices arise as collective behaviors. Just because it's not as sexy or noticeable or impinging on our nervous systems as violence doesn't mean it's not just as powerful a driver.

When atrocity or widespread injustice or suffering occur, individuals who otherwise had little reason to look up from their self interests will do so, and more often than not, land on the side of moral justice. This is the arc of the moral universe MLK mentioned.

And again, we are nothing if not adaptable. When cycles of atrocity and then healing and regrowth occur often enough, our responses become more ingrained. And that's just on the instinctive level. We also know how to write stuff down so we don't forget, not to mention having the capacity to reflect and analyze and plan for the next atrocity while at the same time creatively problem solve toward prevention.

I feel like I'm the only one here who has any positive regard for humanity at all.

Negativity bias, people! There's always, always going to be possibilities that negativity bias would have you miss.

I agree that seeking the interests of the group is also in our own interest, but I'd add that seeking out our own interests is a far, more powerful force, so powerful that it's invisible, benign and just looks like every day life. People acting in their own interest doesn't need to mean blatant atrocity or injustice, it can just mean choosing to drive despite global warming, to live in a bigger home than one needs, or even choosing to have children at the expense of contributing to the lives of others. In these subtle, invisible ways we spend most of our energy on ourselves, not others. In another thread I argued that most of us do wish to help others, but in practice our energy to do so is limited.

I don't consider that negativity, I consider that realism. I don't feel particularly ashamed of the human race, I feel like we are exactly what we are, and should be.

And so when we tie this back to evolution we see that spending most of our energy on ourselves is adaptive, and that human nature tends toward a kind of cooperative, subtle sociopathy. Few of us are actual sociopaths, but almost none of us are genuinely benevolent to an extent that we would sacrifice our own life for others.

You're saying that selfishness is more powerful than the need to be part of a stable group that helps meet the individual's needs? Remember, we are a species that has existed for eons as a social mammal, for far longer than we've been homo sapiens. If the urge to cooperate within the group were such a weak one, how is it now such a dominant trait?

Also remember that conscious choices and conscious self-explanations for our choices are the tip of an iceberg. How much of what we do is actually animal brain making choices that do benefit the group that we're not aware of? What was it that prompted the first homo sapiens that fed another tribe member as their broken leg healed to do so?

Side note: That would actually be a good question for those rare folks who move out into the wilderness and cut off human contact for years at a time. You can't easily be aware of your own conditioning and subconscious drives when the satisfaction of those drives is constantly there, such as the need to be with other humans for someone who has never been without human contact regularly and when they need it. But take that steady contact away and you're forced to face whatever animal brain responses arise due to the lack of it.

No, I'm saying that the energy we spend serving our own interests is of magnitudes greater than the energy we spend on the groups of which we are apart, and even moreso than the energy we spend on groups of which we are not a part. The group will usually function to meet the needs of the individual, and not vice versa. Within the group there is plenty of inter-fighting, conflict, racism, sexism - you name it.

This is all to say that people who primarily seek their own needs first within the context of the wider world are more likely to pass on their genes, and so the most powerful force we see through history is cultural behavior that's oriented to the individual. That's not to say that cooperation isn't a part of it, it certainly is, because cooperation serves our own interests too, but I would never expect people to genuinely sacrifice themselves en masse. And day to day our benevolence is pretty much kept to a minimum - we give the appearance of it - but in practice we can't really give much.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree that seeking the interests of the group is also in our own interest, but I'd add that seeking out our own interests is a far, more powerful force, so powerful that it's invisible, benign and just looks like every day life. People acting in their own interest doesn't need to mean blatant atrocity or injustice, it can just mean choosing to drive despite global warming, to live in a bigger home than one needs, or even choosing to have children at the expense of contributing to the lives of others. In these subtle, invisible ways we spend most of our energy on ourselves, not others. In another thread I argued that most of us do wish to help others, but in practice our energy to do so is limited.

I don't consider that negativity, I consider that realism. I don't feel particularly ashamed of the human race, I feel like we are exactly what we are, and should be.

And so when we tie this back to evolution we see that spending most of our energy on ourselves is adaptive, and that human nature tends toward a kind of cooperative, subtle sociopathy. Few of us are actual sociopaths, but almost none of us are genuinely benevolent to an extent that we would sacrifice our own life for others.

Perhaps we do this because the threat to personal survival is not imminent enough. People of disparate persuasions can and do band together to overcome an imminent threat that is shared. When doing nothing becomes more threatening than doing something people will do do something, and at this point they also know what it is they need to do, even if they don't yet have a coherent plan. They've come to the realization that personal survival depends on group survival first, and they have a common vision on how to achieve that.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree on the divinity if you believe scripture is word of god. I also think that if one acepts the bible as word of god one can not be gay and Christian, but I have no problem with a gay Christian. We all have freedom to choose a belief and invent one.

You seem to be conflating beliefs and actions. Someone can devoutly believe in the divinity of Jesus (thus a Christian) and yet only pay lip service to the teachings. In fact it isn't at all uncommon for Christians to do exactly that. OTOH, someone can live the teachings (be a humanist) and reject the divinity of Jesus.

I watched a show on the material that did not get into the bible cannon. There was a lot of writings that rejected divinity. As I understand it the council was generally about geo-theocracy. Power politics. The creed was essentially a loyalty oath o the new theology.

Organized religion is, in practice, politics.

ok

 

[rousseau]

I agree that seeking the interests of the group is also in our own interest, but I'd add that seeking out our own interests is a far, more powerful force, so powerful that it's invisible, benign and just looks like every day life. People acting in their own interest doesn't need to mean blatant atrocity or injustice, it can just mean choosing to drive despite global warming, to live in a bigger home than one needs, or even choosing to have children at the expense of contributing to the lives of others. In these subtle, invisible ways we spend most of our energy on ourselves, not others. In another thread I argued that most of us do wish to help others, but in practice our energy to do so is limited.

I don't consider that negativity, I consider that realism. I don't feel particularly ashamed of the human race, I feel like we are exactly what we are, and should be.

And so when we tie this back to evolution we see that spending most of our energy on ourselves is adaptive, and that human nature tends toward a kind of cooperative, subtle sociopathy. Few of us are actual sociopaths, but almost none of us are genuinely benevolent to an extent that we would sacrifice our own life for others.

Perhaps we do this because the threat to personal survival is not imminent enough. People of disparate persuasions can and do band together to overcome an imminent threat that is shared. When doing nothing becomes more threatening than doing something people will do do something, and at this point they also know what it is they need to do, even if they don't yet have a coherent plan. They've come to the realization that personal survival depends on group survival first, and they have a common vision on how to achieve that.

Yea that's a part of it, and another is that some of our responses are actually more intuitively rational than we typically give them credit for. Global warming is a great example. Many of us pay it lip service, but when push comes to shove we sub-consciously know that giving up our own car, our own heating bill won't do anything until there is systemic social change. So people don't change, because in the long, historical view supporting their own lives and children takes precedence over a behavior that in reality won't work.

When the change is possible and absolutely necessary we usually do band together - an example would be something like the women's rights movement.

 

[southernhybrid]

Since we seem to be way off topic, as usual, let me say one thing about global warming and such things. People may recognize that humans are hurting our envirenment due to our habits, but habits are extremely difficult to change. So, while I drive a hybrid car, stopped traveling by air, and try not to waste much food, etc. The thought of giving up my gas logs is frightening. I'm very cold natured, so my house is fairly warm in the winter, but I barely use my A/C in the summer. I have friends that are the opposite. They barely use the heat in the winter but have the A/C turned down very low in the summer. Habits are very hard to change, so until something happens that makes us all realize how much we need to change, we will keep on doing what we have become used to doing.

And, sure, if you have lots of money, you can buy a new electric car, but if you're dirt poor and there's no public transportation where you live, you're not going to get rid of that old gas guzzling car that you've had for 15 years. On the other hand, you're not going to buy clothing that you don't really need because you can't afford it, not necessarily because you don't want that new shirt or pair of jeans.

It's like being obese. You know that eating less and moving more will benefit you, but most people find it to difficult to change those habits. Until, we start to experience food shortages, there is nothing that will make a very obese person cut back on all those extra calories that they eat, because most people don't have the motivation to change old habits.

And, if you've ever read Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse", you know that humans have a long, long history of destroying their own environments. So basically, we're probably doomed. Keep a happy thought. And some of you didn't like the Atheist Preacher.....