On pro-social behavor in the religious and the non-religious

[Jichard]

Compassion is an emotion, it is not built on any logical foundation.

There can be a number of reasons to be compassionate, ranging from moral reasons to self-interested reasons. There's nothing inherently illogical about being compassionate.

I assume you are not trying to argue here that Atheists are more emotional than Christians but I was told by Atheists that were oh so very much more clever than we are.

Well, there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people. But that's compatible with non-religious people being more motivated by compassion (in their pro-social behavior) than are non-religious people. So I don't know why you brought that up, as if there's some sort of conflict. Do you think there's some incompatibility between being compassionate and being intelligent?

Anyway, in the OP, I made it pretty clear what I was arguing.

[myth]

Exactly. Religion can have complex and unpredictable effects on people's behaviour, that can cause them to act morally or immorally due to 'religious reasons' rather than due to actual love or compassion. This can cause them to fly planes into buildings, wear suicide vests, give money to charity, deny people marriage rights, or to feed the poor. It's a bit like going to the casino of morality and spinning the wheel and going with whatever it points to. By contrast, atheists actually base their moral decisions on rational and reliable processes and so will act much more consistently and predictably and actually base their moral decisions on compassion and empathy.

I think you're over-simplifying morality by slamming religious people for making decisions that you believe are immoral. People's understanding of morality can vary greatly (because people interpret it in the context of their society, upbringing, and personal beliefs, etc.). I imagine that, as an atheist, you base your opinion of morality on some combination of philosophy and your personal observations of right/wrong. Having rational reasoning behind what you believe is great.

But let's stop pretending that religious people as a group have no rational thought process behind their concept of morality. For example, my own concept of morality is based on thousands of years of tradition, the Holy Bible, and a great deal of logical reasoning by personally examining the tenets of the faith I was taught as a child to determine what makes sense. I've rejected some of those tenets, but many I have accepted.

I can't always agree with the moral interpretations made by people of other religions, denominations of my own religion, or atheists. There are people out there who don't very critically examine what "they're told to do" in religious groups, sure. I'm as frustrated with those people as you are. But I'm slightly offended by the implication that religious people as a whole lack the capacity for rational reasoning or the inclination to use it.

[Darth Ovious]

It's quote-mining when you use the quote to say something that it doesn't say in context. I didn't quote-mine when I used the quote, since the quote does say what I say it said in context.



Once again, I didn't use the quote to say something that the quote does not say in context. So I didn't quote-mine. DE usedthe quote to say something the quote does not say in context. so DE quote-mined. Simple enough.

Once again this is not quote mining. He was responding to your quote. Quote mining is when a person quotes something themselves and leaves out context to make it say something it doesn't. Considering that DE was responding to your full quote then that is not quote mining. The most you can call for is a misinterpretation of the quote.

[Starlight]

Myth,
I think you're reading quite a lot more into my comment than I meant. I was simply saying atheists tend to be a bit more consistent among themselves about what constitutes 'moral behavior' than Christians do. Religion increases the variance between different people in terms of what one religious person, as compared to another religious person, might think is moral, because they often interpret the bible/koran etc in different ways. My comment was not implying anything on the subject of "religious people as a whole lack the capacity for rational reasoning or the inclination to use it."

[Darth Ovious]

There can be a number of reasons to be compassionate, ranging from moral reasons to self-interested reasons. There's nothing inherently illogical about being compassionate.

Pointing to an emotion and saying ""see we win" is not an argument. An argument is not made on emotional foundations as pointed by the appeal to emotion fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal

An emotional appeal is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation.

So the point I am making is that even if you did prove that atheists were more compassionate than Christians then this doesn't mean anything since you do not evaluate the worthiness of an idea through emotional appeal.

Well, there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people. But that's compatible with non-religious people being more motivated by compassion (in their pro-social behavior) than are non-religious people. So I don't know why you brought that up, as if there's some sort of conflict. Do you think there's some incompatibility between being compassionate and being intelligent?

Considering that it has been proven that strong emotions actually cloud a minds logical judgement and reason then what do you think?

Anyway, in the OP, I made it pretty clear what I was arguing.

I know what you were arguing but it's often a trait of anti-theists to argue that they are smarter than Christians and Christians only have emotional reasons for their beliefs.

[myth]

Myth,
I think you're reading quite a lot more into my comment than I meant. I was simply saying atheists tend to be a bit more consistent among themselves about what constitutes 'moral behavior' than Christians do. Religion increases the variance between different people in terms of what one religious person, as compared to another religious person, might think is moral, because they often interpret the bible/koran etc in different ways. My comment was not implying anything on the subject of "religious people as a whole lack the capacity for rational reasoning or the inclination to use it."

Fair enough. It was probably a combination of your word choice and what I perceived to be your tone, that led me to believe that was your intent.

Granted....I was also being an insomniac and trolling random T-Web forums because I couldn't sleep early on a Saturday morning when I really, really, wanted to sleep-in.

I'm gonna go try to take a nap now.

[Adrift]

Myth,
I think you're reading quite a lot more into my comment than I meant. I was simply saying atheists tend to be a bit more consistent among themselves about what constitutes 'moral behavior' than Christians do.

I see no reason to believe that. Very recent history has shown us that the moral ideas of many atheists have cost millions and millions of lives. Atheists are not guiltless of being morally inconsistent. Quite the contrary, it appears that they are among the most inconsistent.

[Jichard]

Pointing to an emotion and saying ""see we win" is not an argument.

Fortunately I didn't say that. So what strawman are you now attacking?

An argument is not made on emotional foundations as pointed by the appeal to emotion fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal

Then you should go tell Darth Executor that, not me:

Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.

So the point I am making is that even if you did prove that atheists were more compassionate than Christians then this doesn't mean anything since you do not evaluate the worthiness of an idea through emotional appeal.

Again, you're attacking a strawman argument of your own invention.

Considering that it has been proven that strong emotions actually cloud a minds logical judgement and reason then what do you think?

Which does nothing to address what I wrote:

"Well, there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people. But that's compatible with non-religious people being more motivated by compassion (in their pro-social behavior) than are non-religious people. So I don't know why you brought that up, as if there's some sort of conflict. Do you think there's some incompatibility between being compassionate and being intelligent?"

Nothing about atheists being compassionate implies that atheists are not logical, intelligent, etc.. Being compassionate does not necessarily cloud one's judgment and ability to reason, nor have you shown any evidence of it clouding atheists judgment or ability to reason.

I know what you were arguing but it's often a trait of anti-theists to argue that they are smarter than Christians and Christians only have emotional reasons for their beliefs.

Once again, you're attacking a strawman that has no bearing on the point of my OP.