Can The Atheist Do Good?

[shunyadragon]

I believe I understand the sentiment here, friend.

Say if I w're to run into a burning building to save a baby ... what I've in effect done is help perpetuate the most egregious invasive species imaginable. Not to mention interfering with natural selection, helping craft a species with less respect for danger.

First, there is no interference of natural selection in saving the baby, because fire or no fire does not have any selective value for the perpetuation of the species. You could come up with better examples.

Second, saving the baby is a natural urge to perpetuation of the species. It is common among higher primates for members to give their lives for the benefit of the group.

Our let's say I came up with a cure for cancer. Wouldn't that be an incorrect value judgment on cancer? Me imagining my existence superior to that of cancer? Even though the human species is a horrible blight on the earth?

Any negative view of the existence of the human species is a logical and rational approach to the existence of humanity. The overwhelming natural desire to perpetuate the species, as with with all species, takes precedence over any urge for self destruction of the species, which basically does not exist in the nature of behavior naturally. Philosophical Naturalism relies on the science of natural behavior of animals to determine human behavior. and the perpetuation of the species is the strongest motive for survival.

Know what I'm saying?

No

Perhaps you could explain what a "truly good" act looks like from a naturalistic perspective.

Any act which naturally leads to the survival of the species, and the social cooperation of the family, community and the species that promotes the ability to raise children to become productive members of the society.

[Carrikature]

Ok,

The usage in these verses does not match the usage you applied in the OP.

[Trout]

First, there is no interference of natural selection in saving the baby, because fire or no fire does not have any selective value for the perpetuation of the species. You could come up with better examples.

Second, saving the baby is a natural urge to perpetuation of the species. It is common among higher primates for members to give their lives for the benefit of the group.



Any negative view of the existence of the human species is a logical and rational approach to the existence of humanity. The overwhelming natural desire to perpetuate the species, as with with all species, takes precedence over any urge for self destruction of the species, which basically does not exist in the nature of behavior naturally. Philosophical Naturalism relies on the science of natural behavior of animals to determine human behavior. and the perpetuation of the species is the strongest motive for survival.



No



Any act which naturally leads to the survival of the species, and the social cooperation of the family, community and the species that promotes the ability to raise children to become productive members of the society.

Oh, shunya, a remedial reading comprehension class would do you some good.

Understanding the dilemma before you type is crucial to fostering discussion.

[Meh Gerbil]

How about scripture is a bunch of idiocies, hallucinations, and lies written by largely uneducated morons in the bronze age...

The prevalence of this logical flaw has always puzzled me.

Is this because you're a part of the iPhone generation where each successive iPhone is 'better' than the last so the old must be discarded in favor of the new?
Are you looking forward to the age of sex with robots because sex with other humans is something that was common with uneducated stone age morons?
Do you have a day job setting the expiration date on dairy products?

Goof.

[sylas]

I believe I understand the sentiment here, friend.

But from a purely naturalistic schema, the concept of doing something "truly good" confuses me.

Yep... me too. The qualifier "truly" doesn't add anything useful, IMO.

I think it's enough to note that sometimes someone can do something good. The question in the OP seems to be whether or not that someone can be an atheist.

It's quite a different question to ask whether or not ANYONE can do something good, because of possible difficulties with anything at all being good. That's not what the OP was about, as far as I can see.

Cheers -- sylas

[Carrikature]

The prevalence of this logical flaw has always puzzled me.

Is this because you're a part of the iPhone generation where each successive iPhone is 'better' than the last so the old must be discarded in favor of the new?
Are you looking forward to the age of sex with robots because sex with other humans is something that was common with uneducated stone age morons?
Do you have a day job setting the expiration date on dairy products?

Goof.

It's easy to conflate "old=bad" with "old=they didn't know what we know". The first isn't an argument; the second is a reasonable approach when you're looking at proposed explanations.

[Trout]

Yep... me too. The qualifier "truly" doesn't add anything useful, IMO.

I think it's enough to note that sometimes someone can do something good. The question in the OP seems to be whether or not that someone can be an atheist.

It's quite a different question to ask whether or not ANYONE can do something good, because of possible difficulties with anything at all being good. That's not what the OP was about, as far as I can see.

Cheers -- sylas

Thanks my friend. Understood. Well spoken for someone living in a penal colony. ;)

[shunyadragon]

Oh, shunya, a remedial reading comprehension class would do you some good.

Understanding the dilemma before you type is crucial to fostering discussion.

The only dilemma here is in your imagination. If you believe there is in reality a dilemma please state it clearly.

[Trout]

The only dilemma here is in your imagination. If you believe there is in reality a dilemma please state it clearly.

Take note how sylas read, understood and addressed the post in question. It can possibly give you some insight.

[Meh Gerbil]

It's easy to conflate "old=bad" with "old=they didn't know what we know". The first isn't an argument; the second is a reasonable approach when you're looking at proposed explanations.

I agree.
That written, I hate chronological snobbery.

It could be just as accurate to write: "new = they forgot what we knew."
For example, we may know how to use cell phones but how many of us know how to hunt Velociraptors like our ancestors did?

[Yttrium]

So, Seer, let's say an atheist firefighter saves the life of your local church leader. You're saying that wouldn't be a good act, because it wasn't done with faith in God.

I dunno, I think that kind of standard in what's "good" is seriously flawed.

[Carrikature]

I agree.
That written, I hate chronological snobbery.

It could be just as accurate to write: "new = they forgot what we knew."
For example, we may know how to use cell phones but how many of us know how to hunt Velociraptors like our ancestors did?

That one guy did, but he still got eaten.


ETA:

On second thought, maybe that means he didn't know how?

[seer]

So, Seer, let's say an atheist firefighter saves the life of your local church leader. You're saying that wouldn't be a good act, because it wasn't done with faith in God.

I dunno, I think that kind of standard in what's "good" is seriously flawed.

I wonder, if it is not done for the glory of God is it really good?

[Adrift]

I wonder, if it is not done for the glory of God is it really good?

Yes, God can do good through the actions of even wicked men. I believe he can even do savational work through wicked men. That's part of the grandeur of God. He often flips expectations on their head.

[Meh Gerbil]

That one guy did, but he still got eaten.


ETA:

On second thought, maybe that means he didn't know how?

Lost knowledge is a very sad thing indeed.
Sometimes I wonder what really awesome cures/techniques we lost when ancient libraries were lost.

Who knows, maybe the Mayans would be like: What? You guys don't have a cure for cancer? LULZ.