Oct 6, 2017 08:28 PM
(Oct 6, 2017 06:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]No.(Oct 6, 2017 02:12 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Only because you think people are only religious to comfort themselves.
But even if you view the evolutionary development of religion as a by-product, it's a by-product that reinforces the cooperation that led us to modern times. IOW, it has a purpose beyond comfort. And I've yet to see evidence claiming to show religion is primarily espoused for comfort.
Well, Syne, God is similar to the elf on the shelf concept, right?
Quote:Someone is always watching and you are responsible for the outcome. If you are good, you will reap the benefits, if you are bad, bad things will happen to you. Is that how the world really works? Is it, Syne? When something bad happens to them, something that they have no control over, and what then?It's not karma. You are responsible for the outcome...of your own actions.
With your supposedly vaunted memory, you should recall how I've told you before that cause and effect are necessary for free will. And this fact alone accounts for the problem of evil.
Quote:Take this incident for example. Should the victims blame themselves to minimize the harsh reality of the meaningless nature of this incident? Did they do something wrong? Could they have avoided it? What role did their choice play in this outcome? Those are some of the questions that the public (the real watchers and judges) are wondering, right? Before we show mercy or wrath, that’s exactly what we try to determine. Are they worthy of our empathy? Am I right?There is no question of whether victims should be empathized with. Of course they should. It is just the vile nature of the left that sways between either not showing empathy for those they perceive as political rivals (and if you haven't seen examples of this, I can easily provide them) or painting their rivals as devoid of empathy (which in the light of the other end of their pendulum is obviously projection).
Quote:Freewill or determinism? That is the question. We approach this question through constraints and those constraints are never black and white. The level of constraints range from minor to severe. What was his motive? Was he abused as a child? Was it a side effect from a prescribed medication? Was he of sound mind? In other words, how much free choice is required for a person to be held responsible for his or her actions?Yeah, if you believe in determinism, everyone, including the shooter, is ultimately a victim. Then it's just arbitrary human emotions that assign guilt.
But if you allow for free will, the shooter is responsible for the action of harming others. If people are not simply a sum of their experiences, as nothing more than a stimulus/response machine, then they can be held responsible.
So yeah, if intellectually honest, hard determinists should have empathy for what everyone else deems complete evil...except that evolution didn't develop empathy to work that way.
And since studies have shown that belief in determinism has detrimental effects on moral choices, it does seem somewhat fitting that determinists should empathize with what most call evil.
Quote:God may stem from our imagination, but I don’t think that our cooperation is a by-product of the conception of god. Cooperation may be a by-product of empathy. Empathy stems from our imagination, as well, our moral imagination. We imagine stepping into another person’s shoes. Our communities, our states, our nations are all by-products of our imagination stemming from empathy, not god. We not only live in imagined communities, but with the increase in technology, we live in virtual communities, as well.Then why don't atheist groups rival the cooperation of religious ones? If empathy alone were sufficient, there should be no significant difference. Right? The most successful countries were formed on religious ideals.
Empathy supports in-group favoritism. It takes something more for empathy to make the leap to the out-group.
Failures of Empathy: The Intergroup Empathy Gap
Religion helps bridge the intergroup empathy gap.
Quote:I’m not attacking you, I’m simply curious as to why you keep making fun of MR from being gay, and as to why you felt the need to insert your opinion on this horrific event. Are you empathizing with the victims? If so, did you know any of the victims personally? If not, why would these strangers elicit empathy from you, but not strangers on the internet that you interact with almost daily? Empathy can be hijacked for political and ideological purposes, you know. What if it was an LGBT event?
Where did I make fun of MR being gay? Go read whatever you imagined again, deary.
Where have I inserted my opinion of this tragedy? I've given verified facts on medication and firearms.
I can tell you exactly my reaction to an LGBT event, because we already had the Pulse nightclub tragedy. And I told every LGBT I know, including strangers on the internet, that they should get a concealed carry permit. If you'll remember, I even gave you that same advice when you related not feeling safe in public.
Empathizing with the personal safety of strangers is quite different from empathizing with their feelings.