Why does god care?

We care on basis of what we are, no more no less. Both accepted theories for why we are here without god or with god give their reasons for why.

so you admit that you do have feelings of sympathy for the less fortunate? you also have feelings of anger and hostility for those deemed as mean...

so why is it that atheists do not display the same feelings of sympathy for the religious?

if religion truly is a false hope, why would you not have sympathy for those people who practice a worthless religion? here is a group of people who are wasting time and calories on religious belief systems that are doing them no good, yet atheists belittle and mock the religious to no end.

does that not seem snobbish and unsypathetic to you? woud you not deem the actions of atheists as being "mean"?

you are such a wizard of psychology... what other great proclamations of human kind can you bestow on us? no... wait. keep them to yourself.

Who is saying we don't?

Yes, I feel genuinely sorry for someone who lets belief in a several thousand year old text overshadow their ability to at the very least consider new domains of knowledge.

I also feel bad when I think of children learning in school that one of the most accepted scientific theories of all time is simply false on the grounds that 'this book of dubious origin and our interpretations of it must be correct.'

Not all religious people do this. The difference between a typical atheist and a typical theist person is probably far less than debates on an internet forum would lead us to believe.

One should also note that atheists can be religious.

I think the most theologically sound view of being created in God's image does not mean that you physically look like God. As it says, "Let us create man in our image." Presumably each person of the trinity does not look the same, and I think the standard view is that the Father and Holy Spirit do not have bodies, nor did the Son before He was born into the world.

Anyway I think it means something like Adam's soul was imprinted by God, making him righteous to start with. As soon as Adam sinned, however, that imprint faded or was defaced or something like that.. so actually people born now are not born "in the image of God" in the way that Adam was created "in the image of God."

do you mean that atheists have the capacity for deep levels of spirituality unrelated to the belief of a supernatural God?

I don't like the word spiritualist anymore than I like the word materialist. Personally I see no use for such a boundary.

But no, I meant it more specific. They can be religious as in believing in some religious work for that matter.

But apart from that, if I'll have to use the word, ofcourse an atheist can be 'spiritualistic'.

The same feelings of elation upon contemplation ( prayer for the Christian ) are felt by Buddhists, who don’t subscribe to any belief in God. Spiritual feelings are common for many different sets of beliefs. Atheism isn’t a professed set of beliefs but certainly, many atheists are spiritual. Sam Harris, for example, professes to be spiritual.

Empathy

Rational self-interest

Trancendental realization

on a scale of 1 - 10, how spiritual are we quantifying dawkins as?

why cant you just say logic?

religious works aren't the main source of empathy. You observe the situation and deduce that it would suck to be in that situation yourself so you feel bad, or if you're ****ed up like me you laugh(teenage girl video)

The standard of meanness evolves with your peers, so what is not acceptable in the "real world" can be ok in college or HS. Plus in HS there's a struggle, esp among girls to be cool or popular whatever you want to call it and part of the responsibility is to degrade those who aren't as cool/popular

Quantifying spiritualism, surely you jest?

Jokes aside making an arbitrary distinction between spiritualist and materialist is just silly, it isn't how it should be done.

Dawkins strikes me personally as an intelligent man deeply intrigued and extremely enthusiastic about one of the great mysteries of life, and also a good writer and storyteller.

Put a tag on it if you wish, it is not important.

yes, i am jesting, but his intolerance and ridicule of religion does not strike me as empathetic. it makes the makeup of his character dubious as to how much spiritual capacity he actually has.

Thanks quinn. NR's definition: Free will, reason, and morality worked for me. So you're saying that man is no longer in the image of God?

I'm not here to preach or show off, but to put out my own logic and axioms to the test. I sometimes think that I've thought something through only to realize some detail was overlooked or much more important than I realized. I think this stems from overconfidence. But now the question is why am I more inclined to be empathetic than being sympathetic?

I do not have to see a seal being clubbed to practice disturbing. But I would no doubt become more incensed at having witnessed an individual seal being clubbed. Is this abnormal or illogical?

Well, that's your view. I sympathize with the guy. The entire debate he is involved in must feel like being an Airbus engineer who is repeatedly told that 'flight doesn't happen'.

And I'll be frank and say outright that I don't think people who take the words of a 2000 year old book to be true nomatter what to be very spiritual, If anything I'd find them to be fairly unimaginative and closeminded - atleast on the intellectual level.

Again, there is always the caveat that not all religious people do this. And taking things for granted because 'that's the way it is' is not something the religious people that do are alone in doing either.

You ignored this part:

I think there is also such a thing as moral development in both directions - no one is standing still, everyone is moving in one of two directions. And human motivation is very complex- no one knows his own heart very well, much less the hearts of others.

It's impossible to say what motivates any individual. My comments are about mankind in general. People learn to hide what they really are. And there is a doctrine call Common Grace which states that God doesn't let mankind be as bad as they can be else we would go extinct quickly.

They are still in His image - they just have lesser capacity in this life. Also, the Bible never defines exactly what image of God means but it clearly refers to those things which are unlike other life forms and like what God says about Himself, which is generally taken to mean things like moral sense, reason, will, etc. There's plenty about it on the web.

I wouldn't say it was either of those things, but I don't think it is the highest form of morality. Empathy certainly has its place, but I think it is pretty shallow to constantly view the world through that prism. It's interesting that you use seal clubbing as an example, because I would certainly class it as... I don't know what to call it. Hypocrisy, perhaps, or moral shallowness... if you were to get outraged about that while eating pork products which come from farms in which pigs are badly mistreated. I don't think that being more concerned with moral issues that are right in front of you, or that you can identify with, is unnatural or reprehensible; it just gives me the impression of a shallowness of moral thinking. I'm trying and failing to think of an analogy. The best I can do, and this isn't very accurate, is that it's sort of like when I find out that people believe that free trade causes unemployment. It suggests they haven't thought about it very hard and/or are willing to subordinate their rationality to their emotions.

(btw, I have recently decided to avoid pork products where possible because of moral concerns)

You care because you believe that human life has "special meaning".
ABOVE and BEYOND Darwinian evolutionary meaning.

In a Darwinian sense...
It's good for the stronger girls to kill the weaker girl...
And it would be good to kill off the senile Grandma.

Human life has "special meaning" because we have a "spiritual dimension"...
That some people call that a relationship with God...
While others express it as various forms of "idealism".

It makes sense that 'in His image' does not refer to the physical. Obviously, God would not require arms, legs, or a penis. So I'm ok with your definition of free will, reason, and morality. But you've sidestepped the question:

Clearly, some are born totally absent of these qualities. Or at least some have more or less capacity for them. Does this mean that some are born closer or further away from God's image than others? Why would that be?

Perhaps it's selfishness? I care more about cruelty when it affects me. If I have to see or hear about it then it has a personal effect on me. Could it be that simple? Or...

Maybe it has to do with creativity. Some people view the world in an artistic way (me), and some more from a strictly logical standpoint (Sklansky). When I hear of a plane crash for example, I spend time trying to put myself in the passenger's place. I try to imagine what it was like for them. When the shuttle burned up upon re-entry a few years ago, I fixated on exactly what it was like for the astronauts. Now obviously, their death should have no more or less of an impact on me than someone shot in the head during a robbery. But I try to vicariously put myself in other people's situations. I put myself in that teenage girl's or senile grandmother's situation and it incenses me. I feel for them more than if I didn't know the whole story.

Is it? Why?

People who kill weak girls don't as a rule of thumb do to well, though there probably are a few exceptions. And what on earth has killing senile old grandma have to do with darwinism? Has she done bad things to you?

And I'd really think an answer through.

After reading "Unweaving the Rainbow" and "A Devil's Chaplain" I would say 9 to 10. The fact that Richard Dawkins has no imaginary friends and doesn't worship any ancient comic books doesn't mean he's not spiritual.