Daleks? Cybermen?

I present to you the dumbest article I've read on this topic in a while, and one which I had high hopes for when I clicked on the link.

[url]http://theweek.com/article/index/260172/why-atheism-doesnt-have-the-upper-hand-over-religion[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;372120]I present to you the dumbest article I've read on this topic in a while, and one which I had high hopes for when I clicked on the link.

[URL]http://theweek.com/article/index/260172/why-atheism-doesnt-have-the-upper-hand-over-religion[/URL][/QUOTE]
I have to admit that after two readings I still cannot make head or tail of the article. Can anyone help me out? The author gives an example of an altruistic (and tragic) act by a father who sacrificed his life to save his son, and then draws the conclusion that only religion can make sense of this act. But I entirely miss the link allowing that conclusion to be drawn.

My take on the article is "I can't imagine how an atheist might respond to situation X therefore there is no response. Lather, rinse, repeat a couple times. "

What's funny about it it (not funny ha ha) is that he links to the Coyne article so we can see what he's responding to. So we see that he responds to basically nothing and none of the points made by Coyne. In fact by being so bad at basic philosophy/argumentation in his rejoinder to Coynes review of Hart's book he becomes almost a parody of apologetics.

He shows that he misunderstands evolution, in basically every way that you can. It's tempting to label him many things he patently isn't (if you follow his writing at all). He's not a creationist. He's a fairly progressive thinking Christian who supports (among other things) gay marriage and some abortion rights. He's certainly no darling of the Tea Party or Religious Right Crowds.

What's most sad is that he seems all bent out of shape b[URL="http://theweek.com/article/index/254941/memo-to-atheists-godrsquos-not-dead-yet"]ecause a book he touts by an author he respects[/URL] isn't actually very convincing.

Is it really a sacrifice to give your life to save someone you truly love?
Isn't it only a sacrifice if you lose more than you gain?
Isn't it altruistic only if you sacrifice your life selflessly, i.e. for
someone who means nothing to you?
(Our heroic fire and police personnel have good reasons for the risks they take.)
Doesn't that make an altruistic act not good but immoral?
Isn't that why moral atheists might have better reasons than theists?

[QUOTE=chappy;372136][...]In fact by being so bad at basic philosophy/argumentation in his rejoinder to Coynes review of Hart's book he becomes almost a parody of apologetics.[...][/QUOTE]
Interesting you say that because after reading the article I was trying to come up with some sort of parody of it, parody being quite a powerful tool for highlighting nonsense. But I found myself unable to do any better at parody than the article itself does (to itself).

Having said that, of course I am useless at writing and lack creativity, so I'm sure someone else would manage to do what I failed to do.

---

[QUOTE=davar55;372139]Is it really a sacrifice to give your life to save someone you truly love?
Isn't it only a sacrifice if you lose more than you gain?
Isn't it altruistic only if you sacrifice your life selflessly, i.e. for
someone who means nothing to you?
(Our heroic fire and police personnel have good reasons for the risks they take.)[/QUOTE]
I don't dare to give my own answers to those questions, because I find them too broad and highly dependent on individual circumstances.
But let's accept for a moment (which I don't really) that a true altruistic act can only be a sacrifice for someone who means nothing too you. Then...
[QUOTE]Doesn't that make an altruistic act not good but immoral?
Isn't that why moral atheists might have better reasons than theists?[/QUOTE]...here you lose me. What morals are you talking about which would make a such a true altruistic act immoral? And, as regards the second question above, what does it have to do with (a)theism?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;372194]...
I don't dare to give my own answers to those questions, because I find them too broad and highly dependent on individual circumstances.
But let's accept for a moment (which I don't really) that a true altruistic act can only be a sacrifice for someone who means nothing too you. Then...
...here you lose me. What morals are you talking about which would make a such a true altruistic act immoral? And, as regards the second question above, what does it have to do with (a)theism?[/QUOTE]

(1) A value system that puts you at the base of your own actions.

(2) Moral atheism, based on such valuation basis, is
automatically more moral than any theist's morality
(at least any that I've heard of, like the three biggies.)
based on putting others ahead of self.

[QUOTE=davar55;372393](1) A value system that puts you at the base of your own actions.

(2) Moral atheism, based on such valuation basis, is
automatically more moral than any theist's morality
(at least any that I've heard of, like the three biggies.)
based on putting others ahead of self.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, but I'm still unclear what you mean by (1) above, "puts you at the base of your own actions".

Do you just mean that an individual, under this system of morals, is responsible for their own actions? (This weak form would say little or nothing about altruism.)

Or do you mean that the system of morals states that an individual should relate all actions to themselves, in other words they should always consider the consequence to themselves of everything they do? (This is, to my mind, mere selfishness and equivalent to no system of morals at all. It is how children behave before they have learned society's morals.)

Or do you mean something else?

Sorry for my slowness, I'm just trying to understand you.

[quote]
(1) A value system that puts you at the base of your own actions.

(2) Moral atheism, based on such valuation basis, is
automatically more moral than any theist's morality
(at least any that I've heard of, like the three biggies.)
based on putting others ahead of self.
[/quote][QUOTE=Brian-E;372396]
Thanks, but I'm still unclear what you mean by (1) above, "puts you at the base of your own actions".

Do you just mean that an individual, under this system of morals, is responsible for their own actions? (This weak form would say little or nothing about altruism.)

Or do you mean that the system of morals states that an individual should relate all actions to themselves, in other words they should always consider the consequence to themselves of everything they do? (This is, to my mind, mere selfishness and equivalent to no system of morals at all. It is how children behave before they have learned society's morals.)

Or do you mean something else?

Sorry for my slowness, I'm just trying to understand you.[/QUOTE]

Of course, under ANY system of morals, an individual SHOULD BE
responsible for their own actions.

And of course, any individual SHOULD consider ALL consequences of
their actions to the extent possible, especially consequences to
themselves. To not be THIS selfish at least, is to act against one's
own interests, i.e. selflessly, i.e. hardly rationally.

Acting FOR ones own interests first, does not mean acting against
others' interests, it is not MERE anything, it is not childish behavior.

Altruism, taken to the extreme, is anti-self. And an ethical standard
that says the right thing to do is what is wrong for you, must be
an ethical inversion.

I'll repeat my questions neutrally, then, without any of my own baggage:

What do you mean by "A value system that puts you at the base of your own actions"? And what does it have to do with theism/atheism?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;372553]I'll repeat my questions neutrally, then, without any of my own baggage:

What do you mean by "A value system that puts you at the base of your own actions"? And what does it have to do with theism/atheism?[/QUOTE]

(2) All three big religions advocate selflessness as virtue.

(1) Any ethical system that advocates the opposite of selflessness.

I thought I'd already answered.