We can take Socrates off your list.

Socrates frequently says that his ideas are not his own, but his teachers'. He mentions several influences: Prodicus the rhetor and Anaxagoras the scientist. Perhaps surprisingly, Socrates claims to have been deeply influenced by two women besides his mother. He says that Diotima, a witch and priestess from Mantinea taught him all he knows about eros, or love, and that Aspasia, the mistress of Pericles, taught him the art of funeral orations. John Burnet argued that his principal teacher was the Anaxagorean Archelaus but that his ideas were as Plato described them; Eric A. Havelock, on the other hand, considered Socrates' association with the Anaxagoreans to be evidence of Plato's philosophical separation from Socrates.

From wikipedia.

Considering that you can't figure out who is a theist and who isn't, that you can't link your claims to anything, and that you can't back up your claims, I would be retracting some claims right now if I were you and showing a modicum of decency and integrity. It's ironic that on a thread about atheist morality, it is the theist that shows none of it by hurling accusations that (s)he can't back up and then refusing to do anything but hurl out more one-liners; ones that exhibit the same quality that you were complaining about. Can you say, "Projection?" I should have known better than to read through all your carp though, because anyone who takes 1000+ words to say, "I think revolutionary theists make better strides toward altruism than revolutionary atheists" is full of carp. (Notice that I just summed up your whole entire position and lack of arguments for it in, what 12 words?)

Like I said, pseudo-intellectual babble. Your mental masturbation is only pleasing you.

First off, I want to congratulate OMGF on having chased away posters like Lynet, Damon, eye-of-horus, Jim Baerg, Bassmanpete, Belka and Polly, who were more interested in honestly grappling with the historic questions raised in this discussion than in flinging around ad hominem attacks ad nauseum and deliberately and consciously reversing/distorting every other thing I say.

Yeah, I'll bet it's my fault and not your pseudo-intellectual babble that you haven't backed up yet? Oh, and where are those ad hominems. If you are going to accuse me of attacking you personally, then back up your claims.

1. I go by ALL the NEW things that a pioneer introduces, not just the positive things...

Yet you pooh poohed the things that I brought up about Jesus? Also, how is this a distortion? It's an argument and I made claims about your argument and brought my own arguments to counter. You don't seem to be able to answer those arguments.

2. If you doubt Jesus's historicity, I don't mind discarding Jesus for now; there are plenty of others [shrug]. It was you who singled out Jesus among the ten or so names I cited, not me.

You put his name on your list, am I not allowed to counter the names on your list? Also, no distortion here.

3. The story of the Good Samaritan is in Luke 10:25-37. The story is about a man who was lying helpless in the street after being roughed up by robbers. Jesus's story quite obviously twits people whom Israel audiences of the time would have viewed as "insiders", by portraying both a priest and a Levite as unconcerned with the injured man and just passing him by...

Good point, although I would counter that this was written when the Christians were outsiders themselves and were looking for converts - not written by Jesus, as none of the Bible contains Jesus's words. It seems natural to point to the Samaritans. Either way, it's not proof of Jesus's theology or anything to do with Jesus, except that the words are attributed to him.

4. Marx's social ethics were brand new and quite considerate, but his atheism mirrored other Germans of his and earlier generations like Feuerbach and Knutzen.

You mean the theists Martin Knutzen and Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach? Perhaps you meant other philosophers by those names in Germany around the time of Marx? If not, this is what happens when you try to BS your way through things over here.

5. Both Lao-tzu and Buddha do introduce new takes on deity...Obviously, these quotes concern conduct towards others.

But not new takes on deity, nor are they theological statements.

6. I've seen no lack of enterprise or courage in pioneering atheists....

Your personal opinion is painfully noted (with the pages and pages of stuff you've written to express it over and over) but I still have no clue why I should take it as authoritative or as a good argument for anything.

7. I made no claim that all atheists don't care about people....

And I never claimed you did Mr. "I can read real gud."

And among the adherents of that philosophy, there is the same mixture of opposed individuals who care-for/heap-scorn-on the left-out and the helpless as there is among adherents of every orthodox creed.

So, atheists are just as moral as theists; so what are you bitching about? And why are you throwing accusations at us?

Let me make something crystal clear. You have done nothing to show how your position means anything other than that you have formed a personal opinion on something. You've not touched on the truth or falsity of atheism, nor have you even tied your opinion to it. You've not explained how it makes you a "provisional theist," unless we are supposed to just assume that it's horrible logic that leads you to theism (which it always is, since theism is illogical and irrational.) Pony up, or are you going to run away that the nasty old OMGF is bringing arguments against you that you can't answer and doesn't seem to want to just let his eyes glaze over at your over-abundance of words and your bravado about how knowledgable you are about everything to do with altruism and atheism/theism?

Now, it's time to address OMGF's distortions:

1. I go by ALL the NEW things that a pioneer introduces, not just the positive things. Your claim to the contrary is flat-out wrong. In addition, how could I be rigging anything since I wasn't even looking for theism or atheism when I started this altruism survey, particularly since I started this survey as a thoroughly uninterested agnostic? Also, I find plenty of positive things in early atheists like the highly ethical Democritus of ancient Greece and the similarly ethical Knutzen of 17th-century Germany. Finally, I've rejected plenty of theists as well, like, for instance, the highly ethical St. Francis of Asisi, since his beliefs were not original with him, although some of his ethics may have been.

2. If you doubt Jesus's historicity, I don't mind discarding Jesus for now; there are plenty of others [shrug]. It was you who singled out Jesus among the ten or so names I cited, not me.

3. The story of the Good Samaritan is in Luke 10:25-37. The story is about a man who was lying helpless in the street after being roughed up by robbers. Jesus's story quite obviously twits people whom Israel audiences of the time would have viewed as "insiders", by portraying both a priest and a Levite as unconcerned with the injured man and just passing him by. But Samaritans were viewed by the more insular members of Israel society as outsiders, not worth any respect or consideration. So Jesus's story depicts the looked-down-on Samaritan as immediately taking care of the injured man the second he sees him and carrying him to a place of shelter. Just in case Jesus's audience doesn't get the point, Jesus caps the story by asking directly "Which of these three was a real neighbour?" Well, it's obviously the Samaritan and a smart-alec who's been (practically) heckling Jesus ultimately mumbles the answer that it's the Samaritan. This story does not preach altruism towards insiders only. Clearly, the outsider is to be apreciated as well.

4. Marx's social ethics were brand new and quite considerate, but his atheism mirrored other Germans of his and earlier generations like Feuerbach and Knutzen.

5. Both Lao-tzu and Buddha do introduce new takes on deity, Lao-tzu making deity more impersonal than Chinese theists of his day generally did, and Buddha questioning the notion that Brahma had a hand in the beginnings of the cosmos, suggesting that Brahma is supreme because he stands at an ethical pinnacle as the top moral norm, not because he knows everything about the cosmos, which Buddha suggests he really doesn't. Moreover, in Buddha's sermons, he says

"And so you say, V¤seÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself; and that Brahm¤ is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself. Then in sooth, V¤seÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu who is free from anger, free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahm¤, who is the same-such a condition of things is every way possible!" (D.N. 13)

and

"And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve.
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
"And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from illicit sex. This is called right action." (D.N. 22)

Obviously, these quotes concern conduct towards others.

6. I've seen no lack of enterprise or courage in pioneering atheists. The things some of them have articulated have often placed them in the gravest danger, or taxed their mental acuity to the utmost, or both. I don't see that such resourcefulness and such courage could ever blanch at tackling both atheism and altruism together, had they a mind to. They don't have a mind to; that's the only answer I can give to this conundrum. Minds as independent as the ones I've read would hardly find the task of dealing with one wing or the other of this twin package of atheism and altruism heavy enough to discourage them from inquiring further into something additional to one or the other. As an example, I happily submit here the one clearest example of someone who did go countercultural in both his atheism and his philosophical code, an ancient Indian thinker of ca. 600 B.C.E., sometimes called Brhaspati in some sources and sometimes called Carvaka in others. However, his new code of ethics doesn't seem altruistic enough to me, since it doesn't cover how to treat others, only oneself. At the same time, there is little to take exception to as such, beyond my disappointment that it doesn't address treatment of others. So I'm happy to present it here, if anyone's interested in giving their own take on it. Let me know. It's only a few paragraphs. Strikingly enough, Brhaspati/Carvaka is the earliest (extant) atheist whose philosophy has survived, so he is an eminently useful "original" in every respect.

7. I made no claim that all atheists don't care about people. I said that pioneering atheists don't seem interested in fashioning countercultural spins on altruism. At the same time, this is already the second time that I've cited Democritus and Knutzen as two atheists -- among many, including Marx -- who clearly have a social conscience!

Furthermore, atheism itself may or may not be a belief system the way you define it. But it is definitely a recognizable philosophy with a pedigree of a few thousand years. And among the adherents of that philosophy, there is the same mixture of opposed individuals who care-for/heap-scorn-on the left-out and the helpless as there is among adherents of every orthodox creed.

G. Riggs

Actually, he whips tables [ducking].

And people he doesn't like being in his temple.

I only go by what each pioneer introduces, and the notion of hell was first mooted many thousands of years before Jesus in other ancient belief systems.

You mean that you only focus on the positive things that a theist produces? Again, you are rigging the outcome to find what you want to find.

Jesus introduced the notion that serving the humblest people of all was the way to serve God most directly. That was new, and that made him evolutionary.

Even if that were true, which we don't know if it is or not - we don't even know if Jesus existed or not which would blow your theory out of the water - it only fulfills one arm of your two pronged theory. Thus, by your own theory you have to throw Jesus out.

Hmmm ………. you'd have a hard time making that last claim stick …….. good Samaritan anyone? ……………..

The references to "neighbor" means fellow Jews. Also, I wonder which "good Samaritan" you are referring to. Chapter and verse please? If it's the story I think it is, it's not Jesus doing anything but preaching to them (bringing in converts which is no different from what the Sunday morning preachers try to do every week.)

I still do — and why am I not surprised at its not bothering you? ………….

Because it was just a word. It was not aimed at anyone, as in "You f---" or "You are a f---." It was just there. Who cares? The only person who might care is Ebon, since it's his blog and he might be concerned about the words that show up on it, depending on his target audience, etc.

Also, virulent atheist-haters have tried to spread the idea that the bloodthirsty Robespierre was an atheist in the same pernicious way that they've tried the same thing with Hitler.

And theist roundly criticized both documents as being atheist, so what? Jefferson's beliefs are debatable. In some of his writings, it seems as though he wasn't even a deist. Of course, this was before Darwin. Oh, and we should add to the list the US Constitution, Thomas Paine, and Karl Marx. True, Marx's writings on Communism were much reviled and still are, but he came up with the idea of socialism which was revolutionary in that for the first time the gov. had an obligation to help the poor. He also came up with the idea that religion was an opiate, which was also revolutionary in that religion wasn't just false, but was also a tool used to keep the masses down. A way to control others.

You also write as if theists are the only ones I've read.

Whether you read them or not, it's your biases that I'm questioning. Going back to your list, you include Lao Tse and Buddha, which are both inappropriate because they don't meet the revolutionary theist idea prong of your theory. Also, they dealt with how one should conduct oneself, not how one should treat others. Your list is getting smaller and smaller.

Ultimately, it was not just the preponderance of countercultural theists among pioneering altruists that I found disconcerting; it was, above all, the concurrent lack of pioneering altruism among pioneering atheists that frustrated me most of all — and I'd wager that I probably ended up reading more pioneering atheists throughout history than altruists once I was done.

And I've given some reasons for this. Here's another since you seem to want to ignore all the other reasons: theism has been such a monkey on our backs for as long as we've recorded that atheist revolutionaries have had enough to deal with just fighting against pernicious theist ideas.
Further, I see more evidence of bias in your thought that you've read more atheists than altruists.

With Rand having been approvingly invoked earlier in this very discussion, I find it rich that someone should now blithely assert that only theists need be challenged on their attitudes to the left-out of society. UGLY SCORN OF THE LEFT-OUT AND THE HELPLESS HAS MANIFESTED ITSELF AMONG ADHERENTS OF EVERY BELIEF SYSTEM SINCE TIME BEGAN — REALITY CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!

I see that you agree with me, since atheism is not a belief system. The fact is, however that I brought up some reasons why which you blithely ignored. Deal with the arguments instead of making sweeping statements. This is why your arguments belong in the trash. Not only have you not supported why your arguments are worth anything or where they came from and how they fit with the truth or falsity of theistic belief, but you can not tell us why they are important, beyond making accusations that atheists don't care about people, which is patently false.

I'm most familiar with Jesus, so let's start there. How can you possibly think that Jesus was counter-cultural theistically? He stressed returning to the "divine law." He was ultra-conservative in terms of following the law. Also, let's look at the second part of your anal theory,

Is someone hiring you to toss in these references?

that the person is also humanitarian. Jesus whips people,

Actually, he whips tables [ducking].

slaughters pigs, tells us to leave our families, will send people to hell, etc.

I only go by what each pioneer introduces, and the notion of hell was first mooted many thousands of years before Jesus in other ancient belief systems. Look, I've never claimed that any of these pioneers is impeccable (look at Jefferson and his slave-holding); it's what they newly introduce that makes them evolutionarily useful to humanity. Jesus introduced the notion that serving the humblest people of all was the way to serve God most directly. That was new, and that made him evolutionary.

How is that humanitarian? Sure, he preached love for his fellow Jews, but outsiders be damned.

Hmmm .......... you'd have a hard time making that last claim stick ........ good Samaritan anyone? .................

I did a quick search on this page, and I see I'm the only one here to have resorted to the F word. My regrets for that to one and all. It won't happen again.

It doesn't bother me. As long as Ebon doesn't mind, I see no reason for apologies.

I still do -- and why am I not surprised at its not bothering you? .............

I would say that the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man were both secular documents springing from the secular Enlightenment movement that have done just this. Your problem is that most of the people before that time were theists, so when these jumps were made, they were inevitably by theists. So it's not a red herring, but it's a case that correlation does not equal causation.

The Declaration of Independence was written by a Deist and the Declaration of the Rights of Man by a Mason. Also, virulent atheist-haters have tried to spread the idea that the bloodthirsty Robespierre was an atheist in the same pernicious way that they've tried the same thing with Hitler. In fact, both were believers, and Robespierre even turned his take-no-prisoners cruelties directly on atheists by claiming that they were reflective of too elitist an attitude to deserve mercy in his oh-so-fine republic. So Robespierre -- and in fact a number of other leaders in the French Revolution as well -- were actually believers, an untidy fact that people still try to ignore today.

You also write as if theists are the only ones I've read. Don't forget that once I detected this countercultural theist pattern among pioneering altruists, I spent the better part of a decade researching all the historical pioneering atheists I could to see if my tentative conclusions could be debunked. Ultimately, it was not just the preponderance of countercultural theists among pioneering altruists that I found disconcerting; it was, above all, the concurrent lack of pioneering altruism among pioneering atheists that frustrated me most of all -- and I'd wager that I probably ended up reading more pioneering atheists throughout history than altruists once I was done.

I can just hear the cynics on this board saying "All that is horseshit: treatment of the less well off can't influence the future of humanity one fucking bit; we're all still here; so stop being a pain in the ass", and bla bla bla bla bla. Well, I don't choose to complacently accept the extinction of humanity because of your fucking stupidity, arrogance, shortsightednes, stunted attention span, selfishness, greed and violence (not you, Polly).

That sentiment would be more in line on a theist's blog IMO. Theism separates people into us vs. them, and who cares what happens to us all, since this life is only preparation for the next. In fact, some want this destruction to happen since they think it will be armageddon. Here, we happen to understand the value of our lives and of the lives of others. So, if you want to bitch about bad attitudes, you're in the wrong place and accusing the wrong people.

With Rand having been approvingly invoked earlier in this very discussion, I find it rich that someone should now blithely assert that only theists need be challenged on their attitudes to the left-out of society. UGLY SCORN OF THE LEFT-OUT AND THE HELPLESS HAS MANIFESTED ITSELF AMONG ADHERENTS OF EVERY BELIEF SYSTEM SINCE TIME BEGAN -- REALITY CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!

G Riggs