I helped out a random stranger the other day.
Not gonna tell the long story but
He kept saying God must have guided me and God must be looking out for me too.

I didn't want to get into with him but
No bro.
I helped you because I saw you needed help. And figured I was in a position to do so. I had some extra time that day and just happened to be where you were.

Wasn't God.

I help people when I can because why not ? The relief on someone's face is enough payment. Plus I feel guilty when I don't help when I can. Not from fear of damnation but my empathy requires I do something.

Strangers have helped me in the past. I know how much of a difference that can make.

It's just frustrating to have your own "good" behaviors constantly assumed to be caused by God.

No. I chose to help. Me. No one else was involved.
Isn't that a better lesson anyway? That there are people who help from a place of support rather than fear of judgement. ? Or some divine force ?

all hail daannii, god of helping strangers

If there's no Mom, what's stopping you from pooping your pants?

Empathy. How is this so hard to grasp?

Aside from the already stated I would add, pay it forward. Whenever I help someone now I only ask the same in return, pay it forward.

I do not need the threat of eternal damnation to appreciate ordinary decent human beings, and to be one myself as much as I can.

Because no human is born empathetic...

Everyone needs to be in a safe environment and have someone teach them empathetic.

Not understanding that, especially if you were lucky enough to be safe and have someone teach you...

Is a million times worse. And usually just means you're not really empathetic, just a veneer of it.

If someone is actually empathetic, they don't need to ask rheyorical questions about why some people have zero empathy.

That's literally what empathy is, which I honestly think might be the root of your confusion. You don't know what the actual word even means, you're just going off how others use it without understanding it.

dunno man, i choose...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urBpdyFCZmo

I love what Penn Jillette has to say on the subject:

I HAVE ALREADY KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE PERSON I ACTUALLY WANT TO KILL AND RAPE.

The number of my victims is ZERO, and if your number is not zero you are sick and should be kept away from society.

There is both a nature and nurture aspect to empathy, like most of our behaviors. Even toddlers share some things and gain enjoyment from it without prompting even if they are 'selfish' with most things.

Sounds good to me! All bow down to daanii or be purged! PURGE THE HERETICS!

Praise Daanii!

Yeah, "other causes" 😉

Daannii, Patron Saint of Stranger Helping

Religious nuts wouldn't understand this response.

Because it's waaay to clever.

I agree with Penn, but I can't help but think that if I was given a Death Note, I would feel morally obligated to write quite a few names in it. Names of people who are personally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.

It's not that I want to kill people. It's that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so, even if it meant killing them.

Not to even mention if you are basing your morality on almost any religions canon you support a bunch of heinous stuff.

Someone make a spin of that old capitalist mindset meme with the button "press to get 1 million bucks but a random person dies" and they spam the shit out of it. But now it's you (and me) hammering away at that "you get nothing but a random billionaire or pedophile dies" buzzer.

Same here. Help when you can.

Turn on the news and start slamming the button until i see what i want

Doctor Viktor Frankl and the entire field of logo therapy would disagree with you. Part of our entire motivation for life is finding meaning, empathy is one of the more basic ways we help ourselves find that meaning. Evolutionarily speaking altruism is pretty beneficial for members of a social species such as us.

Most humans are naturally empathetic, and it’s such a core feature that nothing can strip that away from them

I would put myself in that situation see how would I feel. If I feel hurt then it is likely bad, if I feel happy then it is probably good. This is without any bible or laws governing us. If we include laws then I would adjust a bit when it's good/bad is it illegal? TLDR: Empathy and Civic duty

Next time you can say "God got you in trouble"

In-groups and out-groups, that's how it's "so hard".

We all have empathy and sympathy for our in-group. When it comes to basic respect, many of us have large in-groups that include the less fortunate, animals, etc, other's have a small in-group with themselves and their family, or their race, or their class. For the worst people, the in-group is themselves and maybe their children who can carry their legacy.

This is a clever response, but it avoids answering the question.

So, if Jeffrey Epstein was alive, the person that wants to kill him because he raped their daughter is sick and should be kept away from society?

Killing innocent people, and killing for self-defense are different.

I think the person who thinks Jeffrey Epstein would deserve to live is sick.

That's the name of their gun lol.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5513638/

That's actual science...

What you're talking about is a new age religion:

https://viktorfranklamerica.com/what-is-logotherapy/

And you say "neuroscientist" because that sounds modern, but guy was in his late 30s during WW2, neuroscience was barely a thing back then.

No one cares about quack cults.

Edit:

Like, literally most cults are built off that. A charismatic person has delusions while going thru something unspeakable, and people inspired by the leaders survival (even if by luck) just believe whatever rationalizations the leader says.

Do you actually believe that shit or did you just do a lazy Google and fall for it at a glance?

Do you need an answer to the question?

They didn't say that people like that shouldn't have consequences, drastic and significant ones, but they may disagree with the specifics.

Additionally, raping and murdering is what the quote is saying is wrong. The original quote does not state an opinion on using death as a penalty for these acts. For such a consequence, one could argue that it is necessary to distinguish murder and capital punishment as two separate acts, with the latter being justified.

Finally, the quote is meant to point out to most people that regardless of their religious beliefs, they have a moral compass that is not contingent on their religious beliefs and that most people's compass will generally point in similar directions. One could then conclude that religion is not required to know right from wrong.

As an atheist, I'm mad at how accurate this is

Intelligence helps you understand how certain choices affect you in the long-term, and morality tends to align with long-term self interest. It makes sense people with low intelligence tend to appeal to an authority to derive their morality.

just follow the golden rule :)

Can you give more fucks and in the right direction?

The concept of empathy was first introduced by aestheticians in the mid-19th century. They used the German word “Einfühlung” to describe the emotional “knowing” of a work of art from within, by feeling an emotional resonance with the work of art.

Just because the concept was talked about as Empathy in the 19th century by some German scientists doesn’t mean shit about the actual concepts integration in our species.

Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that.

From your article:

In the past, empathy was considered an inborn trait that could not be taught, but research has shown that this vital human competency is mutable and can be taught to health-care providers

I never said anything about the ability to develop or not develop empathy later in life. I said it’s mostly a natural trait. There are many reason for prosocial behaviors, and it’s mailability varies from nature to nurture.

ThIs Is ReAl ScIeNcE:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4685523/#RSTB20150077C14

The man had a doctorate from the University of Vienna, and was a practicing psychiatrist for several years before WW2. Look up his work at Steinhof Psychiatric Hosptial in the years prior to World War II. He saw thousands of patients in a clinical setting, and continue on the form theories. I don’t care about your opinions of his field or not.

I never referred to him as a neuroscientist, and I didn’t disagree that empathy could be also taught in some way.

So have fun making up imaginary arguments to try and defeat.

I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it no longer punishes those who need punished most?

Edit: original with horrible typos for posterity: I agree with you, but it's assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it ninkonger ounushes those who need ounished most?

Can you give more fucks

Nope, best of luck.

and was a practicing psychiatrist for several years before WW2.

Lmao, exactly.

They didn't know what the fuck they were doing back then.

Enjoy the newfound religion though, weird choice to choose this community to spread it.

Learning new words today

Wow, that was nearly unreadable with how badly those typos were. I'm not sure what happened there. Lol.

Holy shit this has to be how Christianity happened

This is the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Sympathy is a far older word and a synonym of compassion and what you describe in your comment. Empathy is a concept from aesthetics and psychology, though, (actually derived from the German Einfühlung circa 1909) and is really an intellectual activity. Real empathy is, indeed, taught.

If you want to learn more about empathy I can highly recommend Theodor Lipp's Leitfaden der Psychologie (a work of philosophy, not psychology as the title would suggest): Internet Archive [German].

Sources:

• Lipps, Theodor, 1851-1914. Leitfaden Der Psychologie / Von Theodor Lipps. 3. teilweise umgearbeitete Aufl. Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1909.
• “Empathy, N., Etymology.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, March 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5955535408.
• “Empathy, N., Sense 2.a.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, March 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3991107722.
• “Sympathy, N., Sense 3.c.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2792708745.

Atheists aren't one cohesive group, so there is no single answer. Atheists can be humanists or utilitarianists or any other (un)defined ideology they choose.

It's not like Christians all hold the same beliefs or moral framework. Some Christians think love is love, while others want to kill queer people. Which one is God's will? How do they know for sure?

At least the atheist takes responsibility for their own morality. Christians either interpret the Bible through their own confirmation bias or, even scarier, they are given their morality by a church leader.

What was Ross supposed to do? Sorry I'm not a fan of the Simpsons so I didn't get the reference

Fair enough buddy, good luck to you and your general outlook

I already commented on this in this thread, but describing the concept of something and the something existing are two different things.

The concept of empathy was first introduced by aestheticians in the mid-19th century. They used the German word “Einfühlung” to describe the emotional “knowing” of a work of art from within, by feeling an emotional resonance with the work of art.

Sliced bread also wasn’t sold in stores until the 20th century, but people were slicing bread long long before that. People have been experiencing empathy since before we were homo sapians.

Prosocial behaviors have many origins and its multi factorial, the interplay between them are complicated. But it’s not like the feeling of empathy isn’t part of our genetic make up.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5513638/

I've been trying to reframe things like this in my mind.

Instead of contemplating if the world would be better if they were gone, I tell myself that my wish would be for them to just be a good person.

I'm not trying to be righteous. But I think, framed like that, a good person would choose the latter. And if it really came down the power to disappear somebody, I think most people would err on the side of good.

But retribution and vengeance are strong in our lizard brains.

Mine is named "natural causes."

I had a guy I worked with ask me “ if you don’t believe in god whats stopping you from raping and murdering people?” I said “because I don’t want to do any of those things” I definitely looked at that dude weird after that

If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, then you are not a good person.

This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.