Question for non-believers

[mwok]

You are walking home when you stumble across a man on the ground unconcious being savagely beaten by another man, who after spotting you yells “You want some!?”…

Your reaction?

 

[Sair]

Fear would probably be the initial reaction, and perhaps running away. If the thug were to actually attack me, as I assume he probably would if I were just standing there frozen, I would certainly attempt to defend myself, but I wouldn’t count on being successful. Could I talk him out of what he was doing, assuming I had the presence of mind to think of doing so? Maybe, but it seems unlikely from the circumstances offered.

Never having been in such a situation, I can only imagine how I might respond. It would probably depend upon a number of factors. I’m assuming there’s no-one else within shouting distance. If I were carrying pepper spray, this would seem like an appropriate time to use it. My first instinct would be self-protection, as I suspect it would be for most people, believer and nonbeliever alike - that is hardwired into us. And I am no martial artist, that’s for sure (I know a few defensive manoeuvres, but I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve had to test them out). If I could get away and call the police, I would do so. I’m also first-aid trained, so if the thug left the scene, and I was still the only other person there, I’d like to think I would go back and see what I could do for the victim. Again, never having been in the situation, I actually don’t know - I can only imagine what I might do.

This question is problematic for a few reasons, though. For one thing, I don’t see why it is directed specifically at nonbelievers. The scenario presented is of the kind that would elicit deeply instinctive responses in most people, regardless of what they believe. Is it intended to highlight some sort of ethical difference between believers and nonbelievers? The trouble with that approach is, again, that regardless of what a person professes to believe, regardless of what they think they should do in a given situation, it’s only when one is actually there, living the experience, that these beliefs and attitudes are put to the test. Furthermore, modern urban living seems to have made people much less socially connected, much less likely to intervene in situations that are “none of my business.” And I don’t think this shift in attitude is confined to irreligious folk.

I have also seen similar sorts of questions posed with the intention of getting an atheist to say that they would help a person in need, to then question what basis they have for doing so, since they don’t have recourse to a deity who provides a basis for morality, or a reason to value other people’s lives. But it comes back to the ethic of reciprocity. What would I want someone to do for me, were I the victim in the given scenario? If the answer to that is that I would want them to help me, then I would like to think I would be capable, under the circumstances, of doing the same for them.

 

[meltzerboy]

Fear would probably be the initial reaction, and perhaps running away. If the thug were to actually attack me, as I assume he probably would if I were just standing there frozen, I would certainly attempt to defend myself, but I wouldn’t count on being successful. Could I talk him out of what he was doing, assuming I had the presence of mind to think of doing so? Maybe, but it seems unlikely from the circumstances offered.

Never having been in such a situation, I can only imagine how I might respond. It would probably depend upon a number of factors. I’m assuming there’s no-one else within shouting distance. If I were carrying pepper spray, this would seem like an appropriate time to use it. My first instinct would be self-protection, as I suspect it would be for most people, believer and nonbeliever alike - that is hardwired into us. And I am no martial artist, that’s for sure (I know a few defensive manoeuvres, but I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve had to test them out). If I could get away and call the police, I would do so. I’m also first-aid trained, so if the thug left the scene, and I was still the only other person there, I’d like to think I would go back and see what I could do for the victim. Again, never having been in the situation, I actually don’t know - I can only imagine what I might do.

This question is problematic for a few reasons, though. For one thing, I don’t see why it is directed specifically at nonbelievers. The scenario presented is of the kind that would elicit deeply instinctive responses in most people, regardless of what they believe. Is it intended to highlight some sort of ethical difference between believers and nonbelievers? The trouble with that approach is, again, that regardless of what a person professes to believe, regardless of what they think they should do in a given situation, it’s only when one is actually there, living the experience, that these beliefs and attitudes are put to the test. Furthermore, modern urban living seems to have made people much less socially connected, much less likely to intervene in situations that are “none of my business.” And I don’t think this shift in attitude is confined to irreligious folk.

I have also seen similar sorts of questions posed with the intention of getting an atheist to say that they would help a person in need, to then question what basis they have for doing so, since they don’t have recourse to a deity who provides a basis for morality, or a reason to value other people’s lives. But it comes back to the ethic of reciprocity. What would I want someone to do for me, were I the victim in the given scenario? If the answer to that is that I would want them to help me, then I would like to think I would be capable, under the circumstances, of doing the same for them.

Great answer! I completely agree, and would only add that the believer might be more likely to pray for the recovery of the injured person, as well as for his own safety while trying to defend himself.

 

[ASimon]

You are walking home when you stumble across a man on the ground unconcious being savagely beaten by another man, who after spotting you yells “You want some!?”…

Your reaction?

Approach him and attempt to draw him away from the beaten man and toward a populated area. Once there, alert folks to call the ambulance.

 

[Perplexity]

I would respond “No thank you” and then…when he least expects it, I’d karate chop him.

 

[LJH_80]

I would pray.
And then, if God doesn’t do anything, I would know that the unconscious man deserved a butt-whooping, and ask the assailant if I could help him bludgeon the heretic.

Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but I’m anxious to see where the OP is going

 

[Serious]

I would pray.
And then, if God doesn’t do anything, I would know that the unconscious man deserved a butt-whooping, and ask the assailant if I could help him bludgeon the heretic.

Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but I’m anxious to see where the OP is going

I would join you in your prayer.

I would presume that God does not interfere either because the suffering of the victim has a redemptive value, or it is part of God’s greater plan. After all, who am I to interfere with the divine plan of God and attempt to thwart it? Or deprive the victim of the opportunity to get closer to Jesus and participate in His Passion? Especially since the suffering can never be too great. God does not give us more suffering than we can endure. Or so I heard… is it possible that those who advocated the above “explanations” don’t know what they were talking about?

A little bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm never hurt anyone.

 

[Sair]

I would join you in your prayer.

I would presume that God does not interfere either because the suffering of the victim has a redemptive value, or it is part of God’s greater plan. After all, who am I to interfere with the divine plan of God and attempt to thwart it? Or deprive the victim of the opportunity to get closer to Jesus and participate in His Passion? Especially since the suffering can never be too great. God does not give us more suffering than we can endure. Or so I heard… is it possible that those who advocated the above “explanations” don’t know what they were talking about?

A little bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm never hurt anyone.

Ah, yes - the Christian glorification of suffering. What an appropriate theme for Good Friday!

 

[LJH_80]

I would join you in your prayer.

I would presume that God does not interfere either because the suffering of the victim has a redemptive value, or it is part of God’s greater plan. After all, who am I to interfere with the divine plan of God and attempt to thwart it? Or deprive the victim of the opportunity to get closer to Jesus and participate in His Passion? Especially since the suffering can never be too great. God does not give us more suffering than we can endure. Or so I heard… is it possible that those who advocated the above “explanations” don’t know what they were talking about?

A little bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm never hurt anyone.

Absolutely… I mean imagine what would have happened if some people had seen Jesus suffering and said “You know what? I’m going to help that guy.” They decided to spirit him away, or grant him amnesty.

Then Jesus would not have been able to die on the cross, and all of humanity would still be unsaved.
But, fortunately, enough people believed in their religion so much that they felt others who believe differently needed to die.
If the crowd had been secular humanists, Jesus might have died of old age.

 

[Rhubarb]

I pull out my cellphone and hit the emergency dial button, and my knife. And tell the assaulter that he has two options.

And I don’t know what faith has to do with this.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You are walking home when you stumble across a man on the ground unconcious being savagely beaten by another man, who after spotting you yells “You want some!?”…

Your reaction?

I’m not a non-believer, but I used to be, and am quite sympathetic towards them. My status as either a believer or non-believer would NOT repeat NOT affect my reaction.

Answer depends on the 1) size of the man vis-a-vis myself, 2) whether he’s armed, 3) whether I can call for additional help in the area, 4) whether I have a cell phone to call for help outside the area (police), 5) probably other considerations, too…

There’s not a simple answer for that question, unless, perhaps, you are a marine or a taekwondo instructor or something.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

If the crowd had been secular humanists, Jesus might have died of old age.

If the crowd and culture was secular humanism, he’d would’ve been force aborted, murdered, by the State. Though if he had been born, I’m sure the secularists would’ve imprisoned him for public religious speech and sent to reeducation camp for forced Manfesto indoctrination. How far can we take this because this is fun.

 

[Sair]

If the crowd and culture was secular humanism, he’d would’ve been force aborted, murdered, by the State. Though if he had been born, I’m sure the secularists would’ve imprisoned him for public religious speech and sent to reeducation camp for forced Manfesto indoctrination. How far can we take this because this is fun.

So, considering that according to the sources, Jesus actually was murdered by the state for his public activities, should we secular types consider this to be retroactive abortion?

 

[Poseidon]

Is he armed? Am I armed? I am in pretty good shape so I could probably take an average person. However, I’d be more likely to try to distract him from the person he’s beating while calling the police.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Is he armed? Am I armed?.

Good questions. If you are armed with a gun are you prepared to shoot? Are you prepared to take on the risk of possibly killing one or both of the people? Do you stop to ask what is going on? (It’s possible the person getting beat up is a person that initially tried to attack the other person). There’s too many unknowns.

 

[heaintheavy]

When you say “non-believer”…do you mean an atheist?
Or do you mean someone who is Christian, but doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church?
Or do you mean someone who believes in God, but is not Christian but another religion?

 

[LJH_80]

If the crowd and culture was secular humanism, he’d would’ve been force aborted, murdered, by the State. Though if he had been born, I’m sure the secularists would’ve imprisoned him for public religious speech and sent to reeducation camp for forced Manfesto indoctrination. How far can we take this because this is fun.

I agree.
It’s fun to make up hyperbole about other belief systems. Like the idea that secular humanists want to force abortions on people. That’s almost as laughable as the idea of people killing each other for having a different imaginary friend. Except that one of those happens on a daily basis.

Yes, I know you fan find atheistic societies that have done some atrocities, but they are no more secular Humanists than the people tying gay kids to the back of their cars and dragging them to death are Christians. I never said all religion is bad, just that religious intolerance gets people killed.
The fact that you jumped up to defend killing people in the name of religious intolerance confuses me.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree.
It’s fun to make up hyperbole about other belief systems. Like the idea that secular humanists want to force abortions on people. That’s almost as laughable as the idea of people killing each other for having a different imaginary friend. Except that one of those happens on a daily basis.

Yes, I know you fan find atheistic societies that have done some atrocities, but they are no more secular Humanists than the people tying gay kids to the back of their cars and dragging them to death are Christians. I never said all religion is bad, just that religious intolerance gets people killed.
The fact that you jumped up to defend killing people in the name of religious intolerance confuses me.

Others may point out some of the atrocities of atheist societies to counterbalance your claim regarding religious intolerance and its negative repercussions. For myself, I agree with you that religious intolerance has a long and sordid history of discrimination, suffering, and murder. The label of secular humanism is a code word bandied about by those who equate humanism only with anti-theistic practices. Certain of modern-day humanists may have an agenda to stamp out religion, but, as is often the case when labels are adopted and a different meaning attached to them (other examples include liberalism, elitism, and conservatism), the meaning of humanism is considerably more complex than most realize. The term dates from the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, and has undergone quite an evolution with regard to definition and emphasis since that time. The expression secular humanism is a rather modern invention of the political domain, whereas ethical humanism has become a moral variation of the term. The word “secular” also has taken on a negative political connotation, whereas originally there was no such pejorative sense attached to the term.

 

[mwok]

Okay, I thought I would give this a few days to “brew”. So, out of a small group of people, only Rhubarb would actually risk bodily harm to stop what was going on?

 

[Serious]

Okay, I thought I would give this a few days to “brew”. So, out of a small group of people, only Rhubarb would actually risk bodily harm to stop what was going on?

My answer was tongue-in-cheek. In reality, if there would be a chance to win, I would try to help. As you presented the question there would be no chance for me to win, being a frail and old man. Of course I would try to call for help. And this still has nothing to do with being a believer, or not.