Two Cabins

[True Scotsman]

I'll rephrase. No actual meaning to the universe. Of course you can make up in your mind anything you want. Maybe. If you have free will. Which is a big "if" for atheists.

I'm atheist and free will is not iffy to me. Why is free will a big "if" for atheists?

 

[Chesterton]

Lunatic fringe? Is it possible to be an immoral Christian? It seems you are defining Christian in a way that it excludes immoral people. The reality is that doesn't fly.

I've already said that it's possible to be an immoral Christian.

So why do you assume that the atheist in cabin A is immoral?

I don't. I've already said that. I said I'd play the probabilities.

It's the standard you are prepared to meet.

I think a standard is supposed to be something which is above you, at least a little hard to reach. In any case, mine is.

And there it is.

Why do we have driving laws? Why should I bother to stop at red lights?

Because people are sinners, and also complex systems need order. Ideally, if everyone would stop, be patient, take turns, not think that other people are less important, there are a lot of driving laws we wouldn't need.

So you're saying that Christians are not better than atheists but the random Christian in Cabin B is probably better than the random atheist in Cabin A. That's a contradiction.

I don't think it's a contradiction. You seem offended by the Christian label more than I'm offended by the atheist label, so try a science fiction scenario. You're an astronaut who lands on an unknown planet and have to stay there for a few years. You know nothing about the aliens on the planet, but you meet one who tells you the people there are divided geographically by two beliefs, and you can live on either side of the planet. In the eastern hemisphere, there are people who believe they've been created by a greater being and that he cares about their moral behavior. In the western hemisphere, there are people who believe they arose naturally from chemicals and there are no beings except themselves to care. I'd go to the east, acknowledging that there may be plenty of good people in the west, some probably even better than some in the east. Does that make any difference?

You assume atheists are guilty and you're telling me to prove our innocence? Why are we presumed guilty? Why are Hindus, Taoists and Scientologists not presumed guilty?

I'm not assuming atheists specifically are guilty. But we're dealing with strangers in the scenario. When you were little did your parents ever tell you to trust everyone you came across? They ever tell you to take candy from strangers, and always hop in a vehicle whenever a stranger asked you to? I'm sure they didn't. There is evil in the world.

Nothing that comes from atheism.

Right. Thank you. So I'll go to cabin B.

Yet I think you'll find most atheists condemn Stalin and Pol Pot. Why do you think that is?

Because atheists have inherited a traditional moral religious heritage from the history of mankind, a meme, if you want. I don't think you're fond of admitting where it comes from though.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't. I've already said that. I said I'd play the probabilities.

What probabilities would those be?

 

[Chesterton]

Can you cite a clear example?

No I'm not going to look for it and peruse it to find something that you'll probably argue about anyway. (I already spent time watching a 13 minute Dahmer video to make sure it contained the right part, and then dig around YouTube for the right part. ) Mao was not motivated by Bhudda or Christ or any religion, he was implementing his version of the atheist Soviet system. I'll get to it another day maybe.

How can you tie that any way to Atheism? Countless theists (in fact I'd say a sizeable majority) also accept evolution.

Perhaps not in the southern US, however in the rest of the civilized world, it's not even a contest.

When you watch this interview, he's quite open about it being an obsessive/compulsive behaviour. Atheism (or theism for that matter) is completely unrelated to what caused him to kill.

I could only find a long version, but he talks about it briefly at 28:55 in the vid. He's conflating evolution/creation with atheism/theism, so he's not being accurate as you or I would be, he's confusing ideas, but it's obvious what he means.

Jeffrey Dahmer Stone Phillips interview. www.Dore1.com - YouTube

I'd say most Atheists have a generally similar take on morality. For example we'd all basically agree that murder, rape, theft, etc are wrong.

Not to say 100% would, but then again not 100% of Christians, or any other religious group would. You can say there would be a general consensus among atheists though.

I agree there'd be a general consensus among atheists, but I have to wonder why? Can the basic moral ideas we share have some basis in a lack of belief in God? Is it just fear of the police like we mentioned?

 

[Chesterton]

That's irrelevant, however with this post you have proven my point.

If you require a fleshing out and follow through in order to develop a worldview, then the original idea is not a worldview in and of itself.

The lack of implication itself is the relevant thing. That itself is an implication that the universe is a blank slate, and so no one can say Dahmer was wrong. We can say he broke the law, we can say he hurt people, but can we say he was immoral if there's no actual immorality? What he did was neither right or wrong, it just was.

If you mean objective meaning as opposed to actual meaning, then you're probably correct.

How does that matter though? Valuing or finding meaning in something is a subjective experience. I'd say an objective meaning is (ironically) meaningless.

See above response.

Sure. If you live in a society and you act without regard for other people, then you will be stopped by those other people if you act unreasonably or violently towards them. That's true for a universe where a god exists, and for a universe without a god.

Only if you get caught. Are immoral acts immoral when you don't get caught?

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, there are denominations of Christianity, as well as other religions for that matter, that within their teachings have free will as nonexistent. Also, plenty of atheists, such as myself, feel that free will effectively does exist. It is more a matter of whether or not you think the future is set in stone or open to possibilities than anything else.

For those that don't believe in free will, this doesn't mean they think some outside source is making decisions for them necessarily. Rather, they think that in some manner of speaking the decisions have already been made, so us presently making the decision isn't going to change an outcome which has already been determined. Theoretically though, even they would agree it would be possible, should one become aware of how events are determined to go, to perhaps change them, but that also is questionable to say the least.

I guess then morality isn't really an issue for people who can only do what they're pre-determined to do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No I'm not going to look for it and peruse it to find something that you'll probably argue about anyway. (I already spent time watching a 13 minute Dahmer video to make sure it contained the right part, and then dig around YouTube for the right part. ) Mao was not motivated by Bhudda or Christ or any religion, he was implementing his version of the atheist Soviet system. I'll get to it another day maybe.



I could only find a long version, but he talks about it briefly at 28:55 in the vid. He's conflating evolution/creation with atheism/theism, so he's not being accurate as you or I would be, he's confusing ideas, but it's obvious what he means.

Jeffrey Dahmer Stone Phillips interview. www.Dore1.com - YouTube



I agree there'd be a general consensus among atheists, but I have to wonder why? Can the basic moral ideas we share have some basis in a lack of belief in God? Is it just fear of the police like we mentioned?

I'm not sure where you're going with the Dahmer thing. Even if a murderer was influenced by "atheistic" beliefs... so what? There are murderers influenced by Christian beliefs. What's the point here?

 

[Chesterton]

The hypothetical is silly because you cannot infer anything about the belief system itself simply because you'd feel more comfortable going to one house versus the other.

In the case of the atheist versus the Christian, the latter label tells you nothing about that person except his rejection of theistic belief. You know nothing of his or her values, concern for humans, etc. whereas you at least draw on your intuitive experience from knowing how Christians are in the 21st century in America (as opposed to Christians in the 1700s in Salem, Massachusetts). But let's modify the original hypothetical. Let's say on the one hand you have the atheist from before in one cabin but in the other you have a secular humanist. Both are nonbelievers, sure, but it's no longer a coin toss. We know something about the latter cabin inhabitant that tells us that despite his rejection of a specific religion he or she is nonetheless preoccupied with ethical concerns toward his or her fellow human beings.

If we place said secular humanist alongside the Christian, they start to feel more on par with bringing you at ease, with perhaps more of an inclination at the prospect at staying at the humanist's cabin. If you are a stranger in a foreign land and you have two cabin options: a hardline conservative and a hardline liberal, who would you feel more at ease? Possibly the latter, considering that, while the liberal's views may not be correct, they are more likely to be of the disposition of accepting you without much xenophobia given their maniacal attitude toward diversity and multiculturalism, as opposed to conservatives who have a tendency to heavily stress nationalistic views and demarcate "us" versus the other.

Again, there's nothing profound about such hypotheticals and it certainly doesn't tell us much about whether these beliefs are true or noble.

I think I agree with you. Despite some efforts I don't know exactly what humanism means, and it seems to have some wide-ranging specifics, but the word has the connotation of someone who likes to be, well, nice.

I could almost agree with you about the liberal/conservative scenario, except that statistics show conservatives are consistently much more charitable with their stuff, so...there's that.

 

[Chesterton]

Not collecting stamps is a hobby, is it? And bald is a hair colour?

Whoops, you got me there. Keyboard malfunction I think.

Using a personal definition there, that I am now to accept? Sure, but only if we also define "theism" as "believing in things imaginary". Agreed?

No.

No, but then with Dahmer becoming a Christian, and all that, it may be that you identify with him where I don't.

His becoming a Christian later (if he did) is irrelevant.

 

[Chesterton]

In the case of the atheist I was referring to, she's made some really odd statements for an atheist. Things along the lines of "I wouldn't trust an atheist as president... I think a president should believe god is guiding them." and "I hope one day I have enough faith to be a christian.". For fairly obvious reasons... these are strange things for a self described atheist to say. I read one person's suggestion that she is simply faking so that she can land a book deal when she "discovers" her faith in Christ and decides to write a tell-all about her glorious transition from godless atheism to the loving arms of christianity. I don't know if that's the case, or if she's claiming atheism so that she (as a conservative political pundit) can hold faith based political opinions without having to defend them as such.

I'm curious who this is. Is she a regular on Fox or was this a one-time thing you saw? Could be she's pretty dumb as you said, or maybe pretty honest. The book thing sounds a bit conspiratorial, but I guess anything's possible.

If someone were acting the opposite, claiming to be christian and making statements like, "Well...if Jesus was a real person, I doubt that he would be against homosexuality.". I certainly wouldn't fault you for questioning if that person was indeed christian. After all, what christian questions if Christ was a real person?

You seem to want to take this discussion of "true christianity" along a different road....and I'm fine with that. You said, "What about love?". To that I say, what about it? Isn't your understanding of "Christ's love" completely subjective? Some would say that Christ would want you to shun your homosexual son so that he understands his sin isn't permissible...thathis pain at losing his family is ok as long as he stops sinning and repents... since his immortal soul is what is most important. Others would say that Christ would want you to accept your son as he is... to love him as you would any other child... and only through that acceptance can he find Christ and be redeemed. See how that's wide open to interpretation? You see that right? How two different christians basically see Christ's love as two very different things? I'm sure you believe one is correct and one isn't...but that's really just your opinion... and that other christian is every bit the christian you are.

You should not shun a family member, at least not for something like that. But you're right I guess, that's just my opinion. I don't know any Christian who would do that, but I hear of such people. Christians do have a creedal statement which CF enforces for "orthodox Christian only" sections. It tells you what you must believe to be a Christian, but like atheists, we have no creed which tells us exactly how to behave. Unlike atheists, we do at least have something to interpret, as you said. It would seem to go against the very nature of atheism to propose a uniform standard of behavior. If it's difficult for Christians, it would surely be impossible for atheists.

What exactly are the moral implications of atheism in your eyes? Keep in mind (I'm throwing you a freebie here, so run with it) if you think the implications are "you have to choose for yourself what is right and wrong" I'm going to go back to the "christian love" example I just laid out and show you how it's the exact same thing. Those two christians aren't following Christ...they're doing whatever they think is right, then justifying it afterwards with scripture.

The moral implication of atheism = There is no law, do what thou wilt.

If you want to be good then be good. If you want to be bad then be bad. They're only words.

Atheism is a subjective belief... just like christianity. It's based upon a lack of objective evidence...but I don't think that's what you're talking about. So I'll ask, what about my lack of belief in god am I not being objective about?

Well maybe objective wasn't the exact right word, but it seemed you were a bit less than analytical and too emotionally invested in the subject when you called me a cornhole and said my opinion was "bigoted, narrow-minded, foolish, ignorant, and disgusting". But then I could be wrong, maybe that is your objective analysis.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm curious who this is. Is she a regular on Fox or was this a one-time thing you saw? Could be she's pretty dumb as you said, or maybe pretty honest. The book thing sounds a bit conspiratorial, but I guess anything's possible.



You should not shun a family member, at least not for something like that. But you're right I guess, that's just my opinion. I don't know any Christian who would do that, but I hear of such people. Christians do have a creedal statement which CF enforces for "orthodox Christian only" sections. It tells you what you must believe to be a Christian, but like atheists, we have no creed which tells us exactly how to behave. Unlike atheists, we do at least have something to interpret, as you said. It would seem to go against the very nature of atheism to propose a uniform standard of behavior. If it's difficult for Christians, it would surely be impossible for atheists.



The moral implication of atheism = There is no law, do what thou wilt.

If you want to be good then be good. If you want to be bad then be bad. They're only words.



Well maybe objective wasn't the exact right word, but it seemed you were a bit less than analytical and too emotionally invested in the subject when you called me a cornhole and said my opinion was "bigoted, narrow-minded, foolish, ignorant, and disgusting". But then I could be wrong, maybe that is your objective analysis.

I'm guessing by "there is no law" you mean to say "there is no universal moral law" which, while it is my belief... it has nothing to do with atheism. There are in fact, atheists who believe in an objective morality...I could name you a few on this very forum if you'd like to speak with them about where their morals are derived from.

I can say that my morality isn't a reflection of my atheism conclusively, since they are both based upon evidence. If you were able to show me definitive evidence of a god existing, for example, it wouldn't change my views on morality which are likewise evidence based.

Your assumptions about the "moral implications of atheism" are based upon a negative stereotype just like any other stereotype. Atheism isn't a worldview that informs morality...all it tells you about someone is that they don't believe in god. Your entire OP is based around this "moral assumption" that shouldn't exist. It's no different from an assumption that black men make bad fathers or asian women are bad drivers. So, yea, like any bigoted statement... my original assessment of it stands.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No I'm not going to look for it and peruse it to find something that you'll probably argue about anyway. (I already spent time watching a 13 minute Dahmer video to make sure it contained the right part, and then dig around YouTube for the right part. ) Mao was not motivated by Bhudda or Christ or any religion, he was implementing his version of the atheist Soviet system. I'll get to it another day maybe.

If you are going to make a claim, you had better be prepared to back it up.

Just because he implemented a political system does not mean religion (or a lack of religion) has anything at all to do with that political system, or informs how he would put the system in place.

I could only find a long version, but he talks about it briefly at 28:55 in the vid. He's conflating evolution/creation with atheism/theism, so he's not being accurate as you or I would be, he's confusing ideas, but it's obvious what he means.

Jeffrey Dahmer Stone Phillips interview. www.Dore1.com - YouTube

So explain how Atheism has anything to do with what he said there?

The only comment he made is that he doesn't believe the theory of evolution is accurate and feels it cheapens life, and that he's become a Christian. He made no comment on atheism at all.

I agree there'd be a general consensus among atheists, but I have to wonder why? Can the basic moral ideas we share have some basis in a lack of belief in God? Is it just fear of the police like we mentioned?

Not at all, if you act well simply out of fear of the police, then you are not a moral person. That's very similar to my viewpoint that if you only act well because you think a god is watching you, you are also not a moral person.

As has been said many times, atheism is not a worldview. The fact you are an atheist has no bearing whatsoever on your moral opinions. Not believing in the existence of a god can not possibly lead to one particular set of morals in and of itself. Likewise, simply believing a god (or gods exist) will not lead you to any particular moral system either.

That being said, it is logically impossible that morality stems from the commandments of any god. The euthyphro dilemma highlights that point perfectly.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The lack of implication itself is the relevant thing. That itself is an implication that the universe is a blank slate, and so no one can say Dahmer was wrong. We can say he broke the law, we can say he hurt people, but can we say he was immoral if there's no actual immorality? What he did was neither right or wrong, it just was.

I'm not sure why you bring that idea up, seeing as nobody here believes it to be true.

See above response.

Again, since your first response has nothing to do with my position, I'm not sure why you bothered to write it.

Only if you get caught. Are immoral acts immoral when you don't get caught?

Yes they are.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm curious who this is. Is she a regular on Fox or was this a one-time thing you saw? Could be she's pretty dumb as you said, or maybe pretty honest. The book thing sounds a bit conspiratorial, but I guess anything's possible.

I think she's referring to S.E. Cupp. I've also found a number of her comments very bizarre for someone who professes to be an atheist.

It's possible she's actually an atheist, however a part of me also leans pretty strongly towards the idea that she's Fox News "Token Atheist" and is just playing the role. I really have no idea either way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The moral implication of atheism = There is no law, do what thou wilt.

Atheism says there is no reason for believing in any gods. It says nothing about morals. There is no moral implication of atheism. Which is not to say that atheists have no moral ideas, any more than people who don't collect stamps have no moral ideas (because the lack of stamp collecting has no inherent moral implications).

And in particular, atheism does not imply the Law of Thelema (which is explicitly not an atheistic system).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think she's referring to S.E. Cupp. I've also found a number of her comments very bizarre for someone who professes to be an atheist.

It's possible she's actually an atheist, however a part of me also leans pretty strongly towards the idea that she's Fox News "Token Atheist" and is just playing the role. I really have no idea either way.

Yea that's the one.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I could almost agree with you about the liberal/conservative scenario, except that statistics show conservatives are consistently much more charitable with their stuff, so...there's that.

Well, they might be more likely to donate to charity, sure, but that's different than being more open and accepting of foreigners and people of different cultures and ideologies. Moreover, the charitable nature of Christian conservatives has a big caveat. They do charitable works largely out of a sense of duty and dogma whereas nonbelievers do so more out of a sense of compassion, which came out in a study from UC Berkeley two years ago: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

 

[Davian]

Whoops, you got me there. Keyboard malfunction I think.

PEBKAC, my guess.

Using a personal definition there, that I am now to accept? Sure, but only if we also define "theism" as "believing in things imaginary". Agreed?

No.

Let us see how long you can hold yourself to that.

His becoming a Christian later (if he did) is irrelevant.

If he says he's a Christian, then he is. It is not like his chosen religion cannot accommodate his actions of rape, murder, necrophilia, and cannibalism.

...
The moral implication of atheism = There is no law, do what thou wilt.

If you want to be good then be good. If you want to be bad then be bad. They're only words.

In your next post, you have redefined atheism to nihilism. Atheists simply do not believe in deities. If you want to know, Mr. Theist, on that they base their morality.... ask them.

 

[Chesterton]

Do not mistake my responses to the broken records played out here as the broken record, such as the "atheism is a worldview" and "atheism is nihilism" brokens records you brought here yourself.

The reason I ask about evidence is that your position does beg the question, why believe in things that there so little evidence for? Do you have pixies at the bottom of your garden making the plants grow?

Why do you believe in things there's so little evidence for? And yes, I have lovely pixies under my garden. Why do you ask?

Too busy, and what little spare time I have I spend here. Seriously, if you were looking for an echo chamber, are there not other forums on this site for your use?

Well I'm in this forum which is open to everyone, the type of forum I spend most of my time in, so I must not be looking for an echo. It's just that when discussing things like religion, philosophy, metaphysics and such, childish responses which amount to "Oh yeah, prove it" just get annoying, especially when repeated over and over. And it's doubly annoying when everytime I've asked you a hard question you ignore it or just post a joke .gif.

What memes do I believe in? I was not aware that I believed in any.

The ones you said you believed in in the other thread.

Where did I say I would produce such a thing?

In the other thread.

What then did you list in post #174?

My opinion that you asked for.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see theists use their own nomenclature in the pejorative.

Fundamentalists are problematic no matter which extreme they go to.

I do not think he does, but as scientific theories go, it is the only horse in the race. There will always be more to explain and explore.

Prove it.

I never said you did, but if you are going to claim that scientists haven't studied and developed theories for <insert human behaviour here>, then I expect you to have done the footwork to substantiate your claim.

I've said plenty of things; why don't you confront me with something I actually said?

Do you have an example of what science would need to explain that would cause you to doubt the existence of your "supreme being"?

No, do you?

I certainly do not do that. I have tentative conclusions based on information that I have available to me.

And what are they?

I am not saying you share it, or that you should, but that you should stop misrepresenting it.

What have I misrepresented, and how?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm atheist and free will is not iffy to me. Why is free will a big "if" for atheists?

Because you can't get it from the natural world.