Two Cabins

[Chesterton]

Dawkins philosophy is weak and crappy, and he isn't some lord of the atheists. So don't act as if he speaks for all of us.

I guess that goes to the topic of the thread. Maybe atheists need to organize, get a Pope, come up with a creed or manifesto(s) like the humanists, something that might make me more comfortable staying in your cabin.

 

[JGG]

I don't recall saying they should not be counted as Christians. It's impossible to answer whether someone is 1) not a Christian or 2) a Christian but a bad one. We can't read people's hearts and minds. There are some days I don't even know my own mind that well. As I said earlier, Christianity has a creed which you can profess, and then you're considered a Christian, but you don't even have to do that to call yourself a Christian these days.

The separate issue of how one behaves is complicated because Christianity attracts sinners. That's what it's there for. If you're a perfectly good atheist maybe you don't need Christ, but as I said before, when meeting requirements of a perfectly righteous and good God, the standard is very high. So when a sinner becomes a Christian, he may not automatically stop being a sinner. The "old man" dies hard. As far as Westboro, you're probably as good a judge as I am if you know anything of Christ's teachings and character. Whether you agree with America's recent wars or not, would Jesus want us to go to funerals and viciously torment grieving parents at the time of their deepest despair? No.

About the Klan, one of the things they are most known for is burning crosses. I always thought a Freudian psychologist should look into that. Professing Christianity while simultaneously destroying it's most prominent symbol - you tell me what kind of sense that makes.

Okay but there are no bad Christians. You keep tellung us that Christians are more moral than atheists. You know that Christians are moral. Now you don't?

That analogy is totally off base. My only response is to ask what philosophical grounds do Christians and atheists have for being the same physical size?

Well it's a perfectly congruent analogy. You claimed repeatedly that Christians are not morally superior to atheists. By the same token Christians are no taller than atheists either. So how do you know that the random Christian is taller than the random atheist. This is my point: as a Christian you believe yourself superior to (taller than) atheists or you don't.

Perhaps in some sense. As I've said, God has left us conscience which makes us feel it's wrong to cut someone off in traffic. But as a practical matter, we additionally need cops and the fear of car accidents.



You're assuming you should? I didn't say you should.



Need order for what purpose?

So you see no reason to follow the rules (behave morally) other than because an authority says to?

No.

Yes.

Do you think all societies which have managed to survive and live are equally good? The Aztecs thrived for a long time. Nazi Germany was amazingly advanced and efficient. The Soviets were beating the Americans in the space race for a while. Nobody, good or bad, survives forever.

No but yoy gave me no other useful information. Nazi Germany was an overwhelimgly Christian society, and the Soviets were essentially atheist. Flip a coin.

I already said it doesn't. But there is legitimate concern regarding things unknown. My third attempt at analogy : remember the TV show "Let's Make A Deal"? Behind door #1 is a man who believes that there may be eternal consequences to immoral behavior. Behind door #2 is a man who may or may not even believe in the concept of morality. And if he does have some morality, it is something which he has to acknowledge is made up in his head because it is seen to make society run smoother, or it makes him happy, or he just goes with the flow of the cultural influences around him, any one of which things could be discarded if it inconveniences him, with no real consequences so long as he's not caught. And if he's lucky enough to be a Head of State like Stalin or Mao, he doesn't have to worry about getting caught.

And yet you don't see your disdain for atheists and how you hold yourself as superior? The Christian brain is fascinating. Read your view of atheists and Christians and explain how you're not a bigot.

Social responsibily? Prithee, what is that?

I'm not sure you'd understand.

 

[Chesterton]

Ugh...back to morality...this thread probably belongs in that category; it's not even a question of philosophy.

I disagree. It's very philosophical.

 

[Chesterton]

You know the difference between a solid foundation and a weak foundation right?

Yes.

 

[Hetta]

I assume ya'll are being snarky and don't actually misunderstand Christianity that badly.

I think they show a great insight into Christianity actually - from my experience with Christians.

 

[Hetta]

This is inspired by Tree Of Life's "Persuasiveness of the Christian Community" thread. I didn't want to hijack that one.

It's a hypothetical scenario I think I read in a book a long time ago - you're traveling to a town, but you're having to walk a long way through the woods to get there. It's snowing, temperature's below freezing, and you have to stop for the night. A man you came across earlier told you there are two cabins up ahead with warm fire and food. You asked him about who lived in them, and he replied that he didn't know either of the occupants, except it was known that one man was an atheist (cabin A), and the other man was a Christian (cabin B). That's all you know. Another thing, you're carrying a bag with your life savings in gold coins, so if you're going to sleep you'd like to be able to trust the person who's offering you hospitality not to murder you and/or steal your money. Which cabin would you go to?

As I don't know the guy who gave me this information and have no reason to trust him, I'd build myself an igloo and hide up until the next morning and then walk to the nearest town.

By the way, is there such a thing as fire that isn't warm?

And also, the implication that the atheist is a murderous thief is not exactly a Christian attitude to take. But then, that's the kind of thing I expect to hear from Christians these days. Unfortunately.

 

[Chesterton]

Nor does any "moral law" compel you to act morally. Still, you said there were no laws...I'm glad you see the error in that.

There is a compulsion to feel you ought to act morally. Of course it can't make you do it.

Lol why would I try to present someone else's view of morality? The point was that atheists can believe in objective morality. Is that still in dispute? The very fact that you now seem willing to invite them here to discuss it seems we're agreed they exist.

Didn't you ask me if I wanted you to invite some other atheists to the thread to give their objective morality? If you want to fine, if not, fine.

I don't see that your inability to think of another way that objective morals "could" exist makes any difference. The fact remains that simply showing god exists (which is a rather tall order in itself) doesn't mean objective morals come from him.

I've already conceded your second sentence. As to the first sentence feel free to educate me to think of another way.

Lol it's not a problem for witches to believe in magic either....that doesn't mean magic exists. Magical thinking maybe, but not magic. Let's look at some of the things you said...

"because the teaching is so uniform and overwhelming that "the Lord is righteous" "His law is true" "His word is just". He is good, and holy, and He is righteousness..."

You may think this helps your case for objective morality, but you're really just digging a deeper hole. Can you really show his teaching is uniform? That's an almost endless argument in itself. Can you show his law is "true"? That he's just? That he's good, holy, and righteous? Instead of just proving morality comes from god...now you'd have to prove all these other things for the argument to remain cohesive.

"God's morality and his very being are one and the same thing. He doesn't consult any authority higher than Himself, and he also does not merely hold opinions about things."

So god isn't a sentient, living being? He's a set of moral rules? How does a set of moral rules create the universe? I'm gonna guess you didn't really mean any of that and you just got caught up in your little moment of preaching.

How would you know he doesn't consult a higher authority? Because he says so? How can you know there isn't a "god of gods" like there is a king of kings that you believe in? If morals aren't coming from god's personal subjective opinion...where would they come from?

No I can't show any of that, but it wasn't offered as proof of anything. It was to show that the Euthyphro dilemma doesn't arise in the Christian conception of God.

Sure, people can deny anything...which contradicts your earlier statement about what atheists cannot deny, doesn't it? The difference between myself and someone who believes the earth flat, however, is that my beliefs are centered on evidence.

What did I say atheists can't deny? I'm sure I meant rationally deny. You can deny a round earth, but not rationally.

I gave that example because I know that it's a point on which christians disagree about their "objective morality"....there's tons more if you'd like to go into them.

I also know that regardless of which position a christian takes on a moral issue, they can provide scripture to back it up....which effectively does away with your claims of uniformity.

Seriously, with all the different christian denominations out there disagreeing on all sorts of moral issues... how can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you all hold to some universal moral standard? Can't you see how silly that claim is?

It just proves my point...you don't know the moral basis for the christian any more than you do the atheist.

I don't like the term "objective" morality. I think I may have used the term in this thread but only in response to someone else who used it because I know what they're wanting to say. I also never made any claims of "uniformity". There are wide differences in cultures and time periods even within Christian societies and I'd be surprised if there weren't differences on many things.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I guess that goes to the topic of the thread. Maybe atheists need to organize, get a Pope, come up with a creed or manifesto(s) like the humanists, something that might make me more comfortable staying in your cabin.

That is about as likely as all theists joining together. I would love to know how comfortable you would be in a cabin containing a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew. All orthodox of course.

 

[WindStaff]

That is about as likely as all theists joining together. I would love to know how comfortable you would be in a cabin containing a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew. All orthodox of course.

Throw an anti-theist in there as well, and see what happens when they realize who the common enemy is.

I might even find it amusing, except that would make it seem like I support Islam and Judaism over atheism, so I would probably just put money on the Christian regardless

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Throw an anti-theist in there as well, and see what happens when they realize who the common enemy is.

I might even find it amusing, except that would make it seem like I support Islam and Judaism over atheism, so I would probably just put money on the Christian regardless

A study has shown that there is a negative correlation between a society's health and it's religiosity. So you would be putting your money on the long shot.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is a compulsion to feel you ought to act morally. Of course it can't make you do it.



Didn't you ask me if I wanted you to invite some other atheists to the thread to give their objective morality? If you want to fine, if not, fine.



I've already conceded your second sentence. As to the first sentence feel free to educate me to think of another way.



No I can't show any of that, but it wasn't offered as proof of anything. It was to show that the Euthyphro dilemma doesn't arise in the Christian conception of God.



What did I say atheists can't deny? I'm sure I meant rationally deny. You can deny a round earth, but not rationally.



I don't like the term "objective" morality. I think I may have used the term in this thread but only in response to someone else who used it because I know what they're wanting to say. I also never made any claims of "uniformity". There are wide differences in cultures and time periods even within Christian societies and I'd be surprised if there weren't differences on many things.

I'll have to disagree on the idea that we have a compulsion to act morally. We don't. We have desires, but these aren't the same as morals.

You contended that there were no atheists who believed in an objective morality. Is that still your contention? The mere suggestion that we could invite some to this thread seems to make me think you've changed your mind.

By conceding to the second statement, you've basically negated the first. If you can't show that morals come from god, then why would you believe they do?
Morals are simply opinions like any other...they come from people.

You actually claimed that "no one could deny that without a universe creator, there can be no "shoulds" and "should nots"." I understand it's hard to keep track of all these conversations, but maybe you should give it a little more effort. In saying that you can't show morals come from god, you already conceded this statement about what people cannot deny is false.

Go ahead and re-read your post #221. You claimed god's message was so uniform that the source of morality "wasn't a problem for christians"....now you're saying there is no uniformity. lol glad we're on the same page.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Liberals are not more open to different ideologies, and are only open to every culture but their own. They are mean, viciously hateful people. Read Salon, read Huffington Post, read pretty much 90% of everything. I'm Afraid Of Liberals.

Sure, they can be whiny an hypocritical. To be afraid of a hipster is rather silly, though.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well where does "should" come from then?

Your actions always have consequences. If you wish to live in a peaceful society, there are things you should do, and things you should not do.

We also have things such as mirror neurons in our brains. Those are responsible for things like when you flinch someone hits their hand with a hammer, or when you feel warm and fuzzy when something good happens to someone else.

So, if you want to avoid feels of shame or guilt for hurting someone else, then you should not hurt that person. If you want to feel warm and fuzzy inside, then you should do something nice for someone else.

Those are natural impulses/emotions we all have. The small minority of people that have no empathy for others are who we call sociopaths.

It begs the question, why did churches pose a threat to the authority of the State? And yes I know about Stalin.

Because they're bodies full of millions of unquestioning followers who might speak out against the state. That could pose a serious risk to Stalin's authority.

Rather than trying to appease the churches and keep them happy with the government, it was easier and safer to just shut them down.

I don't agree with his actions, however I can certainly see the logic. If you're trying to set up a totalitarian regime, you need to silence anyone who holds any form of widespread power that might one day turn against you.

You know what he's trying to say. If he had been a theistic evolutionist, why would he say it cheapens life? Why would God creating through evolutionary processes give him license to kill?

So what you're saying is if atheistic evolution is true, then you would no longer find any value your own life?

I don't see how the existence of a god is relevant to the value of my own life at all? To be completely honest I think I'd find less value in my own life if there really was a god.

I mean think about it, if you're destined to an eternal existence of singing praises to god in heaven, or roasting in hell, that makes life on earth almost meaningless. You hear Christians often say that as well "this life is but a drop in the bucket", "we are all worthless sinners", etc.

If there is no god, and I only have 80 or 90 years to experience what I can, then we have a very short existence. Every second is therefore very valuable. We need to make the most of it while we can.

You said a person is not a moral person if they only act out of fear. That's not the sole reason why Christians try to be moral, but it seems to be the only reason you're giving for atheists to act moral.

I never made that argument.... I said

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.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was advocating the idea that atheists only act moral out of a fear for the law. In fact I quite explicitly said if that was your motivation, then you are not a moral person.

I know you're not saying that ice cream choices are made using logic,

If you go to an ice cream shop knowing that vanilla ice cream is your preferred flavour, then logic would dictate you should order some vanilla ice cream.

If you live in a society where you would prefer there is no theft, then logic would dictate you shouldn't go stealing other people's stuff.

It's not that hard.

and I know you're not saying one flavor is objectively better than another, so what are you saying?

No, ice cream flavours are subjectively better.

However, pretty well everybody will subjectively agree vanilla ice cream is better than dog dropping flavoured ice cream. That would be a consensus which is subjectively reached because we all share things in common, and if anyone actually prefers the dog dropping ice cream, they'd be a minuscule minority.

Likewise, morality is also subjectively based. However, since we also share many things in common (the desire to not be killed, the desire to not be raped, or have our stuff stolen), then it's very easy to see where we would reach a similar consensus that we shouldn't do that stuff. If anyone actually thinks murder is OK, they are also a minuscule minority.

That's the whole basis of consequential ethicism. Taking the good feelings of doing something good for someone out of the equation, there is still a strong self interest in acting morally towards other people. Without that drive, we could have never formed coherent tribes, societies and civilizations. We may have gone extinct before we made it out of the African jungles.

Those who can work together with other people have a strong survival advantage. Humans are not the only species this is true for either by far.

What exactly about morality is hardwired? Obviously moral action is not wired into us, because there are criminals. Maybe just the feeling that we should be moral (conscience)?

I've already explained things like mirror neurons, that's a good example.

See post #280.

I've seen that post, you're still describing one of the prongs of the euthyphro dilemma. You're arguing morality comes from god. You're saying morality and his word are essentially the same thing.

It's unavoidable. Maybe you just don't like the position.

But that's the thing, it's not. Under your strawman view of what we believe, you might have a justifiable case. However based on what we actually believe, you don't have a case here at all.

Then what does have a bearing on the morality of an action?

Ultimately it comes down to good or harm caused to people (or animals or whatnot as well).

On that note, the good or harm caused is actually objective. So when you hear an atheist talking about an objective basis for morality, that's usually what they're referring to. If you caused harm to someone, it doesn't matter what you believe, you still caused them harm. (and that's why not everyone's subjective moral opinion is equal to everyone elses)

On clear-cut issues however, I think people who argue an objective basis have a point. The problem is though on "grey area" issues, or moral dilemmas, there isn't a clear cut answer all the time.

The facts are still objective, but it's completely up to us how we weigh the facts against each other. That takes a lot of thought, debate and hard work. That's why under subjective moral systems, there will almost always be a consensus that murder is bad, however there will be a fair bit of debate over whether it's moral or not to drive above the speed limit.

So, I believe morality/moral systems are ultimately subjective, however there's no questions the facts we base our opinions are objective, and that will cause general consensus on a lot of fairly obvious issues.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I guess that goes to the topic of the thread. Maybe atheists need to organize, get a Pope, come up with a creed or manifesto(s) like the humanists, something that might make me more comfortable staying in your cabin.

Most Atheists are Humanists, including myself.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I disagree. It's very philosophical.

Agreed

 

[Davian]

...
What exactly about morality is hardwired? Obviously moral action is not wired into us, because there are criminals. Maybe just the feeling that we should be moral (conscience)?

"Where does our sense of right and wrong come from?

We watch chimps at a primate research center sharing blackberries, observe 3-year-olds fighting over toys, and tour Eastern State Penitentiary -- the country's first penitentiary. "

Morality - Radiolab

 

[Chesterton]

Okay but there are no bad Christians. You keep tellung us that Christians are more moral than atheists. You know that Christians are moral. Now you don't?

A Christian tries to be moral, and I think a Christian has more incentive than others. Why do you think they wouldn't?

Well it's a perfectly congruent analogy. You claimed repeatedly that Christians are not morally superior to atheists. By the same token Christians are no taller than atheists either. So how do you know that the random Christian is taller than the random atheist. This is my point: as a Christian you believe yourself superior to (taller than) atheists or you don't.

Being tall is not a choice. I'm not understanding.

So you see no reason to follow the rules (behave morally) other than because an authority says to?

Didn't say that. I said the opposite in another post.

No but yoy gave me no other useful information. Nazi Germany was an overwhelimgly Christian society, and the Soviets were essentially atheist. Flip a coin.

And yet you don't see your disdain for atheists and how you hold yourself as superior? The Christian brain is fascinating. Read your view of atheists and Christians and explain how you're not a bigot.

I'm the bigot? You don't trust Christians because some treated you badly. My grandfather was murdered by two black guys. By your logic I shouldn't trust black people.

 

[Chesterton]

As I don't know the guy who gave me this information and have no reason to trust him, I'd build myself an igloo and hide up until the next morning and then walk to the nearest town.

By the way, is there such a thing as fire that isn't warm?

And also, the implication that the atheist is a murderous thief is not exactly a Christian attitude to take. But then, that's the kind of thing I expect to hear from Christians these days. Unfortunately.

I think seeing an implication where there is none says a bit about you and others here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think seeing an implication where there is none says a bit about you and others here.

If there's no implication that one is likely to be more moral than the other....then what is the point of the question? Without the implication, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

 

[Chesterton]

I'll have to disagree on the idea that we have a compulsion to act morally. We don't. We have desires, but these aren't the same as morals.

If you don't feel the compulsion to act morally that I'm sure everyone else feels, I don't think I want to stay in your cabin.

You contended that there were no atheists who believed in an objective morality. Is that still your contention? The mere suggestion that we could invite some to this thread seems to make me think you've changed your mind.

I haven't changed my mind. I've talked to some atheists about that on CF before.

By conceding to the second statement, you've basically negated the first. If you can't show that morals come from god, then why would you believe they do?
Morals are simply opinions like any other...they come from people.

You actually claimed that "no one could deny that without a universe creator, there can be no "shoulds" and "should nots"." I understand it's hard to keep track of all these conversations, but maybe you should give it a little more effort. In saying that you can't show morals come from god, you already conceded this statement about what people cannot deny is false.

Go ahead and re-read your post #221. You claimed god's message was so uniform that the source of morality "wasn't a problem for christians"....now you're saying there is no uniformity. lol glad we're on the same page.

#221 is a post by someone else. Not sure what you're saying with that. I believe morals come from God. I can't prove it. What I've come across from atheists are explanations which involve evolution and emergent phenomena and such, but they all boil down to something going on inside your brain.