Two Cabins

[Chesterton]

And you know this about him how?

The statement was about atheism in general, not really about him.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, sort of. I said I'd stay in the Christian cabin. Most atheists/humanists said they'd stay in the atheist cabin. Are they claiming they're morally superior to Christians? A couple of them flat out said so. Should I add to a list of atheist stereotypes that they think they're better than me?

Yeah, you do that, and I'll add to my orthodox christians stereotype list that they think that they are better than atheists. And that they can read minds.

 

[True Scotsman]

The statement was about atheism in general, not really about him.

And you know that atheists have no moral code how?

 

[Chesterton]

It can be confusing, as when you used the word "God" (post #121), when you meant "gods" (#140) .

You should be able to figure out what's being said.

As scientific theories go, evolutionary theory is the only game in town. That does leave the field open for you to present a scientific theory of your own.

The idea that evolutionary theory explains every aspect of humanity is a very fundamentalist interpretation of the theory to which I and a lot of respected scientists do not subscribe.

 

[Chesterton]

Yeah, you do that, and I'll add to my orthodox christians stereotype list that they think that they are better than atheists. And that they can read minds.

Where did I say either of those things?

And you know that atheists have no moral code how?

I didn't say what you're saying I said. I've explained what I did say twice already in the thread.

 

[Davian]

You should be able to figure out what's being said.

Yes, and we cleared that up. You meant "gods".

The idea that evolutionary theory explains every aspect of humanity is a very fundamentalist interpretation of the theory to which I and a lot of respected scientists do not subscribe.

Indeed, but it is not as if you or them have another workable theory, is it?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, and we cleared that up. You meant "gods".

Yes.

Indeed, but it is not as if you or them have another workable theory, is it?

I have an opinion which is as good as any other speculation.

 

[JGG]

Well, I often hear from atheists that atheists as a group don't believe any one set of things, that the only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in God. So am I supposed to assume that you have a moral philosophy? If I label myself a Christian, you know "where I'm coming from". You may dislike it but at least you know. How am I supposed to know "where you're coming from"?

No, I do not. Perhaps you are a member of the KKK. They're Christian. Maybe you're from the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Christian also. Maybe you're a Neo-Nazi, or Identity Christian, or Dominionist. They're all Christian as well. Perhaps you are the "beat the gay out of them type" or the "shoot all the atheists and let God sort them out type". They exist. You seem to think that the Christian moral philosophy is standard among all Christians. It is not. It varies wildly from Christian to Christian. So just saying "I'm a Christian" does not tell me anything about your morals or values.

And, I don't even know where you're coming from. In one thread you're disappointed that Christians are perceived as holier than thou, in this thread you're disappointed that atheists don't agree that Christians are actually holier than thou.

Realistically, how would you imagine your morals to be different, or better than mine? Do you think I'm okay with stealing a man's money if they spend the night in my cabin? Do you honestly think people should be concerned about me harming them?

What might make atheists untrustworthy I already stated in the previous post. No, knowing someone's moral philosophy does not make them moral.

So not knowing someone's moral philosophy makes them less moral or immoral?

Do you trust atheists more than other kinds of people? If so, why? Is it because you're "kindred spirits" or is there a more objective, tangible reason?

I do not trust atheists more than Jews, or Buddhists, or Muslims. However, I do not have a lot of trust for Christians.

Because my standard is very high. I try, but I probably fail to live up to it every day. And I'm not ragging on anyone.

Your standard is very high compared to what? Compared to mine? You just finished saying that you don't know what my "moral philosophy" is. How do you know that yours is better?

Did you not say early in this thread that when comparing the morality of an atheist vs. a Christian: "If you gotta gamble, you gotta play the probabilities."

How is it more probable in your eyes that the Christian has a higher probability of being moral than the atheist, if you don't believe that Christians are more moral than atheists?

I don't know what that first part means. But I'm curious, do you try (as in, make an effort) to be a decent Human Being, or does it just come naturally to you?

Sometimes I have to put effort in, sometimes I don't. Being a good person can be doing what I want to do, sometimes it's doing what I don't want to do.

The statement was about atheism in general, not really about him.

Yes, but I am an atheist so it is about me. If I am the average atheist, and you are the average Christian what makes you more moral than I?

 

[quatona]

But I'm curious, do you try (as in, make an effort) to be a decent Human Being, or does it just come naturally to you?

To be honest, I am under the impression that it comes way more naturally to me than certain meta-moralities suggest - namely those that pretend that we are all born (and without divine or societal coercion will remain) sociopaths.

 

[Davian]

I have an opinion which is as good as any other speculation.

What is that opinion, and how does it compare to speculations based on scientific theory and methodology? It is testable in any way?

 

[Chesterton]

No, I do not. Perhaps you are a member of the KKK. They're Christian. Maybe you're from the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Christian also. Maybe you're a Neo-Nazi, or Identity Christian, or Dominionist. They're all Christian as well. Perhaps you are the "beat the gay out of them type" or the "shoot all the atheists and let God sort them out type". They exist. You seem to think that the Christian moral philosophy is standard among all Christians. It is not. It varies wildly from Christian to Christian. So just saying "I'm a Christian" does not tell me anything about your morals or values.

And, I don't even know where you're coming from. In one thread you're disappointed that Christians are perceived as holier than thou, in this thread you're disappointed that atheists don't agree that Christians are actually holier than thou.

Realistically, how would you imagine your morals to be different, or better than mine? Do you think I'm okay with stealing a man's money if they spend the night in my cabin? Do you honestly think people should be concerned about me harming them?

If a Klansman or a Westboro'er is in a cabin, you think the average person is going to say "A Christian lives there"?

So a Klansman or a Westboro'er calls themselves Christian. With Christianity, perhaps with theism in general, you have an overwhelming large majority to say of them either 1) they're not Christian or at least 2) they're doing it wrong.

So Chairman Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer called themselves atheist. Is there an overwhelming majority of atheists to say that they are "No True Atheists"? If there is, what basis would they have for saying it?

So not knowing someone's moral philosophy makes them less moral or immoral?

I guess I'm not understanding the question. Knowing or not knowing something about someone doesn't have an effect on that someone. Not sure what you're asking.

I do not trust atheists more than Jews, or Buddhists, or Muslims. However, I do not have a lot of trust for Christians.

Sounds like a bigoted statement unless you have some sound basis for it.

Your standard is very high compared to what? Compared to mine? You just finished saying that you don't know what my "moral philosophy" is. How do you know that yours is better?

Did you not say early in this thread that when comparing the morality of an atheist vs. a Christian: "If you gotta gamble, you gotta play the probabilities."

How is it more probable in your eyes that the Christian has a higher probability of being moral than the atheist, if you don't believe that Christians are more moral than atheists?

My standard is perfection so it's high compared to anyone's.

Other points in your post I'll address here because they're kind of mixed throughout the post, but basically boil down to 1) I am (and other Christians are) self-righteous and 2) I'm two-faced for saying different things in different threads. I addressed this briefly in posts #78 and #142. No, I don't think I (or any one random Christian) am better than any one random atheist. In fact, when I joined CF I was surprised to find atheists making "you can be good without God" type threads because that was never even a question for me. I always assumed that any given atheist (or most any flavor of person) could be as good or better than any Christian or religious person. And the idea is found in the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, as well as many other later Christian thinkers.

But I wish you wouldn't take it so personally. It's a legitimate question that philosophers like Voltaire and Locke shared my opinion on. You know atheists tend to like Voltaire a lot, and even Voltaire said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". It was a statement against atheism, and I agree with him. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone, and it doesn't mean that I think you, JGG, would rob me.

Sometimes I have to put effort in, sometimes I don't. Being a good person can be doing what I want to do, sometimes it's doing what I don't want to do.

Why would you have to put effort in? Why do things you don't want to do?

 

[Chesterton]

To be honest, I am under the impression that it comes way more naturally to me than certain meta-moralities suggest - namely those that pretend that we are all born (and without divine or societal coercion will remain) sociopaths.

I think that's a loaded statement about original sin, or a misunderstanding of it, but I'm not sure, so not sure how to respond.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If a Klansman or a Westboro'er is in a cabin, you think the average person is going to say "A Christian lives there"?

So a Klansman or a Westboro'er calls themselves Christian. With Christianity, perhaps with theism in general, you have an overwhelming large majority to say of them either 1) they're not Christian or at least 2) they're doing it wrong.

So Chairman Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer called themselves atheist. Is there an overwhelming majority of atheists to say that they are "No True Atheists"? If there is, what basis would they have for saying it?



I guess I'm not understanding the question. Knowing or not knowing something about someone doesn't have an effect on that someone. Not sure what you're asking.



Sounds like a bigoted statement unless you have some sound basis for it.



My standard is perfection so it's high compared to anyone's.

Other points in your post I'll address here because they're kind of mixed throughout the post, but basically boil down to 1) I am (and other Christians are) self-righteous and 2) I'm two-faced for saying different things in different threads. I addressed this briefly in posts #78 and #142. No, I don't think I (or any one random Christian) am better than any one random atheist. In fact, when I joined CF I was surprised to find atheists making "you can be good without God" type threads because that was never even a question for me. I always assumed that any given atheist (or most any flavor of person) could be as good or better than any Christian or religious person. And the idea is found in the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, as well as many other later Christian thinkers.

But I wish you wouldn't take it so personally. It's a legitimate question that philosophers like Voltaire and Locke shared my opinion on. You know atheists tend to like Voltaire a lot, and even Voltaire said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". It was a statement against atheism, and I agree with him. It doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone, and it doesn't mean that I think you, JGG, would rob me.



Why would you have to put effort in? Why do things you don't want to do?

In the OP you did claim the man "didn't know anything about the occupants" except for their faith or lack of it. I'm pretty sure Chairman Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer are off the list of possible occupants though.

 

[Chesterton]

What is that opinion,

That there is a Supreme Being who cares about right and wrong and that He has given us conscience to perceive the difference, and to compel us to feel we ought to do right and not do wrong.

and how does it compare to speculations based on scientific theory and methodology?

It compares well because it explains things that evolutionary ideas don't. One example would be why I feel I should risk my genes running into a burning building to save a stranger when the survival of my genes is just as valuable as the survival of the stranger's (and even better to me because they're mine). Another example would be stealing. If I steal $100 from my neighbor, that money would have been spent within society, and it still will be spent by me. No harm is done to the survival of the population. Something of value to his genes is simply redistributed to my genes. A third example might be people getting mad here because they think I said that I'm more moral than them. Certainly only a "thought crime" at best, which does no harm to them, yet I've clearly done something very wrong in their eyes.

It is testable in any way?

I don't think it's testable as of now. However, if you read a newspaper story where someone did something to someone else that you feel is wrong (very common), then you can attempt to explain why you feel it's wrong in terms of evolutionary theory, and if you can't, then I think my opinion is viable until there's a testable alternative. Some things might be adequately explained by evolution, some things aren't.

 

[Chesterton]

In the OP you did claim the man "didn't know anything about the occupants" except for their faith or lack of it. I'm pretty sure Chairman Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer are off the list of possible occupants though.

Yes they're dead.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A third example might be people getting mad here because they think I said that I'm more moral than them. Certainly only a "thought crime" at best, which does no harm to them, yet I've clearly done something very wrong in their eyes..

Just for the record, I don't think you've done anything wrong. At least not in a moral sense...you're certainly entitled to your opinions as is everyone else. It just so happens that like any bigoted, narrow-minded, foolish, ignorant, and disgusting opinion...I personally feel I'd be doing the person who holds it a disservice if I didn't tell them how I feel about it. Even more so when they express that opinion in a way that appears to be an attempt at self validation.

If reading these things made me angry, I'd be angry all the time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes they're dead.

What was the point of bringing them up again? Have you actually seen anyone use the term "no true atheist"?

I haven't.

 

[Chesterton]

Just for the record, I don't think you've done anything wrong. At least not in a moral sense...you're certainly entitled to your opinions as is everyone else. It just so happens that like any bigoted, narrow-minded, foolish, ignorant, and disgusting opinion...I personally feel I'd be doing the person who holds it a disservice if I didn't tell them how I feel about it. Even more so when they express that opinion in a way that appears to be an attempt at self validation.

If reading these things made me angry, I'd be angry all the time.

I don't think the opinion is any of those things you said it is, and it's not self-validation. I think it's rational, and as I said, good philosophers have expressed it. It's you just lacking objectivity about your own beliefs and getting emotional about it.

What was the point of bringing them up again? Have you actually seen anyone use the term "no true atheist"?

I haven't.

I've never seen the term used. That was the point. I don't think it could be.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think the opinion is any of those things you said it is, and it's not self-validation. I think it's rational, and as I said, good philosophers have expressed it. It's you just lacking objectivity about your own beliefs and getting emotional about it.



I've never seen the term used. That was the point. I don't think it could be.

What philosophers are you referring to? I'm sorry if you already mentioned this...I haven't read every page of this thread. If you don't want to repeat a list of names you already made, or quotes you already quoted...just refer me to the post number...I'll check it out.

I think it could be a genuine term if we could show that someone is genuinely pretending to be an atheist (obviously this doesn't happen often as there aren't many benefits). There's one woman on Fox news who claims to be an atheist but has said some very strange things (as if she's claiming atheism for an advantage in political discourse) but even with her I don't know if I'd be comfortable calling her a fake. It could also be that she's just very very dumb.

Edit: I'm also curious which of my beliefs you think I'm not being objective about?

 

[quatona]

I think that's a loaded statement about original sin, or a misunderstanding of it, but I'm not sure, so not sure how to respond.

You needn´t respond. You asked a question. I answered it. If you feel you don´t understand the answer, you are free to ask further questions.
And, no, it´s not a statement about original sin, it´s a statement about how I see certain people approaching the topic morality.