Two Cabins

[RobertMerton]

Christian.

 

[quatona]

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

Depends on the community.

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.

Whether they do it right or wrong wasn´t subject to the statements in the scenario.

So Chairman Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer called themselves atheist. Is there an overwhelming majority of atheists to say that they are "No True Atheists"?

I don´t think so. Unless there´s information that these guys actually believed in a God. Is there?

If there is, what basis would they have for saying it?[/quuote]
See above.

And how is this relevant for the scenario, anyway?

 

[JGG]

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

Your scenario says that we only know that Cabin A belongs to an atheist, and Cabin B belongs to a Christian. It says nothing about Cabin B belonging to a Christian but not a Klansman.

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.

Okay. So what? Are we changing the scenario or what? Is it now that Cabin B has a Christian in it that doesn't have questionable morals? Are you a Christian? Are you doing it right?

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?

Well, they are both atheists if they do not believe in God. I am not trying to expel them because I do not like them. I am not saying that all atheists are morally upstanding people. I am saying that Christians are no better. You are claiming otherwise.

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.

You said you do not trust atheists because you do not know their moral philosophy. Does not knowing someone's moral philosophy make them immoral?

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

Christians have harmed me too many times in my life because of their religious beliefs for me to have trust in them. I have to hide the fact that I am an atheist because revealing so could cost me my job. Too many Christians pre-hate me for being an atheist for me to trust any. I have revealed to one stranger in my whole life that I'm an atheist and the result was a concussion, and permanent eye damage when that Christian assaulted me. I have seen what Christians think of atheists first hand, I read it on here day after day from Christians like yourself, and I know to run far, far away.

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

Are you perfect? If not I would suggest your standard is far lower. Your standard is whatever you choose to live up to.

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.

You're saying different things in this thread, and different things in this particular post.

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.

No? Can you explain why you said this when someone said they would flip a coin:

If you gotta gamble, you gotta play the probabilities. But fair enough.

What are these probabilities that you are referring to? What is more probable that you would go to the Christian cabin, and would go to the cabin of any other religion before the atheist one (excepting Muslims)?

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.

That's sweet. But, it was certainly a question earlier in the thread. By the end of your post, it is pretty clear what you actually think of atheists, so why are you denying it?

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.

Maybe. But not anymore. I have heard more than my fair share of Christians who believe otherwise. You appear to be one despite what you claim the Bible says.

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.

Riiiiight...So atheists are morally deficient.

"Listen, I joined CF and 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. But John Locke and Voltaire both claimed that atheists cannot be good without God, were morally deficient, should not be trusted and darnit, I agree with them!"

Wow, that door sure swung back quickly!

So, which is it? Christians are no better and no more moral than atheists, or do you agree with John Locke and Voltaire and Christians are deficient and less moral than non-atheists? Then, ask me again why I don't trust Christians.

So, Let's get right to it then: Cabin A with a random atheist and Cabin B with a random Christian. You said you would choose B. In fact, if we added, C, D, E, F, you would go through all of those before A. So if it was never a question whether atheists could be good without God, and you always assumed that a random atheist could be as good or better than a random Christian or religious person, why would you not go into Cabin A? Why wouldn't you just flip a coin?

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

If I expect others to do it, I have to as well.

 

[Davian]

..
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?

"Atheist" only says what someone isn't. If Jeffrey Dahmer said that he did not collect stamps, which I also do not do, I would not identify with him.

I have also read his 'atheist' comments in context, and it appeared that he equated the term with 'nihilist', which I do not do.

 

[Davian]

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.

But not just any supreme being, correct? To be clear, you lack any objective evidence for the existence of gods/deities/supreme beings?

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.

By what methodology do you assure yourself that such gaps exist in evolutionary theory?

And, if you were to be presented with theories on those subjects agreed upon by scientific consensus by scientists working in those fields of study, would it change this opinion of yours?

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.

God of the gaps, then. Gaps that may not even be there.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Everyone would choose the Christian and they know it. No one will admit this, though.

I wouldn't. I'd go to the atheists place.

That being said, it's not because the Christian or Atheist has any greater likelihood of peaceful or violent behaviour. Odds are they're both good people who won't take my stuff or kill me.

I'd go to the Atheists place because I'd likely have more in common with that person, and it would probably make for a better conversation that evening.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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?

Sure, they were Atheists. However, Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy identified themselves as Christian.

While Atheism did not inform Mao and Dahmer's actions, likewise Christianity did not inform Hitler and Bundy's actions. (although a case could be made that Hitler's antisemitism has roots in Christian writings, namely those of Martin Luther)

The irony is, most atheists will fully accept that Mao and Dahmer were atheists. They didn't believe in a god after all, so that's what they were. However, that lack of belief doesn't mean they have anything else in common with us.

Most Christians will label Hitler and Bundy as "not true Christians" or quite often will try to even label Hitler as an Atheist.

 

[Nithavela]

Atheists feel no kinship to other atheists just on the basis of their non-belief in gods.

Just like people who don't collect stamps share a hobby, right?

 

[poolerboy0077]

So let's give you what you want. Suppose everyone here, atheists and theists alike, choose the cabin with the Christian. Now what? What is the point exactly? Are you under the impression that this lends credence to the veracity of the religion?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Post #171, I just mentioned a couple, didn't say that much.

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.

You're sort of saying the same thing quatona said when he said something like he was a most excellent atheist because he didn't believe in any gods at all, and JGG is saying something similar below. I thought quatona was being humorous but maybe you're all serious. Going with a strictly minimal definition like that, it would be like me saying I'm a good Christian because I really believe in Christ, and that's all there is to it. But what about love? What about worship? All the rest? There are implications to what one believes, and I'm trying to get at what the moral implications of atheism might be. If you deny there are any implications, then that alone seems good enough reason to want to stay in the Christian cabin.

Atheists seem to pride themselves on reason and thinking, and I would think they'd want to think through the implications of their belief (or lack of belief), rather than just accept atheism as a basic fact about themselves and not care any further.

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

Your atheism.

 

[Cearbhall]

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 don't know why anyone would bother trying to do that. "Atheist" just indicates a lack of belief in deities. It's not really a trait that we share. I don't identify with it any more than I identify as "not a fan of rollercoasters." Believing in gods is just one of the things that some other people do that I don't do, and those people make the term "atheist" mean something.

If the people you mentioned didn't believe in any deities, then they were atheists. It doesn't bother me that some of the people I would call bad/evil didn't believe in any gods.

 

[Chesterton]

Your scenario says that we only know that Cabin A belongs to an atheist, and Cabin B belongs to a Christian. It says nothing about Cabin B belonging to a Christian but not a Klansman.

Okay. So what? Are we changing the scenario or what? Is it now that Cabin B has a Christian in it that doesn't have questionable morals? Are you a Christian? Are you doing it right?

Well, they are both atheists if they do not believe in God. I am not trying to expel them because I do not like them. I am not saying that all atheists are morally upstanding people. I am saying that Christians are no better. You are claiming otherwise.

You're the one inserting lunatic fringes into the scenario, so I responded to it.

You said you do not trust atheists because you do not know their moral philosophy. Does not knowing someone's moral philosophy make them immoral?

No it doesn't.

Christians have harmed me too many times in my life because of their religious beliefs for me to have trust in them. I have to hide the fact that I am an atheist because revealing so could cost me my job. Too many Christians pre-hate me for being an atheist for me to trust any. I have revealed to one stranger in my whole life that I'm an atheist and the result was a concussion, and permanent eye damage when that Christian assaulted me. I have seen what Christians think of atheists first hand, I read it on here day after day from Christians like yourself, and I know to run far, far away.

You told a stranger you're an atheist, somehow it turned out he was Christian and he assaulted you. I woke up extra early this morning but that's the most, uh, interesting story I've heard all day.

Are you perfect? If not I would suggest your standard is far lower. Your standard is whatever you choose to live up to.

If it's whatever I choose to live up to then it's not a "standard" is it?

You're saying different things in this thread, and different things in this particular post.

No? Can you explain why you said this when someone said they would flip a coin:

What are these probabilities that you are referring to? What is more probable that you would go to the Christian cabin, and would go to the cabin of any other religion before the atheist one (excepting Muslims)?

That's sweet. But, it was certainly a question earlier in the thread. By the end of your post, it is pretty clear what you actually think of atheists, so why are you denying it?

Maybe. But not anymore. I have heard more than my fair share of Christians who believe otherwise. You appear to be one despite what you claim the Bible says.

Riiiiight...So atheists are morally deficient.

"Listen, I joined CF and 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. But John Locke and Voltaire both claimed that atheists cannot be good without God, were morally deficient, should not be trusted and darnit, I agree with them!"

Wow, that door sure swung back quickly!

So, which is it? Christians are no better and no more moral than atheists, or do you agree with John Locke and Voltaire and Christians are deficient and less moral than non-atheists? Then, ask me again why I don't trust Christians.

So, Let's get right to it then: Cabin A with a random atheist and Cabin B with a random Christian. You said you would choose B. In fact, if we added, C, D, E, F, you would go through all of those before A. So if it was never a question whether atheists could be good without God, and you always assumed that a random atheist could be as good or better than a random Christian or religious person, why would you not go into Cabin A? Why wouldn't you just flip a coin?

If I expect others to do it, I have to as well.

Regarding that last line, that certainly doesn't help me out in deciding which cabin to stay in. I can't do anything for you if I'm dead, and we're out in the woods, so no one will know if you bury me out back.

But to address the other stuff above, I'd like to question you. I said I'd stay in the Christian cabin. I said any atheist could be a better person than a Christian, but I'd play the probablities, and I haven't denied anything I've said. Before it's fair for you to consider me a bigot for feeling that way, I think it's fair to ask you why I shouldn't. So, what is the atheist moral philosophy that the vast majority of atheists agree on, and which would prescribe the moral behavior that would be condemned by the vast majority if it were not followed by a fringe calling themselves atheists?

 

[quatona]

You're sort of saying the same thing quatona said when he said something like he was a most excellent atheist because he didn't believe in any gods at all, and JGG is saying something similar below. I thought quatona was being humorous but maybe you're all serious.

Well, I was completely serious. My atheism doesn´t require anything but not believing in Gods. Everything else would be a matter of other, positive convictions of mine. (But unfortunately your scenario compared a positive belief - which typically amounts to an entire beliefsystem and worldview) to a lack of belief.)

Going with a strictly minimal definition like that, it would be like me saying I'm a good Christian because I really believe in Christ, and that's all there is to it.

If that´s all there is to it, then you could say that. I guess, though, that "believing in Christ" means something to you, and that it comes with certain moral implications you interprete Christ to stand for.

But what about love? What about worship? All the rest?

Yes, what about them? Atheism is remarkably silent about anything except belief in the existence of Gods.

There are implications to what one believes,

Sure, but there are very few implications to what one doesn´t believe in.

and I'm trying to get at what the moral implications of atheism might be.

There aren´t any. Which, of course, doesn´t mean that atheists (due to their individual positive convictions which aren´t determined by their atheism) don´t or can´t have moral stances.

If you deny there are any implications, then that alone seems good enough reason to want to stay in the Christian cabin.

I am not seeing the logic here.
If you heard in cabin A was a Christian and in cabin B was a plumber (which doesn´t come with any moral implications either) what would you do?

Atheists seem to pride themselves on reason and thinking,

That´s not an implication of atheism, either.

and I would think they'd want to think through the implications of their belief (or lack of belief),

Now matter how hard I try to find any, I can´t seem to find any moral implications of there not being a God.

rather than just accept atheism as a basic fact about themselves and not care any further.

Rest assured, most atheists care further, but that´s not covered by their atheism (because, well, atheism simply doesn´t have any moral implications).

Your atheism.

It´s not a belief, and even less it´s a belief system or a world view. As long as you don´t understand this there isn´t much point in discussing this any further.

 

[Davian]

So let's give you what you want. Suppose everyone here, atheists and theists alike, choose the cabin with the Christian. Now what? What is the point exactly? Are you under the impression that this lends credence to the veracity of the religion?

The "elephant in the room" that should have been pointed out on page 1.

 

[Chesterton]

The quote function is off and on not working for me. It's a pain in the butt. I'll be back later.

 

[Cearbhall]

So let's give you what you want. Suppose everyone here, atheists and theists alike, choose the cabin with the Christian. Now what? What is the point exactly? Are you under the impression that this lends credence to the veracity of the religion?

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the whole point is to get atheists to admit that they think Christianity makes people more moral.

My favorite part was when he said he knows that everyone would choose the Christian cabin, but some people won't admit it. So basically, he thinks we all believe Christians are more moral and some of us are just in denial.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the whole point is to get atheists to admit that they think Christianity makes people more moral.

My favorite part was when he said he knows that everyone would choose the Christian cabin, but some people won't admit it. So basically, he thinks we all believe Christians are more moral and some of us are just in denial.

To believe otherwise would probably cause him some cognitive dissonance.

 

[Chesterton]

"Atheist" only says what someone isn't. If Jeffrey Dahmer said that he did not collect stamps, which I also do not do, I would not identify with him.

Not collecting stamps and not believing in God are not analagous. One is a hobby for entertainment, the other is a worldview of the universe.

I have also read his 'atheist' comments in context, and it appeared that he equated the term with 'nihilist', which I do not do.

Seems to me Dahmer is being rationally consistent in doing so. You don't agree?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not collecting stamps and not believing in God are not analagous. One is a hobby for entertainment, the other is a worldview of the universe.

Not really... Not believing in the existence of a god is not a worldview.

Seems to me Dahmer is being rationally consistent in doing so. You don't agree?

How would you figure that?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Not collecting stamps and not believing in God are not analagous. One is a hobby for entertainment, the other is a worldview of the universe.

I dare you to substantiate this.