Two Cabins

[Chesterton]

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

Davian, you're like a broken record on CF. Why don't you take up stamp collecting? Or show me the objective evidence for the memes you believe in. At least tell me something - what color are they? And where's that flowchart of human consciousness you said would be so easy to provide to me?

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

I don't see any gaps. The only people who have a gap problem are fundamentalists like Dawkins who expect evolutionary theory to be able to explain everything. I don't.

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?

Depends on the theories.

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

No. You're just presuming your naturalistic worldview is correct and that I share it.

 

[Chesterton]

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

While Atheism did not inform Mao and Dahmer's actions,...

You sure? Ever read Mao's Little Red Book? Ever read/watched Dahmer's post-conviction interview?

...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.

You're saying there is no large majority of atheists who agree on what types of moral conduct are more "right" than others?

 

[Cearbhall]

You're saying there is no large majority of atheists who agree on what types of moral conduct are more "right" than others?

Why would there be? It's not a belief system.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You sure? Ever read Mao's Little Red Book?

No, however I don't see the relevance. Is there a passage in there that says "since I don't hold to a theistic belief, therefore communism and mass murder"?

Ever read/watched Dahmer's post-conviction interview?

I've seen a few interviews with him actually, which one are you referring to? Nothing I've seen him say can tie his crimes specifically to being an atheist.

You can certainly tie his crimes to being sociopathic among other mental illnesses.

You're saying there is no large majority of atheists who agree on what types of moral conduct are more "right" than others?

When did I state that?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

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.

No, but I'll tell you the real point. I just wanted to see who was smart enough to say they'd use their cell phone to call a friend or family member. I didn't say what century it was.

Why are you carrying your money in gold? I don't know, maybe you're a Glenn Beck fan.

 

[JGG]

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

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.

No it doesn't.

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

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

It's the standard you are prepared to meet.

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.

And there it is.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Nothing that comes from atheism. Yet I think you'll find most atheists condemn Stalin and Pol Pot. Why do you think that is?

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know why anyone would bother trying to do that.

I don't either.

"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.

So you don't see any implications that might come from being an atheist? Have you never given your belief (lack of belief) serious consideration? Assuming you don't think the lower animals believe in God, then that lack of belief is just another default thing that we (well, you) share with the lower animals?

 

[Chesterton]

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

It's not?

How would you figure that?

If there's no God then there's no purpose or meaning to the universe. You can make up your own meaning or do what you want. He did what he wanted. He seems much more logically consistent than a lot of people I talk to here.

I dare you to substantiate this.

Maybe I mispoke. A universe-view?

Why would there be? It's not a belief system.

You're right.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's not?

No, it's not. It's a single position on a single topic. One of many opinions you hold.

Likewise, simply believing a god exists is not a worldview in itself either.

If there's no God then there's no purpose or meaning to the universe.

How do you figure that?

You can make up your own meaning or do what you want. He did what he wanted. He seems much more logically consistent than a lot of people I talk to here.

Not at all, what you're ignoring is regardless of if a god exists or not, our actions have consequences.

 

[Chesterton]

No, however I don't see the relevance. Is there a passage in there that says "since I don't hold to a theistic belief, therefore communism and mass murder"?

No, not in those words, but it's implied throughout.

I've seen a few interviews with him actually, which one are you referring to? Nothing I've seen him say can tie his crimes specifically to being an atheist.

You can certainly tie his crimes to being sociopathic among other mental illnesses.

The one where his dad is by his side. He talks about growing up believing the theory of evolution and how he felt he wasn't accountable for his actions because he came from slime or something. I don't think he actually used the word atheism, but he's contrasting a godless universe where he previously felt nothing mattered with the alleged new religious faith he found later.

When did I state that?

I was just asking for clarification. Did you mean that or something else?

 

[Chesterton]

No, it's not. It's a single position on a single topic. One of many opinions you hold.

Likewise, simply believing a god exists is not a worldview in itself either.

You don't think either idea has any "follow-through", no implications?

How do you figure that?

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.

Not at all, what you're ignoring is regardless of if a god exists or not, our actions have consequences.

Like what, the police, the wife and kids, concern about what your friends might think? A bunch of fears more tangible than God? Or what?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, not in those words, but it's implied throughout.

Can you cite a clear example?

The one where his dad is by his side. He talks about growing up believing the theory of evolution and how he felt he wasn't accountable for his actions because he came from slime or something. I don't think he actually used the word atheism, but he's contrasting a godless universe where he previously felt nothing mattered with the alleged new religious faith he found later.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW3IDFbpOyM

I was just asking for clarification. Did you mean that or something else?

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.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You don't think either idea has any "follow-through", no implications?

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.

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.

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.

Like what, the police, the wife and kids, concern about what your friends might think? A bunch of fears more tangible than God? Or what?

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't think either idea has any "follow-through", no implications?


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.


Like what, the police, the wife and kids, concern about what your friends might think? A bunch of fears more tangible than God? Or what?

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.

 

[poolerboy0077]

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.

 

[Davian]

Not collecting stamps and not believing in God are not analagous. One is a hobby for entertainment,

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

the other is a worldview of the universe.

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?

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

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

 

[Ana the Ist]

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



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.



Your atheism.

I'll be honest, I haven't read much philosophy. Never read any Voltaire... only read a little of Locke (of which I remember even less) so I'm not going to argue your assessment of them...I simply don't have the knowledge to do so.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[quatona]

The one where his dad is by his side. He talks about growing up believing the theory of evolution and how he felt he wasn't accountable for his actions because he came from slime or something. I don't think he actually used the word atheism, but he's contrasting a godless universe where he previously felt nothing mattered with the alleged new religious faith he found later.

I´m not sure why you feel I should adopt such illogical notions, or why the weird thoughts and feelings of a seriously disturbed person should be considered "implications of atheism".
Argumentum ad Dahmer - a new logical fallacy?

 

[Nithavela]

No, but I'll tell you the real point. I just wanted to see who was smart enough to say they'd use their cell phone to call a friend or family member. I didn't say what century it was.

Why are you carrying your money in gold? I don't know, maybe you're a Glenn Beck fan.

So the whole point of this thread was that you're just taking the Mickey. Point taken.

 

[Davian]

Davian, you're like a broken record on CF.

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 don't you take up stamp collecting?

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?

Or show me the objective evidence for the memes you believe in. At least tell me something - what color are they?

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

And where's that flowchart of human consciousness you said would be so easy to provide to me?

Where did I say I would produce such a thing?

I don't see any gaps.

What then did you list in post #174?

The only people who have a gap problem are fundamentalists

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

like Dawkins who expect evolutionary theory to be able to explain everything.

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.

I don't.

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.

Depends on the theories.

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. You're just presuming your naturalistic worldview is correct

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

and that I share it.

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