Two Cabins

[Chesterton]

What probabilities would those be?

Are you asking for numbers?

 

[Chesterton]

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?

JGG brought up the Klan and Westboro Baptist Church as examples of bad Christians, so I brought up Chairman Mao and Dahmer as examples of bad atheists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

JGG brought up the Klan and Westboro Baptist Church as examples of bad Christians, so I brought up Chairman Mao and Dahmer as examples of bad atheists.

Oh ok...then you just missed the point of why he brought those examples up. He mentioned them because you're essentially (maybe even explicitly, I'd have to double check) claiming that you know the moral values (or at least the basis for morality) of the christian in the cabin.

You don't.

 

[quatona]

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

Well, I can see how that looks like the implication of atheism to a person who can think of an authoritative command to be the only reason to be moral.

But, of course, this is not an implication of atheism, but an implication of your particular mindset.

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

Ok. Let me try this, too:
The moral implication of theism/Christianity= Don´t care for being moral here on earth. 1. This existence is but an transitional state - it´s not what everything is about. 2. There is an omnipotent, omniscient God who can and will fix everything in the end anyway.
If you want to be good then be good. If you want to be bad then be bad. It doesn´t matter in the big scheme of things.

 

[Nithavela]

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.

You'd be suprised where our modern morals come from. They certainly don't come from your favorite bronze age text.

Also, thank you for mixing up atheism with satanism (that's the one with "do as thou wilt").

 

[JGG]

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

Then why is it that the Westboro Baptists should not be counted as Christians? Where's the line between that and an immoral Christian?

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

So if Christians are not any more moral than atheists, why is it more probable that the Christian is more moral than the atheist?

Let's try it this way: Let's assume that Christians are no taller than atheists, and vice versa. Cabin A has an atheist in it, Cabin B has a Christian is it. Do you think it more probable that the Christian will be taller then the atheist?

Because people are sinners,

We have traffic laws 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.

Were these laws handed down by God? Do we need God to enforce them? Why should I follow traffic laws? Wouldn't you say that societies are complex systems that needs order?

I don't think it's a contradiction.

Do you think Christians are taller than atheists? Then why do you believe that the Christian in Cabin B will be taller than the atheist?

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?

It's a pretty poor analogy. Both hemispheres have societies which have managed to survive and live amongst themselves. That takes a societal contract, or morals and ethics. Flip a coin. Although, the western side has recognized chemicals, and that suggests scientific advancement.

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.

Yes, and I would prefer not to trust either person in either cabin, but that's not part of the scenario. Not trusting strangers is not allowed. You're asking me which I trust when I have to. You're claiming that the average atheist is morally inferior to the average Christian. Or, to use my analogy, you believe the average atheist is shorter than the average Christian.

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

Why? Again, how does not knowing where someone's morals come from make them less moral?

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.

Or perhaps, religion has incorporated the social contract that earlier societies developed to create a sort of cosmic police officer to watch over people ensuring they adhere to the contract through fear: God. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

The difference is that now we are coming to understand the nature of the social contract, and do not need God watching over us. We're getting closer to being capable of policing ourselves, and be moral out of social responsibility.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you asking for numbers?

Probabilities do involve numbers.

Would be interested in how you determined what the numbers were as well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

Can you demonstrate that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Sure it is, being "destined" to do something doesn't excuse you from being responsible for your actions.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure it is, being "destined" to do something doesn't excuse you from being responsible for your actions.

I'm not sure about that.... I'd say the responsibility lays with whatever destined you to do that action, whether it be good or bad.

If you are destined to do something, then by definition you have no choice in the matter. If you have no choice, then you can't really be held responsible. Whatever made the choice for you would be ultimately responsible for the action, again whether that action is good or bad.

 

[Davian]

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?

Evasion noted.

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.

That is not reflected in your responses.

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,

Which you do yourself, apparently, a few lines down from this. If you see requests for substantiation of your unevidenced claims as "childish", perhaps this is not the right forum for you.

especially when repeated over and over.

Unsubstantiated claims are made over and over. It's like a broken record.

And it's doubly annoying when everytime I've asked you a hard question you ignore it or just post a joke .gif.

I am curious to know what these "hard questions" might be, but keep in mind that what you may think of as a "hard question" for an immoral, nihilistic atheist (defined as you see fit) is missing the target with me, because other than my lack of belief in deities, I am not those things.

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

I do not believe in memes, I accept them as accurate descriptions or models for conveying concepts of human culture and behaviour.

In the other thread.

It should be easy enough to search for "consciousness" and "flowchart" and provide me that link to where you claimed I had promised such a thing. Or were you lying?

My opinion that you asked for.

Yes, those were the gaps that you listed.

Fundamentalists are problematic no matter which extreme they go to.

You must be working with your own definitions again there.

Prove it.

"Prove it". I guess it is okay when you do this?

I cannot prove that there will always be more to explain and explore any more than I can prove that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun, but hold me to it if you like.

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

You said, regarding your opinion, "It compares well because it explains things that evolutionary ideas don't. " You failed to substantiate this statement.

In post # 154 I asked, how do you know that this "compulsion we all feel" is "supernatural" and not the result of us having evolved as social animals?

Can you define "supernatural" in this context so we can test it in some way?

Are you still working on that?

No,

I didn't think you would have an example, but it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that your religious beliefs can change based on science, if that is not the case.

do you?

Do I have an example of what science would need to explain that would cause me to doubt the existence of your "supreme being"? I have seen nothing in science that shows that god concepts are of any scientific significance, other than as components of religions.

And what are they?

On the subjects of gods, they appear to be simply characters in books.

What have I misrepresented, and how?

Have you not been paying attention? Nevermind - I can work with "theism" defined as "believing in things imaginary" if you can.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

By "there is no law" I mean "there is no law". There are only social/business agreements, and guns.

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.

No, it's based on a reality that no one can deny. No creative mind behind the universe = no actual "shoulds" and "should nots".

 

[Ana the Ist]

By "there is no law" I mean "there is no law". There are only social/business agreements, and guns.



No, it's based on a reality that no one can deny. No creative mind behind the universe = no actual "shoulds" and "should nots".

Well clearly there are laws. You may not recognize them or maybe you just don't recognize the authority behind them...but there are laws.

Well your view of reality is unsupported by the facts. Here's a few facts that contradict your "view"....

1. There are atheists who believe in objective morality. They don't derive their "shoulds" and "should nots" from a god...they derive them from other sources. These sources may vary from atheist to atheist.

2. A "creative mind behind the universe" does not mean that morality is objective. If you could somehow prove this creative mind's existence... you would still have to prove objective morals come from this mind (which is something I personally think would be more difficult than proving it exists in the first place).

3. Even if you could prove that this creative mind is the source of objective morality, you would still have the even harder task of showing that this morality is somehow not connected to the opinions of this creative mind on what "should and should not" be. If it merely were the opinions of this creative mind, then you're still left with a subjective (and possibly relativistic) view of morality. Simply following the subjective opinions of a moral advisor doesn't make those morals any less subjective.

I understand that since your views are "obvious" to you, you think they are obvious to everyone and therefore impossible to deny...but it wasn't all that hard for me to deny them was it? Even if you didn't understand the third fact, if you managed to follow the first two it should be relatively easy for you to see how your view of how atheism and morality are connected isn't a true reflection of reality.

In other words, even though you think that without a god there cannot be an objective morality is something everyone should understand and agree with...the reality is that even with a god there's no reason to believe morality is anything but subjective/relativistic.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Well I just typed in Mao off the top of my head. I should have used Stalin because I'm a member of the Church he tried to destroy in the name of atheism. Does this really need to be discussed? Do you really need links to sources about all the churches shut down, all the priests harrassed, imprisoned and killed? The invention of the 5 day week, followed by the 6 day week in order to eliminate a Sunday day of Christian worship (as with the atheistic French Revolutionists)?

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.

C'mon, don't play dumb.

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.

One can obey the police out of fear, and one can even obey the police because he thinks they are "right", that the laws they enforce are for the overall good. But no one loves the police, no one thinks the enforcement of laws by police is their reason for being in the universe.

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.

The fact that you're an atheist also has no bearing on what flavor ice cream you like best. You simply like one. And one is logically as good as any other, as right as any other. Same with moral systems.

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

That's no dilemma for a Christian. God and his righteousness are one and the same thing. It's repeated over and over in scriptures. Morality doesn't stem from His commandments, it stems from who He is.

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

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

If no one here believes it's true they haven't given it much thought.

Yes they are.

Why?

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.

Oh okay, Cupp. For the record, I think she's a CNN gal. I've never heard her say anything about religion myself though, so I don't know.

 

[Chesterton]

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

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.

 

[bhsmte]

Chesterton,

I don't believe you answered my question to the comment you made about "playing the probabilities".

What specifically are these probabilities and probabilities include numbers.

Also, how did you arrive at these numbers?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

It was irrelevant to the point we were discussing.

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.

I have asked. I asked JGG and he didn't answer. I've asked many times on CF and I get "imaginary" beliefs, the kind you complain about.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh ok...then you just missed the point of why he brought those examples up. He mentioned them because you're essentially (maybe even explicitly, I'd have to double check) claiming that you know the moral values (or at least the basis for morality) of the christian in the cabin.

You don't.

Yes I claim to know the basis of morality for the Christian. I also claim to know the lack of a basis for morality for the atheist, which is why I've asked for a basis and am still waiting.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I claim to know the basis of morality for the Christian. I also claim to know the lack of a basis for morality for the atheist, which is why I've asked for a basis and am still waiting.

Are you stating because the atheist does not believe in Christianity they can not have a solid foundation for moral behavior?

If so, what is your evidence to support this?

 

[durangodawood]

Well I just typed in Mao off the top of my head. I should have used Stalin because I'm a member of the Church he tried to destroy in the name of atheism. Does this really need to be discussed?

Apparently it DOES need to be discussed.

Stalin destroyed churches in the name of The State, under the guise of "the revolution".