Two Cabins

[Davian]

It was irrelevant to the point we were discussing.

Indeed, the point of you appealing to Dahmer for an endorsement of your equivocation of 'atheist' and 'nihilist'. Does he endorse any other positions that you have, other than your choice of religion?

I have asked. I asked JGG and he didn't answer.

That is your excuse to telling other what their morality must be?

I've asked many times on CF and I get "imaginary" beliefs, the kind you complain about.

It is not the belief that I complain about, it is the unsubstantiated assertions of religious beliefs as accurate descriptions of reality.

 

[quatona]

Yes I claim to know the basis of morality for the Christian.

Which, of course, doesn´t tell you anything about the person in cabin A who is called a 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.

That´s like asking for the basis for morality of the dentist.
Personally, my basis is my desire for a good and functioning coexistence with the beings around me.

If being a "Christian" means anything close to being like you, I´d choose the other cabin any day. I really don´t need people around me who spread their prejudices, generalizations and projections. Fortunately, most Christians I know in RL are not like that.

 

[niye]

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

Given zero other info, I'd have to go by personal experience, and what would make me feel comfortable. My closest friends are Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or gay. The believing Christians I've met have been a bit too extreme for comfort. That means I'd take the atheist home over the Christian home.

However, given a choice between spending the night with an atheist man I've never met, and a Christian woman I've never met, I'd take the woman, whatever her religious persuasion. This is a horrible gender stereotype, but I'd feel safer with the woman, as I am a woman.

 

[JGG]

I have asked. I asked JGG and he didn't answer.

JGG is getting to it. JGG likes to lay the groundwork for his answers rather than just blurting it out and having people not understand. Think traffic laws and social contracts.

 

[Davian]

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.

Atheism is a theological position, on the subject of deities. It is not a basis for morality.

Wait as long as you like.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I'm sorry, I should've rephrased that...

You can claim to know the basis of morality for a christian... but you don't. Remember when I gave you the example about shunning a homosexual son? You admitted that some christians do...some, like yourself, don't. It's a moral choice...and even though people may decide differently on that moral choice, they can both be christians. I made the point, you agreed to it....it all comes down to perspective and interpretation.

So again, you can claim to know the moral basis of a christian... but you can't know it. Sorry.

You've asked for a basis for morality for atheists and you've been given the same answer by pretty much every atheist here. Atheism doesn't have a moral philosophy attached to it. The fact that you either can't grasp this or just don't accept it doesn't make it any less true...that's the way it is.

If you want to know what the basis is for an atheist's morality.... you have to ask him. I know that's probably more work than you're willing to put it, it's a lot easier to judge people on baseless stereotypes, isn't it? As an atheist, I can only tell you either my personal basis for morality...or I can tell you how I think morality works for everyone (regardless of religious beliefs). What I can't tell you is the basis for morality for all atheists....there is no such thing, it doesn't exist. It's like asking "What's the moral basis for all sailors?" Sailing, like atheism, doesn't inform morality. That doesn't mean that sailors don't have a basis for morality individually...they just don't have one as a group.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.



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.



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.

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.

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

I find it a little hard to believe the sincerity of a guy who says that "evolution cheapens life" when he spent his time luring men into his home, drugging them, drilling holes in their skulls, pouring chemicals into the holes...all in an attempt to create a mindless warm body for his sexual predilections.

Oh yea, then he had sex with their corpses and ate them.

He's willing to do that....yet evolution cheapens life? Gimme a break. He was demented, but he's not a moron. He was playing the repentant sinner for a christian audience. Maybe he thought if enough christians bought into his conversion he could win an advocacy group or something. It's nonsense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

And that's simply incorrect.

I don't see how a creative mind behind the universe is even relevant to the topic?

 

[Dave Ellis]

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)?

Stalin and Mao didn't attempt to shut churches down in the name of Atheism, they attempted to shut them down in the name of Communism. Churches posed a threat to the authority of the state, so they did away with them.

Betcha didn't know Stalin spent 5 years at the Tiflis Theological Seminary with the intention of becoming an Orthodox priest before he got into politics.

C'mon, don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. How is Dahmer's comments even relevant to atheism?

Let me help you out. You're conflating the theory of evolution with atheism. The majority of Christians also believe the theory of evolution to be correct. Therefore if he believed those things about evolution, he'd have believed them regardless of his religious viewpoint, evolution is not a "belief of atheism", it's science which is accepted by people from any religion.

Therefore what he says about evolution is completely irrelevant to atheism.
He spoke nothing of Atheism in the clip you provided.

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.

What does that even mean? I'm very appreciative of the police because they help keep order in society.

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.

Even there you're demonstrably wrong. One flavour is not logically as good as any other. Even you must have flavours of ice cream that you prefer over others, I find it highly unlikely that you view every single flavour as complete equals to each other.

Like moral systems, not all are equal. Some take more thought to discern than ice cream, however basic moral principles are not hard to figure out.

In fact I'd say the very basics of morality are hardwired into us. Any social species we find in nature has a basic code of morality.

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.

The funny thing is that at first you're claiming it's not a dilemma for a christian, then your explanation is one of the two prongs of the euthyphro dilemma.

So you're saying morality stems from god? What he believes is moral is therefore moral?

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

On the contrary, it's you who haven't given it any thought, as you clearly don't even comprehend the position.

Why?

Whether you get caught has absolutely no bearing on the morality of an action. I don't see how it would even be relevant to the discussion

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.

She's appeared on basically all the major networks, however she basically made her name as Fox News "token atheist". I think she might be on CNN's crossfire now though.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I find it a little hard to believe the sincerity of a guy who says that "evolution cheapens life" when he spent his time luring men into his home, drugging them, drilling holes in their skulls, pouring chemicals into the holes...all in an attempt to create a mindless warm body for his sexual predilections.

Oh yea, then he had sex with their corpses and ate them.

He's willing to do that....yet evolution cheapens life? Gimme a break. He was demented, but he's not a moron. He was playing the repentant sinner for a christian audience. Maybe he thought if enough christians bought into his conversion he could win an advocacy group or something. It's nonsense.

I'm not so sure about that. Dahmer's father is an advocate for creationism and Jeff Dahmer was fairly strongly religious earlier in his life. The idea that evolution cheapens life could have been drilled into him from a young age.

However, when you look at interviews after he was arrested and before his "born again" conversion, he mentions nothing at all about evolution, religion or anything. He speaks about mental compulsions that he couldn't control without killing.

He was baptized into the Church of Christ, which is a fairly fundamentalist denomination. I think he was probably being genuine about his beliefs regarding evolution, however I think those beliefs were likely formed post-hoc as a result of his conversion.

That's my guess at least, seeing as it was never an issue for him until he converted. but I could be wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

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 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.

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?

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?

We have traffic laws because people are sinners?

Yes, I said why in the sentence that followed.

Were these laws handed down by God?

Specifically, no.

Do we need God to enforce them?

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.

Why should I follow traffic laws?

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

Wouldn't you say that societies are complex systems that needs order?

Need order for what purpose?

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?

No.

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.

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.

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.

See below response.

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

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.

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.

Social responsibily? Prithee, what is that?

 

[Chesterton]

Atheism says there is no reason for believing in any gods. It says nothing about morals. There is no moral implication of atheism. Which is not to say that atheists have no moral ideas, any more than people who don't collect stamps have no moral ideas (because the lack of stamp collecting has no inherent moral implications).

And in particular, atheism does not imply the Law of Thelema (which is explicitly not an atheistic system).

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").

I know where the line comes from. He mispoke. The idea applies much better to atheism than Satanism.

 

[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]

Probabilities do involve numbers.

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

Did you ever see the movie "Expelled"? Where Ben Stein asks Dawkins what's the probability that there's no God? First answer "99%", second answer "far from 50%", third answer "I don't know". I'll just say I don't know.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you ever see the movie "Expelled"? Where Ben Stein asks Dawkins what's the probability that there's no God? First answer "99%", second answer "far from 50%", third answer "I don't know". I'll just say I don't know.

Ok, so then you don't have probabilities?

 

[Chesterton]

Can you demonstrate that?

Your brain's made of atoms. They follow physical laws, they don't make decisions.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your brain's made of atoms. They follow physical laws, they don't make decisions.

Is your brain not made of atoms?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Did you ever see the movie "Expelled"? Where Ben Stein asks Dawkins what's the probability that there's no God? First answer "99%", second answer "far from 50%", third answer "I don't know". I'll just say I don't know.

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.

 

[WindStaff]

I find it a little hard to believe the sincerity of a guy who says that "evolution cheapens life" when he spent his time luring men into his home, drugging them, drilling holes in their skulls, pouring chemicals into the holes...all in an attempt to create a mindless warm body for his sexual predilections.

Oh yea, then he had sex with their corpses and ate them.

He's willing to do that....yet evolution cheapens life? Gimme a break. He was demented, but he's not a moron. He was playing the repentant sinner for a christian audience. Maybe he thought if enough christians bought into his conversion he could win an advocacy group or something. It's nonsense.

If it were left to others' opinion of someone, I doubt there would be enough people in Heaven to light the candles.

A person's eternal fate is something between them and God alone- nobody really knows a person's relation with God.
You may very well see some in Heaven who you never thought to see, and others in Hell who you thought wouldn't be. In fact, that will be pretty much certain.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

There are physical laws, maybe economic laws. Murphy's Law. None which compel me to act or not act morally.

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.

Yes I think you mentioned that. If you want to present their views or invite them here as you said that's fine. We can assess them on a case-by-case basis.

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).

You're right that it doesn't automatically mean that morality is objective. But it's the only way I see that morality could be objective.

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.

That's what I mentioned to someone with respect to the Euthyphro dilemma. It's not a problem for the Christian 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. 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.

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.

You can deny anything. Some people deny that the earth is round. People exist who deny existence itself.