Ask the non-member of all churches AKA Interrogate the atheist — Page 5

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

So basically your argument is that atheists are more likely to commit crime, despite any evidence for such a claim, and despite evidence to the contrary?

 No such claim has been made...nor, apparently, refuted...

The question at present is what might prevent an atheist from partaking in such a theft, not whether any such crimes may have occurred in fact. 

Well, one possibility is that the absence of ancient religious creeds might itself prevent prevent partaking in all manner of crimes.  Quite a bit of killing is going on, for example, because a sacred book apparently demands it. Not being bound to such scripture, I am thus prevented from murdering heretics, or stealing their children.

Perhaps a less passive answer would be that an atheist, in order to function in society, must think about and fully form his/her own moral code.  When asked why I think it is immoral to do something, such as stealing that trinket, I generally have an explanation - rather just falling back on "because God says I shouldn't do it."

 ...and such an explanation might be...?

I apologize for any perceived testing of your patience on this matter. It is not in doubt that an atheistic moral code might exist, but more so how to become apprised of it.

Allow a sharpening of the knife, if you will...

If an atheist might believe in the unity of nature with man--that mankind is merely the most evolved of creatures within the natural realm--with no superior world to which to aspire, should not an animalistic nature naturally exist in man? If so, what conditioning or training must needs hold such a nature in balance? 

If for the Christian it might be a fear of consequences or an inspiration of perfect love as purportedly detailed in a bible, what collection of stories/fables/points of discussion might equally persuade the atheist?

If no such single collection might exist or be considered necessary [for the atheist], might the Christian be incorrect in attributing that which must needs be innate to a book of dubious origin?

Further, if no such manual might be required why might the adoption of one by a theistic group potentially change the means by which they seemingly interact with the world? For if one manual might so affect one group, might not an alternate potentially shape another? 

Finally, allow a return to the analogy of the trinket to be stolen. Let us, for a moment, bring two individuals to temptation's door:

A Christian happens by the item and fancies it. At first he is given to understand its owner to be a member of his congregation, but then ascertains it to belong to a man who has committed a serious wrong against his family. In the first instance a natural sympathy might explain a reason to resist the theft, but in the second a desire for vengeance must clearly play out against a moral imperative to please the Lord.

Replace the Christian with an atheist and provide a similar set of alternate contexts: though it might be safely assumed that the atheist should more easily resist an urge to 'acquire' the object should it belong to a fellow member of an athletic's team rather than to a sworn enemy, with what actual resistance is the atheist struggling?

Essentially, is such a resistance born of reasoning? Is it innate? Or might it be conditioned?

For if it is to be considered innate, why might such an inheritance not be shared universally?

If conditioned, where might come the source of conditioning and what if another were not to receive a similar quality or quantity of same?

If purely a construct of reason, what if another may reason differently?

Post Praetorian said:

. . .

Essentially, is such a resistance born of reasoning? Is it innate? Or might it be conditioned?

For if it is to be considered innate, why might such an inheritance not be shared universally?

If conditioned, where might come the source of conditioning and what if another were not to receive a similar quality or quantity of same?

If purely a construct of reason, what if another may reason differently?

Just as people can interpret the Bible/Koran/whatever for good or for evil, so too can reason be used for good or for evil.  With regards your revenge scenario, societies of the world that maintain religious wars for centuries seem to be expert at carrying on a never-ending cycle of revenge -- after all, isn't the martyr a primarily relgious device?

What keeps me from resisting stealing from someone I dislike?  My parents taught me that when someone wrongs you, to not stoop to their level and to instead set a higher bar for oneself.  Where did they learn that?  I don't know, my mom was raised catholic and my dad was raised atheist.  My father's mother was one of the kindest people I've ever known, and I believe that she also was an atheist.

It's fine to speculate that religion leads to a higher moral code of behavior (and without doubt the extremists wrecking havoc are convinced they are behaving at the very highest moral code).  I can similarly speculate that fully promoting our human intellectual potential is the more fruitful course. But it's all speculation in the absence of any evidence.  Since you've discounted mine, do you have any to offer?

Hopefully I didn't type any double double words again :)

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

. . .

Essentially, is such a resistance born of reasoning? Is it innate? Or might it be conditioned?

For if it is to be considered innate, why might such an inheritance not be shared universally?

If conditioned, where might come the source of conditioning and what if another were not to receive a similar quality or quantity of same?

If purely a construct of reason, what if another may reason differently?

Just as people can interpret the Bible/Koran/whatever for good or for evil, so too can reason be used for good or for evil.  With regards your revenge scenario, societies of the world that maintain religious wars for centuries seem to be expert at carrying on a never-ending cycle of revenge -- after all, isn't the martyr a primarily relgious device?

It is sensible to raise the difficulties of the martyr and of the potential for abuse that may come with religious indoctrination...particularly when such might become a weapon against the non-believer (atheist or otherwise). Indeed such a difficulty is far too complex to assuage here. Is it fair to discuss it in a later post should such be amenable?

What keeps me from resisting stealing from someone I dislike?  My parents taught me that when someone wrongs you, to not stoop to their level and to instead set a higher bar for oneself.  Where did they learn that?  I don't know, my mom was raised catholic and my dad was raised atheist.  My father's mother was one of the kindest people I've ever known, and I believe that she also was an atheist.

Fair enough...

It's fine to speculate that religion leads to a higher moral code of behavior

It is possible, but not necessarily so. Fairly put, could not it be considered more moral for an atheist to refrain from wrong-doing given that he has no future reward as motivation? Yet such is not quite the purpose of this particular inquiry.

(and without doubt the extremists wrecking havoc are convinced they are behaving at the very highest moral code).  I can similarly speculate that fully promoting our human intellectual potential is the more fruitful course. But it's all speculation in the absence of any evidence.  Since you've discounted mine, do you have any to offer?

Seemingly at issue is the predictability of the learning of one's fellow man with regards to morality. To reexamine the original scenario in which it was purported that atheists surveyed might be said on average to consider Christians more trustworthy than fellow atheists, let us momentarily examine why this might be so:

Having observed the phenomenon of Christianity, might one not easily be apprised of some of the most common, albeit far from universal, traits that make up or purport to make up the substance of their creed? Namely:

1) A mandated 10 clear commandments form a base against which a supernatural consequence must unfold should one be contravened. Chief among them is to do unto one's neighbor as one might wish done unto one's self--the very root of empathy.

2) The requirement or strong encouragement that many attend, or have the ability to attend, a weekly service to remind and re-instruct to follow said commandments.

3) A community of like-minded individuals may be considered to exist as a form of support during times of crises.

4) A feeling of being saved allows for an uplifting of spirit during times of difficulty.

5) There is a strong belief that forgiveness is paramount.

In contrast, is one atheist to have any information with regard to the upbringing of each other fellow atheist? With no such information, how might a common outlook be assumed? How might a common morality be assured?

Might this not perhaps better explain the genesis of such groups as Atheists For Jesus?

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/20-atheists-for-jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

If so, and if a society might seek such a level of cohesion as may be experienced by the religious, might it not be prudent to examine the positive by-products of religion in order to properly harmonize them for acceptance into a secular society?

For are not the strongest of societies typically formed around a common identity or creed?

thejediknighthusezni said:

        ^ Sweeping assertions.

Is this not seemingly the majority substance of a post such as the below?

           This business of lumping all forms of supposed spirituality together is, to put it kindly, sloppy thinking. It's like claiming that the NAZIs and Pol Pot's Communist Party and The Humane Society are all political activist groups and so should be considered equally disreputable.

          The Roman/Babylon Luciferian Mystery cult isn't remotely Christian. Many of the Protestant princes of the religious wars were motivated by the seizure of property and escape from the Roman-satanist impositions. Most of the foolishness and deceptions practiced in the kooky denominations are promoted by Roman infiltrators and their Jesuit masters to be highlighted in the controlled media. 

         First we have to toss out all the false doctrines and read the NT for the first time before we can even begin to judge the relative worth of Christianity.

Post Praetorian said:

In contrast, is one atheist to have any information with regard to the upbringing of each other fellow atheist? With no such information, how might a common outlook be assumed? How might a common morality be assured?

Are we so certain that a common morality is desirable?  Might a common morality make it harder to reassess things as times change?

darth_ender said:

Yes, nothing shows the superior intellect of atheists than confusing correlation for causality.  Too bad I see it everywhere on the Net.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts.  Nowhere in my responses to PostPraetorian did I ever claim atheists enjoy any such superiority, nor did I ever claim atheists have any moral high ground.  He(she?) was the one who first offered a logical argument that one could reasonably expect a Christian to be more likely to behave with a moral compass, and be less likely to commit petty crime, because of various specific facets of a Christian upbringing. He is the one still sticking to this viewpoint. When I pointed out that statistics did not support his claim, he asked me to offer any argument as to what forces might forge an atheist's moral compass, or prevent an atheist to commit a petty crime.  I thought my language was clear that one could construct such an argument - not that such an argument was true!  In fact, I pointedly stated that neither of our arguments would constitute anything but speculation.

He asked for an argument, I provided one.  Just like the one you provided regarding blacks.  Just because I provided it doesn't mean I subscribe to it any more than you subscribe to the one you offered -- he seemed to think that such an argument couldn't exist.  To use your tense, I have observed that many Christians believe that there can be no source of a moral code without religion.  That's just bogus.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

In contrast, is one atheist to have any information with regard to the upbringing of each other fellow atheist? With no such information, how might a common outlook be assumed? How might a common morality be assured?

Are we so certain that a common morality is desirable?  Might a common morality make it harder to reassess things as times change?

 It is possible...certainly generational changes in morality have achieved progressive results. Yet in matters of trust seemingly a society requires a general standard least it exist in constant friction. Consider an example which played out recently in a nearby municipality:

A group of citizens began complaining as to missing lawn ornamentation. Nothing of great value was taken--merely figurines and the like. A subsequent investigation revealed the culprits to be a group of recent immigrants who did not seem to comprehend the concept of leaving belongings outside as decorations. In their native land poverty would prohibit such a display: everything not guarded or nailed down was considered unimportant to the owner. Their confusion over being charged for the thefts is what underscored the entire episode as they did not believe they were guilty of anything other than taking advantage of carelessness. They expected admiration for their resourcefulness as such would have been the reaction in their native village. 

When a common morality is absent from neighbors might not such misunderstandings be expected to multiply? 

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

darth_ender said:

Yes, nothing shows the superior intellect of atheists than confusing correlation for causality.  Too bad I see it everywhere on the Net.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts.  Nowhere in my responses to PostPraetorian did I ever claim atheists enjoy any such superiority, nor did I ever claim atheists have any moral high ground.  He(she?) was the one who first offered a logical argument that one could reasonably expect a Christian to be more likely to behave with a moral compass, and be less likely to commit petty crime, because of various specific facets of a Christian upbringing. He is the one still sticking to this viewpoint. When I pointed out that statistics did not support his claim, he asked me to offer any argument as to what forces might forge an atheist's moral compass, or prevent an atheist to commit a petty crime.  I thought my language was clear that one could construct such an argument - not that such an argument was true!  In fact, I pointedly stated that neither of our arguments would constitute anything but speculation.

He asked for an argument, I provided one.  Just like the one you provided regarding blacks.  Just because I provided it doesn't mean I subscribe to it any more than you subscribe to the one you offered -- he seemed to think that such an argument couldn't exist.  To use your tense, I have observed that many Christians believe that there can be no source of a moral code without religion.  That's just bogus.

 Your participation has been most welcome. I find these discussions helpful. 

Post Praetorian said:

When a common morality is absent from neighbors might not such misunderstandings be expected to multiply? 

Yes, and force discussion where otherwise such a discussion might be considered taboo.  However, just because a common set-in-stone morality might not exist, that is not to say that a common set of laws for a given region shouldn't exist.  The lawn ornament thing sounds pretty minor, and not really so much about moral misunderanding as it is about the local code of behavior.  Most people can adapt their behavior to match a local set of rules, so long as they don't egregiously violate the fundamentals of their own moral code.  It is hard to imagine that this family couldn't easily adapt when informed of the discrepency.

For instance, if I were to visit certain countries, my wife would be expected to wear a scarf - I'm sure we could adapt to that out of respect to the local code of behavior.  It would be a different matter altogether if we were to vacation someplace with an extreme religion, and be required to stone a heretic.  In that instance, if there weren't such a cast-in-stone morality based on some sacred verse, maybe I would be able to respectfully question the practice without getting stoned myself.

darth_ender said:

Forgive me.  In my limited time I simply scanned the conversation rather than truly reading it, and I jumped to conclusions.  I apologize.

 Thank you, that is a very kind post.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

When a common morality is absent from neighbors might not such misunderstandings be expected to multiply? 

Yes, and force discussion where otherwise such a discussion might be considered taboo. 

There certainly merits consideration.

However, just because a common set-in-stone morality might not exist, that is not to say that a common set of laws for a given region shouldn't exist.  The lawn ornament thing sounds pretty minor, and not really so much about moral misunderanding as it is about the local code of behavior.  Most people can adapt their behavior to match a local set of rules, so long as they don't egregiously violate the fundamentals of their own moral code.  It is hard to imagine that this family couldn't easily adapt when informed of the discrepency.

For instance, if I were to visit certain countries, my wife would be expected to wear a scarf - I'm sure we could adapt to that out of respect to the local code of behavior.  It would be a different matter altogether if we were to vacation someplace with an extreme religion, and be required to stone a heretic.  In that instance, if there weren't such a cast-in-stone morality based on some sacred verse, maybe I would be able to respectfully question the practice without getting stoned myself.

The distinction being made in the above is appreciated as it certainly aids in clarifying the main point:

Does not a realm in which one may assimilate according to a local code and/or convention not already make claim to having same? Yet this inquiry seeks to discover how an understanding may be achieved at such a level where first it may be comprised solely of individuals subscribing to differing levels of moral understanding without first consulting the one with the other.

Essentially, if among one's four fellow companions on a ship in international waters one discovers one who might consider stoning a legal pass-time, another who might suffer no difficulty in absconding with lawn ornaments, while yet a third who may believe in a secular humanistic agenda, and a fourth who might be a pure survivalist, how might one know with whom one is best to place one's trust given no outward sign of each individual's proclivities?

To clarify, if the assumption may be that each might make a logical and fair claim to a given system of belief absent any central organizational oversight or indoctrination, how might the individual riding among them know whether she should be wearing a scarf in the presence of one, hiding ornaments from another, remaining relatively at ease with one, while ensuring she is not left alone with the last?

This naturally assumes no expected interference by a centralized legal convention whose framework might first have been established to resist any such behaviors deemed unfit by a previous generation with a more consistent moral outlook.

Allow one to then partake of a second voyage surrounded by a group of Buddhist Monks. Assume a basic knowledge of the common, identifiable system of belief shared by such fellow passengers may be known. Allow further that each evening these companions spend time in prayer searching for means to serve a purpose greater than themselves.

In which of the above scenarios might one be most likely to be at the greatest ease?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Ric's dad is probably a he. ;-)

 Why you gotta pre-judge?  It's a new world!  Anything can happen.

 That's why I said "probably."

"Must I be ushered out into the blinding lights to settle this matter...?" he asked, using his most manly voice...

Post Praetorian said:

To clarify, if the assumption may be that each might make a logical and fair claim to a given system of belief absent any central organizational oversight or indoctrination, how might the individual riding among them know whether she should be wearing a scarf in the presence of one, hiding ornaments from another, remaining relatively at ease with one, while ensuring she is not left alone with the last?

We could really go around this maypole forever.  At this point, I could ask how does anyone make a decision at all when faced with a situation not clearly covered in the Bible?  By weighing whether an action might cause harm to others (or oneself), might help or hinder the world and its creatures - i.e., by using the brains we are so lucky to have.  To which you could opine that without a spiritual anchor, one might not even know that it is bad to harm others, to which I could counter that evolution itself breeds cooperation, to which you could point out cruelty among animals, to which I could observe equal (or worse) cruelty among humans, to which... etc. etc. ad infinitem.
At some point, you either decide that you have faith or you don't.  I don't.

I never did address your original question, as to whether I might feel more at ease in a dark alley with a Christian or an atheist.  Hmm, I'm not sure.  Depends on several factors - where I am, what race I am, etc.  Me?  I'd probably rather bump into a Christian.  But if I were wearing a turban and it was in a dark alley in Alabama, I'm not sure I'd want that big burly drunk I bump into in an alley to be a Christian.  Actually, I think the question speaks more about our biases than about any actual statistical safety.  We all have subconscious biases based on how we were raised, experiences we had growing up, etc.  I'm sure I do too.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

To clarify, if the assumption may be that each might make a logical and fair claim to a given system of belief absent any central organizational oversight or indoctrination, how might the individual riding among them know whether she should be wearing a scarf in the presence of one, hiding ornaments from another, remaining relatively at ease with one, while ensuring she is not left alone with the last?

We could really go around this maypole forever.  At this point, I could ask how does anyone make a decision at all when faced with a situation not clearly covered in the Bible?  By weighing whether an action might cause harm to others (or oneself), might help or hinder the world and its creatures - i.e., by using the brains we are so lucky to have.  To which you could opine that without a spiritual anchor, one might not even know that it

Not so much a spiritual anchor, but more a common assumption of a divine judgement--though in fairness the difference is trivial in terms of the essential effect.

is bad to harm others, to which I could counter that evolution itself breeds cooperation,

This is fair, yes.

to which you could point out cruelty among animals, to which I could observe equal (or worse) cruelty among humans, to which... etc. etc. ad infinitem.

It does pose some problems...this certainly cuts into the discussion a great deal...a shame that, really...

At some point, you either decide that you have faith or you don't.  I don't.

I never did address your original question, as to whether I might feel more at ease in a dark alley with a Christian or an atheist.  Hmm, I'm not sure.  Depends on several factors - where I am, what race I am, etc.  Me?  I'd probably rather bump into a Christian.  But if I were wearing a turban and it was in a dark alley in Alabama, I'm not sure I'd want that big burly drunk I bump into in an alley to be a Christian.  Actually, I think the question speaks more about our biases than about any actual statistical safety.  We all have subconscious biases based on how we were raised, experiences we had growing up, etc.  I'm sure I do too.

 This is a fair and considered response. Certainly local prejudices must play a role in such a discussion, yet the concept need not shift greatly.

Though the topic at hand has produced some derivatives, it has remained essentially as it was: if a given faith might produce an increase in a given positive trait (eg. trustworthiness), is it possible to emulate same among atheists by a proper analysis of what might be its cause? Certainly some have attempted to do so (such as PZ Meyers with his one-time promotion of Atheism Plus: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus), but so far little unity seemingly has ensued.

Your time has certainly been appreciated for the duration of this discussion. If you have further topics of interest it would be a great interest to explore them.

Regards,

Post Praetorian