Ask an Atheist.

[Gilder]

I disagree. Atheism is not about disbelieving one specific "God", but disbelieving that specific deity along with all other supernatural bullfeathers. I would not consider someone who believes in some Greek mythological monster "athiest", for example.

You said it yourself, athiests don't believe in any deities. Ghosts, or other supernatural things are hardly deities.

 

[El_Machinae]

If:
a Protestant, an atheist, and a buddhist are walking along in their military platoon and suddenly a grenade lands in the middle of them - (assuming away all other options) who should jump on the grenade to ensure his buddies live?

 

[nihilistic]

I disagree. Atheism is not about disbelieving one specific "God", but disbelieving that specific deity along with all other supernatural bullfeathers. I would not consider someone who believes in some Greek mythological monster "athiest", for example.

You said it yourself, athiests don't believe in any deities. Ghosts, or other supernatural things are hardly deities.

Well, to an atheist, what's the difference between ghosts, deities, and other supernatural things?

But since you quoted me, I'd like to point out that in the statement of mine that you quoted, I actually did include all the supernatural as things an atheist would not believe.

 

[nihilistic]

If:
a Protestant, an atheist, and a buddhist are walking along in their military platoon and suddenly a grenade lands in the middle of them - (assuming away all other options) who should jump on the grenade to ensure his buddies live?

You are just fishing for an ad homonim now are you?

An argument can be reasonably made for each of the three. Another can be made against each of the three.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, to an atheist, what's the difference between ghosts, deities, and other supernatural things?

Moral authority and maybe eternal consequences.
A ghost can't tell you that eating pork is wrong (unless it tells you about all the tortured, sentient, screaming pig ghosts in your belly). A god can.

 

[El_Machinae]

An argument can be reasonably made for each of the three. Another can be made against each of the three.

I can see why the Protestant should jump on the grenade, it's in his best interest and he suffers no consequences (in his mind).

An atheist, though, has to decide if a life of dishonour (or guilt, or whatever) is better or worse than whatever afterlife he believes to be true.

And no, I'm not fishing for an insult. If you think my questions are too stupid, then ask some good ones yourself.

 

[Trajan12]

The Buddhist of course. He will be reincarnated and have another oppurtunity.

 

[Adamb0mb]

The athiest should jump on the grenade.

Anything to get away from the religous people surrounding him!

 

[silver 2039]

I would push the Protestant on the grenade...hahah

 

[nihilistic]

Well, to an atheist, what's the difference between ghosts, deities, and other supernatural things?

Moral authority and maybe eternal consequences.
A ghost can't tell you that eating pork is wrong (unless it tells you about all the tortured, sentient, screaming pig ghosts in your belly). A god can.

Maybe you missed the key words "to an atheist". How the hell does it make a difference if the supernatural entity is good or bad if you don't give a damn? Also, what makes a deity neccesarily benevolent?

 

[bhsup]

The Protestant. As Jesus said (John 15:13):
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

 

[Trajan12]

The Protestant. As Jesus said (John 15:13):
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

Seeing as Buddha says some of the same things, the atheist would probably slip away while the Buddhist and the Protestant argue over who gets to sacrifice themselves. Resulting in their deaths.

 

[nihilistic]

I can see why the Protestant should jump on the grenade, it's in his best interest and he suffers no consequences (in his mind).

Or, the Protestant could have received (or imagine he received) a command from his god to push the other two infidels onto the bomb.

An atheist, though, has to decide if a life of dishonour (or guilt, or whatever) is better or worse than whatever afterlife he believes to be true.

No. If you are going to stick to it then nothing about afterlives should be there. The atheist would make the decision based on rational self interest.

And no, I'm not fishing for an insult. If you think my questions are too stupid, then ask some good ones yourself.

Fine, I'll ask a question then: If I actually thought your questions are "too stupid", why aren't I allowed to just say so?

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe you missed the key words "to an atheist". How the hell does it make a difference if the supernatural entity is good or bad if you don't give a damn? Also, what makes a deity neccesarily benevolent?

I guess I don't understand your question: if I were to describe a difference between a supernatural entity and a god, I would say that one of the differences would be 'moral authority'. A god can decide whether something is 'right or wrong', it seems (then we get into Plato's "is it good because a god desires it, or does a god desire it because it's good?").

A person could believe that there's sufficient evidence to believe in (say) ghosts but not gods. I would think this person to still be an atheist. You don't, I know. But, in the interest of communication, I'm pointing out how they're different.

 

[El_Machinae]

No. If you are going to stick to it then nothing about afterlives should be there. The atheist would make the decision based on rational self interest.

Making a life-or-death decision involves creating a believable theory regarding the consequences. Since half the consequences are 'death', you need to factor in a theory regarding death if you're to make a choice about it.

The Protestant. As Jesus said (John 15:13):
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".

Is it more moral for an atheist to shoot a (known) Protestant or for a Protestant to shoot a (known) atheist? Or: is it more moral for the Protestant to throw his atheist buddy on the grenade or the atheist to throw his Christian buddy on the grenade?

Sure, they're both murder, and both 'wrong'; but we all know there are grades of 'wrong'.

Fine, I'll ask a question then: If I actually thought your questions are "too stupid", why aren't I allowed to just say so?

This seems off-topic. If you don't understand forum rules, PM a mod.

 

[nihilistic]

I guess I don't understand your question: if I were to describe a difference between a supernatural entity and a god, I would say that one of the differences would be 'moral authority'. A god can decide whether something is 'right or wrong', it seems (then we get into Plato's "is it good because a god desires it, or does a god desire it because it's good?").

A person could believe that there's sufficient evidence to believe in (say) ghosts but not gods. I would think this person to still be an atheist. You don't, I know. But, in the interest of communication, I'm pointing out how they're different.

You keep saying how you would see it in your ontology but fail to substantiate how an atheist would care about such pointless distinctions. Are you an atheist? Do you claim to be one?

Regarding your second paragraph, that's still a completely theistic interpretation. In your own words, the only distinction you made between ghosts and gods is apparently benevolence and perhaps power. In your classification, is Satan a god or a ghost? What if someone believes in an unjust or relatively feeble god? How is that not different frommmm ghosts? I fail to see such distinctions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Regarding your second paragraph, that's still a completely theistic interpretation.

Yes, yes, we all know that you think that one cannot believe in ghosts and be an atheist. You made that very clear some posts ago; so now people are discussing about whether a belief in the supernatural is different than beliefs in gods. Some people do, I'm trying to explain it.

 

[nihilistic]

Making a life-or-death decision involves creating a believable theory regarding the consequences. Since half the consequences are 'death', you need to factor in a theory regarding death if you're to make a choice about it.

To atheists, the theory of "you just die and your consciousness ceases to exist" is a perfectly acceptable.

This seems off-topic. If you don't understand forum rules, PM a mod.

I don't think critiquing on other people's questions are against forums rules. In fact, that's what we have all been doing all along.

 

[nihilistic]

Yes, yes, we all know that you think that one cannot believe in ghosts and be an atheist. You made that very clear some posts ago; so now people are discussing about whether a belief in the supernatural is different than beliefs in gods. Some people do, I'm trying to explain it.

I thought the topic was about what such distinctions mean to people who are not committed to one or more specific deities/ghosts already. I was arguing that to an atheist, the distinction does not exist; which also means that we do not distinguish much between those who believe in ghosts and those who believe in gods. Afterall, don't some of your call some portion of your god the "holy ghost"? What's the deal with that if gods are so different from ghosts?

 

[El_Machinae]

To atheists, the theory of "you just die and your consciousness ceases to exist" is a perfectly acceptable.

Yes, I know. Then the atheist must decide whether a life of (potential) shame (internally or externally generated) is better or worse than oblivion.