| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"StMichael" |
| Date: |
24 Mar 2007 09:13:29 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism and its philosophical problems |
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Likewise, certain problematic conclusions follow:
1) With a lack of an objective basis for reality comes a lack of an
objective basis for truth. As such, any statements about reality fail
and atheism becomes purely subjective/nihilistic (ultimately).
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general), all logical thought becomes utterly senseless and
useless. In this event, all natural science or possibility of
knowledge becomes impossible. Again, one is led into the realm of a
purely subjective/nihilistic thought (or, more properly, a denial of
the possibility of thought).
3) A lack of concrete basis in reality for good or evil actions leads
to a totally subjective morality determined one of three ways: either
by the state (leading to a totalitarian model or some version of
morality following on the social zeitgeist), or by the individual
(which means everything is moral and nothing is moral), or not at all
(moral nihilism). Eventually, it would likewise seem the third option
is inevitable one way or another.
Tell me what you think here.
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:38:34 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 24 Mar 2007 19:34:59 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist."
No, we do not. We simply lack belief that there is a god or
gods.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective basis for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
There is no such thing as Big Mac Existence/Existence with
Special Sauce. There is only existence.
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general),
Not a given.
Pretty much.
Does not follow, even if your first point was a given.
If all things are merely material, then the brain is material. Hence,
universal concepts cannot exist.
Non sequitur.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:56:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you? If you say
there is a god, and I say I don't believe you, I'm not making a claim,
I'm rejecting yours.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective basis for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is the
source of God? If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too? And if so, what caused the cause that caused God?
And so on? My answer to the question of the source of being is that
there was never a state of non-being.
In this case, I would
argue that you deny the principle of non-contradiction.
In terms of denying the objective basis of reality, I don't see what
else you could put an objective basis in. Nature cannot be an object,
because nature or the world produces the brain (assuming a
materialism). As such, the individual subject does not really know or
encounter reality, but is merely a product of his environment and acts
on biology, for instance. This denies the objective nature of reality
and renders all thought meaningless, as the next point argues.
Now you've lost me.
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general),
Not a given.
Pretty much.
Does not follow, even if your first point was a given.
If all things are merely material, then the brain is material.
The brain is material. I touched one once.
Hence,
universal concepts cannot exist.
What does that mean? Universal as in "everyone agrees to them" or
universal as in "about the universe"?
All is individual matter and
particular. A universal ("2" not two oranges) cannot exist in matter.
Huh?
The most we would have in sense impressions which were organized in
various ways. True knowledge or science would be impossible.
Wait, ok, maybe I get this. If there is no god, then blahdeeblaahblah
(the part I can't understand) and therefore there is no objective
reality and we only have our perceptions of what we think reality is. Is
it because there is no God to stand and observe from outside our
reality, so then we have no way of knowing if the reality we perceive
actually exists outside our perceptions? If that's so, we just do the
best we can. Maybe it's all an illooooosion, maybe not. Science works
anyway.
There are more options. There's morality based in biology, which is
what humans actually have and overwhelmingly practice, regardless of our
laws or religions.
A morality based in biology is no morality at all. That devolves into
the second category - morality from self. Which, in my opinion, merely
devolves into the nihilistic lack of morality.
Oh, I don't know about that. It starts with the self, sure. The
survival instinct. But there's a hierarchy that includes the family,
community, country, species, and planet. Even the whole universe if
you've got a big enough heart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 10:24:22 PM |
|
|
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
If you say
there is a god, and I say I don't believe you, I'm not making a claim,
I'm rejecting yours.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective basis
for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just the
way reality works.
If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too?
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 02:55:51 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com>
snip
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
Wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 12:18:44 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:130bqr11rq50ua4@corp.supernews.com...
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
Who the ***** are you to speak for atheists? Lying moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 10:46:08 AM |
|
|
In article <130bqr11rq50ua4@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
Wrong. Many atheists say both that they reject your claim and that there
is no God in evidence, or at least that the evidence against far
outstrips the pathetic and weak alleged "evidence" that theists attempt
to offer.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
You don't reject it based on reasonable evidence or logic. Rather, it is
part of your belief that you must automatically reject claims which
challenge it. That's why you reject it. At best, you attempt to create
post facto reinterpretations of reality, in the hope of excusing your
actions.
God is the ultimate source.
How do you know? You don't. You're just asserting/defining things in
this way. The problem is that you can't just make up an assertion about
reality and expect it to follow suit.
Everything has an ultimate.
In a finite set it might, but infinite sets have no ultimate. Infinity
itself is an abstraction, not necessarily something real. Your
"ultimate" argument still doesn't get you to god, since we can have a
maximal value that is far short of perfection.
That is just the
way reality works.
Your god has nothing to do with reality. Reality has extremes, but we do
not automatically conclude that those extremes are a god or gods. Try
again.
If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too?
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Yes and abraham lincoln built the log cabin he was born in. You can't
create yourself because it assumes you already existed if you were doing
the creating. If god was eternal or otherwise uncaused, then we have
reason to think that other things could be eternal or uncaused as well.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:04:44 PM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
That depends on the atheist. All one needs to do to be atheist is
reject your claim. Some atheists go further and say that no gods as
defined by theists exist ( or they say that none such gods can
exist). others flat out say no gods of any kind exist.
I personally am waiting for someone to tell me just what a god is, and
how we could tell whether or not any exist...and no one will tell
me...so I've pretty much given up my search for gods. I leave the
possibility of a god existing open, but put the probability at zero.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just the
way reality works.
Perhaps that's the way your fantasy works....there is no evidence that
reality works that way.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:40:05 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795484.545661.101280@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you
say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
That depends on the atheist. All one needs to do to be atheist is
reject your claim. Some atheists go further and say that no gods as
defined by theists exist ( or they say that none such gods can
exist). others flat out say no gods of any kind exist.
I personally am waiting for someone to tell me just what a god is, and
how we could tell whether or not any exist...and no one will tell
me...so I've pretty much given up my search for gods. I leave the
possibility of a god existing open, but put the probability at zero.
Then you have closed your mind. How can someone show you God if
you already have decided that he is not even there?
You can find God in the real world, if you merely look for him.
He looks just like anyone else, except that he has subtle power.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is
the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just
the
way reality works.
Perhaps that's the way your fantasy works....there is no evidence that
reality works that way.
Then how did we get the concept of ultimate things?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 09:34:16 AM |
|
|
In article <130bv91dl9m125@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795484.545661.101280@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you
say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
That depends on the atheist. All one needs to do to be atheist is
reject your claim. Some atheists go further and say that no gods as
defined by theists exist ( or they say that none such gods can
exist). others flat out say no gods of any kind exist.
I personally am waiting for someone to tell me just what a god is, and
how we could tell whether or not any exist...and no one will tell
me...so I've pretty much given up my search for gods. I leave the
possibility of a god existing open, but put the probability at zero.
Then you have closed your mind. How can someone show you God if
you already have decided that he is not even there?
You can find God in the real world, if you merely look for him.
He looks just like anyone else, except that he has subtle power.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is
the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just
the
way reality works.
Perhaps that's the way your fantasy works....there is no evidence that
reality works that way.
Then how did we get the concept of ultimate things?
From our biology. We project the way our brains and bodies work onto
the way the universe works. It's called anthropomorphism. There's an
evolutionary advantage to being able to figure out what causes another
person to do something. "Putting one's self in another man's shoes" you
know? Well, we do the same thing with the world around us. We try to
put ourselves in the universe's shoes, assuming that since other things
cause our feelings and reactions, something must have caused the
universe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:59:11 PM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795484.545661.101280@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I personally am waiting for someone to tell me just what a god is, and
how we could tell whether or not any exist...and no one will tell
me...so I've pretty much given up my search for gods. I leave the
possibility of a god existing open, but put the probability at zero.
Then you have closed your mind. How can someone show you God if
you already have decided that he is not even there?
My mind is open, I just have given up....I ask and ask, and I ask you
again, and still I get no information.
You can find God in the real world, if you merely look for him.
He looks just like anyone else, except that he has subtle power.
ok, I'll bite....where do I look? how? and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
Perhaps that's the way your fantasy works....there is no evidence that
reality works that way.
Then how did we get the concept of ultimate things?
I have no idea how you get that concept, it means nothing to me.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 12:17:27 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795484.545661.101280@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I personally am waiting for someone to tell me just what a god is, and
how we could tell whether or not any exist...and no one will tell
me...so I've pretty much given up my search for gods. I leave the
possibility of a god existing open, but put the probability at zero.
Then you have closed your mind. How can someone show you God if
you already have decided that he is not even there?
My mind is open, I just have given up....I ask and ask, and I ask you
again, and still I get no information.
You can find God in the real world, if you merely look for him.
He looks just like anyone else, except that he has subtle power.
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old, male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as he talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Perhaps that's the way your fantasy works....there is no evidence that
reality works that way.
Then how did we get the concept of ultimate things?
I have no idea how you get that concept, it means nothing to me.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 03:00:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote
snip
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old, male,
female.
Met a bunch of new people this weekend.
Sorry, no god(s).
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 09:57:00 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:56qmnpF29vdu1U1@mid.individual.net...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote
snip
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
Met a bunch of new people this weekend.
Sorry, no god(s).
Good that you are meeting new people.
Look for the cues next time.
Someone who knows too much.
Someone who controls your thoughts in conversation.
Someone who sees deep into your thoughts,
as if he or she completely knows all about you.
Someone with subtle power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 02:14:03 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:130h1vjmjbcs32b@corp.supernews.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:56qmnpF29vdu1U1@mid.individual.net...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote
snip
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
Met a bunch of new people this weekend.
Sorry, no god(s).
Good that you are meeting new people.
Gee thanks.
Look for the cues next time.
Uh huh, right.
Someone who knows too much.
Nope.
Someone who controls your thoughts in conversation.
What the hell does THAT mean?
Someone who sees deep into your thoughts,
Nope. Never met anyone like that. Well, there was this one very annoying
boyfriend in college who tried to psychoanalyze everything I said. I
wouldn't think a god would have such an incredibly small penis <shrug>
as if he or she completely knows all about you.
Nope.
Someone with subtle power.
Nope.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 09:23:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:14:03 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <56t8cvF27jbjnU1@mid.individual.net>
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:130h1vjmjbcs32b@corp.supernews.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:56qmnpF29vdu1U1@mid.individual.net...
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote
snip
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
Met a bunch of new people this weekend.
Sorry, no god(s).
Good that you are meeting new people.
Gee thanks.
Look for the cues next time.
Uh huh, right.
Someone who knows too much.
Nope.
Someone who controls your thoughts in conversation.
What the hell does THAT mean?
It means that Mark has schizophrenia.
Someone who sees deep into your thoughts,
Nope. Never met anyone like that. Well, there was this one very annoying
boyfriend in college who tried to psychoanalyze everything I said. I
wouldn't think a god would have such an incredibly small penis <shrug>
as if he or she completely knows all about you.
Nope.
Someone with subtle power.
Nope.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 06:00:23 PM |
|
|
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification). If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim. As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality is the same reason as
He is the source of ontology or metaphysics: God is the source of
being itself. I do not think God is necessary for morality in so far
as He is a punisher, but as He is the source of nature and of the
orderliness of nature (such as moral action). Without such a claim,
morality breaks down.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical. Rather, God is
the source of logical rules because He is the source of being. As
logic follows on the nature of being (ultimately, on the first rule of
logic: non-contradiction, or being is not non-being), God, as the
source of being, is likewise the ultimate foundation of logic. God is
likewise not beyond rational inquiry. We might not, for example, be
able to directly sense with our five senses matter; we can sense a
color or a taste or a touch. However, we know by deduction from these
senses that a real subject of our perceptions exists. God is in
Himself beyond sense experience, but can be got at through sensible
knowledge. We can do this because God is the cause of the universe and
hence is able to be understood in terms of that relation (from effect
to cause, a posteriori).
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 03:00:58 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174863623.754614.139990@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim,
Wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 12:58:24 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174863623.754614.139990
@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification).
Atheists claim they do not believe in gods. This is a claim about the atheists state
of belief with respect to gods. No particular justifiction is required. The statement
is a priori true, unless the atheist is lying about their lack of belief.
Strong atheists go further and state that no gods exist. This statement is a default
conclusion resulting from the lack of supporting evidence for the existence of such
entities. It is held tentatively until suitable evidence is presented. In some cases,
such as the gods of the abrahamic religions, these gods are dismissed outright, as
such gods were trivially disproved by Epicirus over two thousand years ago. If any of
the Abrahamic gods exist, then they can not be as described by the theists that
believe in them. An exception would be the trivial cases of natural ojects such as the
Sun which has been worshipped as a god from time to time. Of course these objects
exists but do not warrant the title 'god' in the supernatural sense.
If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim.
Wrong. It is a claim about your belief in Easter Bunnies. The claim is true unless you
do believe in Easter Bunnies.
As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
This is one of the strong atheism arguments. I.e arriving at a tentative conclusion
due to lack of evidence. There is not the same as a state of belief here.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality is the same reason as
He is the source of ontology or metaphysics: God is the source of
being itself.
Circular. Rejected.
I do not think God is necessary for morality in so far
as He is a punisher,
God is now a male that punishes. How did you establish that?
but as He is the source of nature and of the
orderliness of nature (such as moral action). Without such a claim,
morality breaks down.
First demonstrate that your male god being exists then we will look into its' morals.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical. Rather, God is
the source of logical rules because He is the source of being.
You are assumimg your conclusion.
logic follows on the nature of being (ultimately, on the first rule of
logic: non-contradiction, or being is not non-being), God, as the
source of being, is likewise the ultimate foundation of logic.
First you must establish the existance of this entity. Many theist definitions of
their gods do indeed violate the law of non contradiction. If your particular male god
is one of the abrahamic type ones then it is a case of dead on arrival.
God is
likewise not beyond rational inquiry. We might not, for example, be
able to directly sense with our five senses matter; we can sense a
color or a taste or a touch. However, we know by deduction from these
senses that a real subject of our perceptions exists. God is in
Himself beyond sense experience, but can be got at through sensible
knowledge. We can do this because God is the cause of the universe and
hence is able to be understood in terms of that relation (from effect
to cause, a posteriori).
Now all you have to do is demostrate that this particular male entity exists.
Yours In Christ,
Ah. It is one of the abrahamic gods demolished by Epicurus. Dead on arrival.
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 07:13:45 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 1:58 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174863623.754614.139990
@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification).
Atheists claim they do not believe in gods. This is a claim about the atheists state
of belief with respect to gods. No particular justifiction is required. The statement
is a priori true, unless the atheist is lying about their lack of belief.
Strong atheists go further and state that no gods exist. This statement is a default
conclusion resulting from the lack of supporting evidence for the existence of such
entities. It is held tentatively until suitable evidence is presented. In some cases,
such as the gods of the abrahamic religions, these gods are dismissed outright, as
such gods were trivially disproved by Epicirus over two thousand years ago.
"God is good, god is all powerful,
yet evil exists. God then is either
not all powerful or not all good, he cannot
or will not remove evil." -- Epicurus
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 06:13:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 25 Mar 2007 16:00:23 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim,
Liar.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality
God isn't the source of morality, nor is god the source of
being.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical.
Creating everything means god is beyond everything.
Are you here because you got banned from freethoughtmedia for
a few days?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 09:49:02 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 16:00:23 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1174863623.754614.139990@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim,
Is the frontal lobotomy compulsory in Christianity?
You pack so many outright lies and deception into the one message that
you are either completely insane, or outrageously fraudulent.
You choose.
I happen to think that you are a combination of the two.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 07:27:02 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 16:00:23 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification). If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim. As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
All you need in order not to believe is not to believe. You don't
have to make any conclusions that there is not such a thing.
Sorry. You having problems with basic logic?
Second, the reason God is the source of morality is the same reason as
He is the source of ontology or metaphysics: God is the source of
being itself. I do not think God is necessary for morality in so far
as He is a punisher, but as He is the source of nature and of the
orderliness of nature (such as moral action). Without such a claim,
morality breaks down.
Your own body punishes you for breaking moral rules. Hurt someone and
it feels bad - this is how genetics works. It's biochemistry in
action. If you want to worship it and call it a god, then you are not
going to understand how it works and you won't be very effective and
being moral.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical. Rather, God is
the source of logical rules because He is the source of being. As
logic follows on the nature of being (ultimately, on the first rule of
logic: non-contradiction, or being is not non-being), God, as the
source of being, is likewise the ultimate foundation of logic. God is
likewise not beyond rational inquiry. We might not, for example, be
able to directly sense with our five senses matter; we can sense a
color or a taste or a touch. However, we know by deduction from these
senses that a real subject of our perceptions exists. God is in
Himself beyond sense experience, but can be got at through sensible
knowledge. We can do this because God is the cause of the universe and
hence is able to be understood in terms of that relation (from effect
to cause, a posteriori).
No we don't know by deduction. We don't know anything.
Just admit it - you want to have a god, so you make all these silly
rules for how you think things should work. Unfortunately they aren't
based on anything. That doesn't work in the real world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 07:44:22 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 16:00:23 -0700, in alt.atheism
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in
<1174863623.754614.139990@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification). If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim. As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
Now substitute God for Easter Bunny.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality is the same reason as
He is the source of ontology or metaphysics: God is the source of
being itself. I do not think God is necessary for morality in so far
as He is a punisher, but as He is the source of nature and of the
orderliness of nature (such as moral action). Without such a claim,
morality breaks down.
There is no evidence that a god exists. You seem to have ignored that
when you started down the yellow brick road.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical. Rather, God is
the source of logical rules because He is the source of being. As
logic follows on the nature of being (ultimately, on the first rule of
logic: non-contradiction, or being is not non-being), God, as the
source of being, is likewise the ultimate foundation of logic. God is
likewise not beyond rational inquiry. We might not, for example, be
able to directly sense with our five senses matter; we can sense a
color or a taste or a touch. However, we know by deduction from these
senses that a real subject of our perceptions exists. God is in
Himself beyond sense experience, but can be got at through sensible
knowledge. We can do this because God is the cause of the universe and
hence is able to be understood in terms of that relation (from effect
to cause, a posteriori).
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "curlyred" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 07:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 6:00 pm, "StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification). If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim. As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality is the same reason as
He is the source of ontology or metaphysics: God is the source of
being itself. I do not think God is necessary for morality in so far
as He is a punisher, but as He is the source of nature and of the
orderliness of nature (such as moral action). Without such a claim,
morality breaks down.
Third, God is not "beyond the rules" or anti-logical. Rather, God is
the source of logical rules because He is the source of being. As
logic follows on the nature of being (ultimately, on the first rule of
logic: non-contradiction, or being is not non-being), God, as the
source of being, is likewise the ultimate foundation of logic. God is
likewise not beyond rational inquiry. We might not, for example, be
able to directly sense with our five senses matter; we can sense a
color or a taste or a touch. However, we know by deduction from these
senses that a real subject of our perceptions exists. God is in
Himself beyond sense experience, but can be got at through sensible
knowledge. We can do this because God is the cause of the universe and
hence is able to be understood in terms of that relation (from effect
to cause, a posteriori).
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
True, the atheist's argument applies the same flawed logic as the
theist's. The argument of ignorance, in which the lack of proof of
existence implies nonexistence or the lack of proof of nonexistence
implies existence. But usually the former argument triumphs in pure
rationality, we don't assume something exists because we have no proof
that it doesn't.
However, your second point makes no sense. I'm sorry, but there are
godless people who haven't succumbed to the temptations of homicide
and rape. Of their own accord, if you'll believe it. Not because
they had a supreme being looking over their shoulder ready to strike
them into hell.
But your third point, that is the truth. God is not anti-logical.
All invisible, immaterial, unprovable overlords that I know of are
completely logical.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 06:06:40 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 7:00 am, "StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me clarify some points in particular, as I can't answer each post.
First, atheism does make a claim, even if that claim is negative, and
it does require justification (even a negative justification). If I,
as someone said, do not believe in the Easter Bunny, that is a
negative claim. As for example:
1. There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists.
->
C. There is no Easter Bunny.
No. "There is no evidence that an Easter Bunny exists and therefore I
don't believe the Easter Bunny exists" is a reasonable and logical
stand. The lack of evidence FOR anything does not prove that it
doesn't exist however and nobody is making that cliam about God. That
being said, when combined with evidence that God is an imaginary god
like any other god such as Zeus or Odin then it is fair to conclude,
yes, that God does not exist and that is, again, a reasonable and
logical stand.
Second, the reason God is the source of morality
The God of the Bible was an evil ***** that wiped out all of
humanity save Noah and his family. God is not the source of
morality. Common sense is. Since you lack common sense I conclude
that you also lack morality.
<snip>
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 12:23:54 AM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old, male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as he talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
I have met a LOT of new people in my lifetime, and have not noticed
these traits in any of them.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
I have no idea what that means.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Ok....but let me tell you right now that my ***** detector is
reading pretty high as a result of what you just said....
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 01:02:03 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174800234.308280.208780@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as he
talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
I have met a LOT of new people in my lifetime, and have not noticed
these traits in any of them.
Then you just weren't looking for those traits. Maybe now that you are
aware that they might indeed be there, you will be naturally looking for
them.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
I have no idea what that means.
That means, think in simple terms, don't overcomplicate things.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Ok....but let me tell you right now that my ***** detector is
reading pretty high as a result of what you just said....
Then all I can ask is that you not say that is what it is until you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 09:57:53 AM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174800234.308280.208780@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as he
talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
I have met a LOT of new people in my lifetime, and have not noticed
these traits in any of them.
Then you just weren't looking for those traits. Maybe now that you are
aware that they might indeed be there, you will be naturally looking for
them.
Perhaps I have a more rational explanation for the traits that you
consider to indicate a god.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
I have no idea what that means.
That means, think in simple terms, don't overcomplicate things.
That is what I do! so I don't go off assuming there must be some
hidden supernatural explanation for everything. I take things as they
are.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Ok....but let me tell you right now that my ***** detector is
reading pretty high as a result of what you just said....
Then all I can ask is that you not say that is what it is until you know.
I'm pretty sure that you are serving up pure *****...
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 07:57:04 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174834673.211732.140300@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174800234.308280.208780@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as he
talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
I have met a LOT of new people in my lifetime, and have not noticed
these traits in any of them.
Then you just weren't looking for those traits. Maybe now that you are
aware that they might indeed be there, you will be naturally looking for
them.
Perhaps I have a more rational explanation for the traits that you
consider to indicate a god.
And then again, perhaps not.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
I have no idea what that means.
That means, think in simple terms, don't overcomplicate things.
That is what I do! so I don't go off assuming there must be some
hidden supernatural explanation for everything. I take things as they
are.
Supernaturalness is often the simplest way things can be.
Like flying angels.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Ok....but let me tell you right now that my ***** detector is
reading pretty high as a result of what you just said....
Then all I can ask is that you not say that is what it is until you
know.
I'm pretty sure that you are serving up pure *****...
Then you have decided before examining the evidence...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:51:19 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:130e6iqh5ds2b44@corp.supernews.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174834673.211732.140300@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174800234.308280.208780@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174798751.722802.26920@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ok, I'll bite....where do I look?
Just meet new people. He will be one in five of them. Young, old,
male,
female.
He is the one whom you will sense creating you from the inside as
he
talks
to you.
He is the one that knows too much to be a human being.
I have met a LOT of new people in my lifetime, and have not noticed
these traits in any of them.
Then you just weren't looking for those traits. Maybe now that you are
aware that they might indeed be there, you will be naturally looking
for
them.
Perhaps I have a more rational explanation for the traits that you
consider to indicate a god.
And then again, perhaps not.
how?
With a pure heart. That means, take the attitude of a child.
I have no idea what that means.
That means, think in simple terms, don't overcomplicate things.
That is what I do! so I don't go off assuming there must be some
hidden supernatural explanation for everything. I take things as they
are.
Supernaturalness is often the simplest way things can be.
Like flying angels.
and does this looking require
that I abandon my established methods of ***** detection?
No, because there will be some trying to impersonate God.
Ok....but let me tell you right now that my ***** detector is
reading pretty high as a result of what you just said....
Then all I can ask is that you not say that is what it is until you
know.
I'm pretty sure that you are serving up pure *****...
Then you have decided before examining the evidence...
You have evidence of flying angels?
I'd like to see it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
