| 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: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 07:23:33 AM |
|
|
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real, then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 11:03:30 AM |
|
|
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is
alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real,
then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind so..............................
:)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 08:58:48 PM |
|
|
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is
alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real,
then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 12:41:36 PM |
|
|
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind
so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are.
Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no one controls my
behavior, capice?
If you don't like it, feel free to put me in your killfile.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 12:54:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:41:36 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <572bnkF2arhodU1@mid.individual.net>
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind
so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are.
Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no one controls my
behavior, capice?
If you don't like it, feel free to put me in your killfile.
That sums up my approach to this matter to a "T".
You and I see 'aye to I' on many things 'emotionally robust', Robyn!
;)
I am an adult, and am quite prepared to accept the results of my
considered actions and considered utterances, and resent having what I
see at the time as a frustrated kindergarten teacher "telling" me how
I should react.
It gets my "dander" up, don't you know old chap.
It would be vastly different if she were merely suggesting a different
course, and explaining her modus operandum for doing so.
But Luna is NOT doing this.
If she modified her approach from that of command admonishment (a
slight exaggeration with deliberate didactic intent) to that of an
optional "friendly suggestion", she would have a success rate of
nearly 99%, instead of her current rate of around 1%.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 03:02:56 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pa9p031s2ej0ffghi7fqc4ts996chn95i5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:41:36 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <572bnkF2arhodU1@mid.individual.net>
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind
so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are.
Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no one controls my
behavior, capice?
If you don't like it, feel free to put me in your killfile.
That sums up my approach to this matter to a "T".
You and I see 'aye to I' on many things 'emotionally robust', Robyn!
;)
So it would see :)
I am an adult, and am quite prepared to accept the results of my
considered actions and considered utterances, and resent having what I
see at the time as a frustrated kindergarten teacher "telling" me how
I should react.
It gets my "dander" up, don't you know old chap.
It would be vastly different if she were merely suggesting a different
course, and explaining her modus operandum for doing so.
But Luna is NOT doing this.
If she modified her approach from that of command admonishment (a
slight exaggeration with deliberate didactic intent) to that of an
optional "friendly suggestion", she would have a success rate of
nearly 99%, instead of her current rate of around 1%.
Well, either way, I REALLY don't like being told what to do ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
01 Apr 2007 09:13:53 PM |
|
|
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 10:28:46 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175480033.044396.31890@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 11:55:36 AM |
|
|
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life? I don't believe atheism
can answer this question in a satisfactory way. You are led into a
position where human happiness is impossible or meaningless. Either
way, nihilistic outlook. Likewise, I cannot see a ground in which to
base either an objectively founded morality or objective truth values.
All values are inherently subjective for an atheist, especially when
such is a materialist.
Religion answers this question succinctly as: our purpose is to serve
God and to be happy with Him forever. Morality finds its basis in
natural law, which is ultimately rooted in God's eternal law. Truth
finds its foundation on the nature of being which also ultimately
finds its origin in God (we believe God is Truth itself).
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 10:54:10 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
What makes you think there has to be one?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 11:33:00 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:57fblcF2c8oebU1@mid.individual.net...
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
What makes you think there has to be one?
Or that we can't individually create our own purpose?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 10:54:40 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
To pass one's genes on to the next generation.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 03:32:33 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 11:54 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
What makes you think there has to be one?
This is precisely the emotional motivation of religion. The theists
find it hard to understand that the "purpose" of life is to simply
live it and enjoy it with those you love. Religion seems to start
with the premise that life in this world simply SUCKS.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 04:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 4:32 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
On Apr 3, 11:54 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
What makes you think there has to be one?
This is precisely the emotional motivation of religion. The theists
find it hard to understand that the "purpose" of life is to simply
live it and enjoy it with those you love. Religion seems to start
with the premise that life in this world simply SUCKS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is precisely the emotional motivation of religion. The theists
find it hard to understand that the "purpose" of life is to simply
live it and enjoy it with those you love.
----------------------------------------
Humanist #1: "I told you we are almost identical to believers,
only without the fairy tales."
Humanist #2.: "Let's party!"
Animal Rights Person (and all Animals): "Religion and Humanism are big
shtink-ee."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 11:00:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:54:10 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
What makes you think there has to be one?
Its religion tells him there is one, and it is to fawn over a myth.
He projects this on those he's too stupid to understand that his
religion's doctrines don't even apply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 03:34:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1175532936.133521.232500@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Well, the 'end' of human life is human death.
The purpose? That's a loaded question, isn't it?
I don't believe atheism
can answer this question in a satisfactory way.
You think everyone is satisfied with *any* single answer to your
question? I don't think that you are satisfied with your own answer to
that question.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
03 Apr 2007 10:03:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:34:55 GMT, 655321
<DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
You think everyone is satisfied with *any* single answer to your
question? I don't think that you are satisfied with your own answer to
that question.
He has no answers, just assertions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 10:07:08 PM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 09:55:36 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Why are you assuming there is one?
Religion answers this question
Making up something that you call "an answer" does no one any good.
Morality finds its basis in natural law
That's one of the views the amoral hold. "It comes from God" is
another one. They're equally bereft of meaning.
which is ultimately rooted in God's eternal law.
You're assuming there is a god. Why? There's never been the
slightest shred of objective evidence of the objective existence of
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
13 Apr 2007 10:27:00 PM |
|
|
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Why are you assuming there is one?
The lack of a purpose or end is nihilism, speaking generally. As such,
my point is proven.
Also, the other post asking "Explain why life needs a purpose, then
you might have something to talk
about" likewise confirms my point. If no point exists, you concede it
leads to nihilism.
Read Sartre if you doubt the logical consistency of the road to
nihilism.
The impact of nihilism should likewise be discussed. Impacts include:
A denial of logic - what use is logic if it tells us neither anything
useful (as no concept of utility can exist without meaning either in
the subject or object) or meaningful
A denial of scientific inquiry - see above
A denial of the intelligibility of reality and the ultimate futility
of argument
A denial of all moral norms - leading to immoral behaviour, as no
standard exists to judge moral or immoral behaviour (as there is, by
definition, no universe of discourse in which to base it)
An intrinsic tendency to suicide - a lack of meaning and the presence
of pain and suffering makes the possibility of asserting human freedom
in suicide particularly appealing
An tendency to self-destruction in any and all aspects - it denies
fundamental tenets it uses ("this statement is not true" is a basic
position mirroring the denial of the possibility of objective truth)
as well as leading to the above conditions.
I find the absurd consequencs enough of a reason to avoid atheism as
being an utterly meaningless and ridiculous enterprise.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
13 Apr 2007 11:29:55 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176521220.532577.44370@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Why are you assuming there is one?
The lack of a purpose or end is nihilism,
Straw man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
13 Apr 2007 11:44:25 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176521220.532577.44370@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Why are you assuming there is one?
I find the absurd consequencs enough of a reason to avoid atheism as
being an utterly meaningless and ridiculous enterprise.
What an utterly meaningless and ridiculous argument
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
14 Apr 2007 03:10:54 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2007 20:27:00 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Why are you assuming there is one?
The lack of a purpose or end is nihilism, speaking generally. As such,
Stop right there, moron.
No it isn't. Why are you so stupid?
[idiocy deleted]
I find the absurd consequencs enough of a reason to avoid atheism as
being an utterly meaningless and ridiculous enterprise.
There's nothing to avoid about it, liar.
Yours In Christ,
His mouth of his as,moron?
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
14 Apr 2007 06:52:04 PM |
|
|
I quote dictionary.com: nihilism thus defined in a philosophical sense
is, "...an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real
existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth." I mean
it in the second sense. Unless one accepts that there is a ground for
being, which I would argue to be God, all materialist atheists, to be
consistent, must hold the position of a lack of objective truth and a
lack of purpose to being. All such meaning would be imposed by human
beings upon the universe. Hence, utter relativism and subjectivity. If
you want to maintain an alternative position, be my guest. But you
have to deny some premise in a materialist atheist cosmology/
philosophy.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 05:13:24 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1176594724.285751.132010@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
I quote dictionary.com: nihilism thus defined in a philosophical
sense is, "...an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all
real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for
truth." I mean it in the second sense. Unless one accepts that
I haven't met any atheist (that I know) who argues that there is no
"possibility of an objective basis for truth". Well, most don't add
the "possibility" they/we think there is an objective reality out
there that does not change when we discover more about it, our
perception of it changes but the underlaying realilty doesn't
change because of that. Sometimes we do change reality, really
change it, we are a part of reality and as such we affect it. We
send a telescope into space and reality is suddenly changed by that
now it contains a telescope in space and we know a lot more about
the universe, J.K. Rowling writes some books and suddenly a lot of
kids are eager to learn how to read. Objective does not mean
unchanging, and some truths changes. Sometimes we are wrong about
how reality works or just don't know.
there is a ground for being, which I would argue to be God, all
Feel free to argue for it, just stating it won't convince anybody.
You believe that the ground for being is not the reality out there
because ....?
materialist atheists, to be consistent, must hold the position of
a lack of objective truth and a lack of purpose to being. All
Have you considered that the purpose of your life can be to die
screaming in a plane crash so that the survivor can thank God that
she was spared?
Making my own purpose, or even just enjoy living seems a lot better
than that.
such meaning would be imposed by human beings upon the universe.
Hence, utter relativism and subjectivity. If you want to maintain
an alternative position, be my guest. But you have to deny some
premise in a materialist atheist cosmology/ philosophy.
Which premis would that be?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 02:17:38 PM |
|
|
The ground for being is being itself, in a specific sense. The eternal
and subsisting (complete and existing apart) act of existence which we
call "God" is the ground for all being that exists in particular
beings (such as me, you, and a dog). Not all being is identical. We
find that because acts of existence do stop being so in particular
things - this table or ceases to exist as a table or as a dog. Their
being is thus not necessary. If all beings were so possible, beings
themselves would not exist, because they would have no ground in which
to exist. Hence, we posit as necessary one being whose existence is
absolutely necessary in itself - this being exists "per se" or "by
definition" as part of what it is.
And ground of being has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural
selection is irrelevant. That has to do with the evolution of physical
living bodies. My argument encompasses those sorts of beings,
referring to ANY being/s at all. This applies to supernovas as well as
to dogs and cats. They all require an objective and consistent ground
of being for them to exist at all.
And the manner in which we posit truth, goodness, and being is NOT as
you say at all. That should be apparent from what I say. God does not
arbitrarily assign goodness or being to the universe - He is the
subsistent act of existence or Goodness in itself which gives meaning
to all other things as they imitate and relate to Him as effects. And,
as such, there is no subjectivity involved. Things are good because
they are, just as things are because they are. God is necessary to
posit the absolute ground on which being in these particular beings
depends and likewise to gauge the goodness in any particular thing. He
is the ultimate standard on which we gauge objective existence.
Otherwise, no such standard CAN exist, much like you say.
"2. You have yet to explain why being needs a purpose. "
If it doesn't in any sense, any notion of intelligibility in being is
incorrect (any understanding of being is pointless/wrong - including
that statement itself). Otherwise, being possesses some meaning or
intelligibility - namely, as being objectively speaking.
"3. You want objective reality, go drop a brick on your head."
I am not objecting to objective reality. I am objecting that YOU
cannot maintain that is the case. It would be the case, for you, that
such an event is merely a perceptive response to some action somewhere
according to the determined evolutionary neurology you have. The brick
itself does not exist. It is an reaction in neurology in your brain.
In fact, all such categories or terms are rather meaningless for you,
as any term is merely an sound or event in the neurons of the brain.
All meaning or purpose or intelligibility of being is pointless, then.
I haven't met any atheist (that I know) who argues that there is no
"possibility of an objective basis for truth".
Frankly, that seems rather improbable. For example, that is the
ordinary occassion in atheist philosophy. A lack of objective truth
goes hand-in-hand with a denial of the intelligibility of reality
(usually, via materialism). Richard Rorty is a fairly good example of
that, as is Sartre.
Well, most don't add
the "possibility" they/we think there is an objective reality out
there that does not change when we discover more about it, our
perception of it changes but the underlaying realilty doesn't
change because of that.
Which is basically what I don't think you can reasonably uphold as an
atheist who denies the ground of being. I can uphold it because I
posit an objective ground for existing things in God as subsisting
existence or being itself. As an atheist, especially in materialism,
such is an imposition of meaningfulness or intelligibility on reality
which does not itself have any. And it thus lacks any point at all, as
well as objective reality. AKA - Nihilism.
Objective does not mean
unchanging, and some truths changes. Sometimes we are wrong about
how reality works or just don't know.
There is a subjective aspect to KNOWING reality, but that is not what
I am saying. I am merely insisting on a fact that I don't think anyone
can reasonably deny - reality exists apart from my perception of it.
My perception or understanding of it may change in some way, but the
reality itself exists in one way as an objective fact of existence. An
atheist cannot provide an objective ground as for how or why this is
so (they are not logically consistent if they do). Only by positing a
ground of being in God can we avoid that problem of nihilism.
Feel free to argue for it, just stating it won't convince anybody.
You believe that the ground for being is not the reality out there
because ....?
Because things come into and go out of existence. These are possible
beings. For example, myself or yourself. We came into being at a point
in time. We thus are not "necessarily existing" beings - we do not
"need" to exist. However, if everything were this way, nothing would
exist now. Which is absurd. Hence, there is at least one being whose
existence is absolutely necessary. This is what we call God.
Or, every change or "motion" requires both a being in a state of
potency (a log potentially on fire) and a being in a state of act (a
fire), such that in the state of changing this being from a state of
potency to act (lighting the log on fire) both beings are necessary.
Every change requires this - every being in motion is put in motion by
another. If we moved through an infinite regression of beings, such
that there was no first being in act, there could be no act now (as
each act depended on a prior). This is absurd. Hence, there was a
first being in a state of act without any other being causing it to
become actual. This we call God.
Have you considered that the purpose of your life can be to die
screaming in a plane crash so that the survivor can thank God that
she was spared?
Making my own purpose, or even just enjoy living seems a lot better
than that.
We believe every purpose for human life is the same: to know, serve,
and love God in this life, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.
And that is an strawman argument, not discussing what we believe in
faith or know through philosophical reasoning.
Which premis would that be?
For example, that all things are purely material and without intrinsic
meaning. Otherwise, you create meaning apart from material - you
create an object that has existence apart from matter. This then
denies a premise there. Hume makes something close to this argument.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 07:39:20 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 15 Apr 2007 12:17:38 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
The ground for being is being itself, in a specific sense. The eternal
and subsisting (complete and existing apart) act of existence which we
call "God"
Who's "we"?
is the ground for all being that exists in particular
beings (such as me, you, and a dog). Not all being is identical. We
find that because acts of existence do stop being so in particular
things - this table or ceases to exist as a table or as a dog. Their
being is thus not necessary. If all beings were so possible, beings
themselves would not exist, because they would have no ground in which
to exist.
Nonsense. Aquinas is wrong. All of his arguments have been
refuted.
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 |
15 Apr 2007 09:21:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:39:20 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <iah5239e2kp5d0g9r269led4b1jcm2i3oo@4ax.com>
In alt.atheism On 15 Apr 2007 12:17:38 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
The ground for being is being itself, in a specific sense. The eternal
and subsisting (complete and existing apart) act of existence which we
call "God"
Who's "we"?
His fellow ignorami.
is the ground for all being that exists in particular
beings (such as me, you, and a dog). Not all being is identical. We
find that because acts of existence do stop being so in particular
things - this table or ceases to exist as a table or as a dog. Their
being is thus not necessary. If all beings were so possible, beings
themselves would not exist, because they would have no ground in which
to exist.
Nonsense. Aquinas is wrong. All of his arguments have been
refuted.
A thousand times over.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 05:02:36 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2007 12:17:38 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
[more meaningless ***** snipped].
Yours In Christ,
His mouth or his *****?
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 06:04:30 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On 15 Apr 2007 12:17:38 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
[more meaningless ***** snipped].
Yours In Christ,
His mouth or his *****?
Come to Jesus!
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
15 Apr 2007 06:14:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:04:30 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <ctudnWC4Sb_QPL_bnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com>
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On 15 Apr 2007 12:17:38 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
[more meaningless ***** snipped].
Yours In Christ,
His mouth or his *****?
Come to Jesus!
Oh Come all ye Faithful...
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
