| 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: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 10:46:29 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Good. "Metaphysics" is completely made up out of whole cloth,
and has never advanced during its entire existence, because
it only makes untestable statements; it simply isn't useful.
Likewise, certain problematic conclusions follow:
No, lacking metaphysics means it doesn't have imaginary baggage.
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).
This is the case for all systems; other systems that make up gods
as arguments from authority are worse, because they create
unjustified certainty based on completely arbitrary axioms.
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general), all logical thought becomes utterly senseless and
useless.
You have no basis for such a conclusion.
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).
This is actually a good example of a "completely arbitrary axiom",
one of the problems with god-based systems of thought. You are
trying to assert things without offering arguments for them.
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.
Morals based on gods are completely arbitrary. Is polygamy moral?
Tell me what you think here.
Tell me if polygamy is moral.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 10:43:25 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
I've recently (about five minutes ago) discovered some uses of
"methaphysical" which I didn't know about before.
"Atheism lacks any real supernatural justification for its claims."
It doesn't sound very impressive, somehow.
"Atheism does not use any god(s) to justify its claims" - That's
not much better, but basically says the same thing. If that's what
you are trying to say, you are of course right but it seems
somewhat redundant to point it our.
If you mean something else, try again
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).
Do you think you have solved the old philosopher's question: If a
tree falls in the wood, and nobody is there to hear it, does it
make a sound? The way I read the paragraph, your answer is that not
only does it not make any sound, the forrest does not exist.
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).
Eh? Are you *trying to use logic to talk to people who you think
are unable to use logic?
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.
Morality comes from the society we grew up in (mostly from our
parents), the societies we have lived in afterwards, some from
biology, enlightened self-interest, (and probably some other things
I cannot think of at the moment).
And, yes morality is relative. To illustrate: The moral answer to
the question "Where does the Cohen family live?" (assuming that I
do know where they live) has changed during my lifetime. It is
different now than it was when I was 10 years old. If I had lived
in Germany in 1943 a third answer would have been moral.
Tell me what you think here.
But you said a few lines above that we don't, and cannot, think.
Try for some consistency.
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: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 04:34:10 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 15:43:25 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net>
wrote:
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
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).
Eh? Are you *trying to use logic to talk to people who you think
are unable to use logic?
That is another example of the moron's inability to think, let alone
think outside the box.
Very few atheists are a priori materialists - any materialism is
practical and consequential.
Nor are they nihilists.
He is of course lying through his teeth about "denial of the
possibility of thought".
And we're supposed to put up with the endless barrage of nastiness
like this.
All "atheist" is, is merely a demographic label for people who aren't
any kind of theist.
For some reason theists refuse to accept this and invent all sorts of
emotionally prejudicial (and often deningratory) positions we don't
actually have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 04:21:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:43:25 -0500, Lisbeth Andersson wrote
(in article <Xns98FEBD2EF8CFAlisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>):
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).
Eh? Are you *trying to use logic to talk to people who you think are unable
to use logic?
Why yes, yes he is trying exactly that.
Rather silly of him, isn't it? ;-)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³We don't just borrow words; on occasion English has pursued other languages
down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
vocabulary."-James D. Nicoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:48:28 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[...]
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).
Somehow theists never seem to understand the subjectivity of their own
beliefs. At some point, every theist makes a decision to believe in
something for which there is no credible evidentiary support. In other
words, they come to have faith in something. In the end this can only be a
faith in their own judgment, a belief in their own ability to discern the
truth. There is no escaping subjectivism.
There is no escaping subjectivism.
Therefore theists and atheists both have the exact same basis for conducting
their lives, the same source of morals, the same source of logic, the same
basis for knowledge. The only difference is that theists try to place a
buffer between themselves and their responsibilities as humans. This buffer
they call God.
For example, a theist believes that muder is bad, but needs to have an
authority figure to back up this hunch, chooses an authority figure which
conforms to his or her own belief, and then claims that the authority figure
was the one who came up with the idea that murder is bad. This way, if
anybody challenges the idea that murder is bad, they can say "Don't blame
me, the Big Guy makes the rules."
By contrast, an atheist believes that murder is bad - the end.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danny the Burgundy" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:05:17 AM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:19:37 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +1000, "Danny the Burgundy"
<frontdesk@timelink.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <4606738d$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
I suspect that he is a deadly serious unbalanced mental infant.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 07:01:54 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 9:19 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +1000, "Danny the Burgundy"<frontd...@timelink.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <4606738...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
I suspect that he is a deadly serious unbalanced mental infant.
--
Nothing quit so fascinating as a gaggle of newsgroup faux-intellects
involved in the peculiar exercise of playing one-upmanship. Such a
conundrum - fascinating yet so abysmally boring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny the Burgundy" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 06:18:20 AM |
|
|
"Phil" <nizo1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1174910514.640805.273970@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 9:19 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +1000, "Danny the
Burgundy"<frontd...@timelink.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <4606738...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
I suspect that he is a deadly serious unbalanced mental infant.
--
Nothing quit so fascinating as a gaggle of newsgroup faux-intellects
involved in the peculiar exercise of playing one-upmanship. Such a
conundrum - fascinating yet so abysmally boring.
That's MORE of yer bleedin' irony, right there! Go to the top of the class,
my son.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 04:18:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:01:54 -0500, Phil wrote
(in article <1174910514.640805.273970@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
On Mar 25, 9:19 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +1000, "Danny the
Burgundy"<frontd...@timelink.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <4606738...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
I suspect that he is a deadly serious unbalanced mental infant.
--
Nothing quit so fascinating as a gaggle of newsgroup faux-intellects
involved in the peculiar exercise of playing one-upmanship. Such a
conundrum - fascinating yet so abysmally boring.
Yet here you are, participating right along with the rest. (As am I, now. But
at least I am willing to admit it.)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³The price of freedom is the defense of idiots.² - Jimmy ***** Sheaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
27 Mar 2007 09:27:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:18:56 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
<hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0001HW.C22EF470002C3670F0284530@news.central.cox.net>
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:01:54 -0500, Phil wrote
(in article <1174910514.640805.273970@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
On Mar 25, 9:19 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +1000, "Danny the
Burgundy"<frontd...@timelink.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <4606738...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
That's yer "irony", innit?
I suspect that he is a deadly serious unbalanced mental infant.
--
Nothing quit so fascinating as a gaggle of newsgroup faux-intellects
involved in the peculiar exercise of playing one-upmanship. Such a
conundrum - fascinating yet so abysmally boring.
Yet here you are, participating right along with the rest. (As am I, now. But
at least I am willing to admit it.)
Phil reminds of the peculiar brand of anal-retentive pedant who jumps
on every tiny spelling error with particular venom, but executes 5
basic spelling errors in the attempt!
We have a catch-all word for such self-important sanctimonious
arseholes in Australia:
"Wanker"
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 12:42:47 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Who gives a *****? Now go away and go bother someone else.
Oh, and....
PLONK
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:48:21 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174788809.294365.185250
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Athesism makes no claims. What is there to justify?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621) at the trial of Galileo in 1615.
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:55:57 PM |
|
|
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them,
even if they are negative reasons. However, atheism's rejection
involves some other justifications.
The basic justification for the rejection is at least some
justification why the position rejected is false. So, for proposition,
"there is no teapot circling the earth," I must have some
justification to reject this, namely, "I see no reason why one ought
to assert that a teapot is circling the earth."
However, in atheism, this requires at least a second justification in
terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is considered as
necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed. In a certain
sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However,
the problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what
I mean when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his
claims.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 03:06:43 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174791357.353413.222990@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them,
Rejected Santa lately?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 10:04:03 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174791357.353413.222990
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them,
even if they are negative reasons.
Like "You have shown me no reason to believe your god exists."
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a virtue than
malnutrition."
-Dr. Alex Comfort
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 01:53:54 AM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2007 19:55:57 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them,
even if they are negative reasons. However, atheism's rejection
involves some other justifications.
I reject theistic claims for the same reason I reject the claim that
there's a live, fully-grown elephant sitting in the room with me:
there's simply no reason to believe such a thing. It is at the very
least intellectually perverse to believe in a claim with no
justification, and, as Carl Sagan was fond of putting it,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you want me
to believe in the elephant, show me that it's there, don't blather on
about metaphysics.
The basic justification for the rejection is at least some
justification why the position rejected is false. So, for proposition,
"there is no teapot circling the earth," I must have some
justification to reject this, namely, "I see no reason why one ought
to assert that a teapot is circling the earth."
Fine: "I see no reason why one ought to assert that some kind of deity
exists".
However, in atheism, this requires at least a second justification in
terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is considered as
necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed.
Have you considered the very real possibility that the whole idea of
"metaphysics" is bollocks in the first place?
In a certain
sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However,
the problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what
I mean when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his
claims.
Again, have you considered the very real possibility that the whole
notion of "metaphysics" is philosophical navel-gazing, with no
connection to reality?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 11:41:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:55:57 -0700, StMichael wrote:
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them, even
if they are negative reasons. However, atheism's rejection involves some
other justifications.
The basic justification for the rejection is at least some justification
why the position rejected is false. So, for proposition, "there is no
teapot circling the earth," I must have some justification to reject this,
namely, "I see no reason why one ought to assert that a teapot is circling
the earth." However, in atheism, this requires at least a second
justification in terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is
considered as necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed. In a
certain sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However, the
problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what I mean
when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his claims.
You've been spending *way too much time in your mom's basement. You should
get out more.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 10:57:44 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> bloodied
us up with this:
The rejection of these positions requires some reason to reject them,
even if they are negative reasons. However, atheism's rejection
involves some other justifications.
So how long have you been rejecting the Easter Bunny?
The basic justification for the rejection is at least some
justification why the position rejected is false. So, for proposition,
"there is no teapot circling the earth," I must have some
justification to reject this, namely, "I see no reason why one ought
to assert that a teapot is circling the earth."
However, in atheism, this requires at least a second justification in
terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is considered as
necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed. In a certain
sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However,
the problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what
I mean when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his
claims.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that is primarily dealt with by the
religious. Atheists have no use for ontology, cosmology, or causation. We
deal with reality here, although your point will probably be more
convincing to those in the religious groups. Why don't you take your
"arguments" over there?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:11:43 PM |
|
|
StMichael wrote:
However, in atheism, this requires at least a second justification in
terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is considered as
necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed. In a certain
sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However,
the problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what
I mean when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his
claims.
Is there some use for metaphysics? I have yet to find one...maybe
that's why I'm atheist.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 03:10:36 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 12:11 pm, "J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote:
StMichael wrote:
However, in atheism, this requires at least a second justification in
terms of metaphysics, because the notion of God is considered as
necessary for a real metaphysics to be constructed. In a certain
sense, I think a metaphysical justification is necessary from an
atheist whereby he might establish an alternate metaphysics. However,
the problem resulting from that is that he cannot. Hence, this is what
I mean when I say an atheist has no metaphysical justification for his
claims.
Is there some use for metaphysics? I have yet to find one...maybe
that's why I'm atheist.
Metaphysics describes the supernatural whereas real physics describes
the real world.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 10:10:25 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1174810236.677993.83070@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Is there some use for metaphysics? I have yet to find
one...maybe that's why I'm atheist.
Metaphysics describes the supernatural whereas real physics
describes the real world.
That's one way to define metaphysics. There are others.
http://www.websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHYS.html
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: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 05:40:52 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 11:10 pm, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1174810236.677993.83070@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Is there some use for metaphysics? I have yet to find
one...maybe that's why I'm atheist.
Metaphysics describes the supernatural whereas real physics
describes the real world.
That's one way to define metaphysics. There are others.
http://www.websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHYS.html
"Meta" in Greek means "over" or "beyond" and what is beyond physics
(which describes the natural world) would have to describe what
presumably exists beyond the natural world (and since the natural
world emcomapsses everything I would therefore conclude that
metaphysics describes nothing).
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:37:24 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 24 Mar 2007 19:13:29 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
What claims?
Likewise, certain problematic conclusions follow:
1) With a lack of an objective basis for reality
What lack?
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general), all logical thought becomes utterly senseless and
useless.
Non sequitur.
3) A lack of concrete basis in reality for good or evil actions
Blatant assertion.
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: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 01:02:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. It is not believing
in such entities. Atheism makes no claims. Atheism is being without
gods. It's not a philosophy, a religion or a moral code. It defines
nothing. It is a very simple thing, a single attribute. That's all.
A non belief needs no justification, metaphysical or otherwise, for
anything.
--
George Ricker
"Godless in America" by George Ricker is now available at
online book sellers, like amazon.com, and most book retailers.
Go to http://www.godlessinamerica.com for more information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 02:01:47 AM |
|
|
In article <1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
The strawmen go marching one by one...
Atheism is lack of belief in gods period.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:23:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1174788809.294365.185250@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Likewise, certain problematic conclusions follow:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims, atheists just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their claims.
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).
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective basis for
reality.
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general),
Not a given.
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).
Does not follow, even if your first point was a given.
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "StMichael" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:34:59 PM |
|
|
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.
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. 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.
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. All is individual matter and
particular. A universal ("2" not two oranges) cannot exist in matter.
The most we would have in sense impressions which were organized in
various ways. True knowledge or science would be impossible.
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.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 09:51:21 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
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.
Wrong. We dismiss your claims as unsupported. You believe a god exists?
Show us why you believe this. If you can't, don't expect us to believe.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621) at the trial of Galileo in 1615.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
26 Mar 2007 02:55:20 PM |
|
|
"StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174790099.268259.70250@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
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."
Wrong.
Idiot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
