Atheism As A Valid Worldview

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism As A Valid Worldview

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview; from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. You don't know what

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ditto

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

       I'm with #2;  who else?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not going to operate

I'm not going to operate under the assumption that every new post by an idiot has to be from Matt. Maybe they are, but if so he's doing an adequate enough job of being a theist moron as to be indistinguishable from them. Therefore I'll be blasting away as normal, happy that I'm getting paid by the hour while I do it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview;

Atheism is not a world view. Congrats! You've succeeded! Except, of course, that atheism was never a world view....

You have any other pre-won battles on your itinerary? Perhaps you want to bring democracy to America and free the slaves? 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

from its non sensical view of morality

The theists are the ones who are nonsensical when it comes to morality.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

I'm not quite sure how to properly respond to this blathering without getting more aggravated than this poster has any right to cause me, so I won't bother. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
That's why I added the "just

That's why I added the "just in case" - keeping my options open.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview;

Why is it absurd?

Quote:
from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds.

How is it nonsensical?

Quote:
Its destroys the very foundation of civilization.

How do you know? How does it destroy the foundation of civilization?

Quote:
It's too harmful to allow any longer.

How is it harmful?


 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Atheism is not a

 Atheism is not a worldview.  Nothing follows from atheism.  Observe:

1. There probably is no god.

2. ????

3. Therefore ????

QED.

Now go away, idiot.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You don't

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. (just in case) Hi Matt! Hate us so much you can't live without us?

3. Poe (it's what my money's on)

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not going

Vastet wrote:

I'm not going to operate under the assumption that every new post by an idiot has to be from Matt. Maybe they are, but if so he's doing an adequate enough job of being a theist moron as to be indistinguishable from them. Therefore I'll be blasting away as normal, happy that I'm getting paid by the hour while I do it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview;

Atheism is not a world view. Congrats! You've succeeded! Except, of course, that atheism was never a world view....

You have any other pre-won battles on your itinerary? Perhaps you want to bring democracy to America and free the slaves? 

 

If you want to call by some other name, you let me know what that is. We all have a "worldview" by which we interpret the world around us; how we interpret our experiences. As an atheist, you operate on the assumption that there is no God, that all there is , is the material universe (I apologize if you are not a material atheist - however any other type of atheist is even more ridiculous). So when you interpret an experience, you remove any supernatural and/or non material explanation from the equation where ever it's applicable.

Example:

When it comes to you answering the question, what is man.

You might say that man is a nothing more than a complex biochemical machine governed by the laws of physics and chemistry according to material atheism

I on the other hand believe that man has both a material and non material nature. Man has a spirit; he bares the image of God according to the Bible

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

from its non sensical view of morality

The theists are the ones who are nonsensical when it comes to morality.

I agree that most if not all (except the Christian view) the views of morality are nonsense.

I'm not defending general theism, only Christian theism

But you answer me how one derives at morality in an atheist universe (hypothetically speaking, if atheism is true, how does one arrive at a moral truth)? Whether it's right to murder another person for their possession for an example? Do you vote on whether this should be a moral law (not in the judicial sense)? If it passes in the United States, does this moral law apply to other nations or peoples? Can there be moral absolutes in an atheist universe? Please defend your position

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

I'm not quite sure how to properly respond to this blathering without getting more aggravated than this poster has any right to cause me, so I won't bother. Smiling

I personally think it's because you can't.

How does free thought work in Atheism? I know that plants and trees respond to stimuli and their behavior is always uniform according to their respective kinds. Do human's operate the same way? I know I can tell someone to fetch me a glass of water, but that person has a "choice" to do it or not. Can we tell plants or even animals to and have them make a choice rather than uniformally respond to some stimuli (sunlight, voice command, particular sound)?

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Hi,I'll answer your

Hi,

I'll answer your questions, but I need to know something about you first.

Are you a material atheist, meaning, you believe the universe to be material in nature, nothing immaterial exist?

If not can you explain?

Most evolutionists for example ought to be material atheist and not any other type of atheist.

If you don't agree with this, explain please?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
For a core member, I

For a core member, I wouldn't thought you'd be more agreeable to a challenge and more professional in your conduct.

I'm not an idiot, you're not an idiot, only your WORLDVIEW is foolishness. You can call it anythng or nothing at all, but like the saying goes, a rose by any other name is still a rose; thus a worldview is what it is even if you deny it or call it by any other name.

Also "there probably is no god" ??? I would've thought you'd be more certain about your position.

Are you suggesting that God possibly exists?

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Sigh*Somehow it's worse

*Sigh*

Somehow it's worse when they don't bother using the quote feature they clicked on.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If you want to call by some other name, you let me know what that is.

There isn't another name. There isn't an atheist world view. The idea is impossible. The definition of atheist relies on not being a theist. One cannot construct a world view based on the lack of something. You might as well call a vacuum a world view.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 We all have a "worldview" by which we interpret the world around us; how we interpret our experiences.

Yes, we do. This is an individual thing. Atheism is a state of being, not a group, and therefore cannot have a group world view. And it doesn't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

As an atheist, you operate on the assumption that there is no God, that all there is , is the material universe (I apologize if you are not a material atheist

See? Even you know that atheism can't be wrapped into one little neat package. You are aware of at least two different kinds of atheists. Now I suggest you start figuring out why you're an atheist too. Once you can properly define atheism, feel free to come back and continue this discussion. It is blatantly obvious that you are arguing from ignorance, which means that you aren't saying anything of substance at all.

Edit: Fixed a broken quote. Too bad the poster couldn't figure out how to do that...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I'll

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'll answer your questions, but I need to know something about you first.

Are you a material atheist, meaning, you believe the universe to be material in nature, nothing immaterial exist?

If not can you explain?

Oh, jeez, is this for real? There's been a guy pranking this site named Matt ... I guess you knew that ... anyway ...

Uh, yeah, I'd be a material atheist, owing to the incoherence of the ontology of the immaterial. Was that good enough, or should I explain?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Most evolutionists for example ought to be material atheist and not any other type of atheist.

If you don't agree with this, explain please?

I'm not actually sure why that would be. I mean, it's a philosophical question. There's no reason someone couldn't work as an evolutionary biologist and still believe in fairies.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheists do not know how to argue their postion

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God. REALLY??? (on the enlightened part)

 

The definition of atheism is the belief or claim that there is no god; however the person holding this belief has a worldview that is consistent with this conclusion. Almost all material atheist hold to the belief that the universe is material in nature; that there is nothing immaterial, that morality is a social convention and is relative to one's society, etc. Whatever you want to call this worldview, it matters little to me. I prefer to call it the atheist worldview because the worldview(s) held by atheists are very similar if not identical.

For someone who sounds as conceited as you, you ought to have no trouble defending your ridiculous atheism. I'm totally calling you guys out and you're totally dodging the criticism aimed at your "religion". I'm getting the impression that you don't know how to respond to this type of criticism that atheists receive regarding morality, logic, rationality, knowledge, etc.

I challenge you to convince me why atheism is even a rational belief.

I'm sure all your atheism buddies are waiting for someone to answer my challenge. Funny I feel like Goliath challenging you puny people, but know one has the guts to step up. Although in the Biblical account, Goliath is the bad guy.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The definition of atheism is the belief or claim that there is no god; however the person holding this belief has a worldview that is consistent with this conclusion. Almost all material atheist hold to the belief that the universe is material in nature; that there is nothing immaterial, that morality is a social convention and is relative to one's society, etc. Whatever you want to call this worldview, it matters little to me. I prefer to call it the atheist worldview because the worldview(s) held by atheists are very similar if not identical.

Okay, now I'm getting suspicious that there's a playbook. You, Paisley and Truden are making exactly the same arguments, and they vary enough from the standard neoplatonic stance (whence they most assuredly arose) to be a relatively new school.

Material is what exists, and immaterial is what does not exist, so as a kind of mental placeholder, "immaterial" will do just fine. To believe in the existence of things that are not material is to do so without evidence. So ... that's odd.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'm totally calling you guys out and you're totally dodging the criticism aimed at your "religion". I'm getting the impression that you don't know how to respond to this type of criticism that atheists receive regarding morality, logic, rationality, knowledge, etc.

I'm totally answering! First, atheism isn't so much a religion. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I challenge you to convince me why atheism is even a rational belief.

Gods never show up. Believing in something that has yet to show up is fine, but if you were betting, and you wanted to bet on the probability of a god showing up, I'd imagine you wouldn't part with your money. That's rational.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Town of ATHEISM: coherency = 0

Atheist, you should explain, how is the existence of the immaterial incoherent? Suppose I argued like that. I'm a Christian theist, owing to the incoherence and absurdity of atheistic claims. 'Nuff said

In regards to your second comment; I find it strange that someone who places importance on coherency in one's philosophical views would outright contradict himself in the proceeding statement. If you were to ask any respected atheist if he/she believed in fairies, what do you suppose would be his answer?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God. REALLY??? (on the enlightened part)

Excellent. Confused theist number three joins the club of those who don't know the definition of enlightenment. Enlighten yourself and look it up. I'm very disappointed in you. Did you know that the only theist group on Earth who has had dispute with my signature are the christians? Strange how everyone else knows.

Although I'm not really being fair. After all, thousands of christians have seen my sig, and only 3 now have tried to make an issue of this segment. With you being the third. And with me using that sig since 1999. Don't you just feel special now?

You would have had better luck attacking the "Gaming God" portion. It is no less defensible, but theists don't tend to have anything like the education they would need in order to understand that.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The definition of atheism is the belief or claim that there is no god;

Wrong. The definition of atheism is nothing more than a lack of theism.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 however the person holding this belief

It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
has a worldview that is consistent with this conclusion.

Hence it cannot be a world view.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Almost all material atheist hold to the belief that the universe is material in nature; that there is nothing immaterial, that morality is a social convention and is relative to one's society, etc.

Not quite accurate, but close. We don't hold to any belief regarding the universe en masse. We each have our own conclusions based on our own knowledge and experiences. Some of these conclusions are a lack of conclusion.

And hence the rest of your post is again mitigated into irrelevancy via ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Atheist, you should explain, how is the existence of the immaterial incoherent? Suppose I argued like that. I'm a Christian theist, owing to the incoherence and absurdity of atheistic claims. 'Nuff said

Theist, I'll explain. The material is what we can quantify and qualify. We don't actually know anything about the immaterial, because it has never presented itself for quantification or qualification. It shares all the same qualities and quantities with a figment of the imagination.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In regards to your second comment; I find it strange that someone who places importance on coherency in one's philosophical views would outright contradict himself in the proceeding statement. If you were to ask any respected atheist if he/she believed in fairies, what do you suppose would be his answer?

I don't know, maybe that fairies weren't gods? Atheism is just "theism" with an alpha privative, indicating the negative. Don't think I contradicted myself. The hypothetical atheist in the example might be suffering some cognitive dissonance, but he's hypothetical.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"God' is a label on

"God' is a label on ignorance.

There is no eveidence for God, it only represents an invalid attempt to provide an 'explanation' for a number of things which we currently don't have plausible non-theistic (ie non 'magical') explanation for, or things which don't actually require an explanation for, because they are not really problems at all when considered clearly, such as our moral sense, or our feeling of purpose.

God certainly can't serve as an explanation for our existence, since his existence is even harder to explain than ours. Scientifically, ie, rationally, complexity is known to arise from less complex systems. complexity only requires a set of very basic but consistent patterns of interaction between elementary entities.

In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe, atheism is entirely rational.

Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance.

IOW the existence of the Universe as we understand it from Science contradicts no known 'laws' of science, ie patterns of behaviour of other observed entities, whereas God does. It is a 'no-brainer'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Be a good sport and instruct

Be a good sport and instruct me how to enclose quotes in boxes.

 

Still Dodging!!!

Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic.

Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Still Dodging!!!

I would've thought by placing the word in quotations, you would get the hint that I'm be sarcastic. Christians like to call atheism a religion because of the blind faith that is required to believe in it (according to how atheist's describe theists).

Still Dodging!!!

What kind of answer is that you're giving. I am convinced now that are cannot defend your atheism. You're like a 5 year old giving me a "I know you are but what am I"'ish response.

As clever as you might think your answer is, it's not, it hides your insecurity in the answers that you know atheists always respond with, which make no sense and are totally irrational and incoherent.

 

Let's talk about morality. Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

 

Until tomorrow or possibly tonight. Ciao!

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
What kind of answers are you Atheists giving???

Let me imitate you.

 

I know you are but what am I!

 

I'll ask you the same question also to prove to all you atheist how ridiculous atheism is:

Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with your

I disagree with your characterization of atheism as a "world view". Atheism is the lack of one belief. That doesn't really provide a framework through which one can interpret the world, rather it's a conclusion people sometimes draw based on their world view. You wouldn't say that an objectivist, a Buddhist, and a nihilist all share the same world view even if they were all atheists, and their respective ideologies and/or belief systems were all more or less atheistic.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Let

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Let me imitate you.

 

I know you are but what am I!

 

I'll ask you the same question also to prove to all you atheist how ridiculous atheism is:

Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

Lots of moral philosophies and theories are atheistic.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic. Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You don't actually need to directly sense things like radiation of certain frequencies. How exactly would you demonstrate that the immaterial exists? It's not really a concern of mine, frankly.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I would've thought by placing the word in quotations, you would get the hint that I'm be sarcastic. Christians like to call atheism a religion because of the blind faith that is required to believe in it (according to how atheist's describe theists).

But we don't have to have faith to believe that something that never shows up is probably not going to show up. That's actually pretty easy.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What kind of answer is that you're giving. I am convinced now that are cannot defend your atheism. You're like a 5 year old giving me a "I know you are but what am I"'ish response.

Um, I just answered your question. I don't know what you mean.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As clever as you might think your answer is, it's not, it hides your insecurity in the answers that you know atheists always respond with, which make no sense and are totally irrational and incoherent.

Are you familiar with the psychological mechanism of "projection"?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Let's talk about morality. Explain atheistic morality and I don't mean what you think is right or wrong, good or evil. I'm asking can right or wrong, good or evil even exist in an atheistic universe? I want you to think long and hard about it, make sure you know the implications of whatever answer you give us.

"Atheistic morality" would be morality in the absence of a belief in gods, so it's practical and as close to rational as possible. Obviously it's not going to be perfect, but as pragmatic as possible.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
IS that your real picture,

IS that your real picture, cause you look a lot like the Undertaker Smiling (Compliment intended)

 

There is ample evidence for God's existence. The fact that we're engaging in intelligent conversation, make moral choices, think and operate scientifically are all evidences of God's existence.

What is not intelligent is ignoring having to explain the foundations for rationality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. Atheists ignore all of that and say, you don't have to know that, cause I'm being rational (but not in this situation), I'm doing science, I'm making moral judgments, so I don't have to explain it, but all the while they demand that you have a quantitative and qualitative answer for anything in order to believe or think it's true. I don't know how you find coherency in that.

Have you proven that only things that can be quantitatively and/or qualitatively measured exist or have significance?

Can you explain the existence of morality, knowledge, or logic or how they can exist in an atheistic universe?

As a Christian I can explain these things, I can make sense of my experience as a human being, why I make moral judgments, conduct scientific experiments, and think coherently (rationally).

My argument against atheists is that you can't.

So my challenge to you is explain how morality for starters is even possible in an atheistic universe. Not what you think is right or wrong, good or evil, but how can right or wrong, good or evil exist.

And please, stop referring to science as if only atheist have exclusive rights to it.

I will grant that Atheist have more drive and have achieved more in this field than even Christians have (referring to scientific inventions and the sort) because money is a mighty motivator.

 

what you write:

"complexity is known to arise from less complex systems"

 

Is this always the case with everything in every category.

 

"In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe"

 

How so? saying so doesn't make it so.

 

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

 

I have a better answer than this "everything came from nothing!"

 

"Postulating the existence of an invisible super-being which can magic a whole Universe into existence by just thinking about it, is just primitive ignorance."

 

I'd love to hear the atheist's answer to the origin of the universe.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Still Dodging!!!

Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic.

Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Dodging? So, mister enlightened, then it is up to you to tell us what the properties of the 'immaterial' are. How do you even know it exists? How does it interact with the material? Until you explained those things, we will be forced to conclude that you're just defending your percieved right to make shit up with the nonsense label of the 'immaterial'. Just like all your little christian friends have before you. Prove me wrong. Put out or shut up.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religion does not explain or

Religion does not explain or define morality. It is mainly a quasi-legal system of prohibitions and requirements, with rewards and punishments attached. It is actually inferior to most human devised legal systems in that it doesn't provide for appeals, and the punishments are typically way out of proportion to the 'crimes'.

Morality does not exist outside our own human society, so there is no absolute morality to explain.

Whereas a rational system of morals is based on an extension of our inbuilt sense of fairness and empathy, which clearly derives from our evolutionary path as a social species, which requires cooperative behaviour for success in reproducing and nurturing our offspring for the long time it takes them to mature.

Whereas on the other hand we have only a set of proclamations (allegedly) from 'God' with no way of knowing independently whether they are 'good' or 'bad' in any sense. We have absolutely no way to know or comprehend the ultimate motives of such an entity, so to assume he is 'good' is the purest supposition, or more likely simply a submissive response to perceived power.

IOW, God-based 'morality' is simply the principle that 'might makes right', that of absolute obedience to authority, the ultimate totalitarian regime, the antithesis of true ethics and morality, which should be based on empathy and compassion for others, along the lines of the Golden Rule, but thought thru somewhat more carefully to allow for the great variation of our individual wants, desires, and things which cause us suffering and pain.

Morality is one of the weaker arguments for God. Religion contradicts true morality, which is based on minimising actual harm and maximising positive aspects our existence, ie , ultimately our own shared nature, not that of some completely incomprehensible entity which is utterly beyond our understanding.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I have a better answer than this "everything came from nothing!"

But no scientist has said that.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'd love to hear the atheist's answer to the origin of the universe.

We don't know, and neither do you. If you think making up an answer is superior to searching for one, then I guess you win ... in your head.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Only things which can be

Only things which can be observed to have consistent effects, even if they can't be measured like a physical object. For example, we observe and note what people say and do under various conditions, both spontaneous and contrived, to understand the realities of human psychology, the commonalities and individual differences.

All we require to accept that some proposed entity may exist is some consistent set of observations of anything from simple physical effects to any consistent pattern in behaviour and /or reported sensation or experience which cannot be explained in any other plausible way, and is only explicable with the particular 'non-physical' explanation proposed. Since there are virtually an infinite number of conceivable 'non-physical' ideas which could be proposed as consistent with any observation, this is virtually impossible to establish.

Once you are going beyond what we have naturalistic evidence and theories for, then literally anything is 'possible'. There is simply no way one can establish the superior credibility of any given supernatural concept over any other, assuming it has at least some coherent and non-contradictory definition. So the realm of the 'non-natural', un-observable, is only honestly labelled as 'We don't know'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Theist has NO

The Theist has NO explanation for the ultimate origin of the Universe, since they have no explanation for the origin of God.

Whereas science suggests that our universe requires nothing more than some some minimal fluctuation in a background of quantum scale energy of some form. We don't know where that originated, it may have always existed, simply because existence seems to 'prohibit' the 'existence' of absolutely empty 'space'.

It seems far easier to imagine that some such ultimately simple elementary background 'stuff' may have always existed than some infinite, sentient being could. And since there is absolutely no logical requirement that the origin of our universe involve infinities or sentience, it is utterly absurd to insist that God is the necessary explanation for our existence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm quite surprised that you

I'm quite surprised that you actually responded to my post.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Hi,

I'll answer your questions, but I need to know something about you first.

Hello, welcome to the forum.

Quote:
Are you a material atheist, meaning, you believe the universe to be material in nature, nothing immaterial exist?

Define immaterial.

Quote:
Most evolutionists for example ought to be material atheist and not any other type of atheist.

Evolutionists can be theists. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

There is ample evidence for God's existence. The fact that we're engaging in intelligent conversation, make moral choices, think and operate scientifically are all evidences of God's existence.

How?

Quote:
What is not intelligent is ignoring having to explain the foundations for rationality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. Atheists ignore all of that and say, you don't have to know that, cause I'm being rational (but not in this situation), I'm doing science, I'm making moral judgments, so I don't have to explain it, but all the while they demand that you have a quantitative and qualitative answer for anything in order to believe or think it's true. I don't know how you find coherency in that.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please expand.

Quote:
Have you proven that only things that can be quantitatively and/or qualitatively measured exist or have significance?

No.

Quote:
Can you explain the existence of morality,

I can explain the origin of the concept, but not right and wrong itself.

Quote:
knowledge, or logic or how they can exist in an atheistic universe?

To a certain extent, maybe. However, since this question deals with the origin of the universe, the best answer is, I don't know.

Quote:
As a Christian I can explain these things, I can make sense of my experience as a human being, why I make moral judgments, conduct scientific experiments, and think coherently (rationally).

Can you prove the validity of your explanations?

Quote:
My argument against atheists is that you can't.

There are many things we can't explain.

Quote:
So my challenge to you is explain how morality for starters is even possible in an atheistic universe.

Not what you think is right or wrong, good or evil, but how can right or wrong, good or evil exist.

They don't.

Quote:
And please, stop referring to science as if only atheist have exclusive rights to it.

We don't.

Quote:
I will grant that Atheist have more drive and have achieved more in this field than even Christians have (referring to scientific inventions and the sort) because money is a mighty motivator.

I doubt people become scientists to make money.

Quote:
"In the absence of any evidence for God, and the FACT that the concept actually introduces an idea which is itself actually complicates and contradicts our observations of the Universe"

Quote:
How so? saying so doesn't make it so.

Our position is that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of any God and that he is at odds with what we know about the world. If you disagree, simply present arguments or evidence for his existence.

Quote:
I have a better answer than this "everything came from nothing!"

True, but all you defeated was a strawman. 

Quote:
I'd love to hear the atheist's answer to the origin of the universe.

Oh, you would? Alright, here's my honest answer.

We don't know. What do you think about that?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote: Be

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Be a good sport and instruct me how to enclose quotes in boxes.

To quote a post, click the "quote" button at the bottom left of the post you wish to respond to.

Or, see here: Quote Function

Quote:
Material is what can be experienced with the basic senses. (Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Sound). Composed of atoms. Atomistic.

Immaterial cannot be experienced by the basic senses; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I suppose that's true. However, I personally don't see any practical difference between something non-existent and something that is impossible to detect. Although, you did write, "cannot be experienced by the basic senses," as opposed to the shorter, "cannot be experienced." Considering this, do you believe that there are any ways to determine whether a supernatural thing exists? If so, how?

Quote:
I would've thought by placing the word in quotations, you would get the hint that I'm be sarcastic. Christians like to call atheism a religion because of the blind faith that is required to believe in it (according to how atheist's describe theists).

We just had a really interesting thread discussing the definition of religion.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Be a

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Be a good sport and instruct me how to enclose quotes in boxes.

Sure. First, don't use plain text editor unless you're familiar with HTML. The standard BBC text box is sufficient to work with, and is more user friendly anyway.

Second, substitute [ for < and ] for > in the following example.

<quote=Vastet>Hi</quote>

After doing the substitution, you get this:

Vastet wrote:
Hi

The rest I'll leave until I have more time for arguing. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic is not a thing that

Logic is not a thing that 'exists', it is the label we give to a set of principles which spell out the absolute minimum requirements for there to be a describable environment, for there to be distinguishable entities or objects in what we perceive, so that there can be A and not A as distinct concepts. The 'existence' of such structure is what gives rise to our idea of logic, so logic is implied by existence of a Universe of entities rather than a totally featureless void.

Some form of supernatural entity as such may not be intrinsically in contradiction to what we observe, since supernatural is just a label for the background origin of ideas and experiences we have yet to fit into some sort of coherent logical framework, consistent with everything else we have established.

But once you are talking about anything generally corresponding to traditional God concepts, we see no  plain and unambiguous evidence for the intervention of some such entity, and we see no examples of anything approaching the willed creation of something out of nothing, and the very concept of an infinite being is utterly inconsistent with all we observe, as well as any logic not based on the a priori assumption that it does make sense.

An interventionist God would make it impossible to derive any coherent naturalistic theories as Science has achieved, since at any point the expected outcome of some combination of events and states of the environment could be completely different to what we would predict.

So the success of science seems to preclude the existence of a 'God' who intervenes in any significant degree, or else arranges that things happen exactly as they would without intervention, which makes a God idea simply superfluous.

Put it another way, what we find as we investigate reality at every level is things behaving according to some combination of purely deterministic causes with a degree of pure statistical randomness. Evidence for a God would require regular observation of deviations from deterministic expectations in a non-random and unpredictable manner suggestive of some sentient intent or purpose.

Inserting a 'God' into the picture just complicates this picture, while proposing some intrinsically incomprehensible entity with not even the possibility of explanation. It means we could no longer count on things happening according to predictable rules and principles. The regularity of the Universe is evidence against God. All we require is elementary simple entities interacting in very simple but regular and consistent ways at the fundamental level of reality to allow for what we observe.

Ideas that somehow a God is required to define these regularities is simply incoherent, since a sentient powerful being of any sort requires the pre-existence of a similar basic substrate to make up its structure.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Since

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Since there are virtually an infinite number of conceivable 'non-physical' ideas which could be proosed as consistent with any observation, this is virtually impossible to establish.

At least I'm sure we can all agree that the origin of the universe was initiated by The Great and Powerful Cosmic Moose, Inventor of The Fork and The Chocolate Chip Muffin.

That much is obvious.

But how His High Holy Mooseness expands Himself through time in multiple directions is a great mystery, and has been treated in many scholarly texts, including, "Mooseness: Do You Have Enough of It?" By William Craig Laine, and "What Can't The Cosmic Moose Do?" By D'sesha Dinouz.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
So you can't answer the question. I figured as much.

 

You are dodging Atheist, I never claimed to the know what the properties of the immaterial are. I was simply making the point it doesn't automatically imply non-existence. Why don't use the phrase non-atomistic from this point on, so as not to upset you.

But the fact that you will not answer the questions I have asked you strongly suggests that you can't. Because I've already made the claim in this thread that Atheism is nonsensical because its contradictory and incoherent. The atheist explanation for the foundation of morality, knowledge, and logic is laughable because it doesn't even begin to give us an account for them.

Know that the Bible has a lot to say about the universe, not only about morality, ethics, or the history of the Israelite nation. It makes metaphysical claims. Claims about the nature of reality, how we know what we know, and certainly how we should live our lives.

For example on the theory of knowledge. I don't have to know about something exhaustively to know something truthfully about it. As I'm sure you hold to that claim also. But at least my worldview can account for why that's possibly. God alone knows everything exhaustively and completely because He created it, governs it, and directs its course. He's omniscient and omnipotent. But because he knows everything exhaustively, I don't have to and not only that. I have a point of reference to begin with.

If atheism were true, first you don't have God or a God like figure who knows everything exhaustively, secondly you don't even have a man who knows all things exhaustively and certainly you don't yourself. So I have to ask, where is the point of reference? Imagine the first intelligence human on planet earth in an atheist universe (even at this point I would argue its impossible, but for argument sake I will grant atheism takes man this far), he has no point of reference, he makes interpretations of his experiences but again has no reference point and worse yet has no way of telling if the future will be like the past to predict/project his experiences in the past to the future to learn from them.

Let's remove the problem of the uniformity of nature. To proceed he has to make himself the point of reference, himself who is not omniscient, so he interprets his experiences (note he can never be certain if he's right or wrong in his conclusion because he doesn't know and there's no one who knows who can tell him) and takes giant leaps of faith. Can you imagine that. The thought is so scary that if it were true, could we be 100% right about anything even after a course of thousands of years? I mean, even to measure probability assumes you know some truth about the thing in question or have the correct reference point which again you couldn't know.

 

Now you might think to yourself, OK maybe the atheist is faced with a dilemma; however you Mr. Christian haven't explained how this information of the facts reaches you from God in your Christian worldview.

My answer is:

According to the Bible, God created all things (material and non atomistic). He himself is not created, he's infinite and eternal. He governs (makes his creation uniform) his creation and directs (purposefully carries it down a specific path to a certain outcome) it's history.

All this tells us his revelation is all about us (read Psalm 19 as an example). The artist's signature is on his work.

He creates us in his image. We are rational and moral even as he is perfectly logical and coherent, he places us in his creation which bombards us with this revelation mentioned above.

Over all of this, He communicates to us verbally (even before the fall of man, in the garden. He gives us his mandate to man to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it. He gives Adam the responsibility of naming his creatures and has him tend the garden - note that this is all that is revealed to us in the written word so that there was likely tons more).

Even after the fall, God communicates what things will be like for man. Genesis Chapter 3.

In all of this Man learns who he is, his relationship to God, his relationship to the world.

However man is corrupted after the fall. His nature is corrupted. He still has the image of God in him, so he continues to rationalize and behave morally even though, as in the garden the adversary convinced him to think independently of God for man to make himself the point of reference instead of God, he continues to do it to this today. Making himself the point of reference in his prediction, he did this in the garden and it ruined him and his posterity. But it's not as bad as in the atheistic scenario, because he still has the revelation of God in him and around him (being made in the image of God is a form of God's revelation). He as a consequence of his continuous rebellion doesn't rationalize and judge correctly all the time (more often not).

Misery, violence, and suffering continue to this day because of this reluctance to use God as the point of reference. He disobeys God, curses, and raises his fists in the air toward him blaming him for his misery when all the while, he and his kind are to blame even when God reaches out to him with a way to be forgiven and be saved the penalty of sin.

Well, atheist I gave an answer regarding knowledge. You give me yours on Morality. Again I don't want to know your opinion on what's right or wrong, good or evil, but explain how right or wrong, good or evil can even exist or not exist and be honest about the implications of your answer.

Afterward I'll explain how morality makes sense in Christianity but not in atheism.

 

God Bless.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1, please read Thread 36: reply to KSMB and others

BobSpence1, In thread#36 I speak on the Christian theory of knowledge.

Can you explain the atheist's theory of knowledge?

How knowledge is even possibly. please read my thread before you answer.

I'd hate for you to give me some answer that is not the kind of answer I'm looking for.

For example it's not a good argument to say things like the supernatural is not intrinsically logical doesn't say much, explain please. Read how I explain. I give an example of the atheist's dilemma in thread#36, that might give you a reference point to start your rebuttal.

 

Also, to save yourself all your writing, know that I only defend Christianity and not any other theistic view. They're ultimately all equally as ridiculous as I'm claiming atheism to be.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You are dodging Atheist, I never claimed to the know what the properties of the immaterial are.

God's material now? Because you claimed to know about God.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
But the fact that you will not answer the questions I have asked you strongly suggests that you can't. Because I've already made the claim in this thread that Atheism is nonsensical because its contradictory and incoherent.

But that's not a question; that's a statement. What's your question?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
For example on the theory of knowledge. I don't have to know about something exhaustively to know something truthfully about it. As I'm sure you hold to that claim also.

No, I don't. If you mean "exhaustively" in the philosophical sense of knowing all things, then of course, but since there is no demonstrable absolute truth, our truths take the form of statistical expressions.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
God alone knows everything exhaustively and completely because He created it, governs it, and directs its course.

That, I would say, is a positive statement about the immaterial.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If atheism were true, first you don't have God or a God like figure who knows everything exhaustively, secondly you don't even have a man who knows all things exhaustively and certainly you don't yourself. So I have to ask, where is the point of reference?

The point of reference is the falsifiability of hypotheses. I predict that gravity will continue to work. Oh look, it does! If it turned out I was wrong, then that hypothesis would be falsified. Try that with God, and you may see my objection.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Imagine the first intelligence human on planet earth in an atheist universe [...] he has no point of reference, he makes interpretations of his experiences but again has no reference point and worse yet has no way of telling if the future will be like the past to predict/project his experiences in the past to the future to learn from them.

Step one for said creature is to make up mystical explanations for what's going on.

Step two is a scientific method.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
To proceed he has to make himself the point of reference, himself who is not omniscient, so he interprets his experiences (note he can never be certain if he's right or wrong in his conclusion because he doesn't know and there's no one who knows who can tell him) and takes giant leaps of faith.

But not if he follows the hypothesis -> test -> falsify method! That way, he knows.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you imagine that. The thought is so scary that if it were true, could we be 100% right about anything even after a course of thousands of years?

Oh, I doubt we'll have 100% probability on anything in 1,000 years. Close to, but not exactly 100%.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I mean, even to measure probability assumes you know some truth about the thing in question or have the correct reference point which again you couldn't know.

Oh really? Have you tried gravity recently?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to #21 & 22

Gauche,

I gave an explanation in #13.

But I do apologize for not realizing that Buddhist's are atheists. I don't know what an objectivist or a nihilist is. But can you explain to me what they believe the nature of reality to be, their theory of knowledge is and how morality is derived.

Provide me the best explanation you've heard from any any atheist group on how morality is derived and if there is such a thing as moral absolutes, and the moral implications of this group's view.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
social animals

This first "human" on earth requires definition in an atheistic viewpoint.  Through evolution there would be no "first" in a definitive sense, gradual changes do not lend themselves to black | white.  At least it would not be what we call a human today.  So this "human" would have parents and would learn much like tigers learn about hunting... from their parents and other members of their social structure.  God is not a requirement of knowledge.  Social animals learn socially.... we know this.

 

You have to use first man in a xtian sense to even propose the question.  (Poof Magic -> man -> man has no point of reference)

 

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLAY TO #38

HisWillness wrote:
God's material now? Because you claimed to know about God.

Did I ever say, all we know is material??? If you read what I wrote regarding the Christian view of knowledge, you would've avoided this.

 

HisWillness wrote:
But that's not a question; that's a statement. What's your question?


Give me a break and read all the threads I posted, I'm only one person here, I can't reply to everyone. Just answer the question I asked in the end of that thread

HisWillness wrote:
No, I don't. If you mean "exhaustively" in the philosophical sense of knowing all things, then of course, but since there is no demonstrable absolute truth, our truths take the form of statistical expressions.

 

omniscient would be to know all things, to know something exhaustively is to know every bit of fact about something. I know about snakes but I don't know everything about them down to the atom level. I have to ask you HisWillness, the statement "there is no demonstrable absolute truth, our truths take the form of statistical expressions" it this itself an absolute truth? or is it a statistical expressions? Because if it's the latter, why should I care what you think.

 

 

Again the positive statements I make about God, I know because he reveals it to us. He alone is able to reveal it to us. This is all consistent with what I wrote in the thread, read again please.

 

HisWillness, please answer the question I asked in the end.

As for your smart replies, How does the man who knows nothing know anything about the scientific method, that nature is uniform, to even start conducting scientific experiments. The knowledge of the uniformity of nature is required to begin the scientific method. The man who doesn't know this assumes the uniformity of nature to prove that nature is uniform??? How ridiculous is that.

Ques: Are you 100% certain that God doesn't exist?

I hope to hear your answer on morality in your next comment. Read the question again please and answer.

[mod edit for quotes. You've got it -- just use square brackets next time]

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Dogs seems to have no

Dogs seems to have no understanding of the uniformity of nature.  They can still learn.  Man first learned by trial and error.  I don't think anyone is here to make the claim that the "first man" wore a labcoat and understood anything to be 100% true or proven.  Likewise today any scientist worth his merit would not say he is 100% on anything just that there is a massive amount of evidence supporting his understood reality.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Gauche,

I gave an explanation in #13.

But I do apologize for not realizing that Buddhist's are atheists. I don't know what an objectivist or a nihilist is. But can you explain to me what they believe the nature of reality to be, their theory of knowledge is and how morality is derived.

A nihilistic world view is the idea that there's no objective truth or value and that it's just invented by people. Some people on this board might be objectivists so they could explain it better than I could. But the point is that a nihilist doesn't have a buddhistic world view even though a nihilist and a Buddhist are both probably atheists. Atheism isn't a world view, but some world views are atheistic.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Provide me the best explanation you've heard from any any atheist group on how morality is derived and if there is such a thing as moral absolutes, and the moral implications of this group's view.

Atheistic moral theories don't always necessarily originate from atheists. Immanuel Kant wasn't an atheist and he had the idea that there are categorical imperatives. That's a moral absolute and it isn't theologically based. It's based on the idea that we can derive oughts from principles that every rational person must accept. But IMO the idea that moral rules are absolute is pretty implausible since it always leads to contradictions.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Evolved Morality
Evolved Morality's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-10-31
User is offlineOffline
glad and sad to see not much has changed

do to a unforseen difficulties i was force to take a hiatus from my online activites  i got back and i see the same crap  again again  almost to the point of lunacy    anywho who  hope all is well with everyone  hope to get back in the swing of things

 

and to the original poster  i know its been said before  but think before you open your mouth please   

 

those evil atheists you speak of did not do the atrocities in the name of atheism did they but for there personal gain  but the atrocities by the christian and religious person  had accured in the name of religion for the benifeit of said religion

 

 

anywho i know its been said      lol  Have a Iq use it please before you run your toungue

Evolved Morality


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
God's material now? Because you claimed to know about God.

Did I ever say, all we know is material???

No, I did. I was just speeding up the conversation. All we know is material.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I have to ask you HisWillness, the statement "there is no demonstrable absolute truth, our truths take the form of statistical expressions" it this itself an absolute truth? or is it a statistical expressions? Because if it's the latter, why should I care what you think.

It's the latter, and I don't know why you should care what I think. Do you only care if people are 100% sure?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Again the positive statements I make about God, I know because he reveals it to us. He alone is able to reveal it to us. This is all consistent with what I wrote in the thread, read again please.

Oh, I read it. The only problem is that those statements are so vague as to be meaningless. Did God "reveal" it to you by telling you directly? Did you have a dialogue with God? Clearly not if you're sane. So either you read it in the Bible or something. You can just say what you actually mean instead of saying "revealed".

As for the questions, I already answered them. You asked about knowledge and morality, right? Those questions?

First, an atheistic epistemology is not necessarily uniform. If you're asking my personal preference, it would be what I described as the falsification of hypotheses. That's an empirical method, and an effective epistemology. That's how we come to know things in a stringent, scientific sense.

Second, morality. The modern world has the advantage of being able to rationally evaluate policy. As an example, the Old Testament encourages the slavery of others, whereas the modern mind finds it abhorrent, and the secular law forbids it. Likewise with stoning to death as a punishment. That might give you a better understanding of a flexible, atheistic morality. It's one that is decided upon by a society, rather than from rules set in stone.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
As for your smart replies, How does the man who knows nothing know anything about the scientific method, that nature is uniform, to even start conducting scientific experiments. The knowledge of the uniformity of nature is required to begin the scientific method. The man who doesn't know this assumes the uniformity of nature to prove that nature is uniform??? How ridiculous is that.

I'm sorry, are you asking me if an "original man" would be too stupid to figure out that gravity works consistently? What is the "uniformity of nature"? Please note that man didn't know to perform experiments until he eschewed gods, like our early Greek proponent of the atom, Epicurus (3rd/4th century BC). We only started scientific experiments again recently when we separated magic from the natural world. Alchemy got replaced by chemistry, and a material view of the world has produced far more results than a magical one. That's because nature is consistent.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Ques: Are you 100% certain that God doesn't exist?

Of course not. How could I be? I'm also not 100% certain that Santa Claus does not exist. Also the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Not 100% sure, no.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You are dodging Atheist, I never claimed to the know what the properties of the immaterial are. I was simply making the point it doesn't automatically imply non-existence.

Well, if that's the case, you can't talk about it. You don't even know a single thing. That makes the 'immaterial' indistinguishable from the non-existent. You have failed to put out, so shut up.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Once you assume the

Once you assume the existence of an all-powerful sentient being able to create Universes, you have no grounds for any form of certain knowledge about anything, since such a being and their motives and purposes are utterly beyond our comprehesion, so He would be able to change the way things happened at a whim, and we have no way to know that He wishes us well or ill.

It is the very opposite of a certain basis of knowledge.

The Bible is a collection of the thoughts of people living thousands of years ago, with no particular valid claim to be a source of reliable information about anything in particular. It certainly contains contradictions, inconsistencies, explicitly false claims about the origin and nature of the universe, and many failed prophecies. So trying to derive 'knowledge' of the existence and attributes of a 'God' from this source is futility piled on top of impossibility.

Whereas history repeatedly demonstrates that we gain useful although imperfect insight into the workings of the world by observation and experiment, comparing our observations with those of others, and progressively refining our understanding by building on earlier results, modified as necessary when more careful observations and experiments reveal subtleties we had missed before.

The 'reference point' is the consensus of our shared experience of external reality.

The posts of AtheismIsNonsense are totally confused ramblings based on nonsensical metaphysical assumptions, so riddled with non-sequiters that it is hardly worth the effort to pick out some of the more egregious fallacies. I prefer to just present the rational framework of real knowledge as an example of how we actually gain some understanding of reality.

Maybe if he persists I may try and point out one or two of the more obvious fallacies, but from the tone of his posts, I doubt it will have much effect. The others responding here have pretty much covered this tired old ground.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
*sigh*To the OP, if you came

*sigh*

To the OP, if you came in here with the notion that you could dominate all the retarded atheists, your time here will be about as productive as trying to fish out of a bucket with no fish in it. Instead, why not try to have a real discussion?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

But the fact that you will not answer the questions I have asked you strongly suggests that you can't. Because I've already made the claim in this thread that Atheism is nonsensical because its contradictory and incoherent. The atheist explanation for the foundation of morality, knowledge, and logic is laughable because it doesn't even begin to give us an account for them.

I don't know who this is addressed to, but I answered all of your questions. If there are any questions I didn't answer, please point them out or post them again, and I will address them. There are also, of course, several other points I need to point out. The first thing is, undoubtedly, you continue ranting about how atheism is internally inconsistent and incoherent, but you have yet to show how this is the case. Please expand on your paragraphs claiming that atheism is contradictory and incoherent. Why is it internally inconsistent? Why is it incoherent? Next, obviously, atheists will explain these things in many different ways, but I just want to note that they're not "atheist explanations," since atheism is just not believing in a god or gods. But, I don't know what explanations you're referring to anyways. My responses to many of your questions regarding origins is simply, I don't know. Do you find that laughable? If so, why?

Quote:
Know that the Bible has a lot to say about the universe, not only about morality, ethics, or the history of the Israelite nation. It makes metaphysical claims. Claims about the nature of reality, how we know what we know, and certainly how we should live our lives.

That is correct. The Bible contains an intricate portrayal of how these things came to be. However, virtually all religions that ever existed contain a Creation story, so the Bible certainly isn't unique in this regard nor is it more likely to be valid, if, hypothetically, the veracity of a worldview was determined by how much it explains. 

Quote:
For example on the theory of knowledge. I don't have to know about something exhaustively to know something truthfully about it. As I'm sure you hold to that claim also.

Yes.

Quote:
But at least my worldview can account for why that's possibly. God alone knows everything exhaustively and completely because He created it, governs it, and directs its course. He's omniscient and omnipotent. But because he knows everything exhaustively, I don't have to and not only that. I have a point of reference to begin with.

I don't understand this either. Please say more. And, can you please use the quote function so I know what you're responding to?

Quote:
If atheism were true, first you don't have God or a God like figure who knows everything exhaustively, secondly you don't even have a man who knows all things exhaustively and certainly you don't yourself. So I have to ask, where is the point of reference?

Huh? What is a point of reference, and why is it needed?

Quote:
Imagine the first intelligence human on planet earth in an atheist universe (even at this point I would argue its impossible, but for argument sake I will grant atheism takes man this far), he has no point of reference, he makes interpretations of his experiences but again has no reference point and worse yet has no way of telling if the future will be like the past to predict/project his experiences in the past to the future to learn from them.

Oh, that's the problem of induction. While we rely on the natural world to repeat the same patterns indefinitely based what Hume called constant conjunction or, basically, a repetitive observed connection between certain causes and effects, there is no way to verify this beyond our experiences, since our experiences are all we have. My position is that the problem of induction is "real," but negligible for all practical reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

I mean, for example, take the epistemology of the scientific method. It granted us modern transportation, medicine, communication, and more. It might be argued that this verifies the accuracy of the scientific method, but this is only true within the context of our knowledge of the natural world, within our experiences. So, no, there is nothing beyond our experiences that can validate our experiences; we are, perhaps, at a philosophical impasse. What should I do? Should I lie in my bed until I starve to death? (No, I will not bend to hunger! It is an unverifiable, subjective, physical feeling.) I, like many before me, simply acknowledges what follows from induction. There is no alternative.      

Quote:
Let's remove the problem of the uniformity of nature. To proceed he has to make himself the point of reference, himself who is not omniscient, so he interprets his experiences (note he can never be certain if he's right or wrong in his conclusion because he doesn't know and there's no one who knows who can tell him) and takes giant leaps of faith. Can you imagine that. The thought is so scary that if it were true, could we be 100% right about anything even after a course of thousands of years?

We can be right or we can be wrong.

Quote:
I mean, even to measure probability assumes you know some truth about the thing in question or have the correct reference point which again you couldn't know.

Bingo! We begin with the assumption that we can understand the world.

Quote:
Now you might think to yourself, OK maybe the atheist is faced with a dilemma;

Perhaps.

Quote:
however you Mr. Christian haven't explained how this information of the facts reaches you from God in your Christian worldview.

My answer is:

According to the Bible, God created all things (material and non atomistic).

How do you know the Bible is true?

Quote:
He himself is not created, he's infinite and eternal.

How is that possible?

Quote:
He governs (makes his creation uniform) his creation and directs (purposefully carries it down a specific path to a certain outcome) it's history.

How do you know that?

Quote:
All this tells us his revelation is all about us (read Psalm 19 as an example). The artist's signature is on his work.

How?

Quote:
He creates us in his image.

How do you know?

Quote:
We are rational and moral even as he is perfectly logical and coherent, he places us in his creation which bombards us with this revelation mentioned above.

How do you know that?

Quote:
Over all of this, He communicates to us verbally (even before the fall of man, in the garden. He gives us his mandate to man to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it. He gives Adam the responsibility of naming his creatures and has him tend the garden - note that this is all that is revealed to us in the written word so that there was likely tons more).

Even after the fall, God communicates what things will be like for man. Genesis Chapter 3.

See here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction

Quote:
In all of this Man learns who he is, his relationship to God, his relationship to the world.

However man is corrupted after the fall. His nature is corrupted. He still has the image of God in him, so he continues to rationalize and behave morally even though, as in the garden the adversary convinced him to think independently of God for man to make himself the point of reference instead of God, he continues to do it to this today. Making himself the point of reference in his prediction, he did this in the garden and it ruined him and his posterity. But it's not as bad as in the atheistic scenario, because he still has the revelation of God in him and around him (being made in the image of God is a form of God's revelation). He as a consequence of his continuous rebellion doesn't rationalize and judge correctly all the time (more often not).

Misery, violence, and suffering continue to this day because of this reluctance to use God as the point of reference. He disobeys God, curses, and raises his fists in the air toward him blaming him for his misery when all the while, he and his kind are to blame even when God reaches out to him with a way to be forgiven and be saved the penalty of sin.

Many parts of the Bible promote misery, violence and suffering.

Quote:
Well, atheist I gave an answer regarding knowledge. You give me yours on Morality.

Assuming you're referring to inherent, absolute morality, my answer is, again, it doesn't exist.

Quote:
Again I don't want to know your opinion on what's right or wrong, good or evil, but explain how right or wrong, good or evil can even exist or not exist and be honest about the implications of your answer.

It doesn't exist.

What are the implications of my answer?

Well, that depends on whether God exists.

Quote:
Afterward I'll explain how morality makes sense in Christianity but not in atheism.

God Bless.

Looking forward to it. (not really)

Have a nice day.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
reply to: Evolved Morality #44

Evolved Morality wrote:

those evil atheists you speak of did not do the atrocities in the name of atheism did they but for there personal gain  but the atrocities by the christian and religious person  had accured in the name of religion for the benifeit of said religion

Gauche wrote:

But IMO the idea that moral rules are absolute is pretty implausible since it always leads to contradictions.

From your response Evolved Morality, your iq must be be little. You use words such as evil and atrocities as if they have universal meaning and appeal. As Gauche pointed out, moral absolutes are implausible and lead to contradiction in worldviews that are atheistic. Maybe you should consult with him before you open your mouth. He seems to know a awful lot of the many philosophical worldviews.

The point I'm making is that it makes no sense in atheism for someone to call some action good or evil when everything is relative and subjective. Because moral absolutes cannot exist in any atheistic worldview without leading to contradictions, anyone with the power to impose his will decides whats right in his own eyes. Read the book of Judges and see what I mean. The logical conclusion of atheism is rape, theft, war for conquest, and such. I mean if I have the power and no one's there to stand in my way, I should go for all the gusto. I have no obligation to further the human race or make others happy (I only have one life to live) and there's no God to punish me in this life or in the imaginary life to come-to send me to eternal damnation for my "sins" (oops I mean my moral neutral behavior).

This is not the case with Christianity. If people have committed atrocities in the name of Jesus (and this is no secret), at worst, they're not true to the Christian worldview neither are they Christ's disciples  nor will they enter the Kingdom of Heaven; but at best not in harmony with his worldview.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to butterbattle #48 and BobSpence1 #47

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

The Bible contains an intricate portrayal of how these things came to be. However, virtually all religions that ever existed contain a Creation story, so the Bible certainly isn't unique in this regard nor is it more likely to be valid, if, hypothetically, the veracity of a worldview was determined by how much it explains.

 

My reason for mentioning it wasn’t to imply that because it makes metaphysical claims, it is unique or therefore it is valid. Other religions certainly do contain a creation story and so forth; however upon analysis, you find inconsistencies and contradictions between its parts. Any worldview that is atheistic is faced with the same problem. Christianity however is the only worldview that is rational. It’s logical, consistent, and internally coherent. If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

 

For someone who has a worldview that is internal incoherent, that personal should not be in a position to criticize one that is perfectly coherent. If you disagree with the claim that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent, explain how it is. Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

 

I’m so certain that one will find inconsistencies and contradictions within any worldview that is not the Biblical Christian worldview

 

Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

 

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation? Can it make sense of morality?

 

According to your respective worldviews, which happen to be atheistic, was Hitler & the German people wrong for killing the Jews & “genetically inferior” peoples?


Can we start with that please?

 

Also I need to respond to BobSpence1 for what for his comments. I want you all to avoid giving answers that do not answer the questions I’m asking. I’m asking on the philosophical level. Your answers assume so much that you’re not giving an account for the things you assume. You’re begging the most fundamental questions.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Once you assume the existence of an all-powerful sentient being able to create Universes, you have no grounds for any form of certain knowledge about anything, since such a being and their motives and purposes are utterly beyond our comprehesion, so He would be able to change the way things happened at a whim, and we have no way to know that He wishes us well or ill.

It seems you’re assuming that the Christian God exist independent of man and the universe. That is not how He has revealed Himself at all. “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Col. 1:16-17

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is the very opposite of a certain basis of knowledge.

The Bible is a collection of the thoughts of people living thousands of years ago, with no particular valid claim to be a source of reliable information about anything in particular. It certainly contains contradictions, inconsistencies, explicitly false claims about the origin and nature of the universe, and many failed prophecies. So trying to derive 'knowledge' of the existence and attributes of a 'God' from this source is futility piled on top of impossibility.

Again Bob you interpret the Bible according to your atheistic worldview. In your worldview the supernatural does not exist (something you haven’t proven) so the Bible is no different than any other book in history, susceptible to error. However, the Bible claims to be inspired. In the Christian worldview God governs his creation and sets the direction of history towards his own purposes; therefore he can make the Bible whatever he wants. There is no inconsistency there; no internal conflict. And of the contradictions and inconsistencies and explicitly false claims, I don’t see anyone coming forth proving any of this. This criticism is nothing but prejudicial conjecture. Also, are you claiming to be the authority on the limits of reality?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Whereas history repeatedly demonstrates that we gain useful although imperfect insight into the workings of the world by observation and experiment, comparing our observations with those of others, and progressively refining our understanding by building on earlier results, modified as necessary when more careful observations and experiments reveal subtleties we had missed before.

I want to share with you all this piece of information in case no one knows this. There are such people as Christian historians and before that, Israelite historians. The scripture themselves are a form of historical documentation. Theism was the norm in the past as it is today, though much less than it was in the beginning of recorded history. This however didn’t stop them from practicing science and math. Often science is pitted against religion as if the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the Christian can argue that his worldview can account for the science that man does. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it. Science allows man to have dominion over the world. We can manipulate the elements and use the earth’s resources to benefit our standard of living and so forth and praise God for the gift of the earth and all its fullness therein and for the intelligence of his design. The point I’m making is that religion is not at enmity with history or science.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'reference point' is the consensus of our shared experience of external reality.

The posts of AtheismIsNonsense are totally confused ramblings based on nonsensical metaphysical assumptions, so riddled with non-sequiters that it is hardly worth the effort to pick out some of the more egregious fallacies. I prefer to just present the rational framework of real knowledge as an example of how we actually gain some understanding of reality.

I don’t want you to confuse the how with the what. What we do is one thing (both atheists and theists do science and induction and deduction), how we can account for it is something different. According to butterbattle he doesn’t know! He knows that the answers atheist ultimate give on how the universe began, how we know what we know, and how morality is determined is foolish because its sum is internally incoherent and contradictory.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Maybe if he persists I may try and point out one or two of the more obvious fallacies, but from the tone of his posts, I doubt it will have much effect. The others responding here have pretty much covered this tired old ground.

I wish you would Bob and avoid including unproven assumptions that are necessary to formulate your answers.

 

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation? Can it make sense of morality?

 

Let’s begin by discussing morality. According to your respective worldviews, which happen to be atheistic, was Hitler & the German people wrong for killing the Jews & “genetically inferior” peoples?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.