Atheism As A Valid Worldview
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves. _________________________________________ One more thing I need to ask Will.
I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.
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.
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.
No, what I'm saying is that when people make choices, they're not proving that free will exists in a rigorously philosophical sense. Here's an overview that should help you see what I mean by that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?
Noncompliance just infers incoherence of the argument. It's best to read todangst's article, because the definitions are all there in a clear context. If you'd rather I rephrase them, that's no problem, but I'm quoting todangst because he hit the nail on the head with that article, and it seems unnecessary for me to try to simplify it any more.
HisWillness wrote:AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know
Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?
I don't think it's fair to ask me to give you a course in physics. I'm not trying to be curt when I say that, but if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about the nature of matter, it would require that you do a bit of research. Matter and energy being equal is known popularly as "E=mc2" but I can't really proceed without that being a given. Also, the laws of physics are present as features of nature, which consists of matter/energy, so it's not like laws "govern" matter/energy, they are intertwined.
HisWillness wrote:False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?
No, that's what "false dichotomy" means. I was rephrasing your argument to show you that it was a false dichotomy.
In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?
No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.
to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention.
But that's demonstrably false. Culture and convention have everything to do with morality. Just look at the laws of two culturally separate countries, like Saudi Arabia and Denmark. Completely different moral systems, owing to culture and convention.
Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?
My argument is that if individuals have a moral sense, then moral relativism is true. If each individual and culture can form moral stances separate from one another (demonstrably true) then moral relativism is clearly the case in reality.
I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?
Political power in some groups (like the Nazis or the genocidal mobs in Rwanda) are good examples of temporary insanity.
How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?
We don't know, exactly. I mean, there are good descriptions about what's happening in the brain, etc., but we don't know exactly how.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
____________________________________
Please answer the questions so I can reply properly to your #116 Post.
You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.
Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.
No, what I'm saying is that when people make choices, they're not proving that free will exists in a rigorously philosophical sense. Here's an overview that should help you see what I mean by that:
Can you please answer the question. If you can’t explain your position in this forum and resort to having me read through a lot of writing which you might fault me for not understanding it properly if I comment on it, please don’t bother bringing it up in our discussion. This brings up another question I would like to ask, is this Plato’s explanation of free will? If so, are you a Platonist?
You don’t have to get fancy with words and phrases. You’re not being graded on how learned or cultured you are in our discussion, but whether or not your position as an atheist is logical and consistent. Please answer the question even in the simplest way.
If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.
What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?
Noncompliance just infers incoherence of the argument. It's best to read todangst's article, because the definitions are all there in a clear context. If you'd rather I rephrase them, that's no problem, but I'm quoting todangst because he hit the nail on the head with that article, and it seems unnecessary for me to try to simplify it any more.
You haven’t answered the question. If my argument is incoherent because it violates the concepts of all that above, I want to know in what way, what they are, and whether or not they’re even anything I ought to comply with. Again if you can’t explain it, don’t bring it up. Please answer the questions.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know
Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?
I don't think it's fair to ask me to give you a course in physics. I'm not trying to be curt when I say that, but if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about the nature of matter, it would require that you do a bit of research. Matter and energy being equal is known popularly as "E=mc2" but I can't really proceed without that being a given. Also, the laws of physics are present as features of nature, which consists of matter/energy, so it's not like laws "govern" matter/energy, they are intertwined.
I didn’t ask you give me a course in physics, I mean are you implying that no one can understand physics in the least unless he takes a course in it? Now I think I understand what you’re saying about natural laws and matter/energy being intertwined, that they don’t exist individually in a vacuum, but does matter conform always to the laws of physics? Does energy conform always to the laws of physics? Do they every go “rogue” and take on some random property?
False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.
Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?
No, that's what "false dichotomy" means. I was rephrasing your argument to show you that it was a false dichotomy.
How's this rephrasing even close to my argument?
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters.Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.
In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?
No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.
Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, butNice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.
From the context of my writing, it should’ve been easy to comprehend what I meant by writing that individuals have a moral sense, to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention. Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?
But that's demonstrably false. Culture and convention have everything to do with morality. Just look at the laws of two culturally separate countries, like Saudi Arabia and Denmark. Completely different moral systems, owing to culture and convention.My argument is that if individuals have a moral sense, then moral relativism is true. If each individual and culture can form moral stances separate from one another (demonstrably true) then moral relativism is clearly the case in reality.
What I’m speaking about are rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty (granted the exceptions). Not many individuals would say from any culture, time, or place that these sorts of actions are acceptable by convention. And those who commit them on a normal basis would not like them to be the law of the land.
As for your second statement, I never said that moral relativism is not practiced in the real world, because it is and the majority of the world doesn’t believe in the Christian God; however this doesn’t mean that moral relativism is what morality is. In fact I argue that in this matter the truth of the Christian God shines forth the most, in that people may claim that morality is nothing but convention and culture, but they don’t treat it that way, they don’t behave that way in regards to morality. People behave as if morality is universal and absolute. The large majority of the people of this world would not agree with you that rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty are ever justified in any time, culture, or place, by individuals or group.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.
I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?
Political power in some groups (like the Nazis or the genocidal mobs in Rwanda) are good examples of temporary insanity.
Is it wrong to use political power to achieve your desires?
One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.
How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?
We don't know, exactly. I mean, there are good descriptions about what's happening in the brain, etc., but we don't know exactly how.
It makes perfect sense to you that biological matter plus electrical impulses plus energy, all governed by natural laws (immutable laws), can result in feelings, love, hope, and desire?
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.
- Login to post comments
. I can't answer simply, because of the philosophical history of that phrase, and the different meanings it entails. Suffice it to say that "free will" is illusory.
. God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom 1:21)-the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9).
HisWillingness wrote:
So ... after Jesus' birth, where did Mary and Joseph go?
Matthew 2:14 wrote:
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
Luke 2:39 wrote:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
Did they go to Israel or Egypt? That's not consistent.
If you read Matthews account, Jesus is about2 years old when the Magi visit Jesus.
Matt. 2:16 - When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under
In Luke 2:39, he's just over 40 days old (according to the book of Leviticus) Luke 2:22 - When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem
Remember the Magi weren't at his birth. When Messiah was born, that's when the star appeared. Not being Israelites, they probably were astrologers, saw the star and investigated the matter, eventually coming across Hebrew literature and went to acquire about the child from King Herod. Now I don't know why Mary/Joseph/Jesus were in Bethlehem at the time the Magi found him (probably on their way for the feast of the passover according to Luke 2:41 - Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.).
The two Gospels are not speaking of the same account.
HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
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.
Hey, it could be a little from column A and a little from column B, let's be honest.
NOPE.
HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
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?
But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.
Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man (another logical conclusion of atomistic atheism) who claims that all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, if we knew all those factors. Ultimately and in principle, the professor argues, human free will is an illusion. All of us think and do what we have been conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment. Imagine further that, when it comes time for you to take the final exam in his course, you cheat on the examination and are caught at it by the professor. He is indignant and insists upon imposing a strict penalty (say, flunking the course). If he does so, he exposes an open conflict within his views of human nature, does he not? By punishing you, he assumes that you were free to choose how to approach taking the test: you could study hard and prepare to answer the questions on your own, or you could more efficiently “ride” upon the effort put into the test by the student from whose paper you copied. If you could not help doing what you did-given your previous conditioning and the variables of your environment-it would be senseless so punish you for doing what you predictably did. Yet this is precisely what the professor had taught you in class about human nature in the first place.
HisWillingness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
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.
My objection is to supernaturalism in general. It's irrelevant to me that you represent a Christian view, or a Mithraic view, or whatever.
I will respond to this with questions. Do you believe matter is eternal? If not, did matter spontaneously generate?
HisWillingness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation?
Of course! You're in a forum, where we're all participating in rational discourse and argumentation! It's baffling that you would ask the question when you're actually participating in the process.
In my other posts, when I accuse Atheists of dodging my questions. This is an example of an answer that does just that. I apologize if this is not intentional on your part, but I have to ask when will atheists begin to understand? The argument against atheists isn’t that atheists aren’t moral or that they’re not rational, or that they’re not scientific, but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent. I read about atheists answering similar theist challenges by saying something like, Atheist can live their lives perfectly well without needing to believe in Christianity so that makes atheism true. I write in some of my posts that there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions. If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.
HisWillingness wrote:
As for morality, I've answered twice that in the absence of an absolute morality, a society can still come up with an ethical system. So that even though the Old Testament recommends slavery, modern man can decide to ignore that in favour of freedom.
The OT doesn’t recommend or promote slavery. Slavery existed and exists today in some form or another because of man’s naturally immoral disposition. Have you read about the Year of Jubilee? Why don’t you share that with our audience. The existence of slavery has always been an “object lesson” for God’s people. Human slavery is symbolic of spiritual slavery; slavery to sin (the strong inclination/disposition to commit sin) and its ultimate consequence; eternal condemnation.
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:31-36)
HisWillingness wrote:
As for the Hitler question, of course it's abhorrent that he would round up people to kill them. That's a stupid question. There's no need for an absolute rule book to find that terrible.
Tell me, is morality subjective and relativistic? Within a group of people, society, or nation? Your statement suggests that it’s universal, that people all around the world are obligated to feel indignant about it and anyone who disagrees with you (or others who hold to your standard of ethics) are “wrong” (is that wrong in a subjective sense)? How is morality determined/derived so that it reaches across other peoples and societies and imposed on them? Why are we obligated to comply with any standard we disagree with? (I speak as a fool; a non-Christian). Hitler and many around him didn’t agree. Why was he and the German people obligated to comply with the “rest” of the world? Are we just speaking about opinions? Is morality reduced to opinions or majority rule? (note: these aren’t different questions, but so that you don’t avoid answering the question or give an answer that is not asked, I’m presenting it in as many different ways as I can think of so you understand the question).
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.
*Skips the self contradictory biblical crap that only a fool could believe in*
YEP.
Nope.
You're missing the whole point. The punishment ITSELF is conditioning, to make the student a better student. Everything in life is conditioning. The professor would have to be omniscient to have such a standard apply to him. God is supposedly omniscient, so the standard would apply to god. Not to a professor.
I don't much like speaking for others, but in this case I can say with a fair amount of confidence that he simply doesn't know, and will admit as much.
Why do you have to know anyway? What is it about life that makes it not worth living unless this question is asked? I don't want to know why you want to know (most people would take the knowledge if offered to them: curiosity is a human condition), I want to know why you need to know in order for your existence to have meaning.
Hardly. This answers your question perfectly.
Maybe when you start making yourself clear.
It would take me less than 5 seconds to prove that your side does in fact argue these things.
Which is ridiculous. First of all, we don't have a world view. I don't know what it will take to get that through your thick skull, but I'll keep hammering away until it does.
Secondly, logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence. Only a liar will tell you why they exist, because we simply don't know why the universe exists. Or if there is a why for the universe to exist in the first place.
And finally, morals have been accounted for via evolutionary pressures, which has been explained to you and others ad absurdum.
That's a pretty ridiculous argument. It is only effective against someone who insists that one can only be moral through religion, which is an equally ridiculous argument. You find yourself amongst a much more educated atheism at this site.
I have yet to meet an atheist who believes there is no god because he is moral, or works in science, or is rational. These are not reasons to disbelieve in god. They can lead to reasons to disbelieve in god, but they are not reasons in and of themselves.
*Skips more biblical crap*
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, it is subjective.
It isn't.
We aren't.
They weren't. However, at the same time, they tried to force upon the world their own moral judgements. We all know how that turned out.
I would hesitate to quantify morality as an opinion, even though it closely resembles one. You can't just change your mind on your morality as easily as you can change an opinion.
You phrase the question as if morality had ever been more than a personal position. It isn't.
If this doesn't answer your questions, you'll have to do better in phrasing them.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
One opponent at a time please
I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
________________________________________________________
Next time I will not reply to you VASTET, My request was to converse with one of you at a time. I replied to HisWillness and am waiting for his response, but your answer needs to be answer less you think you've actually answered or even defeated anything I wrote or HisWillness borrows anything from you and makes himself appear foolish. I'm starting to imagine you as a big retarded kid who has poor interpretive and reading comprehension skills.
To everyone who wants to know what he replied to, please read post #101 to put my writing in perspective.
First of all the challenge made through this thread is that all non-Christian world views are either illogical, inconsistent, internally incoherent or anything else.
HisWillness sought to prove that the scripture passages he provided contradicted themselves, which I showed otherwise.
Vastet, when your chance comes, you can try to prove that what befalls all non-Christian worldviews affects the Christian worldview also and fail trying.
So unless you can prove that the Christian worldview cannot account for human experience or the existence of the universe, or its parts are inconsistent, incompatible with one another, or they're internally incoherent, let's change the YEP back to NOPE.
On punishing the student bit, the point the Professor is making is that there's no free will. One cannot chose to do this or that. If the Professor is conditioning the student, he's not even in control of himself if he wants to be consistent with his view. He and the students are simply products of their physical makeup to the extreme. It would be like telling a tree to CHOOSE to grow or whither and die. Are you saying that you don't make choices? If this is true, the student is not at fault anymore than Hitler is for committing mass genocide.
As for God, He's omniscient. He also controls the course of history and therefore He's also ultimately in control of all human action, He can choose to prevent a tragedy or see it through (Do you think you can exploit this piece of information - God himself in Scripture reveals this about himself and I find comfort and relief in knowing this - nothing is by "chance" and there is purpose and direction to everything that happens as opposed to some atheists having to "fabricate" purpose because of their worldviews).
Matter however is what it is. Apply that to humans and all you have is "all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable,...human free will is an illusion" Again the funny thing to point out after further investigation is that the professor is not excluded from this claim, his behavior also is out of his control.
With God however, He hasn't disclosed how he grants us free will, yet has control over everything, only that man is made in his image, placing us so high so as to give us the title of adopted children (believers),. He gives us moral choices in life; the ultimate moral decision being whether to follow Him and make Him the starting point and foundation of all our experience and prediction OR pretend to be autonomous and think we can use our God-given intellect and ability to rationalize and reason as our starting point. (Unbelief is immoral)
The latter, theoretically speaking leads to people doing what is right in their own eyes and judging themselves by themselves.
ATHEIST MISS THE POINT!
As for your question regarding why someone has to know to find meaning, etc., this wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out inconsistencies and logical contradictions in your theorizing and claims. The point being everyone has to give an account for what they believe, taking for granted that your position is true and criticizing others using standards that only you agree with and have not proven to be true is not very scientific and rational. That's why philosophers in the past tried but failed to give an account for the way they believed the universe to be. Their worldviews also in some sense dictated how they lived their lives. Socrates criticized the supposed intellects for taking for granted what they "knew" to be true and he was ultimately killed for it.
Vastet wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Which is ridiculous. First of all, we don't have a world view. I don't know what it will take to get that through your thick skull, but I'll keep hammering away until it does.
Secondly, logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence. Only a liar will tell you why they exist, because we simply don't know why the universe exists. Or if there is a why for the universe to exist in the first place.
And finally, morals have been accounted for via evolutionary pressures, which has been explained to you and others ad absurdum.
First of all, you need to read my other posts and the context in which I phrase worldviews of atheists. After Gauche corrected my error explaining to me that there is not one all inclusive Atheist worldview, but many worldviews that are atheistic. So when I write atheistic worldview, it means a worldview that is atheistic.
In a sense, you're correct to say that logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence (namely our existence only). This only makes sense in a Biblical worldview. We're created in the image of God, a God whose mind is perfectly logical and coherent (in whom there is no deceit) and reside in a created universe that is uniform because of our creator's sovereign control of it and are given the command to do science (to theologically phrase it, subdue it and have dominion over it). But take humans out of the picture, do the laws of logic exists? Maybe, but they would be meaningless. If we are brought back in the picture what are the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic just something that happens in the brain of man by chance? Or is it a social convention (as even some renown atheists claim - Gordon Stein)?
Also, morality coming about as a result of evolutionary pressures is a theory of yours (it might be true or false for argument sake), but the claim I've making is that morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless. I've given you so many examples of the logical consequences and conclusions of moral relativism. Below is another one.
According to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.
Please do not reply, if you do I will not respond. You're get your chance to face me one on one.
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.
First of all, Nonsense, just call me Will. "HisWillingness" is funny as a typo, but "HisWillness" is actually a self-deprecating joke.
Okay.
I'm sorry, did you just eliminate a possibility as impossible? That's odd ...
You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe.
No, and no. Actually, for the latter, I think "I don't know" is more appropriate to my level of humility on the matter, but you asked for a belief.
Have you tried asking better questions? You asked if my worldview accepts rational discourse. The answer is yes, you're doing it with me right now. Is that not a valid answer?
Whoa! Hold your horses. Nothing about anyone living a pleasant life implies truth about anything. Just because I believe there are no gods and have a pleasant life doesn't mean that I'm right because my life is pleasant. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
You've lost me. How, in your opinion, should I account for my actions?
I quite honestly don't know what you're saying. I've read it a couple of times, and you'll have to rephrase it or something. I don't use my actions to validate my atheism. That's oddly disjointed. I'm not sure how I'd make that argument unconsciously.
Okay. So Leviticus 25:45-46 we can just ignore?
Why don't you? I don't know anything about it.
No, I was saying that each cultural group has its own set of values that they agree on. That's pretty obvious. Some individuals will have differing opinions with that of the majority. I think that's still pretty obvious. So in that sense, it's relative, and it's also a group exercise. It's also highly dynamic, and mutable.
Haha--that's kind of a funny question. Do you mean how is a culture forced down the throats of others? Ask a missionary.
We aren't.
The rest of the world disagreed with force.
Largely majority rule for legal issues, and personally to opinion.
Attempted condescension doesn't help. I'm describing what is. You, too, could take an anthropology class and learn this stuff. It's not new.
Try asking better questions.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That won't stop me from responding to you repeatedly. It will merely give my arguments infinite power over your own. Which they already have to anyone with an education, but sadly people in your position are lacking one. Fortunately, even people in your position are capable of seeing how inability to respond proves your points are invalid.
You just described yourself perfectly. A retarded kid who has poor interpretive and reading comprehension skills. Although you missed adding the poorly educated part.
What the hell does this even mean? You have so little sense that you can't even make sense of your nonsense. Are you suggesting a dichotomy between christianity and everything else? If so, let me direct you to the False Dichotomy Fallacy. Christianity and everything else are not the only options. There's the jews, the moslems, the wiccans, the scientologists, the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the sun.....
The bible itself (thanks to its position as the cornerstone of the entire religion) proves irrevocably that the entire christian religion, and all of its denominations, is full of inconsistancies, logical fallacies, emotional badgering, and blatant lies. I need put no effort into the process myself. So the NOPE turns back into YEP. Permanently.
I never said the student is at fault. The student is being a student, and the professor is conditioning him to be a better one. The professor himself was conditioned to provide this conditioning as part of his job description. You just don't get it. You can make choices. That doesn't mean you have free will. When was the last time you could choose to fly without technological assistance, and it worked?
That just makes god evil (by my moral code) beyond belief, and anyone who would follow him a lapdog of said evil. If god does exist, and is omniscient and omnipotent, then I could never follow his evil ways.
So what?
That's a lie. Supposing your god exists, your god has never granted the human species the free will to choose to follow him or not. He has only granted the option to believe or disbelieve with a lack of evidence to support either position. I do not have a choice in this matter. I have never been a theist. The only way I could ever believe in a god is if he or she or it came down and introduced itself to me, and then provided an adequate demonstration of its powers (this could have been circumvented by your god using a fraction of its omnisciency to create an ever lasting proof of its existence [like, say, writing the bible in English centuries before English existed, and leaving a copy of it on the moon for us to find when we got there decades ago], but alas it never did that). And then it'd get one hell of an interrogation as to why it made this mess in the first place. After all that had been said and done, I would have the free will to choose whether or not to believe in and follow it. As things stand, I do not.
You don't even know what the point looks like, let alone where it is.
Something you failed to accomplish in spectacular fashion.
So how about you stop making up strawmen and show me where we've done this. And try to stay in context. I know it's spectacularly tempting for you theists to pull shit out of context or remake entire arguments to desperately save face, but you aren't going to convince any of us to switch sides by doing so.
And none of us claims to know everything about everything, or why anything, or whatever the fuck. You're making up an argument that doesn't apply to anyone here.
And you need to read mine showing you how wrong you were.
And there isn't one. Not that I'm aware of at least.
This assumes humanity is the only species in existence to have a capability to use logic. Even if we're the only species on Earth to be able to, and I don't know that we are (neither do you), I doubt very much a god would create such an expansive universe to sow seeds on one tiny rock that doesn't even compare to a pebble of sand at a beach in ratio.
How?
Aha, I think I'm finally beginning to penetrate where you are trying to come from. You assume morality must be logical. Why? The basis for most or all morals is emotional response. And emotional response is hardly logical. It can be, but it isn't necessarily.
If the German people didn't have a problem with it, who are you to say it was wrong?
Of course, they did have a problem with it, so they say it was wrong, so saying Hitler was wrong is using the morality of his victims. In his own mind, he was probably doing good. But who wants to use the morality of someone who was clinically insane in an argument? I certainly wouldn't.
You don't have to reply if you don't want to, you've never had to. But if I'm on the net and I see something I disagree with, I'm going to say so. I don't censor myself for anyone except under very special circumstances that involve the safety of myself and those I care about.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
One opponent at a time please
I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
____________________________________________________________
Will wrote:
I'm sorry, did you just eliminate a possibility as impossible? That's odd ...
Will, maybe I should have had you clarify what is in column A and what's in column B before answering. But so that this doesn't have to come up again. The reason you dislike Christianity will not be because it's irrational or internally incoherent, because Christianity is logical and coherent. Unless you dislike certain truths.
Will wrote:
You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe.
Let me clarify the argument further if you still don't understand it. The truth is the truth. I'm asking you whether your worldview can account for your actions. Whether can make sense of human experience. Now I know there are materialist atheists out there who make such claims regarding human behavior as in my example. What I'm pointing out is if such a person makes a claim, he's denying free will; man's ability to choose. Yet at the same time his view of morality is such that he believes man has the ability to chose to do right or wrong. That's a blatant contradiction.
I'm not making up a universe, I proving the truthfulness of Christianity because of the impossibility of the contrary. Believe contrary to Christianity and you are reduced to foolishness. You can construct any worldview to believe in, but you will run into logical inconsistencies along the way if you deny the truth claims of Christianity. The more I get you to expose more about what you believe the universe to be, the more I can point out these inconsistencies and contradictions.
Atheists who've come across this argumentation and understand it are very hesitant to expose themselves because of the inconsistencies of their claims.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:No, and no. Actually, for the latter, I think "I don't know" is more appropriate to my level of humility on the matter, but you asked for a belief.
And this proves my point when I write
there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions. If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.
It's not scientific and not rational to say I don't know the answers that would make my worldview intelligible but nevertheless, I'm going to formulate my questions according to my worldview claims and if you can't answer them, then you're wrong.
Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method. Many Atheists ask that because many hold to a materialistic view of the universe, but as I've pointed out they can't make sense of human experience with this type of belief in the universe. Morality is subjective at best, I can't imagine what logic is in this theoretical outlook, man can't possibly have free will/thought if he's composed of matter that rigidly obeys the "laws" of chemistry and physics. How can someone who doesn't have his own "house" in order demand anything from someone else under his own terms?
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Have you tried asking better questions? You asked if my worldview accepts rational discourse. The answer is yes, you're doing it with me right now. Is that not a valid answer?
I think I've answered this plenty enough, but here goes again. I'm not asking whether you "Can". That's not the argument. I can't remember when I made the claim that atheists can't engage in rational discourse, do science, or make moral judgment. You can and you do. The argument is that your worldview cannot account for the things you do. That in itself should prove that your network of claims on the universe are false. Within the Christian worldview, free will is possible, uniformity in nature can be known to exist for science to make sense, morality can make sense because it can be absolute, etc.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Whoa! Hold your horses. Nothing about anyone living a pleasant life implies truth about anything. Just because I believe there are no gods and have a pleasant life doesn't mean that I'm right because my life is pleasant. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?
Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Okay. So Leviticus 25:45-46 we can just ignore?
So in Leviticus 25, The LORD permitted slavery of not only foreigners, mainly through defeated nations, but fellow Israelites as well.
Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?
But as I mentioned before "The existence of slavery has always been an “object lesson” for God’s people. Human slavery is symbolic of spiritual slavery; slavery to sin (the strong inclination/disposition to commit sin) and its ultimate consequence; eternal condemnation.
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:31-36)
Also in Deuteronomy 15 it speaks about the year of release (every seven years), At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. Deut 15:1-6)
You know that this refers to slaves/servants also because of Exodus 21, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. (Ex. 21:2-4)
Now this is not only to teach His people of financial freedom but to point out a difference between the people of God and those who are outside of His grace. For in Deut. 4:6-8, "See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?"
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Why don't you? I don't know anything about it.
Correction, I meant the year of release, please read previous section.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:No, I was saying that each cultural group has its own set of values that they agree on. That's pretty obvious. Some individuals will have differing opinions with that of the majority. I think that's still pretty obvious. So in that sense, it's relative, and it's also a group exercise. It's also highly dynamic, and mutable.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Haha--that's kind of a funny question. Do you mean how is a culture forced down the throats of others? Ask a missionary.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:We aren't.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The rest of the world disagreed with force.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Largely majority rule for legal issues, and personally to opinion.
Attempted condescension doesn't help. I'm describing what is. You, too, could take an anthropology class and learn this stuff. It's not new.
Try asking better questions.
I asked all the right questions. Now that I have your answers, I will tell you how meaningless moral relativism is.
Morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless because of its logical consequences and conclusions, because according to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.
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.
I tried differentiating my writing from Will's by not italicizing my responses and that's how it appeared as I wrote it, but after submitting it, it all appeared italicized.
However the format I use is always:
Will wrote:
quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote
My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response.
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.
We can drop it. I don't "dislike Christianity", I dislike supernaturalism. Gods and what-not.
Could you please slow down? I haven't made any of the arguments you're countering at this point. None. You're arguing with yourself.
Man, I'm going to love this conversation, I can just tell. Christianity is now a homogeneous belief? But surely, like all the rest of the Christians, you believe that there are people who profess to be Christians, but do not follow the true faith.
I'll be frank, I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Did you want to discuss something with me, or with hypothetical atheists that you may or may not have made up?
No, you just misunderstand scientific epistemology. Until you know something, you don't know it. What you keep calling my "worldview" can have quite a lot of honest ignorance in it. I won't argue about those areas of ignorance, because I'm ignorant of them. I feel as though I'm stating the obvious, but the statements you're making are so incredibly off-base with regards to my beliefs that there's no reason to defend them. After all, they're not my beliefs!
Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)
I don't even know what this means.
You really are reading the exact same book as Paisley (and caposkia and truden?). Once again, you've made arguments for me, and you're shooting them down without my having raised them. Could you please, please tell me the book that these arguments are from? It would probably save time if you just told me instead of all four of you typing them out. It's obvious at this point, so don't pretend like you've come up with these yourself. If it were two people, maybe. Four? All using EXACTLY the same arguments, with EXACTLY the same wording? You might as well give me the name of the book.
Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.
First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.
I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.
[some biblical passages]
I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.
Haha -- okay.
You haven't actually demonstrated that genocide was perfectly moral to the German people. Why would there have been a resistance movement in Germany if it were acceptable to the German people? Individuals have a moral sense, and sometimes groups can have a moral sense. You're mixing up what we're addressing by confusing the two, and reaching a conclusion.
I think you have me confused with a simpleton. Am I honestly to believe that your version of morality requires you to consult a book before you can make a moral decision? I find that hard to believe for an adult.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
One opponent at a time please
I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
________________________________________________________
Will, before I properly reply to your post. I need you to clarify a few things.
(1) Regarding,
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method.
Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)
Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable? I know that falsificationists use this method to promote the “authority” of natural science and empirical methods in the attempt to criticize the meaningfulness of religious language. Is there anything else I should know about it before answering the question if you want me to answer it?
(2) regarding,
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?
Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.
Are you implying that arguments that have been used and that do not originate from me are not accessible to me?
(3) regarding,
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?
First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.
Explain to me Skinner’s theory and tell me about optical illusions and modern theories on consciousness.
(4) regarding,
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?
I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.
[some biblical passages]
I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.
Are you suggesting somewhere in my writing that I made the claim (directly or indirectly) that logic and Christian theism are unrelated?
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.
Yes.
No, I'm saying you don't cite your sources unless you're quoting the Bible.
What am I, your private professor?
B. F. Skinner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner
optical illusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
No, I did. Logic of a kind is certainly used in Christian theology, but I thought you were going to actively use logic.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
One opponent at a time please
I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
________________________________________________________
Will wrote in #56:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
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?
But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.
Will wrote in #104
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man
You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe.
Will wrote in #108
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Let me clarify the argument further if you still don't understand it. The truth is the truth. I'm asking you whether your worldview can account for your actions. Whether can make sense of human experience. Now I know there are materialist atheists out there who make such claims regarding human behavior as in my example. What I'm pointing out is if such a person makes a claim, he's denying free will; man's ability to choose. Yet at the same time his view of morality is such that he believes man has the ability to chose to do right or wrong. That's a blatant contradiction.
Could you please slow down? I haven't made any of the arguments you're countering at this point. None. You're arguing with yourself.
Will, you need to go back and read our exchanges. You stated the above in #56. I was simply showing (in #101) how out of the three questions, conflicts can arise between them in a person’s worldview. You replied with what’s in #104. I countered with what I wrote in #106 to further clarify, to which you’re now upset over. The man in my example had a metaphysical claim clash with an ethical claim.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Believe contrary to Christianity and you are reduced to foolishness. You can construct any worldview to believe in, but you will run into logical inconsistencies along the way if you deny the truth claims of Christianity. The more I get you to expose more about what you believe the universe to be, the more I can point out these inconsistencies and contradictions.
Man, I'm going to love this conversation, I can just tell. Christianity is now a homogeneous belief? But surely, like all the rest of the Christians, you believe that there are people who profess to be Christians, but do not follow the true faith.
Understand the argument Will, I’m arguing that the Biblical Christian worldview is the only logical and internally coherent worldview that can make sense of the universe and man’s experience. In the Christian worldview, moral absolutes can exists (it makes sense to call another person’s actions within any society or nation good/evil or right/wrong), man can have free will and be rational (being created in the Creators image), know things about himself/others and the world around him (through God’s natural and supernatural revelation), find uniformity in nature to conduct science (through God’s constant governing of his creation – this accounts for the existence of natural laws), and miracles can happen since God created the world, governs it, imposes on it it’s limitations.
Now I’ve explained it in the simplest terms. I’m waiting for you Will (as a materialist atheist) to tell me how in a supernatural-less universe, you can have free will, choice, logic, science, morality when you all have to work with is matter that “rigidly” obeys immutable laws.
As for homogeneous belief, I never claimed that professing to be Christian equates to truthfully being one. I mean I can claim to be a Neo-Nazi, but my actions would betray my profession. But even the existence of false believers and apostates exist and make sense in the Biblical Christian worldview. Man is by nature (after the fall) corrupted and at enmity with God. He has a natural disposition to disobey his commands and to try to be autonomous, refusing to acknowledge that in God, we live and breathe and have our being (Acts 17:28). Since man has corrupted the design and purpose of creation and himself, it’s only natural in this light that he would corrupt the truth.
People can behave contrary to the truth and contradict themselves; however the Biblical Christian worldview is consistent and impervious to logical contradiction because the Christian God is the precondition for our existence and experience (yours and mine).
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Atheists who've come across this argumentation and understand it are very hesitant to expose themselves because of the inconsistencies of their claims.
I'll be frank, I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Did you want to discuss something with me, or with hypothetical atheists that you may or may not have made up?
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It's not scientific and not rational to say I don't know the answers that would make my worldview intelligible but nevertheless, I'm going to formulate my questions according to my worldview claims and if you can't answer them, then you're wrong.
No, you just misunderstand scientific epistemology. Until you know something, you don't know it. What you keep calling my "worldview" can have quite a lot of honest ignorance in it. I won't argue about those areas of ignorance, because I'm ignorant of them. I feel as though I'm stating the obvious, but the statements you're making are so incredibly off-base with regards to my beliefs that there's no reason to defend them. After all, they're not my beliefs!
Tell me your beliefs then.
Will wrote in #108:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method.
Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)
I wrote in #109
Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable? I know that falsificationists use this method to promote the “authority” of natural science and empirical methods in the attempt to criticize the meaningfulness of religious language. Is there anything else I should know about it before answering the question if you want me to answer it?
Will wrote in #110:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable?
Yes.
Here’s my answer: Since for anything to be falsifiable, its truth or falseness would need to be determined via empirical methods. And since God is not physical and cannot be discovered via empirical methods, the hypothesis of God cannot be falsified.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How can someone who doesn't have his own "house" in order demand anything from someone else under his own terms?
I don't even know what this means.
Someone whose worldview can’t make sense of human existence and experience isn’t in a position to rightly judge another person’s worldview, whether the worldview is right or wrong.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The argument is that your worldview cannot account for the things you do. That in itself should prove that your network of claims on the universe are false. Within the Christian worldview, free will is possible, uniformity in nature can be known to exist for science to make sense, morality can make sense because it can be absolute, etc.
You really are reading the exact same book as Paisley (and caposkia and truden?). Once again, you've made arguments for me, and you're shooting them down without my having raised them. Could you please, please tell me the book that these arguments are from? It would probably save time if you just told me instead of all four of you typing them out. It's obvious at this point, so don't pretend like you've come up with these yourself. If it were two people, maybe. Four? All using EXACTLY the same arguments, with EXACTLY the same wording? You might as well give me the name of the book.
I don’t know who these authors are you speak of. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God; proving the impossibility to the contrary. If you believe contrary to the Christian faith, you’re left without a workable worldview by which to make sense of the world and your experience. Reject the Christian worldview and you’re reduced to philosophical foolishness.
Will wrote in #108:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?
Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.
I wrote in #109:
Are you implying that arguments that have been used and that do not originate from me are not accessible to me?
Will wrote in #110:
No, I'm saying you don't cite your sources unless you're quoting the Bible.
Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Gordon Clark, etc.
Will wrote in #108:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?
First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.
I wrote in #109:
Explain to me Skinner’s theory and tell me about optical illusions and modern theories on consciousness.
Will wrote in #110:
What am I, your private professor?
B. F. Skinner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner
optical illusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
What I meant from rigid matter is matter that rigidly obeys the immutable laws you’ve spoken about before. I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought. Man in light of this has nothing more than a brain and just as weeds grow. So the “mind” of man goes wherever it goes by laws of physics and chemistry. He wouldn’t in theory be able to consider two points in an argument and CHOOSE one over the other. Apply this to morality and man can’t be responsible for anything he does. It would be like calling a tree evil for growing along side a house and having one of its branches break in a window.
When you can provide an explanation from a physicalist point of view of how matter can “choose” not to obey those immutable laws, then I might move over to your camp.
Hebrews 11:1-3 - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
(The natural presupposes the supernatural). Christian faith is being sure and certain because of the impossibility to the contrary.
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?
I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.
[some biblical passages]
I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.
I think you’ve said enough for me to be satisfied regarding the implications of moral relativism on slavery. But I would’ve thought by now that you understand my position on logic. Again, a claim of Christians is that God’s existence must be true in order for logic to exist. He says in His word, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18
Will wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I asked all the right questions. Now that I have your answers, I will tell you how meaningless moral relativism is.
Haha -- okay.
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless because of its logical consequences and conclusions, because according to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.
You haven't actually demonstrated that genocide was perfectly moral to the German people. Why would there have been a resistance movement in Germany if it were acceptable to the German people? Individuals have a moral sense, and sometimes groups can have a moral sense. You're mixing up what we're addressing by confusing the two, and reaching a conclusion.
I think you have me confused with a simpleton. Am I honestly to believe that your version of morality requires you to consult a book before you can make a moral decision? I find that hard to believe for an adult.
First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters. Your refusal to bow the knee to Christ and reverence Him, in whom are all wisdom and knowledge deposited. You’ve abandon the “fountain of living water, to hew for yourselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”
And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but know:
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:18-32)
I hope you can see that when you write that individuals have a moral sense, you’re no longer speaking of morality as merely science or convention. You’re speaking about them as if they have a universal value about them. I hope you’ve read the long passage above.
Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period? In a universe that’s consigned to convention, might makes right. Hitler had the power and so for a season, he got to set the rules. Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome. People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves. There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy, no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist 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.
Scary.
Oh, also, http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag
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
That is the only logical 'moral' lesson that can be derived from the Garden of Eden story - absolute obedience to power.
Very close to the Golden Rule.
Where is that required in the Bible?
Unless you want some friends, and would like to give other people a reason to care for you....
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
Alright. Here's a brain buster for ya. What obligation does an individual have to comply with God's standard?
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
One opponent at a time please
I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
__________________________________________________________
Don't worry Bob and Butter, you'll get your chance. When Will decides to let one of you take his place. I'll response to your comments.
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.
Hi, Nonsense. Do you think you could use the quote function? Underlining makes everything you're writing almost illegible. All you have to do is replace the < with [ and > with ] in the following example:
<quote=AtheismIsNonsense>Some stuff you say</quote>
Okay, here we go.
I will not address hypothetical situations.
That seems itself contradictory, if only because it discounts the Jewish faith, which represents a good half of the biblical material. Or do you mean to say that Jews just don't have the complete picture, not that their world view is completely wrong?
You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.
Wow, that's great. I invented shoes.
(You're giving me no reason to believe that the Christian God is the precondition for anything; you might want to start there.)
I believe that the world is discoverable, and that the idea of "supernature" is an invention to make people feel powerful.
Right. That's my point. If something can't be shown to be false, it can't be shown to be true, either.
Oh. This really is like telling you I invented shoes. Let me get this straight: logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view? (I'm using todangst's wording of Greg Bahnsen's argument.) Are you aware of how silly that is? For a primer, try here:
Todangst on TAG
If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.
Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know.
But matter can't choose to disobey those laws. Where did you read me saying that?
False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.
Because someone said "come now, let us reason together", that means first that God exists, and then, that the same God invented logic? I think it's safe to say that you read into things too much.
Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.
Nice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.
I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.
And history shows that to be true time and time again. We're arguing about what is correct, not what is sad, or what should or should not be.
One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.
You can't steal my feelings of hope with the crushing terror of Christianity, because they're built in.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.
________________________________________________________________________
I need clarification of a few things before I respond to your post. If I ask you to explain some concept you throw out there, please explain and not point me to some piece of writing that is atheistically biased, otherwise I’ll go and invent shoes.
Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.
What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?
Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?
Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?
In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?
From the context of my writing, it should’ve been easy to comprehend what I meant by writing that individuals have a moral sense, to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention. Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?
I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?
How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?
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.