Is there a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others of their view?
Offline
Hey, just like to pose the question whether there is a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others of their view?
- My argument would go like this:
- If you take an atheistic materialistic world-view then truth has no innate value*(see star). The value others attribute to it is merely based on social conventions and personal views.
- If truth has no innate value it follows that there is no objective rational reason for actively persuading others of what you believe to be the truth. Any such activities of activate persuasion are unfounded and contradictory to the held world-view eg. intellectually dishonest and irrational.
*For truth to have innate value there would need to exist some transient structure or entity that assigns this value to truth in the universe.
It is illogical to claim truth has this value that makes it important.
If you make a claim such as:
“Truth is important for society for improving the quality of life of people/reducing suffering/advancing civilisation”
Here the assumption is made that the “quality of life of people/reducing suffering/advancing civilisation” has innate value in its self, however working from a materialistic world-view as we are, we know that this is not the case.
From a purely materialistic world-view “people” are just complex arrangements of material structures rather than beings with souls etc. A person has no more value than a brick
Constructive critique of this argument is welcome 
God bless!
-Matt
- Login to post comments
MOD: Fixed first post.
Because I'd rather be correct than happy.
Believing that you never posted this will make me happy, but that doesn't mean that you didn't post it does it?
You have constructed a fine straw man there, that's all. There's nothing there to critique, because that doesn't represent a world view that I hold, nor a world view, I would hazard to guess, that anyone holds.
By the way, which of the following are you actually doing:
Are you asking a question?
Are you presenting an argument?
Are you asking a rhetorical question, the answer to which you've precluded in the argument that follows?
I'm not sure it's worth anytime to even critique your post beyond pointing out that you've constructed a straw man. You're not the first to come here with this exact argument. It's actually annoying to see it again. Did you even search for threads with topics of a similar vein and if so, why do you think your presentation of this deserves special treatment?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Things have the value that people assign to them. If people value truth then truth is valuable. If people value society then society is valuable. If people value other people more then they value bricks then people are more valuable then bricks.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
If that isn't good enough for him that’s his problem. Even if there was a god I don't see why those gods’ values would somehow, magically, be worth more than mine. I know he won’t accept my answer, but it is still my answer so I posted it anyway.
Rant mode engaged: I am so tired of this whole atheist materialisms thing. I believe in whatever I have evidence to believe. If I had evidence for ghosts I would believe in ghosts. If I had evidence in aliens I would believe in aliens. I don’t categorize things a material or nonmaterial I categorize things as real or I don’t have any reason to believe it to be real.
Rant mode ended: Well, I've been on this site long enough to be used to this by now. So no biggy.
I wish more people would start that... it helps the eyes so much, not having to ply through a great wall-o-text
What Would Kharn Do?
In regards to innate value:
What do you mean by innate values, and why do you think they are important/relevant?
So if a candy bar had an innate value of tasting good would it still taste good if no one was around to eat it?
If no one exited, including god, would those values still exist, and if they did what possible meaning could they have if now one was around to experience them?
In regards to personal relative values:
What relevance does it have weather or not values are subjective or relative?
Why do you feel they can't be based on logic?
It's ok, perhaps I was a little bit to sensitive.
If you think about it everyone else values are objective truth in that other people’s values are not subject (at least directly) to what you think about them. Really only your own values are subject to your personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
So what you're saying is, based on your subjective view if you didn't believe in God nothing would have any value to you. You've summed theism up perfectly, and completely mischaracterized every atheist I've ever known.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
In my world view, if even one person exists to assign value to something then that thing has value. Value is created by intelligent entities. If no intelligent entities exited then values like good, bad, and tasty would cease to exist.
You are drawing a conclusion that doesn’t fit with my world view. In my world view logic can be based on personal values and personal feeling. My world view simply does not allow beliefs in external truth based on internal truth or logical arguments based on internal truth. That doesn’t mean that I can’t base logical arguments on internal truths. It just means that I In order for me to believe in extern realities requires external evidence and logical arguments based on external evidence.
Let me give an example, let say I feel hungry. Hunger is an internal truth so the internal feeling of hunger is all the justification I need to believe that I feel hungry. My world view allows me to use hunger in logical arguments so long as I don’t try to justify a belief in external realities based my internal feeling of hunger. An example of an argument acceptable under my world view would be I feel hungry; I don’t want to be hungry so I’m going to go get something to eat. An example of an unacceptable argument under my world view would be I feel hungry therefore the evil hunger fairy must be trying to posses my body and I should try to drive it of with song.
In my world view I am perfectly justified in acting on what I feel is important.
I don’t see how it is illogical to accept that you feel the way you feel, or to act on those feeling. You seem to be implying that logic and feelings are somehow mutually exclusive. As far as I can see the two things are closely related. Many logical arguments are driven by subjective human desires; I simply don’t see the contradiction. Have you ever studied economics? The whole concept of rational self interest in economics is driven entirely by the concept that people will do what they most want to do.
How is your own personal desires a fairy tales? To prove that you experience something requires only experience it. To prove that something exists outside of you self requires external envidence.
I think that we have some difference in our concept of what is or is not logical.
I value truth if it is either useful to me or interesting to me. Mostly I spend my time on this site not because I value truth, but because I dislike certain unsound logical arguments. I think my reasoning is based on sound logic for the reasons I listed above, but you seem to disagree.
I’ve said this several times, but what I most want to emphasize on this post is that there is a difference between external and internal realities. Logic can apply to both external and internal realities. The difference between the two is that claims about internal and external realities require different kind of supporting evidence.
People who believe in gods have a tendency to force their views on everyone else. This forcing encompasses global politics, economy, social structure, interaction, and more. In every way they are counter to me. They attempt to harm me. Showing their stupidity for what it is would be self defence. Self defence is rational.
/Thread.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
There is no such thing as "truth".
There is only perception and perspective.
Or do you seriously think that the human being is capeable of perceiving the "real" reality, in every aspect, as a totality?
My personal problem with "believers" is that belief is all they've got. Nothing but fantasy and gobbeldygook.
In effect, they are insane.
(Do not make the mistake of thinking that this makes me a disbeliever. I reject disbelief too. In fact I think of myself as utterly ignorant and not really capeable of judging any situation - much less existence itself - based in anything but statistical probabilities and more or less calculated guesswork.)
As for my personal stance of atheism, it is one of rejecting belief. ALL beliefs. Even only that of believing in gossip and rumours until I have had opportunity to check and verify the information from an objective source. I find it completely over-the-top asinine to make up a mental image of supernatural forces and/or a more "correct" world. Who the hell are you to sit in judgment of creation? We live in the world we live in. It is what it is. For all the talents of the human ape, we also have some really rather strict limitations. If we ignore those limitations and try to live by "faith" we are on a slippery slope of lies and conjecture that will sooner or later, at some point, manifest in evil deeds.
Anyway, I am not a "materialist" - to the extent that this word even has any meaning in a post-modern, decontructivist world.
In fact I like to describe myself as "gnostic atheist". (There's nothing agnostic about it.)
I do not judge, I relate. From a position of admitting utter ignorance.
From a position of viewing some dude's "beliefs" as extremely dubious information to base any line of action upon.
In fact, I could argue that it is the quintessence of immorality to base your decisions upon "faith".
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
In answer to the original question - Is there a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others of their view?
YES1
and the explanation :-
"God" causes wars and misery and people to stop being free-thinking individuals
If I allow someone to suffer because of inaction then I am guilty of causing that suffering. If I allow someone to take their beliefs in reincarnation to the level of putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger without trying to stop them then I am guilty of letting them die.
Unfortunately in this society we are inclined to look the ohter way or take the easy path - as an atheist I must try and make those who suffer from delusions of god to understand my beliefs so that they can heal.
A woman asked me "How can you not believe in anything ?" simply because I don't believe in god and I was so shocked that she could not see that she was suffering a grave illness I simply replied "I believe in truth and reality"
1 there is a problem with your question - convince. Convince others of their views would imply that people think I am lying about my views, you should have worded it:- Is there a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others to accept their view as true?
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
Oh, I have a good reason.
I like truth.
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
Like this:
Use {quote='name_of_user'} then the quote followed by {/quote} but change the { to a [ and } to a ].
Have fun!
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
Most of the posters on this board far exceed my intellect so when I can be bothered to post I'll use a LOLCATS or EPICFAIL dependant on the percieved transgression or idiocy of the post. Sometimes I may even type something, though this is rare.
Feline prowess? Are you licking yourself?
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
I’m sorry, I thought I explained this last, time let me try again.
In my world view internal and external truths are viewed differently. That which is required to believe something is different based whether or not you are making a statement about the external universe.
Perhaps it would help if I gave definitions.
An internal truth is a truth that is part of the person. It has no existence outside of the person that holds it. In other words you can say that it is a truth that is intrinsic to the person that holds it.
Examples of internal truths are values, feeling, and Ideals.
An external truth is a truth that exists outside of the person that holds it. They are truth that would still exist even if the person that held them no longer existed.
Examples of external truths are laws of physics, historical events, and physical objects.
There are different standards of evidence requires for establishing the existence external truth and internal truth. Let me give an example.
Let’s say that, I believe that the world would be better off without religion. This Ideal is an internal truth. It has no existence out side of me. As such, other internal truth such as my feeling are perfectly adequate means by which to establishing this truth.
An example of an external truth would be the existence of a car. Internal truths such as feelings are not an adequate means by which to establish the existence of external truths such as the existence of a car. I cannot say that I feel there should be a car therefore there is a car.
In regards to your argument, it makes a difference what kind truth Z represents.
If Z is an internal truth, such as an ideal, then in your example person X would be a hypocrite.
If Z is an external truth, such as the existence of a car, then person X would not be a hypocrite.
Let my write this out:
Zi = internal truth= in your example it would be the reason X made his/her argument, and the felling of happiness of person x and person Y.
Ze=extern truth = In your example this may or may not be Z.
Zi does not equal Ze. Your argument is only valid if Z equals Zi.
Your argument is a bit of a straw man because only insane people hold external and internal truths to the same set of standards.
If a truth isn't at least grounded in reality, you may just have a delusion of the truth.
With respect to the OP, if you want a logic 101 spin on it:
Appropriately formatted:
1. If (you take an atheistic materialistic world-view) then (truth has no innate value, the value others attribute to it is merely based on social conventions and personal views)
2. If (truth has no innate value) then (there is no objective rational reason for actively persuading others of what you believe to be the truth)
---
3. All (activities of activate persuasion) are (unfounded and contradictory to the held world-view eg. intellectually dishonest and irrational.)
There are many errors in the above. To eliminate some of the liguistic and stylistic variants, you would have to explain:
1. What an atheistic materialistic world-view is
2. "innate value"
3. What you mean by "the value others attribute to it" - the word "it", here could refer to both the former and latter sentence and is ambiguos
4. "social conventions"
5. "world-view" and why it is "held".
Your argument in logic form:
1. If p then q
2. If q then r
3. All r is I
4. p
---
5. I
Valid objections include:
1. Not r
2. All r not I
3. Not q
4. Some r not I
Unsupported conclusions:
1. "For truth to have innate value there would need to exist some transient structure or entity that assigns this value to truth in the universe"
2. "It is illogical to claim truth has this value that makes it important"
Wiht respect to:
In the above, you have effectively disagreed with the statement "the qulaity of life (materialistic) has an intrinsic value", without providing an adequate objection.
You have not shown that a complex arrangement of material does not have a soul (materialistic soul), or that a complex arrangement of matterial has no intrinsic value without a soul, or that a complex arrangement of material needs a soul to have intrinsic value, that is, a soul is the intrinsically valuable thing; - which is what is needed to object to the first statement.
Constructive criticism delivered.
EDIT: Clarity.
This is the big one. Because if you're honest, the atheistic "world view" contains nothing, except for the disbelief in theism. There's no rules for how to get there. People don't need to make sense. You're rejecting claims by definition, not making them.
So which web site are you copying this material from anyway?
=
One that apparently doesn't have a recipe for how the quote function works on JUST ABOUT EVERY FORUM. :P
I understand that english may not be your first language, so there is a good deal of points that you may think are answered, but are in fact not.
Regardless of what you said after your OP, the idea of an atheistic world view is about as useless as a theistic world view. For example:
Many atheists are agnostic when it comes to pre-Big Bang hypothesis or propositions. The above premise is actually false - meaning that your argument is invalid. Your conclusion may be right, but your reasoning is flawed, and since it is the reasoning that does the convincing in any argument, you will fail to convince opponents of your conclusions.
This is in fact a strawman, as mentioned earlier. Premise 2 can be shown to be false (eg. some atheists are agnostic, or weak atheists). That aside, for the strong atheists, who actually holds the opinion that there is nothing outside of the material, you have not shown that the "quantity" you refer to as "truth" is in fact immaterial and hence would contradict a materialistic world view.
IOW, why is truth a quantity that exists outside of this universe, i.e. is immaterial?
Moreover, you are trying to prove that "it is illogical to claim truth has this value that makes it important", but you use this statement as both a premise and a conclusion. This means your argument is circular at best, or question begging at worst. Strictly speaking, it is just a bunch of statments in the first place, so very little in the way of logical operations can be performed.
I am not sure if you intended it or not, but by your own argument, emotions, politics, feelings, morals and ethics (to name just a few) also become meaningless concepts. You will have a hard time convincing an atheist with a bad temper and a materialistic world view that they are not in fact angry because they don't believe in God and cannot have emotions - but good luck!
It's a mystery.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
They whole point of this debate is to talk about whether or not atheists, who try to convince other people that there is no god, are hypocrites.
A hypocrite is someone whose actions disagree with what they say or believe.
As such, what that person says and/or believes, not what other people say and/or believe, is what is important in determining if that person is a hypocrite or not
Person P argues that person Q’s belief in external reality R is illogical because it is based on reason M.
Person P makes this argument because Person P believes in internal Ideal F based on reason M.
Person Q challenges person P saying that because both of them use reason M person P is a hypocrite.
Person P responds that because external reality R, and internal Ideal F are completely different they require different kinds of justification. Person P thinks that M is a valid justification for F but not for R.
Person P is not a hypocrite because Person P is consistent with his/her own beliefs. It is irrelevant Whether or not person Q shares these beliefs.
Atheists would only be hypocrites if they are criticising the Theist specifically for trying to change other's beliefs, rather than criticising the core beliefs of Theism, or their reasons for holding them.
If both claim to be using some common logic or evidence to support their argument, that is not hypocrisy, that is a disagreement over interpretation, and a normal justification for argument.
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
I wonder if MatthewH missed my post or can't respond to it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't even want to do that. Whatever they want to believe, fine with me.
But I will - with force if necessary - fight fiercely to keep "beliefs" out of politics and the school system.
Quite frankly, I find it offensive, indecent and gross. I feel no need to "explain" that any further.
These idiotic attempts at logic just makes an ass out of anyone who's gullible enough to take the bait.
And it makes a mockery out of the very idea of logic - which adds another insult to all the injury these people have caused.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Mine got lost too. One can only hope it made him realize something he didn't.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
'Self defence' is not at heart a rational deduction from a world-view, it follows from an instinct to survive, which is a basic 'wired-in' drive. Species that did not have some drive to survive, which inevitably would involve things like self-defence, would not tend to survive, so Darwinian selection would obviously apply.
It is also a clearly rational deduction if you have a desire to continue to experience life. If life really has become totally unpleasant and without hope, then it may not be. People, even people who believe in God, do commit suicide, after all. In fact, under such conditions, it would arguably be much more 'rational' for a believer in an afterlife to not resort to self defence. Deliberate suicide may be a 'sin', but not putting up an adequate resistance to physical attack is not.
The non-existence of God does not logically imply that "everything would just be rocks and dust". That is a total non-sequiter.
Even if you are referring to the value of things, not what they are composed of, it still does not follow. Value is an intrinsically subjective judgement, and not based on a purely rational assessment, in most cases, although it may be based on some empirical data. Stuff which we brings us enjoyment, helps us survive, like good food, and a comfortable shelter, clearly have value to us, for reasons which can be justified rationally.
Even the opinion that value is dependent on the assumed existence of a God is a personal subjective thing in itself, dependent on your world view.
The personal value an individual assigns to things is not something which is either 'correct' or 'incorrect', it is a simple fact. One could argue about any reasons that an individual would claim justifies the value they assign to things, but they won't automatically make sense to another individual with a different world-view and life experience.
Whether some idea has 'good' or 'bad' effects on that person's interactions with other people or even their own survival is something which can be assessed objectively, to some degree.
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
" Based on your world-view, why is Self defence rational?"
Because I desire to exist.
"Is it anymore more rational than the person who says “I want to eat you because i'm hungry and I figure you would taste the best”"
That sounds more like a matter of opinion than a matter of rationality. But if someone thinks I'll be a good meal then they'll have quite a fight on their hands.
The rest was to Sapient, though you attributed it to me by mistake.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Human beings are transient. We endure for a brief time and then we cease to exist.
I'd like to try something out here, someone please let me know if this is flawed, but:
With the premise that nothing can be properly defined without comparing it to something else, namely its opposite--a pretty standard principle of semantics--Truth must have value greater than its opposite, "Falsity," because something that's false has no value. In other words, something that's false doesn't mean what it proposes to mean, therefore it must mean essentially nothing. In this sense, Truth is the positive to Falsity's negative.
Might I be onto something here?
I don't see why not. However, that definition will not be accurate under all circumstances - another pretty standard feature of semantics.