Is there a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others of their view?

MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Is there a logical and rational reason for Atheists to want to convince others of their view?

 

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:

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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 Smiling

 

God bless!

 

-Matt

 

  

 


MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
 lol ok first time using

MOD: Fixed first post.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Because I'd rather be

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?

 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You have constructed a fine

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."


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Things have the value that

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.   


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Things have the

RatDog wrote:

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.   

One would think that this is quite obvious.  Of course, without this person's god-concept, apparently we're all at least as valuable as bricks and that truth has no value, nor does any other.  Shall I begin babbling inanely and throwing feces about?  Certainly not.  Of course, the OP realises the obvious,
MatthewH wrote:
The value others attribute to it is merely based on social conventions and personal views.
he just doesn't think that's a good enough reason, so therefor god.

 

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."


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:RatDog

Thomathy wrote:

RatDog wrote:

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.   

One would think that this is quite obvious.  Of course, without this person's god-concept, apparently we're all at least as valuable as bricks and that truth has no value, nor does any other.  Shall I begin babbling inanely and throwing feces about?  Certainly not.  Of course, the OP realises the obvious,
MatthewH wrote:
The value others attribute to it is merely based on social conventions and personal views.
he just doesn't think that's a good enough reason, so therefor god.

 

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.  



 


MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Hey thanks for the
  • Hey thanks for the responses!  
  •  
  • yeah sorry I didn't search for the forums first! I don't quite see how my argument is a straw man, which part is? It's based on the idea that objects and concepts within an atheistic world-view can't have objective innate value. (Which I think is true, or do you hold that they can have innate,or maybe more accurately stated, objective value. Yes I agree things can defiantly have personal relative value with in an atheistic frame work, I don't have a problem with that, but I wanted to make the point that views like that are by nature subjective, relative and not based on logic.
  • Which I think is what I was trying to get at that the very motivation behind atheists trying to persuade people of what they believe to be rational, is itself based on the irrational ie. Relative personal value attached to concepts such truth and what is right and wrong etc. 
  •  
  • Not sure how to use quotes yet but Thomathy made the statement
  • "“he just doesn't think that's a good enough reason, so therefor god.”
  • I just wanted to clarify that I didn't post this as a reason to believe in God, more as a reason to show why I think “active atheist-ism” the type who try and convert you, by its own world-view, has no rational motivation for existing.
  •  
  • To RatDog – sorry maybe materialism wasn't the best word to use, but I was looking for a word that  described the world view that says “there is no supernatural element to our reality” (if anyone does know what that is called would be helpful in the future Smiling )
  •  
  • RatDog you also said. “Even if there was a god I don't see why those gods’ values would somehow, magically, be worth more than mine. “
  • I would say that if a God did exist, then our universe would have these built in innate values to things. Therefore it is possible to say that God's opinion is more valid than yours.
  •  
  • You then might say, well isn't that because God set those innate values like that and therefore those values are just the relative views of God.
  • And I guess I'd have to say, yes they are but since the whole universe would be created and run of the values God decided, God's decision would be come the objective truth, because, well he made it like that akin the same way he would of decided to make lgiht travel at  299 792 458 meters a second.
  •  
  • Lol look at me using bullet points to format my text, i'm such a noob Sticking out tongue
 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:Lol look at

MatthewH wrote:

  • Lol look at me using bullet points to format my text, i'm such a noob Sticking out tongue

 

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?


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:Hey thanks

MatthewH wrote:

  • Hey thanks for the responses!  
  •  
  • yeah sorry I didn't search for the forums first! I don't quite see how my argument is a straw man, which part is? It's based on the idea that objects and concepts within an atheistic world-view can't have objective innate value. (Which I think is true, or do you hold that they can have innate,or maybe more accurately stated, objective value. Yes I agree things can defiantly have personal relative value with in an atheistic frame work, I don't have a problem with that, but I wanted to make the point that views like that are by nature subjective, relative and not based on logic.

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?

MatthewH wrote:

  • To RatDog – sorry maybe materialism wasn't the best word to use, but I was looking for a word that  described the world view that says “there is no supernatural element to our reality” (if anyone does know what that is called would be helpful in the future Smiling )

It's ok, perhaps I was a little bit to sensitive.

MatthewH wrote:

  •  
  • RatDog you also said. “Even if there was a god I don't see why those gods’ values would somehow, magically, be worth more than mine. “
  • I would say that if a God did exist, then our universe would have these built in innate values to things. Therefore it is possible to say that God's opinion is more valid than yours.
  •  
  • You then might say, well isn't that because God set those innate values like that and therefore those values are just the relative views of God.
  • And I guess I'd have to say, yes they are but since the whole universe would be created and run of the values God decided, God's decision would be come the objective truth, because, well he made it like that akin the same way he would of decided to make lgiht travel at  299 792 458 meters a second.

  

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.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:Hey thanks

MatthewH wrote:

  • Hey thanks for the responses!  
  •  
  • yeah sorry I didn't search for the forums first! I don't quite see how my argument is a straw man, which part is? It's based on the idea that objects and concepts within an atheistic world-view can't have objective innate value. (Which I think is true, or do you hold that they can have innate,or maybe more accurately stated, objective value. Yes I agree things can defiantly have personal relative value with in an atheistic frame work, I don't have a problem with that, but I wanted to make the point that views like that are by nature subjective, relative and not based on logic.

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 donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
To RatDog:Yeah the candy bar
  • To RatDog:
  • Yeah the candy bar would taste good. I'm using innate value just to describe a property of an object, concept or entity that is not dependent upon interpretation.
  • So for example an innate property of a certain apple would be that it is made up of a 1,735,632 atoms. That would be an objective fact of reality.
  •  
  •  
  • Wikipedia which redirects me to intrinsic when I search for innate sums it up better than me
  • “The term intrinsic denotes a property of some thing or action which is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence.”
  •  
  •  
  • RatDog said: “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?”
  •  
  • I would say from my Christian World-view that it is God who defines innate values of things, such as the innate-worth of human life, or the innate value of truth (the fact that truth is important because God says its important).
  • I would say from my worldview nothing has any value outside of God, so if God said something was worthless it would be worthless – as for would it still have that innate value if God didn't exist – well my world-view falls apart totally if God doesn't exist, but I'd say yeah it wouldn't have that innate value because God wouldn't be there to assign it.
  •  
  •  
  • RatDog said: “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?”
  •  
  • I think ideas such as valuing truth, if they are not based on logical reasoning with in the context of your world-view, then those ideas are irrational because they are not based on logic only on personal feelings. (Not sure if I completely understand the question, want to avoid being annoying and going around in circles,) 
  •  
  • If you value truth for any subjective/relative reason eg.  “It makes me feel good”
  • Then technically how can you avoid being a hypocrite/contradictory to your own world-view when you build an argument and attempt to apply it based on the motivation that it is true or the truth.
  • You can't be an honest advocate of logic if the very reason you are an advocate of logic is its self illogical.
  •  
  •  
  • If you pose the argument that people should not believe in fairy tales, yet the very reason you think that they should not believe in fairy tales is based upon a fairy tale then you are being an intellectual hypocrite.
  •  
  • I'm not saying that atheists don't value truth, I'm just saying the reasons they value truth are illogical.
  •  
  • Can I ask why do you personally value truth? Why is it important to you? And do you think your reasoning for valuing truth is based on sound logic, if so how?
  •  
  • (who knows maybe I've missed the plot! But lets see where this goes Smiling &nbspEye-wink
  •  

 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:• RatDog

MatthewH wrote:


• RatDog said: “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?”

• I would say from my Christian World-view that it is God who defines innate values of things, such as the innate-worth of human life, or the innate value of truth (the fact that truth is important because God says its important).
• I would say from my worldview nothing has any value outside of God, so if God said something was worthless it would be worthless – as for would it still have that innate value if God didn't exist – well my world-view falls apart totally if God doesn't exist, but I'd say yeah it wouldn't have that innate value because God wouldn't be there to assign it.

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.

MatthewH wrote:


• RatDog said: “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?”

• I think ideas such as valuing truth, if they are not based on logical reasoning with in the context of your world-view, then those ideas are irrational because they are not based on logic only on personal feelings. (Not sure if I completely understand the question, want to avoid being annoying and going around in circles,)

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.

MatthewH wrote:

• If you value truth for any subjective/relative reason eg. “It makes me feel good”
• Then technically how can you avoid being a hypocrite/contradictory to your own world-view when you build an argument and attempt to apply it based on the motivation that it is true or the truth.
• You can't be an honest advocate of logic if the very reason you are an advocate of logic is its self illogical.

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.
MatthewH wrote:


• If you pose the argument that people should not believe in fairy tales, yet the very reason you think that they should not believe in fairy tales is based upon a fairy tale then you are being an intellectual hypocrite.

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.

MatthewH wrote:


• I'm not saying that atheists don't value truth, I'm just saying the reasons they value truth are illogical

I think that we have some difference in our concept of what is or is not logical.
MatthewH wrote:


• Can I ask why do you personally value truth? Why is it important to you? And do you think your reasoning for valuing truth is based on sound logic, if so how?

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.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
People who believe in gods

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote: If you take

MatthewH wrote:
If you take an atheistic materialistic world-view then truth has no innate value.

 

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


Hesus
Posts: 3
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
 In answer to the original

wtf

 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?

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote: Hey, just

MatthewH wrote:

 

Hey, just like to pose the question whether there is a logical and rational reason for Atheists...<SNIP>

funny pictures of cats with captions

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:I'm not

MatthewH wrote:
I'm not saying that atheists don't value truth, I'm just saying the reasons they value truth are illogical.

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


MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
 oo wow a lot of
  •  oo wow a lot of responses!
  •  
  • How do I do quotes by the way? 
  •  
  • RatDog said:
  • 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. 
  •  
  •  
  • Ok, so in the context of some atheists wanting to convince others of truth . 
  • The reason they think they should do this is because they value truth.
  • The reason they value truth, is not because they think externally truth has any intrinsic value.
  • They value truth because... is makes them feel good? (or some other internal argument like that)
  •  
  • Or Because they value it because they think truth makes the world a better place.
  • They think making the world a better place is important because they life is valuable to them.
  • Life is valuable to them not because they think externally life has any intrinsic value but based on some relative internal opinion such as because it makes them feel good? (or some other internal argument like that)
  •  
  • Is this a fair picture? 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • RatDog said:
  • "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."
  •  
  • Yeah that was a mistake on my part. I defiantly agree personal feelings are not fairy tales.
  •  
  • Maybe what I was trying to express should go more like:
  •  
  •  
  • Person X thinks person Y only believe in Z because it makes them feel good.
  •  
  • Then if person X were to argue that person Y should not believe in Z yet the reason they argued this was because it makes them feel good, then person X is being intellectually hypocritical in how and why they are motivated. 
  • Person X's argument may be sound, but the reason they are posing the argument is not.
  •  
  • Person X is telling Person Y not to believe Z, because they think person X only believes Z because of reason W and Person X thinks reason W is not a valid reason to believe something. Yet the reason they believe W is not a valid reason to believe is something is itself based on W.
  • Therefore they are confessing they believe that W is not a reason to hold a view, yet the very reason they hold that view is based on W (or any argument as equivalently weak)
  •  
  • Therefore person X is being self-contradictory which is illogical.
  •  
  • Hmm think that's what I'm trying to say, lol although I may be straw manning you, i'm just thinking and think I could be wrong in my argument. Does that hold water for you? If not why?
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • To Marquis:
  •  
  • Marquis said:
  • 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? 
  •  
  • No I don't think we are capable of completely  perceiving reality.
  • However just because you can't totally perceive reality it doesn't mean you can have any truth at all.
  •  
  •  
  • Marquis said:
  • There is no such thing as "truth".
  • There is only perception and perspective.
  •  
  • Well is that statement the truth or just your perspective? Eye-wink Sticking out tongue If its not the truth just your perspective I'm perfectly entitled to say there is such a thing as absolute truth Smiling
  • If your statement is true and not just a perspective then your statement is self contradictory.
  •  
  • (I may be wrong here but were you saying there is no such thing as absolute truth? Are you sure that it is absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth? Sticking out tongue because I can't speak a word of English )
  •  
  •  
  • Marquis said: (about believers)
  • “My personal problem with "believers" is that belief is all they've got. Nothing but fantasy and gobbeldygook “
  • “In effect, they are insane.”
  •  
  • I'd like to say that's a straw man. I don't just believe because I believe and I don't just believe because it makes me feel good.  I'd say, in the context of this thread,, I have seen external evidence pointing to external truths Smiling  [although not going to go of subject and get into a mega debate about that]
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • To Hesus :
  • If I allow someone to suffer because of inaction then I am guilty of causing that suffering 
  •  
  • From an atheistic world view why is it “wrong” to be guilty of causing someone to suffer?
  • This just goes back to the same argument of is it a valid reason to value truth or to value life because you feel you should?
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • To Abu Lahab :
  • Lol, what is cat like typing? I'm guessing this is not referring to my natural agility and unmistakeable feline like prowess Sticking out tongue
  •  
  • wooo bullet points FTW!

 


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote:How do I do

MatthewH wrote:

  • How do I do quotes by the way?  

 

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


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
MatthewH wrote: To Abu

MatthewH wrote:

  •  To Abu Lahab :
  • Lol, what is cat like typing? I'm guessing this is not referring to my natural agility and unmistakeable feline like prowess Sticking out tongue
  •  

 

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


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I&rsquo;m sorry, I thought I

I’m sorry, I thought I explained this last, time let me try again.

MatthewH wrote:

• Person X thinks person Y only believe in Z because it makes them feel good.

• Then if person X were to argue that person Y should not believe in Z yet the reason they argued this was because it makes them feel good, then person X is being intellectually hypocritical in how and why they are motivated.
• Person X's argument may be sound, but the reason they are posing the argument is not.

• Person X is telling Person Y not to believe Z, because they think person X only believes Z because of reason W and Person X thinks reason W is not a valid reason to believe something. Yet the reason they believe W is not a valid reason to believe is something is itself based on W.
• Therefore they are confessing they believe that W is not a reason to hold a view, yet the very reason they hold that view is based on W (or any argument as equivalently weak)

• Therefore person X is being self-contradictory which is illogical.

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.


 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 If a truth isn't at least

 If a truth isn't at least grounded in reality, you may just have a delusion of the truth. 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
With respect to the OP, if

With respect to the OP, if you want a logic 101 spin on it:

Quote:
 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

 

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:

Quote:
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

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.

 

Quote:
Constructive critique of this argument is welcome Smiling

Constructive criticism delivered. Smiling

 

 EDIT: Clarity.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote: There are

jumbo1410 wrote:

 

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

 

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.   

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So which web site are you

So which web site are you copying this material from anyway?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

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


MatthewH
Posts: 7
Joined: 2010-01-07
User is offlineOffline
 Answers in Gene wrote:So

 

Answers in Gene wrote:

So which web site are you copying this material from anyway?  
Nah, these are just my own ramblings Smiling 
stuntgibbon wrote:
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.   
wiktionary wrote:
Nounworldview (plural worldviews)1.One's personal view of the world and how one interprets it.2.The totality of one's beliefs about reality.3.A general philosophy or view of life.
  •  
  • I think it is fair to say that the common elements of an Atheistic worldview held by the majority of atheists contains moreimplicit beliefs about reality than "no belief in a God" such as “No belief in the super-natural” such things can be extended to logically show that the beliefs of the world view have many more implicit ideas and beliefs floating around.
  •  
  • To  RatDog
  • Ok I think I get you now Smiling
  •  
  • Moving on,
 
RatDog wrote:
  • ...
  • 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.
  • ...
 
  • Don't you therefore fall into the trap that
  • Person P disagrees with Person Q on an idea R.
  • Person P says there is insufficient external evidence for person Q to believe in idea R
  • Person Q can challenge person P why they think you* need sufficient external evidence to justify belief in external concepts.
  • Person P is then stuck as they have no external justification for that idea, only an internal one, “such as truth is valuable, we should only believe in what is true. I believe this because I like truth”
  •  
  • *i think here is a problem, person P is safe persuading themselves based on internal realities.
  • Such as I like truth therefore I must acquire and proper-gate truth.
  • However since it is an internal truth, which is internally known not be grounded in any external reality, the minute you try and use that internal truth as the basis of justification for any argument on another person you fall down as it known internally that it has no foundations on external realities and therefore can not proper-gate to another being.
  •  
  • To jumbo1410 
  •  
  • Hey thanks for that Smiling
 
jumbo1410 wrote:
  • 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".
  •  
  •  
  • 2. think gave the definition in later post.
  • 3.it refers to truth.
  • 4..just the general social normative beliefs about truth in of the society. eg. In our soceity truth is considered something to be valued.
  • 5.
    wiktionary wrote:
  • Noun
  • worldview (plural worldviews)
  • 4.One's personal view of the world and how one interprets it.
  • 5.The totality of one's beliefs about reality.
  • 6.A general philosophy or view of life.
  •  
    jumbo1410 wrote:
    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" 
     
    •  
    • Ok not going to try here to prove 1.
    •  
    • but will show that 2. is true when working from an atheistic world-view .
    •  
    • Working from an atheistic world-view 
    •  
    • 1. I make the presupposition that there is no intelligent or moral force behind the creation of universe.
    • 2. Also make the presupposition thatthe universe contains only the: Set of all physical laws and the Set of all Materials (eg. The energy,time and space that supports matter etc. anything that physically exists)
    • 3.Beyond those two sets there is nothing else in the universe and all perceived objects,systems and entities are built from these two sets.
    • Eg. Rocks exists because of the complex combination of physical laws and material components of the universe. 
    • Eg. People exist because of the complex combination of physical laws and material components.
    •  
    • If I then make the claim with in this world view that some quantity exists that is outside the set of 
    •  all physical laws and the set of all Materials, I then contradict assumption 2, showing either the assumption is wrong or that the claim is wrong.
    •  

     


    jumbo1410
    Theist
    Posts: 166
    Joined: 2009-07-25
    User is offlineOffline
    I understand that english

    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.

    Quote:
    2. (I) think gave the definition (of an atheist world view) in (a) later post.

    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:

     

    Quote:
    2. Also make the presupposition that the universe contains only the set of all physical laws and the Set of all Materials (eg. The energy,time and space that supports matter etc. anything that physically exists)

    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.

     

    Quote:
    If I then make the claim with in this world view that some quantity exists that is outside the set of all physical laws and the set of all Materials, I then contradict assumption 2, showing either the assumption is wrong or that the claim is wrong.

    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!


    Marquis
    atheist
    Marquis's picture
    Posts: 776
    Joined: 2009-12-23
    User is offlineOffline
    MatthewH wrote: Are you sure

    MatthewH wrote:
    Are you sure that it is absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

     

    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


    RatDog
    atheist
    Posts: 573
    Joined: 2008-11-14
    User is offlineOffline
    They whole point of this

    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.     

     


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Atheists would only be

    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


    Vastet
    atheistBloggerSuperfan
    Vastet's picture
    Posts: 13211
    Joined: 2006-12-25
    User is offlineOffline
    I wonder if MatthewH missed

    I wonder if MatthewH missed my post or can't respond to it.

    Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


    Marquis
    atheist
    Marquis's picture
    Posts: 776
    Joined: 2009-12-23
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1 wrote:criticising

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    criticising the core beliefs of Theism

     

     

    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


    Sapient
    High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
    Posts: 7580
    Joined: 2006-04-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Vastet wrote:I wonder if

    Vastet wrote:
    I wonder if MatthewH missed my post or can't respond to it.

    Mine got lost too.  One can only hope it made him realize something he didn't.

    Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

    Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


    MatthewH
    Posts: 7
    Joined: 2010-01-07
    User is offlineOffline
     Hey, i have exam on monday

     

    • Hey, i have exam on monday so don't want to be spending too much time on this forum at the moment  Smiling + it takes a long time to respond to every comment, 
    • although but since you said that will take the bait Eye-wink
    •  

    Vastet wrote:

    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.

    •  Based on your world-view, why is Self defence rational?
    • 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”
    •  

    Vastet wrote:

    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.

    • Thats nearly what i meant, if i didn't beleive in anything supernatural then to my current reasoning there would be no rational reason to justify valuing anything, everything would just be rocks and dust. Why would my wellbeing etc. matter if i was basically the same as the dust and rocks?

    Vastet wrote:

     mischaracterized every atheist I've ever known.

    • Lol, notice i didn't say atheists didn't value anything, they clearly do. (I think I stated that previously, maybe before you made you post, not sure) I was just saying there reasons for valuing anything, based on there own world view, are unfounded and purely based on irrational emotions and not sound logical arguments. 
    • If you say you think truth is valuable because of some internal reason then you are no more “correct” in the context of the world view and can not put forward a sound argument against the view of a person who says “I think truth has no value because thinking that makes me feel good”
    •  

     


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    'Self defence' is not at

    '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


    Vastet
    atheistBloggerSuperfan
    Vastet's picture
    Posts: 13211
    Joined: 2006-12-25
    User is offlineOffline
    " Based on your world-view,

    " 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.

    Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


    Gauche
    atheist
    Gauche's picture
    Posts: 1565
    Joined: 2007-01-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Human beings are transient.

    Human beings are transient. We endure for a brief time and then we cease to exist.


    smartypants
    Superfan
    smartypants's picture
    Posts: 597
    Joined: 2009-03-20
    User is offlineOffline
    I'd like to try something

    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?


    jumbo1410
    Theist
    Posts: 166
    Joined: 2009-07-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:I'd like to try

    Quote:
    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.