1.There's no connection between Communism and Atheism
Firstly,Communism was invented by atheists (Marx and Engel)[1][2],thus making it a subcategory of atheism.Secondly,self- professed atheist leaders of communist regimes like Stalin,Lenin et al were actively promoting Dialectal Materialism,which is explicitly atheistic[3].Lastly,the Antireligious Museum of the Soviet Union was the main centre for atheist propoganda and is testimony to the preferred belief system of that regime.
[I refer to atheism as a belief system because it's purely faith-based,unsupported by either logic or evidence]
2.Communists did not kill in the name of atheism
After showing atheists the overwhelming evidence for the correlation between atheism and communism,they will concede but with some reservation and retort their favorite mantra of..."yes,but they did not kill in the name of atheism".This mantra is nothing but word games which atheists are very fond of playing.
To kill in the name of a cause simply means to advance a particular cause through bloodshed,be it religious or political.Why should atheists be exempted from this charge?
3.North Korea is not an Atheist nation
I really don't blame atheists for wanting to reject North Korea,since it has one of the worst (if not the worst) ongoing Human Rights violations.The list of HR violations include infanticide,genocide,censorship and forced labor[4].But is this rejection warranted or is it merely through embarrassment?
The atheist's usual deceptive ploy is to show a clip on You Tube of a small group of people worshipping their leader and thus religion gets the blame.Firstly,what a small group of people do is not representative of the population as a whole.In the States for example,there's a tiny minority of Jedi worshippers.Does this mean all of America adhere to Jediism?Of course not,especially when there's a plethora of objective statistics and reports validating a predominantly atheist/irreligious North Korea[5][6][7][8][9][10].
The atheist is also committing a fallacy of hasty generalization where the conclusion is drawn from a small sample size,rather than looking at the broader population.Be sure to check the reference section below.
4.We are all born atheists
Also known as the default position.In other words,because no one is born with memories or knowledge of God therefore atheism is the default position.Lack of memory is due to an unawareness of knowledge and in infants it is due to the fact that the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus and the frontal components of the neural network are not fully developed .And lack of knowledge is ignorance.Here the atheist has equated his own position with ignorance,but instead of being abashed at this state of benightedness,the atheist proudly displays and even celebrates his ignorance in public.
5.Galileo,Copernicus,Descartes,et al were closet atheists
Atheist sites are littered with claims of famous theist scientists,philosophers and mathematicians who have made significant contributions to their respective fields as being closet atheists.This is of course wishful thinking and the onus is on the claimant to substantiate this pretence.One of the main reasons atheists refer to those brilliant minds,such as Galilieo,Copernicus,Descartes,Kant,Newton and Bacon as closet atheists is to disparage theism and dualism as much as possible by distancing any and all influential intellectuals from being associated with God and maintaining an 'intellectual superiority' exclusively reserved for atheists.Einstein,for example,was an ex-atheist turned Deist,yet atheist sites still celebrate Einsten as an atheist,which is both intellectually dishonest as well as historically fraudulent.And no,Deism is not a similar to atheism,which is another lie perpetuated by atheists and an attempt to appropriate intellectuals for atheist validation.Deists believe the design of the universe presupposes a Designer[11].
6.Atheists have never killed scientists
The Lysenko period during Soviet rule saw Stalin impose a 16 year terror on many scientists.They were imprisoned,tortured and murdered for endorsing Mendelian genetics[12].The politcal view of that era regarded Mendelian genetics as a threat to the atheistic philosophy of Determinism.Stalin was also appalled that a priest was the founder and felt it could undermine the efforts of the antireligious campaigns[13].Albanian communists too had their share of intellectual theists
murdered,as it was feared they posed a threat to the regime's
ideological views[14]
But the worst terror inflicted upon intellectuals came from Pol Pot's Khmr Rouge.The militant atheist had all intellectuals as well as people who could read and write and those who wore glasses executed because he thought it made them look smart[15][16].
7.Atheists are good without God
This is another favorite atheist mantra that's spouted so often,it deserves to be examined.The unstated assumptions of this mantra is that atheism is in possession of moral precepts which allow atheists to judge whether behaviors are good or bad.For an atheist to be 'good without God', his moral principles must first meet certain requirements that are consistent with his overall belief system.Since atheists claim science and logic as the only acceptable disciplines for acquiring knowledge,all assertions by the atheist must meet these criterias.Failure to produce any scientific evidence for atheist morality, means atheism is a moral void and all ethical codes have been appropriated from theists:
(i) First and foremost,atheist moral principles must be exhibited by reference to laws of nature.They must be quantifiable,empirical,falsifiable and independently replicable.
(ii)They must be logically coherent.Atheists must rationally demonstrate how morality can exist without free will,according to the doctrine of determinism.
(iii)Lastly,atheist morality must be universal,objective and unconditioned.That is,they must be true and applicable to all people at all times and in all circumstances.
8.Ridicule does refute theist arguments
This tactic is encouraged by all atheist intellectuals,celebs and blog owners.It is passed off as a method of logic,valid for refuting theist propositions.
Here are some problems with using ridicule:
(a)Not a single logic textbook prescribes the use of ridicule as constituting good reasoning.As a matter of fact,ridicule violates a number of logic principles - namely,the Principle of Charitable Interpretation;which requires the arguer to interpret the opposition's views in the best possible light.The consequence of violatng this principle leads to the arguer attacking a straw man or caricature of the opponent's actual position,when in fact there are stronger arguments available.
(b)Ridicule is also a form of bullying,where the atheist believes his position is superior and attempts to defeat his opponent with shame and humiliation by using false comparisons and analogies instead of factual arguments and correct reasoning.
(c)By substituting ridicule for actual deductive reasoning,the atheist has exposed his lack of comprehension for the discipline of logic and disdain for truth.
9.Only Atheists are skeptical
Once again,the atheist has placed himself in a position of superior intellect and gallantry.Unlike theists, who will believe anything,only the atheist dares to question.
But the fact of the matter is,everyone is skeptical to a certain degree and everyone has faith and certitude.The difference between rational theists and atheists is,the former admits his true position on certain subjects while the latter remains in denial,much like dogmatic theists.Atheists don't question their beliefs in pseudo-scientific hypotheses.(as we shall soon see below in lie no.10)
Claiming skepticism as an only valid method for discovery is nothing to be proud of because it can't lead to knowledge which requires some certainty.Excessive skepticism leads to pathological skepticism.
10.Atheist beliefs are verified by scientific facts
So what exactly do atheists believe,besides their rejection of God and are those beliefs really empirically verifiable?Atheists hold numerous unproven beliefs but I'll list the 4 most common below:
(i)Atheists believe humans don't have free will,it's an illusion.This stems from the philosophical concepts of determinism.All human actions are predetermined by prior arrangements of particles.There have been some experiments,such as Libet et al but they've been adequately refuted by other dualists ,as the data has been highly extrapolated to match a priori conclusions of the materialist[17].
(ii)Atheists believe consciousness is an illusion and cannot exert any causal influence.All mental activity is reducible to the material and the mind is commonly equated with a machine.Another irrational unproven assumption,when the evidence from neurobiology shows that mind is able to affect matter.[18][19].
(iii)Atheists believe in the immaculate conception of the universe.That is,the universe was born out of nothing.Yet the atheist has failed to show any examples of something being created from non-existence.Instead,the atheist has resorted to redefining nothing as meaning the quantum vacuum but even that has shown to be merely fallacious.
(iv)Atheists believe in the miracle of abiogenesis.Life was born from minerals in a chemical soup.There has been no empirical evidence to date supporting this superstition garbed in scientific language.
REFERENCES:
1.Karl Marx Religious Views
2.Friederich Engles Religious Views
3.Dialectical Materialism
4.North Korea UN Report
5.North Korea Non-Religious
6.NK Mainly Atheist
7.NK Non-Religious
8.NK Atheist
9.NK Irreligious
10.NK Largely Atheist
11. Deism Defined
12.Trofim Lysenko
13.Soviets and Genetics
14.Albanian History
15.Pol Pot's Crimes
16.Pol Pot Biography
17.New Scientist:Free Will
18.Mind Does Matter
19.Effect of Mind on Brain
I realize this is old, but I just found it and though it would be fun to comment. I am an atheist and o ut of 10 "lies" and 4 "beliefs verified by scientific fact", you have accurately represented 1 claim of mine (#4) and 1 point that seems relevant (#7). The rest are arguing things I have not heard or I do not agree with.
ReplyDeleteBefore we get started, I would like to state that one commonality that I have seen in many skeptics (and atheists) is that they are willing to abandon an old belief in light of new evidence. I do know some atheists who still have dogmatic beliefs and rationalizations of those beliefs, but that is a hinderence of theirs, in my opinion. We humans create and hold on to biases all the time. One of the hardest things for us to do is recognize them and abandon them when they are not accurate. It is something that I attempt (and fail) at often, but I will continue to strive for it.
1. I don't see the relevance. An idea is good or bad on its own merits (depending on the goal). This is the same argument as "Christians are responsible for the inquisition", which I throw out in the same way. Bad people using ideas to poorly justify action does not reflect at all on the idea they are using.
2. same argument as #1. Instead of communists killing in the name of atheism, use nazi's ("Gott mit uns") killing in the name of Christianity. It does not follow that Atheism is responsible just as Christianity was not responsible.
3. same argument as #1. Instead of North Korea, substitute West Baptist Church (I know, it's a church vs an entire country, but I don't think the scale has any bearing on the counter argument.
4. Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. Either the statement "all babies are atheists" is true or there is a baby that was born believing in god. I don't see a third option, but i'm open if you have one. I have heard of no evidence even suggesting this is true. Moreover, I have heard of no evidence of a child believing in a god without it being taught to them in some manner. Belief in a god only comes after a child can comprehend what someone else teaches them.
5. That does not concern me. Whether they were atheists or not, they contributed greatly to our understanding of reality. As such, they should be commended for that. Their views should be scrutinized and the ones that pass should be held until they are refuted somehow. This has nothing to do with a belief in a deity or lack-thereof.
6. This seems like a strawman. I personally have never heard of this; I disagree with it, and I find irrelevant. I'm sure many people of many beliefs have killed many other types of people for many reasons. I do not see a case for 'if you are an atheist, you must kill people' which is the only way I think this could be relevant.
7.This is relevant and warrants a conversation. Because of post size, this will be in a different comment.
8. Again, we are in agreement. Ridicule does not necessarily refute an argument, unless the argument was formed in a way that ridicules. Ridicule, however, is a form of retort and some people (on any side of most any argument) choose to use it and enjoy it. I personally enjoy discussing the topic instead of ridiculing ideas and/or people. cd
9. Anyone can be skeptical on one topic and dogmatic on another. I honestly have heard no one say "Only Atheists are skeptical" but I wholeheartedly agree with you that skepticism and atheism are not necessarily linked. Personally, I think the less dogmatic we are, the more we can navigate the world in an intellectually healthy manner.
10. Again, this seems like a strawman. Saying someone is an atheist tells you nothing of their beliefs on anything other than their assessment on the evidence for a god or gods. Buddhists are atheists. Again, because of post length, this will be in a separate comment.
ReplyDelete#7.
you state "Failure to produce any scientific evidence for atheist morality...". I do not think that all evidence has to be scientific, in that, multiple falsifiable hypothesis are formed; then each hypothesis is attempt to be shown as incorrect; the suspected correct hypothesis are peer reviewed with more scrutiny to attempt to be falsified; the still standing hypothesis are deemed as a high confidence value of being true. We CANNOT have this intellectual rigor for each decision we make throughout the day. However, we CAN make all decisions based on some sort of evidence. For example, I have evidence that if I were to attempt to cross a busy street with my eyes closed, there is a high probability I will not make it. This evidence is in the form of my observations of human reaction times, current breaking and steering technologies, strength of my frail human body, etc. These are not scientific evidences, although I am sure I could find scientific evidences for each.
Regarding morality, that can fall in the same bucket of evidences. In a godless worldview, we can empirically study human (and non-human) well-being/suffering and come up with ideas to optimize it. Then we can construct a moral system based on that information. the more information we have, the higher the well being and the lower the suffering we can introduce in our world.
If good is defined as increasing the well-being of other creatures, than I would be objectively good. If good is defined as "following the will of a god" or something like that, then there is no concept of good for an atheist.
#7
Deleteyou state "Failure to produce any scientific evidence for atheist morality...". I do not think that all evidence has to be scientific, in that, multiple falsifiable hypothesis are formed; then each hypothesis is attempt to be shown as incorrect; the suspected correct hypothesis are peer reviewed with more scrutiny to attempt to be falsified; the still standing hypothesis are deemed as a high confidence value of being true. We CANNOT have this intellectual rigor for each decision we make throughout the day. However, we CAN make all decisions based on some sort of evidence. For example, I have evidence that if I were to attempt to cross a busy street with my eyes closed, there is a high probability I will not make it. This evidence is in the form of my observations of human reaction times, current breaking and steering technologies, strength of my frail human body, etc. These are not scientific evidences, although I am sure I could find scientific evidences for each
It is the demand of Atheists placed on theists that all claims be empirically verified.God,it is often said must pass certain experiments under laboratory conditions and replicated independently and sometimes peer reviewed is thrown in for good measure in order to be considered an actual entity.You are asking to be excluded from this criterion.A classic case of special pleading.No amount of syllogistic reasoning can convince a Materialist of God's reality,only what can be proven materially.
===
Regarding morality, that can fall in the same bucket of evidences. In a godless worldview, we can empirically study human (and non-human) well-being/suffering and come up with ideas to optimize it. Then we can construct a moral system based on that information. the more information we have, the higher the well being and the lower the suffering we can introduce in our world
Sure but there is nothing in metaphysical naturalism that dictates why humanity as a whole should avoid suffering and incline towards well-being.In fact,in nature the well being of some species depend upon the suffering of other species.
===
If good is defined as increasing the well-being of other creatures, than I would be objectively good
But the state of well-being is essentially a subjective concept not agreed upon by all.I can consider myself living well with a 3 bedroom home,2 cars,a job I enjoy and a healthy family.While others prefer living alone in a mansion with a fleet of cars and hating the idea of being a 9 to 5 charlie.Anything less is considered poor and possibly suffering.It's also possible for crime families to occupy such states of wellness.Just because they may live well does not make them good.
If good is defined as "following the will of a god" or something like that, then there is no concept of good for an atheist
In Theism,God IS good.In other words,it's the nature of God that is the theist benchmark for morality and not neccessarily what God demands.
Strange, I wrote a reply, but it didn't post. Ah well... I'll start off by saying thanks for engaging in these conversations!
DeleteI do want to ask if you could help me understand "the nature of God" being used as a benchmark? how do we know what "the nature of God" is? I'm guessing the bible shows it to us (please correct me if I'm wrong). The world-wide flood showed us how God eradicated sin through righteous genocide. Is that an accurate depiction of His nature which we should use as a benchmark? It seems to me that if something is corrupted with sin, destroying/killing it would be moral, based on this benchmark.
I'm certain that is not the case, but I'm not sure how one doesn't follow from the other.
Can you help me understand this better?
DeleteThurston
DeleteHow do we know anything? Most of what we know to be true we learned from the relevant experts.The same applies to knowledge of God.There are people who have dedicated their lives to understanding God,namely theologians.There are also researchers into NDEs that provide a compelling case for God and the afterlife.Then there's the more controversial methods of knowing God,which I realize Atheists despise because it's completely subjective approach,such as prayer and meditation,intuition and personal experience.However,the cases from Near death experiences are one of the most reliable sources for learning about God and the afterlife.
Let's break this argument down:
DeleteP: "it's the nature of God that is the theist benchmark for morality"
T: "How do we know what 'the nature of God' is?"
P: "Most of what we know to be true we learned from... theologins... and NDE research"
Therefore, either
1. you are saying (directly) that our morals come from the conclusions determined by theologians, NDE research, and subjective methods.
or
2. you have dragged a red herring and completely evaded my question.
If you deny either the red herring or the direct conclusion, then you are being intellectually dishonest and this is a clear depiction of it.
ReplyDelete#10.
i. You have misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. An atheist does not have to believe in free will or believe there is no free will. For myself, I don't care. If my actions are predetermined based on determinate states of the universe, I appear to have free will. If there is a level of indeterminacy, I appear to have free will. Either way, my experience is the same. Practically speaking, it does me no good to ponder this. I do not believe we have free will and I do not believe we lack it. I don't have a belief on the matter. I DO believe it seems as though my will is free and therefore, that is what I use to behave.
ii. Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. Firstly, I don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. I think it is very real. My mind is very real. Secondly, I don't understand this argument or the references you site. It seems like you are saying (and the research you sited corresponds) that consciousness can affect the brain physically. And we know that the physical brain can affect ones consciousness. I don't think that is really in dispute. It seems as though you are arguing that the consciousness exists independent on the mind. I would love to believe that, however, it is quite an extraordinary claim since it is not clearly part of our existence. I don't see how your references demonstrate this, but I am certainly no nueroscientist. If I am mistaken about the evidence, I'd certainly appreciate some clarification.
iii. Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. I do not believe in the immaculate inception of the universe. I have no idea how the universe came to be, nor will I postulate some origin and defend with some dogmatic conviction. I do believe there is significant evidence for the big bang, however, I have not found any compelling evidence (a god or otherwise) that I can believe in regards to what initiated it.
iv. Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. I do not believe in abiogenesis. I think it is a very intriguing hypothesis, but, as you have accurately stated (as far as I'm aware), there is no conclusive evidence for it.
#10.
Deletei.You have misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. An atheist does not have to believe in free will or believe there is no free will. For myself, I don't care. If my actions are predetermined based on determinate states of the universe, I appear to have free will. If there is a level of indeterminacy, I appear to have free will. Either way, my experience is the same. Practically speaking, it does me no good to ponder this. I do not believe we have free will and I do not believe we lack it. I don't have a belief on the matter. I DO believe it seems as though my will is free and therefore, that is what I use to behave.
You are conveying your personal taste on these topics.I'm attacking Atheism/Materialism/Physicalism (these terms are often used interchangeably) as propogated by your public intellectuals.As far as the age old contention goes,if Dualism is true then people are free agents not constrained by cause and effect.If Materialism is true then all human actions are the result of previous conditions and factors over which we have no control and should therefore not be held morally responsible.
===
ii.Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. Firstly, I don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. I think it is very real. My mind is very real. Secondly, I don't understand this argument or the references you site. It seems like you are saying (and the research you sited corresponds) that consciousness can affect the brain physically. And we know that the physical brain can affect ones consciousness. I don't think that is really in dispute. It seems as though you are arguing that the consciousness exists independent on the mind. I would love to believe that, however, it is quite an extraordinary claim since it is not clearly part of our existence. I don't see how your references demonstrate this, but I am certainly no nueroscientist. If I am mistaken about the evidence, I'd certainly appreciate some clarification
Once again,you don't seem to be familiar with what your leaders are advocating.In philosophical discourse,consciousness is either non-physical and still able to exert causal influence on the material plane,which is dualism at play,or consciousness is physical according to Materialists and can be reduced to brain states or consciousness is non-existent according to the Atheist celeb,professor Daniel Dennet.
===
iii.Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. I do not believe in the immaculate inception of the universe. I have no idea how the universe came to be, nor will I postulate some origin and defend with some dogmatic conviction. I do believe there is significant evidence for the big bang, however, I have not found any compelling evidence (a god or otherwise) that I can believe in regards to what initiated it
Intersting,you do not believe the universe spontaneously erupted from nothing with rational laws and rational beings in it to observe them,then you most probably are a proponent of the Multiverse hypothesis?
===
iv.Again, you misstated at least one atheist's beliefs. I do not believe in abiogenesis. I think it is a very intriguing hypothesis, but, as you have accurately stated (as far as I'm aware), there is no conclusive evidence for it
Glad we could agree on that too
Yes, I am giving my personal ideas as a demonstration. You stated that "atheists say"... as an atheist, that generalization is demonstrably wrong. Saying "prominent atheists say" may be more accurate. If that is what you meant, please provide examples so we can discuss something tangible. Since there is no nebulous "atheists" out there, making claims like this seems like it is painting with too broad of a brush.
DeleteRegarding the specifics of your argument:
1. I know of no one who says that people are not held morally accountable because they are within a deterministic system. Furthermore that is not inherently true since, illusion or not, we appear to have free will, so we can be held morally accountable.
2. Thank you for providing an actual atheist to be held to the ideas you are providing. I was not aware of Dan Dennett's works. Judging from a brief 10 minute search (nearly not long enough, I'm sure), I was unable to find where he says that consciousness does not exist. I found some information of his suggestion that there is no qualia (a philosophical term that I have no idea about its meaning or implication). I am very unaware of Dan Dennett's ideas regarding that. Thank you for directing me there. Also, Dan Dennett is not my leader. He is a promanent atheist, and very outspoken, but I am not aware of any atheist "leaders" (other than the leaders of atheist-centric organizations). One person can have a whole lot of ideas on a whole lot of subjects. For that reason, there is disagreement even among the atheist community. It's ok for one person to not believe in a consciousness and another to disagree. Lumping it all under "atheists think this" or "atheists say that" is certainly not fair or accurate.
3. I am not a cosmologist. The multiverse hypothesis is very intriguing though there is no empirical data (from my understanding) that supports it yet... only math. I wouldn't say I'm a proponent of it. I think it is good that we are researching it and hopefully it produces some quality understandings of our universe (or... bigger?), but if it is false, then it is false. As of now, we don't know. There could yet be another hypothesis that comes up which yields evidence and become accepted. Or there may not ever be a valid scientific theory and we will never know. That is why I said "I have no idea how the universe began, nor will I postulate one". Thanks for the question! I like it!
Regarding the specifics of your argument:
Delete1. I know of no one who says that people are not held morally accountable because they are within a deterministic system. Furthermore that is not inherently true since, illusion or not, we appear to have free will, so we can be held morally accountable.
Very few Atheists would explicitly state that we are not morally responsible for our actions,just as thieves do not proclaim he's a thief or no irrational person would say his irrational.What is required is coherency,rationality,honesty and respect for logic.
Atheist philosophers teach certain concepts about Materialism and the nature of reality.They fully embrace the premises of naturalism but they do not accept it's full logical conclusion.If our actions are devoid of free will and are merely effects of prior states of particle motions and positions then it's only logical to conclude that we are not responsible for what we do.However,most Atheists cannot accept the conclusion,although they accept the premises.This is why I believe your Atheist intellectuals are charlatans.
===
2. Thank you for providing an actual atheist to be held to the ideas you are providing. I was not aware of Dan Dennett's works. Judging from a brief 10 minute search (nearly not long enough, I'm sure), I was unable to find where he says that consciousness does not exist
go here: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en
1. If our actions are devoid of free will and are merely effects of prior states of particle motions and positions then it's only logical to conclude that we are not responsible for what we do.
DeleteLet's say, hypothetically, that free will was an illusion and the universe was deterministic. That is to say, the "choices" I make are not really choices. Me robbing a bank would not really a choice. Me getting convicted would not be a choice of the jury. Me spending my life in jail would not be a choice of the judge. In this system, there is still the illusion of choice. There is also the illusion of consequence. Our experience of this doesn't change in the slightest. It still is rationally consistent. It would not be rationally consistent for our juries to be removed from the system to say "oh, it's just deterministic that he robbed the bank. He's deterministically free to leave."
2. Thanks for the link. I was unaware of his ted talk. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to watch it. Either way, I am much too ignorant on the subject to make a solid conclusion on whether or not consciousness (or free will for that matter) are illusions. I do think that at this point, the idea it is an illusion or the idea it is real are irrelevant.
Let's say, hypothetically, that free will was an illusion and the universe was deterministic. That is to say, the "choices" I make are not really choices. Me robbing a bank would not really a choice. Me getting convicted would not be a choice of the jury. Me spending my life in jail would not be a choice of the judge. In this system, there is still the illusion of choice. There is also the illusion of consequence. Our experience of this doesn't change in the slightest. It still is rationally consistent.
DeleteTheir is zero logical consitency in claiming an illusion is rational.An illusion is by definition a false appearance.To begin a premise with illusion is poisoning the well,since it has not yet been proven to be the case.Also,what exactly is the cause for the illusion,Drugs,brain damage or a short circuit in the hardwiring?
It would not be rationally consistent for our juries to be removed from the system to say "oh, it's just deterministic that he robbed the bank. He's deterministically free to leave."
Here you've demonstrated that determinism is not a rational concept to implement.You cannot punish people for doing what they cannot do (ie. behave differently).If determinism is true then humans are infallible and the concept of holding someone morally responsible becomes irrational.For example,I cannot hold the snowflakes responsible for falling outside my window,since it has no control over its operation nor does it have intent and purpose.To let it simply run its course is the only rational thing to do.However,when it comes to humans things differ because it's assumed we have free will and agency,thus implicating dualism.Free will and dualism is intuitvely known to be true thus it's negation leads to an absurdity (proof by contradiction).Your intellectuals and philosophers cannot practice what they preach,hence they have to appropriate our concepts of free will and morality.
Hi Thurston
ReplyDeleteYou said:1.I don't see the relevance. An idea is good or bad on its own merits (depending on the goal). This is the same argument as "Christians are responsible for the inquisition", which I throw out in the same way. Bad people using ideas to poorly justify action does not reflect at all on the idea they are using
Besides the tu quoque response by bringing up the Inquisition,I do agree that actions do not always reflect the idea it claims to represent.But the anti-religious atrocities of the Soviet was a direct result of their anti-religious campaigns and anti-religious philosophies.
===
2.same argument as #1. Instead of communists killing in the name of atheism, use nazi's ("Gott mit uns") killing in the name of Christianity. It does not follow that Atheism is responsible just as Christianity was not responsible
Another tu quoque response.Also "Gott mit uns" is not an explicitly Christian slogan,it could apply to any theistic tradition whether monotheistic or polytheistic.The major difference between the ideology of the Nazis and Communists were that the former was a combination of many beliefs including pagansim and Atheistic philosophy.While Communism is explicitly based on Materialism.
===
3.same argument as #1. Instead of North Korea, substitute West Baptist Church (I know, it's a church vs an entire country, but I don't think the scale has any bearing on the counter argument.
It seems you had rather have me defend Christianity than rationally demonstrating why my arguments are false.The "you did it too" fallacy (tu quoque does not in the least detract from North korea's Atheism.Besides,the West Baptist church consists of about 50 members,hardly indicative of Christianity,whereas North Korea is one of the most largest Atheist population in the world.Thus your comparison is an egregious mistake.
===
4. Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. Either the statement "all babies are atheists" is true or there is a baby that was born believing in god. I don't see a third option, but i'm open if you have one. I have heard of no evidence even suggesting this is true. Moreover, I have heard of no evidence of a child believing in a god without it being taught to them in some manner. Belief in a god only comes after a child can comprehend what someone else teaches them
Nowhere did I state that babies are born believing in God,so your argument is a straw man.I do however reject the logic behind the quip and the presupposition of the conclusion,"We are all born Atheists" therefore we should remain Atheists.Like I stated before,we are also born ignorant and irrational,does this mean we should remain in this state too?
===
5.That does not concern me. Whether they were atheists or not, they contributed greatly to our understanding of reality. As such, they should be commended for that. Their views should be scrutinized and the ones that pass should be held until they are refuted somehow. This has nothing to do with a belief in a deity or lack-thereof.
I detect no refutation in your response.You are merely stating your personal concerns and have not disputed the charge that the above mentioned intellectuals were not closet Atheists.
Besides the tu quoque response by bringing up the Inquisition...
Delete1. I realize this (and the others) resemble tu quoque, but it is (they are) certainly not. Had I said "yeah, but Christians are responsible for the inquisition", that would be a tu quoque fallacy. I was merely illustrating that your fallacy was identical to the fallacy I WOULD be making in the argument (not rebuttal) "Christianity is responsible for the inquisition." That is false because the people to carried it out were bad, not necessarily Christianity. Your response was a good one and I disagree with it, but that is a much lengthier conversation which warrants more than just a reply to a post.
2. It seems you are arguing against the point I explicitly did not argue. And again, that warrants another in depth conversation larger than a post reply.
3. I am not sure why you feel the need to defend Christianity since it is not under attack. In all 3, I specifically say I throw out the claims that Christianity is bad for these reasons. The point I was making in all of them is that saying they are the result of one specific factor is an over-simplification. Please show me where I attacked Christianity.
4. Good attempt at blaming me for a straw-man, but that does not apply here. Never did I say you are making a claim. In fact, I was stating that those are the two options as I see them. You state that you reject the logic, and I am curious as to why. The logic that I laid out seems sound to me, but I am very open to hearing how it isn't. Regarding the "you should stay an atheist", that seems to be a straw-man. Please show me one person who says that. The quip refers to the fact that children are taught religion. No child is born religious, but it is something they are given. If that is not true, please share.
1.I realize this (and the others) resemble tu quoque, but it is (they are) certainly not. Had I said "yeah, but Christians are responsible for the inquisition", that would be a tu quoque fallacy. I was merely illustrating that your fallacy was identical to the fallacy I WOULD be making in the argument (not rebuttal) "Christianity is responsible for the inquisition." That is false because the people to carried it out were bad, not necessarily Christianity. Your response was a good one and I disagree with it, but that is a much lengthier conversation which warrants more than just a reply to a post
DeleteI think it's a given;Christians were responsible for the Inquisition but it's debatable whether their atrocities were inspired by Christianity.
==
2.It seems you are arguing against the point I explicitly did not argue. And again, that warrants another in depth conversation larger than a post reply
I was under the impression you dispute the charge that there's a connection between Atheism,Communism and the mass slaughters.If not,then what exactly are you arguing against?
===
3.I am not sure why you feel the need to defend Christianity since it is not under attack. In all 3, I specifically say I throw out the claims that Christianity is bad for these reasons. The point I was making in all of them is that saying they are the result of one specific factor is an over-simplification. Please show me where I attacked Christianity
You see,sometimes Atheists would bring up Christianity in order to a) derail an in progress argument (red herring) or b) as a threat/blackmail.If you bring up the Red Army's crimes then I'll bring up the Inquisition.
===
4.Good attempt at blaming me for a straw-man, but that does not apply here. Never did I say you are making a claim. In fact, I was stating that those are the two options as I see them. You state that you reject the logic, and I am curious as to why. The logic that I laid out seems sound to me, but I am very open to hearing how it isn't. Regarding the "you should stay an atheist", that seems to be a straw-man. Please show me one person who says that. The quip refers to the fact that children are taught religion. No child is born religious, but it is something they are given. If that is not true, please share.
i think you missed the mark entirely.The little quip that Atheist use to negate God or religion could be equally applied to all fields.No child is born a mathematician,logician,an evolutionary expert,physicist or neurobiologist.These are all taught but that does not mean we should dismiss them as false.As you can see the default position also fails reductio ad absurdum.
I think it's a given;Christians were responsible for the Inquisition but it's debatable whether their atrocities were inspired by Christianity.
DeleteFirst, can we agree that it is not a tu quoque fallacy? Or is there something in my explanation that you disagree with.
Second, can we agree that the fallacy is equivalent to the fallacy of the inquisition argument or is there still a point of contention?
===
I was under the impression you dispute the charge that there's a connection between Atheism,Communism and the mass slaughters.If not,then what exactly are you arguing against?
It seemed as though you were arguing to separate Nazis from Christianity and associate Communism with Materialism. Both of which are non-requiters to to the argument I am stating (which is that assigning Atheism as the cause of the mass slaughters is an equivalent fallacy as assigning theism as the cause of the holocaust).
===
You see,sometimes Atheists would bring up Christianity in order to a) derail an in progress argument (red herring) or b) as a threat/blackmail.If you bring up the Red Army's crimes then I'll bring up the Inquisition
Perhaps atheists do that sometimes, but I was clearly not doing that. I used fallacious statements regarding Christianity to illustrate the same fallacies, but I was not threatening nor derailing as Christianity itself was not the point of my statement, but the subject of the fallacious example.
First, can we agree that it is not a tu quoque fallacy? Or is there something in my explanation that you disagree with.
DeleteYes it was a tu quoque fallacy because bringing up the Inquisition does nothing to disprove the comnnection between Communist Atheists and the mega genocides they perpetrated.
Second, can we agree that the fallacy is equivalent to the fallacy of the inquisition argument or is there still a point of contention?
I would not agree to that because the evidence shows that (a)Soviet Communists were Atheists (b)Atheism was a vital aspect of Communism (c) Communist Atheists committed mass murder in conjunction with promoting Atheism/godless socieities.
===
It seemed as though you were arguing to separate Nazis from Christianity and associate Communism with Materialism. Both of which are non-requiters to to the argument I am stating (which is that assigning Atheism as the cause of the mass slaughters is an equivalent fallacy as assigning theism as the cause of the holocaust)
I did not bring up the Nazis,you did.I merely pointed out that they were not a Christian organization as Atheists would like us to believe.Nazis were driven by a need to eliminate inferior races,period.
The historical connection between the Soviet Communists and Materialism have been adequately proven.Stalin's book Dialectical and Historical Materialism removes any doubt regarding his philosophical views,which was explicitly Materialism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
1. Just because "bringing up the Inquisition does nothing to disprove the comnnection [sic] between Communist Atheists and the mega genocides they perpetrated" does not result in a reason for it to be a tu quoque fallacy. The fact that you cannot see (despite my explanations) how it is not, shows clearly that you are not familiar with the accurate application of that fallacy.
Delete2. Your argument is not sound. Your premises (Soviet Communists were Atheists, Atheism was a vital aspect of Communism, and Communist Atheists committed mass murders in conjunction with promoting their Atheism/godless societies) does not logically conclude that Atheism causes mass murders. The dogmatic fascism caused the mass murders (which were independent of Atheism). This is the exact same issue with the inquisition... dogmatic beliefs wrapped around insane interpretations of a religious text cause the atrocities. NOT Christianity itself. And again, to clarify, this is not tu quoque since nowhere in this argument is any accusation of hypocrisy.
3.
T: It does not follow that Atheism is responsible just as Christianity was not responsible
P: The major difference between the ideology of the Nazis and Communists were...
T: It seems you are arguing against the point I explicitly did not argue.
P: I was under the impression you dispute the charge that there's a connection between Atheism,Communism and the mass slaughters
T:...the argument I am stating (which is that assigning Atheism as the cause of the mass slaughters is an equivalent fallacy as assigning theism as the cause of the holocaust)
P:I did not bring up the Nazis,you did.I merely pointed out that they were not a Christian organization as Atheists would like us to believe.Nazis were driven by a need to eliminate inferior races,period.
My argument has been consistent throughout. Nazi's did not kill because of some religion or lack-thereof; it was not a god, even though one was claimed by them and a fallacious argument could be made that Christianity was responsible. For both, it was the dogmatic fascism that drove the atrocities.
ReplyDelete6.This seems like a strawman. I personally have never heard of this; I disagree with it, and I find irrelevant. I'm sure many people of many beliefs have killed many other types of people for many reasons. I do not see a case for 'if you are an atheist, you must kill people' which is the only way I think this could be relevant
It cannot be irrelevant and a strawman argument if Atheists are known to put all their faith and trust in science and scientists,yet we have them on record murdering scientists and suppressing science.
===
8.Again, we are in agreement. Ridicule does not necessarily refute an argument, unless the argument was formed in a way that ridicules. Ridicule, however, is a form of retort and some people (on any side of most any argument) choose to use it and enjoy it. I personally enjoy discussing the topic instead of ridiculing ideas and/or people. cd
Glad we can agree here.
===
9.Anyone can be skeptical on one topic and dogmatic on another. I honestly have heard no one say "Only Atheists are skeptical" but I wholeheartedly agree with you that skepticism and atheism are not necessarily linked. Personally, I think the less dogmatic we are, the more we can navigate the world in an intellectually healthy manner
Atheists make these claims all the time.Only they dare to doubt.
Please show me where an atheist says "Only Atheists are skeptical". I'm not saying it is a strawman, but f you cannot produce examples, please explain how that is NOT a strawman.
DeleteAtheists have appropriated the term skeptoc to be synonymous with Atheism.Foundations like Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI),Skeptic Magazine,Skeptics Guide to the Universe,Skeptic's Annotated Bible,skepticblog,skeptic dictionary all imply the same thing:only atheists are skeptical,or only atheists apply true skepticism.There's a variant of this gambit which says that "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further". This implies no theist has evaluated their beliefs as thoroughly as Atheists do,else they'd be Atheists too.
DeleteFoundations like CSI ... all imply the same thing: only atheists are skeptical
DeleteNowhere is that implied. That is a projection you are placing on it. Those are skeptical resources. They tackle medicine, paranormal claims, religions, and many other topics. Just because they have articles that are skeptical about religion does not imply that only atheists can be skeptical. You are inferring MUCH more than is there and then calling it a "lie" that atheists say. Again, please provide a reference. Without one, it resembles a strawman. We can even demonstrate the opposite of your claim in the following link from a site that you have referenced:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/04/09/try-not-to-lump-us-atheists-in-with-the-skeptics/
"conflation between atheism and skepticism misrepresents the ongoing religious diversity of the skeptical community"
Most atheists I have seen claim to be skeptical. None I have seen say, or even imply, that ONLY they can be skeptical.
Nowhere is that implied. That is a projection you are placing on it. Those are skeptical resources. They tackle medicine, paranormal claims, religions, and many other topics. Just because they have articles that are skeptical about religion does not imply that only atheists can be skeptical. You are inferring MUCH more than is there and then calling it a "lie" that atheists say. Again, please provide a reference. Without one, it resembles a strawman. We can even demonstrate the opposite of your claim in the following link from a site that you have referenced:
DeleteOkay,I know they exist in some clips but it's my fault for not saving them.It would be time consuming to search for them now.Nevertheless,it's well known that Atheists have appropriated and even redifined terms such as logic,rational,science and skeptic to be synonymous with Atheism.In other words,if you're an Atheist,then you're magically endowed with those disciplines.Hemingway's "All thinking men are Atheists" is a classic example where intellectual superiority is meant to be reserved for Atheists.
First, I agree with you that "All thinking men are atheists" is arrogant and untrue. It is logically equivalent to "if you are not an atheist, you are not a thinking man". You (and many other theists) are clearly thinking and not an atheist, so it is demonstrably false.
DeleteSecond, I did try to find where someone said only atheists can be skeptical... and succeeded. I only found ONE (which admittedly may say more for my searching skills than the permeation of that idea):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/11/20/can-you-be-a-skeptic-without-being-an-atheist/
In it, the friendly atheist seems to quote "Can you be a skeptic without being an atheist? I don’t see how." It is, however, stated as an opinion (saying "I don't see how", as opposed to "no"). I don't think that an opinion can be a lie, but it is possible that others have stated it as fact. Either way, I definitely disagree with his opinion. Mainly that I don't think "a skeptic" is a thing. As stated above, people have different levels of skepticism about different subjects.
Also, just to note, "All thinking men are atheists" was a quote from a fictional character in "A Farewell to arms."
DeleteWonderful post Thurston. However, holy books are also filled with wonderful quotes from fictional characters which real people consider to be true.
DeleteWhat is the basis for the assertions 7i and 7iii above?
ReplyDeletehow does one have a falsifiable moral?
@Roland
DeleteMy point exactly.The Atheist/Materialist epistemology only accepts empirical,falsifiable,replicable data in its worldview.Since morality falls outside this paradigm it is therefore unscientific and not an Atheist concept.
Atheism or materialism are not epistemologies. The scientific method is, however, and it is constrained to the physical universe. I think we can all agree the scientific method is a valuable epistemology (since we are all using computers). The question is, are there other epistemology that are reliable and/or valuable? Or, is truth important at all?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with your post regarding 'one god further'. If you apply the same scrutiny you would to zues and thor that you do to your own religion, you would realize you are an active participant in modern day mythology rich with fantastic stories of unbelievable stories shrouded in mysticism. The reason you belief in whichever religion you subscribe to is simply because of your upbringing.
DeleteI reject claims 7i and 7iii. What does "not an aetheist concept mean"? I think you have a real distortion of what athiest is. It is simply a lack of conviction that supernatural forces exist. Nothing more, nothing less.
DeleteThurston
DeleteAtheism or materialism are not epistemologies. The scientific method is, however, and it is constrained to the physical universe. I think we can all agree the scientific method is a valuable epistemology (since we are all using computers). The question is, are there other epistemology that are reliable and/or valuable? Or, is truth important at all?
Yes,Materialism is an epistemology and all Atheists are Philosophical Materialists by default.The Materialists' epistemology claims all knowledge derive from sensory experience and verified via the scientific method.
And yes,science is valuable but it's question begging to assume it's the only reliable source of knowledge.
Couple clarifications:
Delete--
Atheism is not an apistomology.
--
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
--
--
Materialism as a noun seems like a good default position for most athiests (really hesitate to use All)
--
ma·te·ri·al·ism
noun
1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
--
--
However, Materialism as a philosophy is not a default position for atheists.
2.PHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
--
--
There are definitely varying degrees of philosohpy among athiests on this subject and certainly nothing that binds any aethist to one or the other.
Atheism defined is the lack of belief in a supernatural entitiies (god or gods).
There are some atheists who would differ in opinion on "spiritual values". As some definitions of "Spirit" and "Spiritual" are congruent with the natural world and do not appeal to the supernatural.
DeleteNumber 2 is great. As if there were people somewhere saying "Die you heathen (oh wait or am I the heathen)! Die in the name of..... oh wait... umm... who's compelling me to do this again?" of all the absurdities above this one is my favorite. People riled up to kill in the name christ, allah, or other mythical figures is believable and happens all throughout history, but in the name of nothing... seems to lack the inspiration I would need anyway.
ReplyDeleteRoland
DeleteAtheism is not nothing.Harris,Dawkins,et al do not have best sellers about nothing.I think you've mistaken them for Seinfeld.Atheism is a very specific worldview.
Again atheism is the absence of conviction in the existence of supernatural entities or forces. Hardly a rally cry to arms. Athiests are not willing to die for their athiesm. Whereas religions persons of many doctrines certainly are. Most religions Including most of the major world religions have doctrine which advocate the destruction of their enemies and everlasting bliss for the 'rightous'.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh the irony of you imposing onto me what my worldview is... Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.. do not create worldviews for others. Actually athiesm is very much like Sienfeld in that is about nothing. Again it is nothing more than not accepting claims of supernatural phenomenon without evidence. The rest is all up for grabs and up for debate. Theism = belief in supernatural. Atheism = lack of belief. It's really very simple.
DeleteBestsellers are a result of sales. Nothing more.
DeleteAgain atheism is the absence of conviction in the existence of supernatural entities or forces. Hardly a rally cry to arms. Athiests are not willing to die for their athiesm. Whereas religions persons of many doctrines certainly are. Most religions Including most of the major world religions have doctrine which advocate the destruction of their enemies and everlasting bliss for the 'rightous'.
DeleteAgain atheism is the absence of conviction in the existence of supernatural entities or forces. Hardly a rally cry to arms. Athiests are not willing to die for their athiesm. Whereas religions persons of many doctrines certainly are. Most religions Including most of the major world religions have doctrine which advocate the destruction of their enemies and everlasting bliss for the 'rightous'
DeleteYes but you reject God because you believe reality exists in a certain way that it cannot accomodate such a being.This belief that you hold regarding the nature of reality is your benchmark for rejecting God.What I'm trying to flesh out is,is your beliefs factual and suppoted by evidence or merely blind faith.So far it seems to be the latter.
===
Bestsellers are a result of sales.Nothing more
Sure but those pages aren't exactly empty.They contain exhortations on how to view the world.For example,Sam Harris' Moral landscape is such a book that provides a moral ontology for Naturalists,albeit unsound.
===
Oh the irony of you imposing onto me what my worldview is... Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.. do not create worldviews for others. Actually athiesm is very much like Sienfeld in that is about nothing. Again it is nothing more than not accepting claims of supernatural phenomenon without evidence. The rest is all up for grabs and up for debate. Theism = belief in supernatural. Atheism = lack of belief. It's really very simple
Firstly,your definition of atheism (= lack of belief) assumes that Atheists have an apathetic stance towards religious issues,like rocks.Rocks lack belief therefore they are Atheists too.Secondly,Atheists have award ceremonies honoring their beliefs (or lack thereof),they send their kids to Atheist summer camps,they have monuments to commemorate Atheism as well as hold conferences across the globe,they proselytize and write numerous books on their Materialist worldview.The problem with Atheists is that they keep redefining nothing.
===
Again atheism is the absence of conviction in the existence of supernatural entities or forces. Hardly a rally cry to arms. Athiests are not willing to die for their athiesm. Whereas religions persons of many doctrines certainly are. Most religions Including most of the major world religions have doctrine which advocate the destruction of their enemies and everlasting bliss for the 'rightous'
It's true there are no universal decrees for Atheists to commit mass murder but then on the other hand there are no decrees that prevent or prohibit Atheists from committing mass murder either.Thus the correct Atheist stance towards mass murder is to be neutral/non-judgemental.
Adressing in revetse order =)
DeleteGenerally, i feel murder is wrong. I am free to judge this without any affiliation or belief in any diety(s). Morality is not confined to religious dogma. This is an object of subjective morailty hiwevery grounded on the basis that we consider the preservation of humans to be valuable. The are countles moral dillemas we face and can ponder and explore. I am an individual an can not speak for all athiest as you (I certainly hope) can not speak for all theists.
Aetheists do form communities, however thus is because (in America) they are a severe minority. There is no 'message of atheism' or central tennant. Just knowledge that others with similar outlook with respect to religion exists.
There is no assumption on my part that atheists are apathetic towards religion. Some are quite fascinating. Are you interested in Greek mythology? I suspect you are a non believer of Zues and can see why one could be motivated to explore for many reasons.
I appreciate you stating why I don't believe however I think your inaccurate and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this point, because I am me. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural being(s) because there is absolutely zero evidence that any such being exits. If compelling credible evidence is presented I will convert. Simple. I've looked high and low and am yet have been presented with anything compelling. (physical or otherwise). Maybe you can give me your absolute best example of compeling evidence?
Apologies for my typos, many are due to use if cell phone for thsee posts. I hope it doesn't distract but if any items need clarification let me know.
DeleteAlso quick side point. Why are you so compelled to tell me what I think, believe, and assume? Or what Athiests in general think, believe, and assume? Would I, as an athiest be in a better position to make assertions? wouldn't there be opportunity to learn here if you are actually curious?
"It's true there are no universal decrees for Atheists to commit mass murder but then on the other hand there are no decrees that prevent or prohibit Atheists from committing mass murder either.Thus the correct Atheist stance towards mass murder is to be neutral/non-judgemental."
DeleteNo, replace your sentence with "Stances towards mass murder are independent of athiestic views." Then it makes sense.
Replace your *last* sentence
DeleteApologies for my typos, many are due to use if cell phone for thsee posts. I hope it doesn't distract but if any items need clarification let me know.
DeleteAlso quick side point. Why are you so compelled to tell me what I think, believe, and assume? Or what Athiests in general think, believe, and assume? Would I, as an athiest be in a better position to make assertions? wouldn't there be opportunity to learn here if you are actually curious?
Adressing in revetse order =)
DeleteGenerally, i feel murder is wrong. I am free to judge this without any affiliation or belief in any diety(s). Morality is not confined to religious dogma. This is an object of subjective morailty hiwevery grounded on the basis that we consider the preservation of humans to be valuable. The are countles moral dillemas we face and can ponder and explore. I am an individual an can not speak for all athiest as you (I certainly hope) can not speak for all theists.
Aetheists do form communities, however thus is because (in America) they are a severe minority. There is no 'message of atheism' or central tennant. Just knowledge that others with similar outlook with respect to religion exists.
There is no assumption on my part that atheists are apathetic towards religion. Some are quite fascinating. Are you interested in Greek mythology? I suspect you are a non believer of Zues and can see why one could be motivated to explore for many reasons.
I appreciate you stating why I don't believe however I think your inaccurate and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this point, because I am me. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural being(s) because there is absolutely zero evidence that any such being exits. If compelling credible evidence is presented I will convert. Simple. I've looked high and low and am yet have been presented with anything compelling. (physical or otherwise). Maybe you can give me your absolute best example of compeling evidence?
Adressing in revetse order =)
DeleteGenerally, i feel murder is wrong. I am free to judge this without any affiliation or belief in any diety(s). Morality is not confined to religious dogma. This is an object of subjective morailty hiwevery grounded on the basis that we consider the preservation of humans to be valuable. The are countles moral dillemas we face and can ponder and explore. I am an individual an can not speak for all athiest as you (I certainly hope) can not speak for all theists.
Aetheists do form communities, however thus is because (in America) they are a severe minority. There is no 'message of atheism' or central tennant. Just knowledge that others with similar outlook with respect to religion exists.
There is no assumption on my part that atheists are apathetic towards religion. Some are quite fascinating. Are you interested in Greek mythology? I suspect you are a non believer of Zues and can see why one could be motivated to explore for many reasons.
I appreciate you stating why I don't believe however I think your inaccurate and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this point, because I am me. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural being(s) because there is absolutely zero evidence that any such being exits. If compelling credible evidence is presented I will convert. Simple. I've looked high and low and am yet have been presented with anything compelling. (physical or otherwise). Maybe you can give me your absolute best example of compeling evidence?
Generally, i feel murder is wrong. I am free to judge this without any affiliation or belief in any diety(s). Morality is not confined to religious dogma. This is an object of subjective morailty hiwevery grounded on the basis that we consider the preservation of humans to be valuable. The are countles moral dillemas we face and can ponder and explore. I am an individual an can not speak for all athiest as you (I certainly hope) can not speak for all theists.
DeleteRoland,I want to know why murder is wrong and not just declarations of personal feelings.Since you claim morality is subjective and not absolute and universal,therefore what's true for you might no be true for another.Can you produce a sound deduction in support of naturalistic morality as opposed to transcendent morals?This would put to bed the notion that morals can only exist if God exist.
Lastly,There's no moral dilemma for someone with subjective moral principles,since they're already malleable and subject to change with the situation at hand.
===
Aetheists do form communities, however thus is because (in America) they are a severe minority. There is no 'message of atheism' or central tennant. Just knowledge that others with similar outlook with respect to religion exists.
I think you meant "tenet" because tennant is an occupant.And you would also be correct then,since having no central tenet would confirm there are no universal moral principles for Atheists,only what suits the particular Atheist at that moment.This is one of the reasons why Atheists are not a trusted group since their values are not fixed and not known in advance and can change as their feelings change.
There is no assumption on my part that atheists are apathetic towards religion. Some are quite fascinating. Are you interested in Greek mythology? I suspect you are a non believer of Zues and can see why one could be motivated to explore for many reasons
DeleteThen Atheists do not merely lack belief if they are not apathetic but actively reject God.Regarding Zeus,I don't see how his existence can account for any of the philosophical arguments,such as the ontological,teleological,moral and cosmological arguments.The contemporary dualists/theists hold much more sophisticated beliefs about God/First Cause.Believe it or not but even beliefs can evolve.
===
I appreciate you stating why I don't believe however I think your inaccurate and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this point, because I am me. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural being(s) because there is absolutely zero evidence that any such being exits. If compelling credible evidence is presented I will convert. Simple. I've looked high and low and am yet have been presented with anything compelling. (physical or otherwise). Maybe you can give me your absolute best example of compeling evidence?
Yes,you require evidence of God or even from God.That's not the problem,the problem arises when the type of evidence Atheists demand contradicts the nature of God's existence.God is non-physical yet Atheists demand physical evidence in the form of emprical evidence which must pass rigorous experimental scrutiny.Clearly an impossible demand and that's why they make it.
I agree. The standards of evidence for theists are incredibly poor.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf your god interacts in any way with this world then there would be some evidence. If there is no evidence then there is no reason to assert that this god exists. Again, what is your best evidence that the god you claim exists? If you can not define this why do you believe in it?
DeleteThe truth is that if a god (s) existed we would have demonstrable and sufficient evidence to support it and no one would be an athiest. In fact we'd likely all be the exact same religion as we'd be able to actually convince each other with something rational to believe in whatever the truth actually is.
DeleteAs it stands however theists are forced to promote 'faith' as a principle tenet (no spell checker that time!) and rely on feelings(I felt god talk to me in a dream), wishfull thinking (prayer), or creative writing (theological 'proofs')
Please give me your most compelling reason to believe. Convert me if it's true. But if it's rubbish, have the honesty to adress it objectively.
The truth is that if a god (s) existed we would have demonstrable and sufficient evidence to support it and no one would be an athiest. In fact we'd likely all be the exact same religion as we'd be able to actually convince each other with something rational to believe in whatever the truth actually is.
DeleteAs it stands however theists are forced to promote 'faith' as a principle tenet (no spell checker that time!) and rely on feelings(I felt god talk to me in a dream), wishfull thinking (prayer), or creative writing (theological 'proofs')
Please give me your most compelling reason to believe. Convert me if it's true. But if it's rubbish, have the honesty to adress it objectively.
Roland
DeleteI agree.The standards of evidence for theists are incredibly poor
The theist's standard of evidence conforms with the proposition.The theist is fully aware that different types of evidence relates to different events.For example:Demonstrative evidence and tesimonial evidence are both admissible in courts but they do not share the exact same principles.To insist that testimonial evidence must meet the same standards as demonstrative evidence before it can be considered permissible is engaging in a category error fallacy.
Likewise,the standard of evidence that Atheist demand for God's existence is committing the same category mistake fallacy.God is non-physical/spirit ,yet Atheists demand a physical being that can be isolated,quantified and perform testable predictions on.Clearly irrational and illogical.But this irrationality does not stop Atheists from ever relenting on the demand.
===
If your god interacts in any way with this world then there would be some evidence. If there is no evidence then there is no reason to assert that this god exists. Again, what is your best evidence that the god you claim exists? If you can not define this why do you believe in it?
The evidence is there,you merely deny it exists.And like I stated above,the types of evidence Atheist demand is irrational.
The truth is that if a god (s) existed we would have demonstrable and sufficient evidence to support it and no one would be an athiest. In fact we'd likely all be the exact same religion as we'd be able to actually convince each other with something rational to believe in whatever the truth actually is
DeleteI don't see how God's existence implies that all people MUST be theists.People have free will,they can reject God.Just like the evidence that smoking is dangerous to ones health does not mean everyone is a non-smoker.
===
As it stands however theists are forced to promote 'faith' as a principle tenet (no spell checker that time!) and rely on feelings(I felt god talk to me in a dream), wishfull thinking (prayer), or creative writing (theological 'proofs')
There's no coercion implied in advancing ones passion.If I have a passion for surfing that I share with kids on the weekend,does that imply coercion? Of course not,a desire to see others adopt a similar lifestyle has no relation to force.
===
Please give me your most compelling reason to believe. Convert me if it's true. But if it's rubbish, have the honesty to adress it objectively
I have no desire to convert you to my beliefs.My primary goal is to show that Atheism/Materialism/Physicalism is false and that although Atheists claim their world view is based on logic and scientific evidence,they cannot give a sound deduction to support their pretence.
However,if you are truly looking for evidence for the afterlife,which implicates God then you are welcome to refute the evidence for NDEs.Click on the links below:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
How do you know god (s) is or are non physical? What is the evidence that supports this assertion?
DeleteSimply saying 'evidence is there' is not good enough. You claim there is an all powerful god or gods among us. What is this based on? Why is this a hard question to grasp?
Are you seriously considering near death experiences as evidence of an afterlife??
DeleteSo we have an organ, the brain, which is responsible for the entirety of our perception of existence and you are choosing to hang your hat of evidence on individual testimonies from individuals who are already predisposed to the conclusion who have recollections of experiences encountered during times when that organ was severly damaged?
I'm sorry. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about by low standards of evidence.
Are you seriously considering near death experiences as evidence of an afterlife??
DeleteSo we have an organ, the brain, which is responsible for the entirety of our perception of existence and you are choosing to hang your hat of evidence on individual testimonies from individuals who are already predisposed to the conclusion who have recollections of experiences encountered during times when that organ was severly damaged?
I'm sorry. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about by low standards of evidence.
Roland
DeleteSo we have an organ, the brain, which is responsible for the entirety of our perception of existence and you are choosing to hang your hat of evidence on individual testimonies from individuals who are already predisposed to the conclusion who have recollections of experiences encountered during times when that organ was severly damaged?
False.There are numerous accounts of Atheists and Agnostics that have also had NDEs.
===
I'm sorry. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about by low standards of evidence
You asked for evidence and I gave you two links that you were welcome to refute.Instead you accuse me of providing low standards of evidence without attacking a single case study.
How do you know god (s) is or are non physical? What is the evidence that supports this assertion?
DeleteIf you have evidence to the contrary proving god(s) is physical then share it
===
Simply saying 'evidence is there' is not good enough. You claim there is an all powerful god or gods among us. What is this based on? Why is this a hard question to grasp?
I did not just say there is evidence,I provided links from two respectable medical journals.Here they are again
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
The studies you provide indicate there is research and science being done with respect to death and the trauma's which relate to it. I could only read the abstract as I have not purchased the study, however if you actually read this they are not claiming that near death experiences are factual accounts of post mortUm afterlives, which is the claim you are assigning to them.
DeleteYou have miss applied of my statements above. Yes you did provide evidence regarding the exploration of brain functionality surrounding the events of death. However you did not provide evidence of how you god or set of gods interacts with the physical world. When I asked for this you stated that 'evidence is there'. So if you are saying that these two studies of scientists investigating brain trauma is evidence of gods physical interactions with our universe then kindly please point me to where I the study it mentions this.
The studies you provide indicate there is research and science being done with respect to death and the trauma's which relate to it. I could only read the abstract as I have not purchased the study, however if you actually read this they are not claiming that near death experiences are factual accounts of post mortUm afterlives, which is the claim you are assigning to them.
DeleteYou have miss applied of my statements above. Yes you did provide evidence regarding the exploration of brain functionality surrounding the events of death. However you did not provide evidence of how you god or set of gods interacts with the physical world. When I asked for this you stated that 'evidence is there'. So if you are saying that these two studies of scientists investigating brain trauma is evidence of gods physical interactions with our universe then kindly please point me to where I the study it mentions this.
The studies you provide indicate there is research and science being done with respect to death and the trauma's which relate to it. I could only read the abstract as I have not purchased the study, however if you actually read this they are not claiming that near death experiences are factual accounts of post mortUm afterlives, which is the claim you are assigning to them.
DeleteThe studies specifically present data of of positive results favoring NDEs,hence the peer reviewed article.Furthermore,I made no claim of post mortem examinations.This is a straw man.
NDEs are are a reality and evidence for an afterlife.That is the claim I'm making.
===
You have miss applied of my statements above. Yes you did provide evidence regarding the exploration of brain functionality surrounding the events of death. However you did not provide evidence of how you god or set of gods interacts with the physical world. When I asked for this you stated that 'evidence is there'. So if you are saying that these two studies of scientists investigating brain trauma is evidence of gods physical interactions with our universe then kindly please point me to where I the study it mentions this.
You have a habit of inventing fake arguments.I did not claim to have evidence for God's existence,I did state that the evidence for NDEs is evidence for an afterlife and implicates God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your post regarding 'one god further'. If you apply the same scrutiny you would to zues and thor that you do to your own religion, you would realize you are an active participant in modern day mythology rich with fantastic stories of unbelievable stories shrouded in mysticism. The reason you belief in whichever religion you subscribe to is simply because of your upbringing
DeleteThe "one god further..." is just another retort with no logic attached to it,because it equates X with ~X.That's illogical,since they are contraries.The quote also assumes that theists have not rationally evaluated their beliefs.Besides,I could just as easily say "We are all theists,I just believe in one God more than you".
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"We are all theists I just believe in one more god than you". <-- That statement would work if your a polytheist speaking with a monotheist.
DeleteRegarding the not X statement above that's actually not completely accurate. Regardless of your religion you are a non believer of many gods. This does apply an assumption that whatever critical faculty you applied to rule out the other possibilities has not been applied to the one you hold on to. However I have to seriously criticize the quality of your critical thinking skills if your answer is that this is a false assumption.
Regarding the not X statement above that's actually not completely accurate. Regardless of your religion you are a non believer of many gods. This does apply an assumption that whatever critical faculty you applied to rule out the other possibilities has not been applied to the one you hold on to. However I have to seriously criticize the quality of your critical thinking skills if your answer is that this is a false assumption.
DeleteThis is false too.I do not believe their are many gods but merely many different versions of what God is.My beliefs have many similarities with the Christian New Testament deity,some versions of the hindu deities and even with many of the personal NDE testimonies of God.And it's also false that I am an Atheist towards those religions.It's more accurate to describe me as a rival theist.No jew,muslim,hindu,etc. view me as an Atheist but as a theist of a different persuasion.
So you believe in the gods of religions other than your own? Is this limited to just modern day religions or all?
DeleteI don't believe in other gods.I've learned that other theistic views are similar to mine,especially the NDE anecdotes,which you are welcome to refute.
DeleteSo you believe that you don't believe in all gods but don't accept that the term atheist (which means to not believe in a god) with respect to those other gods.... So how exactly are you not in the same position as me, an aetheist, with respect to other gods, when it comes to believing in those gods?
DeleteSo you believe that you don't believe in all gods but don't accept that the term atheist (which means to not believe in a god) with respect to those other gods.... So how exactly are you not in the same position as me, an aetheist, with respect to other gods, when it comes to believing in those gods?
DeleteAre all other theistic views similar to yours? What about those without god (buddism). What about those without heaven or he'll (Greek)? What about polytheist religions (Norse, Pagan, American Indian). What about those predicated on superstition (Vodoo)? Are the commonalities between these religions and the tens of thousands of others known to us, the ones you mentioned similar to your own, and your religion of choice which you inherited from your family and community, really that they all view one supernatural entity differently or that they all apply bad logic and reasoning in very creative fashions to arrive at dramatically different conclusions?
DeleteYou have been basing your comparisons on the limited set of popular religions which exist in modern world after centuries of competition with others which continues today.
Fortunately humanity still has hope, as tribalism fades and access to information increases, so to will religious doctrines of all creeds fade. This is because when you shine a light on something the truth of it can be revealed.
Are all other theistic views similar to yours? What about those without god (buddism). What about those without heaven or he'll (Greek)? What about polytheist religions (Norse, Pagan, American Indian). What about those predicated on superstition (Vodoo)? Are the commonalities between these religions and the tens of thousands of others known to us, the ones you mentioned similar to your own, and your religion of choice which you inherited from your family and community, really that they all view one supernatural entity differently or that they all apply bad logic and reasoning in very creative fashions to arrive at dramatically different conclusions?
DeleteFirst of all,I did not say that all theist views are similar to mine.Secondly,asserting that there exists many other false beliefs/religions has no evidentiary value,it's a form of poisoning the well.Lastly,I did not inherit my beliefs,they were subjected to scrutiny and relentless research before I adopted them.
===
You have been basing your comparisons on the limited set of popular religions which exist in modern world after centuries of competition with others which continues today
This statement contains neither proof nor disproof.Competition amongst certain religions does in no way refute the existence of god.It only proves some religions are more competitive than others
===
Fortunately humanity still has hope, as tribalism fades and access to information increases, so to will religious doctrines of all creeds fade. This is because when you shine a light on something the truth of it can be revealed
This also has no evidence attached to it.There exists no such concept of "hope in humanity" in Atheism/Materialism,neither does it contain any truths,certainly not moral truths.You are attempting to attach concepts to Atheism over which it cannot account for.
"First of all,I did not say that all theist views are similar to mine"
Delete----
This is what you actually said:
You said: "I've learned that other theistic views are similar to mine"
and You siad: "I do not believe their are many gods but merely many different versions of what God is"
----
It seems to me like you are really trying to engage in some mental gymnastics to evade the fact that with respect to at least many other religious doctrines you are an atheist in that you doo not believe there is sufficent evidence to believe their claim of god or gods.
Based on these phrases, Is it more accurate to say that your position is that there may be some religions in which you feel their belief systems are actually evidence for your god and that is because there are some similiarities? In which case you believe they have a different (possibly innacurate) 'version' of what god is?
-----------------------------------------
Secondly,asserting that there exists many other false beliefs/religions has no evidentiary value,it's a form of poisoning the well.
I have made no claims that the other beliefs are "false". I am not poisining the well. From an empircal standpoint if mutliple religious structures are incompatable with more than one being correct, then they each have an equal statistical chance of being correct. You have asserted here that I've stated "false beliefs/religions". Which of these are these false and what do you use to discern between them?
Whatever faculty you apply to the other belief systems is likely the very same that people of those religions apply to your own (whichever one that may be) and that atheists apply to the whole bunch. This is why it is correct to say that you are in fact an atheist with respect to these other religions / beliefs.
-----------------------------------------
"This statement contains neither proof nor disproof.Competition amongst certain religions does in no way refute the existence of god.It only proves some religions are more competitive than others'
I agree completely. however, this had nothing to do with proof or disproof claims. This was in response to you stating earlier that you shared similarities with other religions in having different "versions of what god is". My point is simply that religious beliefs are a diverse as anything else in life. We can explore much, much, further if interested.
-----------------------------------------------------
"This also has no evidence attached to it.There exists no such concept of "hope in humanity" in Atheism/Materialism,neither does it contain any truths,certainly not moral truths.You are attempting to attach concepts to Atheism over which it cannot account for"
I am speaking for myself here. Yes, I suppose as an atheist, becuase I am one. However this was an opinion of my own which I shared.
Regarding evidence supporting the general decline of religion in America, please see below.
Deletehttp://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Also with respect to:
Delete"Competition amongst certain religions does in no way refute the existence of god."
--
For the record, I have no desire to 'refute the existence of god'. I have made no claims that a god or gods do not exist. Only that there is insufficient evidence to believe in such an entity.
The burden of proof is yours, and this is again an attempt to shift that burden and logical fallacy. Your assertion is that there is a god which exists and interacts with the physical world. You have also stated that there is evidence to support your claims.
Since this belief appears to be grounded in accounts of near death experiences, I do not believe that you have met the burden in demonstrating that a supernatural entity exists. This is considered bad evidence as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. It is unsubstantiated and does not corroborate with anything linking to or indicating of the existence of supernatural entity.
You said: "I've learned that other theistic views are similar to mine"
Deleteand You siad: "I do not believe their are many gods but merely many different versions of what God is"
Nowhere does it say "I believe in all gods".I said there are many different version of god.The term "all" implies a categorical statement which you have misapplied to me.Believeing there are similar theistic versions to my belief does not in anyway shape or form mean I accept them all.Try attacking what I actually say,not what you wish I said.
===
It seems to me like you are really trying to engage in some mental gymnastics to evade the fact that with respect to at least many other religious doctrines you are an atheist in that you doo not believe there is sufficent evidence to believe their claim of god or gods.
Using your own definition,you said Atheists lack belief in god(s).Well,I don't.I believe in God therefore I'm a Theist.
I have only one job at this moment.This does not mean I'm unemployed because I do not work at elsewhere too.I drive one car (Ford Focus).This does not mean I'm car-less because I don't drive a toyota,honda,chevy,etc. I own one home,but it does not mean I'm homeless because I do not own mansions,condos,penthouses,etc
Do you see where I'm going with this? How does the definition of X equal its contrary not (~)X?It's illogical to equate the two.
===
Based on these phrases, Is it more accurate to say that your position is that there may be some religions in which you feel their belief systems are actually evidence for your god and that is because there are some similiarities? In which case you believe they have a different (possibly innacurate) 'version' of what god is?
Many religious doctrines have unneccessary cultural idiosyncrasies attached to them.Dualist philosophers are able to strip them away and expose the consistent similarities amongst many.
===
I have made no claims that the other beliefs are "false". I am not poisining the well. From an empircal standpoint if mutliple religious structures are incompatable with more than one being correct, then they each have an equal statistical chance of being correct. You have asserted here that I've stated "false beliefs/religions". Which of these are these false and what do you use to discern between them?
All beliefs must be analyzed for logical consistency.That's my criteria.
Regarding evidence supporting the general decline of religion in America, please see below
Deletehttp://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
This has no bearing on whether God exists or not.People are free to reject theism.Your argument is also akin to that of many muslims who believe there religion is correct and superior because of the rapid conversion rates in the West.
I appreciate the discourse. If these discussions are more of a hassle than productive, we can metaphorically shake hands and walk away. If they are as engaging to you as they are for me, I'd be happy to continue them (until we reach an impasse, of course).
ReplyDeleteRoland said:No, replace your sentence with "Stances towards mass murder are independent of athiestic views." Then it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteExactly,the stance towards such issues of mass murder is independent of Atheistic views,therefore Atheism is impotent to prevent such catastrophes and Atheists are not qualified to hold any objections against them.The correct attitude to adopt in the face of atrocities is "que sera sera" whatever will be,will be.
I agree that am impotent to prevent such castrophes. Especially those which occurred before my birth. I disagree that I need to hold a qualification in order to have a moral objection. You are confusing two things which are not related. Aetheism is not a moral framework. It is the absence of belief in higher powers. However morals are the products of societies and communities and as an individual I certainly have a moral framework and the qualification to assert my moral judgements accordingly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that am impotent to prevent such castrophes. Especially those which occurred before my birth. I disagree that I need to hold a qualification in order to have a moral objection. You are confusing two things which are not related. Aetheism is not a moral framework. It is the absence of belief in higher powers. However morals are the products of societies and communities and as an individual I certainly have a moral framework and the qualification to assert my moral judgements accordingly
DeleteYour moral judgements are exactly just that:"yours only".They are certainly not universal by your own admission.And since you've invented your own which you have yet to substantiate with logic and scientific evidence,therefore others may also create their own arbitrary moral standard which they are the sole judge over.
And since Atheism is the absence of belief in higher powers (ie. non-transcendent),Atheists must be able to ground their moral principles in our physical laws.Demonstrate a moral realm which is physical or at least isolate such a moral particle for scrutiny.
Again morals are the products of communities. The are bound to physical laws in the exact same manner that thoughts are. They are concepts. They vary across time and individual and yes are therefore relative. this does not make them arbitrary, invented, or as easily dismissed. Social structures exist in nature for valid reasons and morals are a product of these structures. We help the weak and protect the young because it benefits the whole. It is not due to divine command theory. Our laws are in place to lay a framework for what society deems as acceptable and unacceptable. Obviously morals and ethics extend well beyond codified law however they certainly do not require any specific religious doctrine or supernatural diety to exist.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI know you keep trying to wrap up other things like physicals and materialism and determinism. However this blog indicates to me to be a rebuttal of atheism. With atheism being the lack of conviction in a supernatural entity.
DeleteIt is inappropriate to not believe something when it's been demonstrated as true. So the task to 'demolish' atheism is incredibly simple. Demonstrate a truth in the claim that supernatural entities exist. That's really it. It doesn't take 10 statements. Just one undeniable demonstrable fact. Anything... when you have your best, please share it. If you can produce anything which will satisfy a rational, skeptical, mind then please acknowledge that the position of athiesm which is to not hold belief is a perfectly valid position. While the position of faith (believe without evidence) or worse delusion (belief despite evidence to the contrary) is not a valid position for a rational, skeptical mind to take.
Again morals are the products of communities
DeleteThe Communities you're refering to consist of people,not inanimate objects,who base their principles in transcendence
===
The are bound to physical laws in the exact same manner that thoughts are. They are concepts
There is no way that you can possibly prove that thoughts are bound by physical laws.The laws of Newtonian or Quantum mechanics?
===
They vary across time and individual and yes are therefore relative. this does not make them arbitrary, invented, or as easily dismissed
Yes It does indeed make them arbitrary,invented and easily dismissed if they are subjective moral principles,and cannot be subjected to empirical investigation.
===
Social structures exist in nature for valid reasons and morals are a product of these structures.
You have yet to prove that these social structures did not derive their morality from a belief in God.What type of study can you conjure up and does it regress into nature?
We help the weak and protect the young because it benefits the whole. It is not due to divine command theory
Appeal to emotion.There is no basis for altruism outside of their particular clan/troop in nature.
Our laws are in place to lay a framework for what society deems as acceptable and unacceptable. Obviously morals and ethics extend well beyond codified law however they certainly do not require any specific religious doctrine or supernatural diety to exist
Our laws did not grow on trees or found anywhere in nature.They were initially established by theists and deists to protect the rights of the individual.This has no basis in naturalism
I know you keep trying to wrap up other things like physicals and materialism and determinism. However this blog indicates to me to be a rebuttal of atheism. With atheism being the lack of conviction in a supernatural entity
DeleteThat's correct,I'm more intersted in the truth of Atheism.What can we know and how can we know it?Epsitemology 101.Atheists assert all knowledge can only be aqcuired via the scientific method,in which they put all their faith in.Yet they cannot prove a single claim in support of their faith.
===
It is inappropriate to not believe something when it's been demonstrated as true. So the task to 'demolish' atheism is incredibly simple. Demonstrate a truth in the claim that supernatural entities exist. That's really it. It doesn't take 10 statements. Just one undeniable demonstrable fact. Anything... when you have your best, please share it. If you can produce anything which will satisfy a rational, skeptical, mind then please acknowledge that the position of athiesm which is to not hold belief is a perfectly valid position. While the position of faith (believe without evidence) or worse delusion (belief despite evidence to the contrary) is not a valid position for a rational, skeptical mind to take.
I have given you two links to refute that provide evidence for the afterlife.You have yet to refute them
"The Communities you're refering to consist of people,not inanimate objects,who base their principles in transcendence"
DeleteThe communities I am refer to include not only people, but communities of many species, including chimpanzeees, bonobos, whales, dolphins, and other species specifically studied to great extent by biologists and ecologists.
Correct, i am not implying that inaminate objects posses morality. I thought that was clear since I used the term community which indicates a population.
I accept that the discriptions we use for morals , ethics, moral systems, etc.. are trancendent in the sense that as concepts they existence or are experienced beyond the normal or physical level. However, their basis is certainly not. This is very similar in nature to language itself in that while 'language' itself is not physical, spoken words are physical vibrations of air generated through the use of muscles in our larnyx. In a very similar fahsion to language the principles concerning right and wrong are founded in both genetics and evolution processes which is a very real physical phenomenon. Moral behaviors are a product of communities which act to promote the welfare of the community, most specifically the protection and care of offspring. Morals and social structures of species are directly related to the mechanisms ustilized to reproduce and the environments of the species. With humans our care and love of close relatives, especially mates, and young ones is hard ward. Often the right or wrong aspect of moral decision is confused. These are subjective concepts, however, individuals operate to asses situations based on the desire for most optimal outcomes based on countless considerations of varying degrees of importance.
'There is no way that you can possibly prove that thoughts are bound by physical laws.The laws of Newtonian or Quantum mechanics?"
The brain is responsible for our thoughts. When the brain fails in death so do thoughts. When the brain is damaged, either through, disease, trauma, deprivation or oxygen or otherwise, thoughts may fail and act erratic. This erractic activity reported from individuals who have experienced damage to the their organ responsibile for thought by definition needs to be examined closer due to the fact that the organ itself is damaged.
We have a lot to learn with respect to the inner working of our minds, however yes, thoughts are a manifestion of physical and chemical activity within an organ well developed for this purpose. This can be demonstrated quite factually through any use of any mechanism which affects brain chemistry, such as alcohol, drugs, anesthesia, nutrient difficiency, etc...
"Yes It does indeed make them arbitrary,invented and easily dismissed if they are subjective moral principles,and cannot be subjected to empirical investigation."
Moral actions can be subjected to emperical investigation and also compared across time. In fact we do this all the time as humans by comparing crime statistics across regions, countries, and ages. Some, sociologists and anthropologists also investigate frequencies and severities of events with respect to various variables in order to try to learn what influences our moral landscape.
'You have yet to prove that these social structures did not derive their morality from a belief in God.What type of study can you conjure up and does it regress into nature?"
You are the person claiming there is supernatural being who prescribes moral doctrine. This is shifting the burden of proof. My claim is that there is no reason to believe that morals come from anything outside of nature. In fact, I believe Ive been presenting reasons which indicate that morals can be derived though natural processes.
"We help the weak and protect the young because it benefits the whole. It is not due to divine command theory
DeleteAppeal to emotion.There is no basis for altruism outside of their particular clan/troop in nature."
This is NOT an appeal to emotion. It is an observable behavior which is consistent with the welfare and propogation of a species. It is not unique to humans. Zoologists apply labels such as mutualism, altruism, commensalism, symbiotuc/non-symbiotic, trophic, faculative/obligate (and others) in order to categorize, classify, and describe varying types of observed behaviors and conditions. Morals are a dependent on actual behaviors and as such describing behaviors is perfectly applicable when discussing morals.
"Our laws did not grow on trees or found anywhere in nature.They were initially established by theists and deists to protect the rights of the individual.This has no basis in naturalism"
Our laws have evolved for thousands of years across many very disctinct civilations. Codified laws are a human construct. The personal beliefs of supernatural beings by lawmakers is definitely a factor to consider as there were many theist scientists, world leaders, etc... This does not mean their claim of a supernatural diety is correct.
Fortunately in America (where I am from) at least, our founding fathers were wise enough to recognize the danger of religious doctirne becoming ingrained into codified law and we do have somewhat strong (although under constant challenge) seperation of church and state. some countries in modern world have for example, sharia law, in which the legal system is based on the interpretations of the religious doctrine.
"That's correct,I'm more intersted in the truth of Atheism.What can we know and how can we know it?Epsitemology 101.Atheists assert all knowledge can only be aqcuired via the scientific method,in which they put all their faith in.Yet they cannot prove a single claim in support of their faith."
This is truth of atheism: There is insufficient evidence to believe that supernatural god or gods exist.
That is the ONLY truth of aethism. If at any point in time evidence to the contrary compelling belief in a supernatural god or gods exists that belief will be abandoned.
There is no assertion that "all knowledge can only be aqcuired via the scientific method,in which they put all their faith in.Yet they cannot prove a single claim in support of their faith."
However, just based on your sentence there the very fact that we are communicating on computers over the internet is testament of evidence supporting the value of the scientific method.
Regarding topics of morality it seems as if your claim is that the atheist does not have a moral compass. This is simply not true. Belief in supernatural entities is not a prerequisite for moral values. Humans have moral compasses based on many factors including our genetic composition, heritage, society, community, and individual circumstances. These conditions can change over time which as our society changes.
DeleteDivine command theory however is supposedly unalterable which is why fundamentalists are often stuck defending first century arabic morals in modern western civilation. If you look in the bible as an example it promotes slavery which was a common practice in human history. This viewpoint endured straight through to the 19th century when countries started to develop a shift in the morality regarding the place of slavery in society. This change was slow and was not without significant dissent. Presently, it is widely accepted that slavery is unjust based on the morals evoked through our society. However this was not decided through some revelation of holy scriptures. In fact, the written doctrine of the western bible still advocates in multiple places for the use of slaves. Again, just one example, there are many more.
Morals are not a supernatural phenomenon. They are not prescribed via divine command command theory despite nearly all major modern day religious belief systems making that exact claim on behalf of their (and only their own) religious doctrine.
Regarding topics of morality it seems as if your claim is that the atheist does not have a moral compass. This is simply not true. Belief in supernatural entities is not a prerequisite for moral values. Humans have moral compasses based on many factors including our genetic composition, heritage, society, community, and individual circumstances. These conditions can change over time which as our society changes.
DeleteDivine command theory however is supposedly unalterable which is why fundamentalists are often stuck defending first century arabic morals in modern western civilation. If you look in the bible as an example it promotes slavery which was a common practice in human history. This viewpoint endured straight through to the 19th century when countries started to develop a shift in the morality regarding the place of slavery in society. This change was slow and was not without significant dissent. Presently, it is widely accepted that slavery is unjust based on the morals evoked through our society. However this was not decided through some revelation of holy scriptures. In fact, the written doctrine of the western bible still advocates in multiple places for the use of slaves. Again, just one example, there are many more.
Morals are not a supernatural phenomenon. They are not prescribed via divine command command theory despite nearly all major modern day religious belief systems making that exact claim on behalf of their (and only their own) religious doctrine.
The communities I am refer to include not only people, but communities of many species, including chimpanzeees, bonobos, whales, dolphins, and other species specifically studied to great extent by biologists and ecologists
DeleteAppealing to animal behavior as a benchmark for moral principles is an absurdity since the above mentioned fauna do not posses the ability to distinguish between good and bad behaviors akin to the human notion.The creature's primary concern is self-preservation and propogation of genes.This is selfish and self-serving,quite contrary to altruism.What you as an Atheist must demonstrate is where do you draw the line when appealing to animal behavior for principles of guidance or is everything permitted?Bare in mind that animals also practice infanticide,incest,cannabilism,etc. all for the well being of their troop.
===
Correct, i am not implying that inaminate objects posses morality. I thought that was clear since I used the term community which indicates a population.I accept that the discriptions we use for morals , ethics, moral systems, etc.. are trancendent in the sense that as concepts they existence or are experienced beyond the normal or physical level. However, their basis is certainly not. This is very similar in nature to language itself in that while 'language' itself is not physical, spoken words are physical vibrations of air generated through the use of muscles in our larnyx. In a very similar fahsion to language the principles concerning right and wrong are founded in both genetics and evolution processes which is a very real physical phenomenon
As an Atheist you have failed to grasp the fundamentals of physicalism/philosophical materialism.According to this thesis there can be no level beyond the physical.Also,spoken words can be measured and recorded via instrumentaion.No such methods exists for thoughts.So your comparison is merely fallacious once again.
continued below
Moral behaviors are a product of communities which act to promote the welfare of the community, most specifically the protection and care of offspring. Morals and social structures of species are directly related to the mechanisms ustilized to reproduce and the environments of the species. With humans our care and love of close relatives, especially mates, and young ones is hard ward. Often the right or wrong aspect of moral decision is confused. These are subjective concepts, however, individuals operate to asses situations based on the desire for most optimal outcomes based on countless considerations of varying degrees of importance
DeleteYou're still under the false assumption that declaring something makes it a fact.There exists no morality hardwired in our genes,show me such irrefutable data,conclusively proving your assertions.The implications of your reasoning suggests we can simply rid the world of evil via gene therapy or by isolating and destroying carriers of immoral genes.If an individuals parent(s) were convicted criminals then the progeny is automatically guilty by association and deserves elimination. This is the epitome of Eugenics.It's Atheism taken to its full logical conclusion.
===
The brain is responsible for our thoughts
And the unstated assumption of which you very cautiously avoided is that the "brain creates thoughts".If you wish to assert reductionism then show me a study where thoughts that were quantified and subjected to empirical analysis.If you wish to assert epiphenomenalism then we can discuss how a brain can create an effect which is physically undetectable.Or concede that your Materialist views fail its own standard of empirical evidence and thus deserves to be labeled superstitious.
===
When the brain fails in death so do thoughts. When the brain is damaged, either through, disease, trauma, deprivation or oxygen or otherwise, thoughts may fail and act erratic.This erractic activity reported from individuals who have experienced damage to the their organ responsibile for thought by definition needs to be examined closer due to the fact that the organ itself is damaged
Another strawman.This in no way refutes dualism.The dualist's thesis concedes a bidirectional influence regarding the mind and brain.In other words the mind can influence the brain and vice versa.Damage to the brain will obviously affect the clarity of consciousness but that does not prove the brain creates thoughts and beliefs.For example:damage to the tv set will cause a distortion in the picture and sound quality but that does not entail the signal is being produced inside the set.Likewise,when the brain/body experiences trauma the quality of the embodied consciousness will be negatively affected and distorted.However,assumption that this is proof the brain creates thoughts must still be proven.
===
We have a lot to learn with respect to the inner working of our minds, however yes,thoughts are a manifestion of physical and chemical activity within an organ well developed for this purpose. This can be demonstrated quite factually through any use of any mechanism which affects brain chemistry, such as alcohol, drugs, anesthesia, nutrient difficiency, etc...
Question begging at its most blatant.Substantiate your claims with physical evidence.
Moral actions can be subjected to emperical investigation and also compared across time. In fact we do this all the time as humans by comparing crime statistics across regions, countries, and ages. Some, sociologists and anthropologists also investigate frequencies and severities of events with respect to various variables in order to try to learn what influences our moral landscape.
Delete'You have yet to prove that these social structures did not derive their morality from a belief in God.What type of study can you conjure up and does it regress into nature?"
You are the person claiming there is supernatural being who prescribes moral doctrine. This is shifting the burden of proof. My claim is that there is no reason to believe that morals come from anything outside of nature. In fact, I believe Ive been presenting reasons which indicate that morals can be derived though natural processes
Firstly,your notion of morality has been shown to be extremely dubious.The more accurate description of your views are tribalism as opposed to altruism.So any claim of empirical investigation is question begging.
Secondly,before you said that morality is a subjective concept,yet empirical investigation and evidence is objective,as it yields consistent results that can be replicated independently.Thus your claims are contradictory.How can a subjective concept be objectively true?
Morals are not a supernatural phenomenon. They are not prescribed via divine command command theory despite nearly all major modern day religious belief systems making that exact claim on behalf of their (and only their own) religious doctrine
DeleteBaseless assertions with no data generated.I could just as easily assert that Morals exist because God exists.There exists no Atheist moral code that can be subjected to testable predictions
Are near death experiences the most compeling evidence you have for the existence of god or gods?
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the most compelling,yes
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think this speaks for itself here. Theism demolished.
DeleteI'm sorry,I must have missed that demolition because declaring it false does not make it so.
DeleteRegarding topics of morality it seems as if your claim is that the atheist does not have a moral compass. This is simply not true. Belief in supernatural entities is not a prerequisite for moral values
DeleteOn the contrary,I do believe many Atheists have moral compasses.However,it's my contention those morals are co-opted from theism.How many loving,selfless,honest and caring Atheists do you know that also consistently practice survival of the fittest or teach their children to exhibit behaviors reflecting their selfish genes?Of course none.That's because evolution has no business inside the moral realm and its concepts cannot be implemented without violating theist principles.Furthermore,invoking genes into the equation is not an excuse for bad behavior.
===
Humans have moral compasses based on many factors including our genetic composition, heritage, society, community, and individual circumstances. These conditions can change over time which as our society changes
And there's the rub.Your morals change as conditions change and Atheists still wonder why they are the most distrusted group in America.
A morality with conditions is contingent and self-refuting.Morality is neccessarily true.ie They are true and consistent for all people,at all times and in all circumstances.Even if there were no people left in the world then rape,theft and murder would still be evil.
===
Divine command theory however is supposedly unalterable which is why fundamentalists are often stuck defending first century arabic morals in modern western civilation. If you look in the bible as an example it promotes slavery which was a common practice in human history. This viewpoint endured straight through to the 19th century when countries started to develop a shift in the morality regarding the place of slavery in society
I'm well aware that the Old testament/Hebrew Bible promotes slavery and I'm also well aware that Christians and not Atheists are responsible for the abolition of slavery.In fact Atheists have forced 10's of millions into slave labor camps during the Communist era,when slavery was known worldwide to be an evil system.
Thurston,
ReplyDeleteI just re-read the entire thread, and really your second paragraph way up above hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately, this individual does not possess critical thinking skills and is perfectly content basing beliefs on bad evidence. I am more than happy to try to find someone who will offer more compelling arguements. In my assessment he is very young, probably in a christian college or high school and simply testing the waters / forming opinions with bad reasoning.
Phoenix,
Of the 10 items listed above only 2 items are even relevent (#4 and #7). The order you present these items in is also non-sensical. The rest of the items are largely irrelevent to all but individuals looking to set up strawmen to defeat. You continuously generate these strawmen of aethism by asserting that it is something more than simply a lack in belief in a supernatural god or gods. You also fail to realize that the reason any person believes in anything is based on their evaluation of the evidence presented. If your evaluation methods (critical thinking skills) are poor, then you are likely to believe many things which in fact are simply not true. This is often the case with the religiously indoctrinated who are actively tought to disengage their cognative faculty from a very young age and fed a consistent (albeit internally inconsistent and actualy incorrect) religious viewpoint. This statement is applicable despite whichever religious demonation you likely suscribe to.
I appreciate that you take the time to respond, however, I dont believe you actually consider anything that is being said in good faith. Therefore, all the best. This has demolished nothing as it is incoherent and based on bad evidence.
Finding the truth is far more important than scoring any points in a debate. I've read your most compelling arguements and they are no where near satisfactory to generate any pause and consider basing beliefs in supernatural entities upon them.
Just to clarify, here is the second paragraph referred to:
Delete'..., I would like to state that one commonality that I have seen in many skeptics (and atheists) is that they are willing to abandon an old belief in light of new evidence. I do know some atheists who still have dogmatic beliefs and rationalizations of those beliefs, but that is a hinderence [sic] of theirs, in my opinion. We humans create and hold on to biases all the time. One of the hardest things for us to do is recognize them and abandon them when they are not accurate. It is something that I attempt (and fail) at often, but I will continue to strive for it.'
I just re-read the entire thread, and really your second paragraph way up above hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately, this individual does not possess critical thinking skills and is perfectly content basing beliefs on bad evidence. I am more than happy to try to find someone who will offer more compelling arguements. In my assessment he is very young, probably in a christian college or high school and simply testing the waters / forming opinions with bad reasoning
DeleteThis little ad hominem attacked came about because you were starting to get cocky but I successfully reduced your claims to the level of absurdity.Once Atheists believe they made a strong point they will become arrogant and start abusive tactics.Infact the reason why Atheists are so angry is because of their arrogance.But with a little knowledge one can kick that stool from under their feet and expose them for the charlatans they truly are.
Firstly, This is not an ad hominem. He did NOT say your arguments were false BECAUSE he thinks you are young/in school, etc. Every point you made was specifically argued (to subjective degrees of success), but never was your point disregarded because of you as a person. Insults, derogatory comments, etc are NOT ad hominem unless they are used specifically to refute an argument.
DeleteSecondly, thus far, you have falsely identified tu quoque, ad hominem, and poisoning the well (since that is an ad hominem used to undermine authority prior to an argument given, which has never happened). I understand you will most likely deny that any misapplication of these fallacies happened, but there is nothing I can do about that. This has been demonstrated to whomever can accurately identify such fallacies.
Finally, saying "Once Atheists believe they have made a strong point..." (and many other over-generalizing statements) applies a prejudice to all atheists independent of their personal actions. If I were to say "Theists argue horribly" that would be equally as unfair. Please be careful not to generalize as it can greatly influence that "biased opinion" which I referred to in the 2nd paragraph.
Again, thank you for the engagement. You have showed me a lot and made me think quite a bit on some of my understandings.
Thurston
DeleteI appreciate your input.You did indeed give me something to think about.At times,I do tend to put all Atheists under the same banner.
This is NOT an appeal to emotion. It is an observable behavior which is consistent with the welfare and propogation of a species. It is not unique to humans. Zoologists apply labels such as mutualism, altruism, commensalism, symbiotuc/non-symbiotic, trophic, faculative/obligate (and others) in order to categorize, classify, and describe varying types of observed behaviors and conditions
ReplyDeleteReally??Zoologists?These are your moral landscapers?
===
Morals are a dependent on actual behaviors and as such describing behaviors is perfectly applicable when discussing morals
You could not have made a more assinine statement.Anyone who has read Kant will easily see how this argument is open to a fatal flaw.
Morality cannot be contingent on actions are any event.The moral act presupposes the existence of moral precepts that allows one to judge said act.The act is the effect not the cause.The a priori moral belief is the cause not the effect.
Do you act first then decide whether your actions were right or wrong?
===
Our laws have evolved for thousands of years across many very disctinct civilations. Codified laws are a human construct.The personal beliefs of supernatural beings by lawmakers is definitely a factor to consider as there were many theist scientists, world leaders, etc...This does not mean their claim of a supernatural diety is correct
It does mean that all ethical codes were deduced from the moral realm as opposed to nature.
===
Fortunately in America (where I am from) at least, our founding fathers were wise enough to recognize the danger of religious doctirne becoming ingrained into codified law and we do have somewhat strong (although under constant challenge) seperation of church and state. some countries in modern world have for example, sharia law, in which the legal system is based on the interpretations of the religious doctrine
Atheists are fond of perpetuating myths.The nation and the constitution was founded by God believeing men,most of whom were christians.Even the most celebrated deist Ben franklin believed that God sometimes involves himself in human affairs.
===
This is truth of atheism:There is insufficient evidence to believe that supernatural god or gods exist
That is the ONLY truth of aethism. If at any point in time evidence to the contrary compelling belief in a supernatural god or gods exists that belief will be abandoned.
There is no amount of evidence to satisfy an Atheist.He will continue to move the goal post to impossible standards.That way he manages to keep his blind belief in Materialism in tact.
===
There is no assertion that "all knowledge can only be aqcuired via the scientific method,in which they put all their faith in.Yet they cannot prove a single claim in support of their faith."
Once again,you've exposed your ignorance on the epistemological position of Materialists.The Materialist believes empiricism is the only reliable criteria.Anything else is dubious.
===
However, just based on your sentence there the very fact that we are communicating on computers over the internet is testament of evidence supporting the value of the scientific method
This is of no consequence.Functional materialism is not the issue,philosophical materialism and its irrational claims is in dispute.I'm not against the scientific method but I do recognize its limited to testable predictions on the material plane.Atheists invoke science in to areas it does not govern.