Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[GrowingSmaller]

• 
  

  Prove objective moral values exist, and we'll talk. Until then, your premise is flawed.

  From an old hymn;
  Let faith be my shield

धर्म सुखेत, कहौ कुरु खेत में,
संजय ! जुद्धन चाह धरै जू.
पाण्डव, मोरे सुतन सब एकहिं,
ठांव खड़े कहौ काह करें जू

English
Sanjay, gathered in Dharma-kshetra Kurukshetra (place of Dharma, Kurukshetra), what are my and Pandava’s sons doing?

source

In Bhagavad Geeta the scene is set for the battle between good and evil, at kurukshetra (place of the Kuru clan) which is also dharma -kshetra (place of dharma (i.e. moraity, law, protection, occupational duty , preservation, lit "to hold" or "to carry").....

We are survival machines - Dawkins


What is faith? What was faith in olden times???
Latin: fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," - online etymological dictionary

• Everything that exits, it exists objectively (really, truly).
• Moral values exist (we have to pursue some values or we die, and life is a moral good - at least sometimes).
• 
  
• Therefore sometimes objective values exist.

Eat.
:::


A shia teacher was asked what does mans food stand for in the Koranic verse: then let man look at his food.

The answer was "The knowledge he acquires, from whom does he acquitre it?" source: Manifestations of the all Merciful


:::

The issue people will take is likely to be "well if its objective it must be absolute?" So, to refute this suggestion:
by analogy, its objective that cows eat grass, therefore everyone who eats also eats grass?

They are but as the cattle - nay, but they are farther astray?

Ruminate on these meanings if you will...

 

[zippy2006]

That's an interesting way of putting it, zippy. It's also damning, in the sense that no one escapes free of this judgment of being "in love" with the ideas they bring forth and defend. But I don't think it's absolute. It obviously can't be, or we wouldn't ever change our minds about anything. Hopefully it isn't too cliche to say that sometimes we are thrust into a situation where we must choose between what is easy and what is hard. Do we cherish the idea more than we care for the truth? This is something we all face in life, regardless of our theological disposition.

It's only damning absent temperance. It is good that we love our ideas and philosophies, just as it is good that we love ourselves. But I can affirm love of self without affirming narcissism. My point was to dispel the spectre claiming that atheists are neutral with respect to their commitments.

Hopefully it isn't too cliche to say that sometimes we are thrust into a situation where we must choose between what is easy and what is hard. Do we cherish the idea more than we care for the truth?

Yes. It is interesting that Thomas numbers discord and contention vices opposed to peace rather than vices opposed to truth (although they may include sins directly opposed to truth such as lying and hypocrisy). But the peace is primarily interior, peace of heart. Thus the vice springs from vainglory but in itself is against the right ordering of man, against charity, precisely insofar as one creates a rift between himself and his fellow man by not loving him and willing his good, but rather seeking a discord of wills on the basis of either envy or vanity--in this case, ideological vanity.

 

[zippy2006]

I think you're way off beam here. The majority of atheists I know don't give it a second thought unless someone asks them; it's simply not an active part of their lives, they don't love it, and they don't fear losing it; deities are just one of many fictions they know about but don't believe are real.

There may be atheists who don't even think of themselves of atheists and simply hold no positive beliefs about God. My arguments clearly wouldn't apply to them. But you'd be hard pressed to find one in real life, and you simply will never find one on a religious forum with "atheist" in their self-description.

There is a minority of atheists who, like me, enjoy discussing the philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of belief and belief systems; there is a smaller minority of atheists who are activists and feel they have a duty to confront what they see as dangerous superstition and irrationality, some out of honest concern, and some out of egotism and attention seeking; but 'twas ever thus in human affairs.

I don't think your percentages are accurate, and beyond that I'm not even convinced that the fellow who merely doesn't hold any positive religious beliefs can be correctly called an atheist. That idea seems to be a fable spun by the New Atheists that can't even stand up to the household dictionary.

All the dictionaries (and common sense) have this in common: atheism is something active, not passive. Mere lack of belief is insufficient.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There may be atheists who don't even think of themselves of atheists and simply hold no positive beliefs about God. My arguments clearly wouldn't apply to them. But you'd be hard pressed to find one in real life, and you simply will never find one on a religious forum with "atheist" in their self-description.



I don't think your percentages are accurate, and beyond that I'm not even convinced that the fellow who merely doesn't hold any positive religious beliefs can be correctly called an atheist. That idea seems to be a fable spun by the New Atheists that can't even stand up to the household dictionary.

All the dictionaries (and common sense) have this in common: atheism is something active, not passive. Mere lack of belief is insufficient.

Why is mere lack of belief insufficient?

 

[zippy2006]

Why is mere lack of belief insufficient?

Because that's not what the word "atheist" means in English. Of 7 entries I only found one that includes the idea of mere negation:

• Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist. (The New Oxford American Dictionary)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition)
• Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist; one who believes that there is no deity. (Merriam-Webster)
• Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)
• Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (The Free Dictionary)
• Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)
• Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Online Dictionary)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because that's not what the word "atheist" means in English. Of 7 entries I only found one that includes the idea of mere negation:

• Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist. (The New Oxford American Dictionary)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition)
• Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist; one who believes that there is no deity. (Merriam-Webster)
• Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)
• Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (The Free Dictionary)
• Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)
• Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Online Dictionary)

Actually, that's two...Oxford and the Free dictionary.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually, that's two...Oxford and the Free dictionary.

What does the Free Dictionary mean by "disbelief"? It's easy enough to determine:

Disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe (The Free Dictionary)​

So no, you're incorrect. There is only one that includes mere negation in the definition of atheism.

 

[Gene2memE]

I am an atheist.

As an atheist, position is a reactive one to the position and claims of believers. They have an active belief in God/deities. In doing so, they make a claim that such a God/deities exist.

As an atheist, I do not accept these positive claims because I see insufficient support to believe them.

I am an atheist because the evidence presented to my by believers has not convinced of the existence of God, or deities in general. I see no evidence that convinces me of the existence of the things they believe in. In this sense, I have no belief.

My atheism is not a belief that God does not exist. It is not a denial of the existence of God or gods. I am willing to admit that God or deities in general could exist. I do not dismiss this as a possibility. I am open to being convinced of the existence of God or deities by sufficiently strong evidence.

Until evidence is presented that satisfies me into accepting the claim of believers, I will remain an atheist.


My brother is also an atheist.

He is also a gnostic when it comes to the existence of deities. His position is that he not only does not disbelieve the claims of theists, but that the evidence is such that it has convinced him that no God or deities exist.

In that position, he is making a positive claim. His position is that it it impossible for God/deities in general to exist. He is not open to being convinced by sufficiently strong evidence, as he would consider it flawed.


We are both atheists.

My atheistic position is one of non-acceptance of the claims of theism, but not with any knowledge claim about the existence of deities. I am an atheist agnostic.
My brothers' atheistic position is one of rejection of the the claims of theism, with a knowledge claim that no deities exist. He is an atheist gnostic/anti-theist.

It's a relatively fine distinction, but an important one, as it establishes burden of proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There may be atheists who don't even think of themselves of atheists and simply hold no positive beliefs about God. My arguments clearly wouldn't apply to them.

They're usually called 'negative', 'soft', 'weak', or 'implicit' atheists as opposed to 'positive' or 'hard' atheists in such discussions; wouldn't want to play the 'No True Atheist' card

But you'd be hard pressed to find one in real life

In my experience, for many people in minority religious countries, religion & God just aren't part of their lives, and they don't really think about it unless it's brought to their attention. If asked if they were religious or believe in God, I expect most would say no. I'd call that atheism - but YMMV.

and you simply will never find one on a religious forum with "atheist" in their self-description.

True by definition

I don't think your percentages are accurate

I gave no percentages, I don't have the data. I'm going by personal experience.

... I'm not even convinced that the fellow who merely doesn't hold any positive religious beliefs can be correctly called an atheist. That idea seems to be a fable spun by the New Atheists that can't even stand up to the household dictionary.

I don't think 'New Atheists' have much to do with it; they're a tiny and vocal minority, but they haven't been around that long. In my experience it's always been that way; but, as Wittgenstein observed, meanings change according to usage - I guess self-identified atheists more easily make the stereotype in the 'public mind/opinion' in our media-rich times. Atheism can be an umbrella term for many Godless subcategories when it's helpful to make those distinctions.

All the dictionaries (and common sense) have this in common: atheism is something active, not passive. Mere lack of belief is insufficient.

At school I was told that common sense would take the word root as the base meaning; and dictionaries reflect general usage rather than more technical usage where the precise semantics are likely to be important...

But if you wish to restrict 'atheist' to those that believe God doesn't exist and exclude those who simply don't believe in God, that's your prerogative - as long as you let people know, so as to avoid confusion.

 

[zippy2006]

In my experience, for many people in minority religious countries, religion & God just aren't part of their lives, and they don't really think about it unless it's brought to their attention. If asked if they were religious or believe in God, I expect most would say no. I'd call that atheism - but YMMV.

Okay.

True by definition

...and particularly relevant to the point at hand.

I'm going by personal experience.
I don't think 'New Atheists' have much to do with it; they're a tiny and vocal minority, but they haven't been around that long. In my experience it's always been that way; but, as Wittgenstein observed, meanings change according to usage - I guess self-identified atheists more easily make the stereotype in the 'public mind/opinion' in our media-rich times. Atheism can be an umbrella term for many Godless subcategories when it's helpful to make those distinctions.

I would say it's notable that the demographic I am speaking to in this thread is significantly familiar with the New Atheists.

At school I was told that common sense would take the word root as the base meaning;

I've never heard anyone argue that an etymology is a definition, just the opposite.

and dictionaries reflect general usage rather than more technical usage where the precise semantics are likely to be important...

When technical usage deviates strongly from common usage the "experts" tend to be navel-gazing.

But if you wish to restrict 'atheist' to those that believe God doesn't exist and exclude those who simply don't believe in God, that's your prerogative - as long as you let people know, so as to avoid confusion.

Again, if you keep my actual point in mind this sort of talk becomes rather unnecessary.

Regarding the actual point, it's interesting to revisit this post, which reads something like a dialogue...

Zip: It is interesting that atheists will claim no favoritism in favor of their atheism.
Frum: There is no favoritism to be had in atheism.
Zip: The favoritism exists in fear of losing atheism.
Frum: For the majority of us, that makes no sense.
Zip: The atheist fears losing his atheism because... (argument)
Frum: The majority of atheists don't even hold positive beliefs about God.​

It is interesting that my usage of "atheist" denotes positive atheism, particularly CF atheists. Your usage shifted throughout that post. By the end you were focusing on 'negative' atheists in order to claim that I was "off beam" despite the plain fact that my point does not speak to 'negative' atheists.

In other words:

Zip: (Positive) atheists hold their atheism close to their hearts
Frum: You're way off beam. (Negative) atheists don't hold their atheism close to their hearts.​

So what about the actual point I was making? It applies to you, and especially CF atheists. Did you have a response?

 

[quatona]

All the dictionaries (and common sense) have this in common: atheism is something active, not passive. Mere lack of belief is insufficient.

Well, you can insist on your definition - but then, there´s only very few people here whose actual position you will address with your statements about "atheists".

 

[zippy2006]

Well, you can insist on your definition - but then, there´s only very few people here whose actual position you will address with your statements about "atheists".

It was the atheists I was intending to address, and I seem to have been successful. Presumably there are few atheists on Christian Forums.

But my statement applies to all atheists on CF, self-identified or not, assuming that atheists who join a religious forum are conscious of and contributive towards their own atheism. You won't find 'negative' atheists on CF.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What does the Free Dictionary mean by "disbelief"? It's easy enough to determine:

Disbelief: refusal or reluctance to believe (The Free Dictionary)​

So no, you're incorrect. There is only one that includes mere negation in the definition of atheism.

You said atheism is something active...not passive. If reluctance isn't passive, I don't know what is.

Two definitions.

 

[zippy2006]

You said atheism is something active...not passive. If reluctance isn't passive, I don't know what is.

Reluctance is active, not passive. To resist some force is to act in a way contrary to it. If I am reluctant to do something then I have considered it and decided to resist it for some reason or another. Passivity would lead to me simply giving in.

 

[quatona]

It was the atheists I was intending to address, and I seem to have been successful.

Successful in which way?

Presumably there are few atheists on Christian Forums.

Per the definition you insist on: yes.

But my statement applies to all atheists on CF, self-identified or not, assuming that atheists who join a religious forum are conscious of and contributive towards their own atheism.

Ok - as long as you admit that this is an assumption and not a conclusion...

You won't find 'negative' atheists on CF.

What the heck is a "'negative' atheist"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reluctance is active, not passive. To resist some force is to act in a way contrary to it. If I am reluctant to do something then I have considered it and decided to resist it for some reason or another. Passivity would lead to me simply giving in.

Lol no...it wouldn't. If that were true, there be no such thing as passive resistance. However, reluctance doesn't mean resistance...it means unwilling.

Unwilling is completely passive...it's the exact opposite of willing or willful.

So again, two definitions.

 

[zippy2006]

Reluctance is active, not passive. To resist some force is to act in a way contrary to it. If I am reluctant to do something then I have considered it and decided to resist it for some reason or another. Passivity would lead to me simply giving in.

Lol no...it wouldn't. If that were true, there be no such thing as passive resistance.

Lol, okay Anna, whatever you say.

Ok - as long as you admit that this is an assumption and not a conclusion...

A tautological assumption.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lol, okay Anna, whatever you say.

Lol it's not what I say, it's what the dictionary says...

If you want to go along with dictionary definitions, that's fine...but you still have to stick with them even when they don't suit you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've never heard anyone argue that an etymology is a definition, just the opposite.

I didn't argue that it was a definition, just that it gives the base meaning.

When technical usage deviates strongly from common usage the "experts" tend to be navel-gazing.

It's commonly known as 'jargon', and it has a useful specificity. As for navel-gazing, bear in mind this is the philosophy forum

Regarding the actual point, it's interesting to revisit this post, which reads something like a dialogue...

Zip: It is interesting that atheists will claim no favoritism in favor of their atheism.
Frum: What do you mean by that?
Zip: They say they don't fear losing it. Common experience and a very basic principle of humanity contradict that.
Frum: Recent believers may; for the majority of us, it makes no sense.
Zip: The atheist fears losing his atheism because... (argument)
Frum: The majority of atheists I know hardly think about it; it's not part of their lives.

Fixed that for you.
​

But I'd rather you quote what I actually said than what you think or wish I meant.

...Your usage shifted throughout that post. By the end you were focusing on 'negative' atheists in order to claim that I was "off beam" despite the plain fact that my point does not speak to 'negative' atheists.

Nope. I used the word four times, each time meaning people who don't believe in God.

So what about the actual point I was making? It applies to you, and especially CF atheists. Did you have a response?

If your point was that, "The atheist fears losing his atheism because he loves his atheism....etc.", for me, personally, it makes no sense; I just don't believe in God, and I'm curious about why some people do, and I'm interested in the philosophical arguments for and against. As I asked before (and got not response), do you fear losing your lack of belief in Shintoism (or, for that matter, the tooth fairy) because you love your lack of belief in it? is your lack of belief in Shintoism something you've breathed forth, generated, given life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true' - or do you just simply not believe in it?

For me, it's a story of growing up in a strongly Christian environment, going through the motions, but never having or getting a belief in God - I'd pray as instructed, and listen out for God's word or sign or whatever, but nothing happened, so as soon as I was no longer required to go through the motions, I stopped wasting my time with them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What the heck is a "'negative' atheist"?

A 'passive' or 'soft' atheist, i.e. one who doesn't believe in God, in contrast to an atheist who believes there is no God.