Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Chriliman]

That was not your argument in discussion, and you know it.

I do believe God is objectively true, which is the basis for everything I've discussed on here.

 

[quatona]

I do believe God is objectively true, which is the basis for everything I've discussed on here.

Ah, so "God exists" was the unspoken premise in an argument whose intended conclusion was "God exists"?
Funny that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right, you making the assertion that there's no evidence for God does equal it being a fact that there's no evidence for God.

We don't base our beliefs on the "possibility" of evidence. We base beliefs on evidence that's been shown to exist. It may be possible for evidence to exist...but it's also possible it doesn't.

I'm saying atheist both think their position is true while claiming it's not a truth claim, which is a contradiction.

This is nonsense...I've never said any such thing. All I'm saying is that it's logically correct for me to be an atheist. I've supported that with a logical statement. You haven't shown my logic to be flawed.

You've given me a contradiction. I don't accept contradictions as true because it's irrational to do so.

What part of what I've said is contradictory?

 

[Chriliman]

We don't base our beliefs on the "possibility" of evidence. We base beliefs on evidence that's been shown to exist. It may be possible for evidence to exist...but it's also possible it doesn't.






This is nonsense...I've never said any such thing. All I'm saying is that it's logically correct for me to be an atheist. I've supported that with a logical statement. You haven't shown my logic to be flawed.





What part of what I've said is contradictory?

It's a fact that you're claiming to be an atheist and it's also a fact that atheism cannot be true.

 

[quatona]

It's a fact that you're claiming to be an atheist and it's also a fact that atheism cannot be true.

Is that about the same contradiction as between claiming to be a philatelist and the fact that philatelism cannot be true?
Or are you, again, merely referring to the fact that atheims is not reconcilable with your unspoken premise that "God is true"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's a fact that you're claiming to be an atheist and it's also a fact that atheism cannot be true.

Why can't atheism be true?

Premise 1. Atheism= lack of belief in god.
Premise 2. I lack a belief in god.
Premise 3. It's true I lack a belief in god therefore it's true I am an atheist.

I just showed my atheism to be true right there. Any other questions?

 

[Chriliman]

Why can't atheism be true?

Premise 1. Atheism= lack of belief in god.
Premise 2. I lack a belief in god.
Premise 3. It's true I lack a belief in god therefore it's true I am an atheist.

I just showed my atheism to be true right there. Any other questions?

You showed that it's true that you claim to be an atheist. You did not show that atheism is true. The only way atheism can be true is if evidence shows up that disproves theism, but even then atheism would be rendered meaningless.

You realize I cant say theism is true because of the fact that I claim to be a theist, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, atheism implies naturalism.
There is naturalism and there's supernaturalism.
These are the 2 it boils down to.
There is no intelligent, conscious, able and willing, first (and thus un-caused) cause(r) in naturalism.
There is in supernaturalism.
This original being is usually referred to as "God" in English (and Dutch).
Naturalists wrestle with a beginning point they call "the singularity".
An immaterial point, apparently even before there was time, that had all the traits to explode into the universe we experience today.
...that includes us...

 

[Chriliman]

IOW, the fact that I claim to be a theist, does not make theism true.

Theism is true because God is real and that's what I believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You showed that it's true that you claim to be an atheist. You did not show that atheism is true. The only way atheism can be true is if evidence shows up that disproves theism, but even then atheism would be rendered meaningless.

You realize I cant say theism is true because of the fact that I claim to be a theist, right?

I've shown you that it's logically correct to be an atheist. I've shown you it's true that I'm an atheist.

What else were you wanting?

 

[quatona]

Yes, atheism implies naturalism.

I´m an atheist, and I am not aware of being restricted that way.
Believing in supernatural stuff doesn´t make me a theist - unless this supernatural stuff I believe in happens to be a God.

 

[Hieronymus]

I assume they think it's true that life came into existence naturally, they just can't explain why life would come from natural non-life.

There is of course a HUGE lobby behind evolutional thinking.
For decades now we have been fed the idea, in all kinds of ways.
Books, movies, popular science, education, 'free thinking' cultural changes, all got us thinking evolution.
Both in physical living nature and spiritual living nature, it's about evolution.
As a person, as a group, as a whole.

 

[Chriliman]

I've shown you that it's logically correct to be an atheist. I've shown you it's true that I'm an atheist.

What else were you wanting?

If it's logically correct to be an atheist then that means it's illogical to be a theist. If theism is illogical then so is atheism because you can't have atheism without theism. Unless you falsely believe atheism came before theism.

 

[Hieronymus]

I´m an atheist, and I am not aware of being restricted that way.

Agreed, an atheist is not necessarily a naturalist.
It also depends on what definition of "atheist" you use.
I.m.o. a "not-God-ist" means the -ism is about God not existing.
Otherwise you would be a non believer, not an atheist.
The term is often used for non-believers though.

Either God exist or He doesn't
I think there shouldn't be much debate about the one-ness of the Original (thus un-caused) Cause(r).

 

[Ana the Ist]

If it's logically correct to be an atheist then that means it's illogical to be a theist. If theism is illogical then so is atheism because you can't have atheism without theism. Unless you falsely believe atheism came before theism.

Theism and atheism are opposites. They aren't the same thing. If atheism is logical, then theism is illogical.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To the atheists in this thread...

I'm fully aware of the problems with the statements I'm making. I'm only making these statements so I can converse with a certain poster at his level of understanding.

This is just an FYI, there's no need to point out the faults in my posts.

 

[quatona]

Agreed, an atheist is not necessarily a naturalist.

I´m glad to hear that claim is off the table.

It also depends on what definition of "atheist" you use.

It also depends on what definition of "God", of "naturalist" and of "supernaturalist" you use.

I.m.o. a "not-God-ist" means the -ism is about God not existing.

That´s not how most self-professing atheists use that term, though.

Otherwise you would be a non believer, not an atheist.

Well, "non believer" doesn´t specify what they don´t believe in - that´s why I don´t find it particularly well-chosen.
Personally, in conversations with Christians I often label myself "non-Christian" - simply because that´s most likely the most relevant information for them.

Either God exist or He doesn't
I think there shouldn't be much debate about the one-ness of the Original un-caused Cause(r).

Actually, there are plenty of different definitions of "God" around, but I am happy to leave this debate to theists.
i just take the god concepts as they come.

Now, how about getting back on topic?

 

[Chriliman]

Theism and atheism are opposites. They aren't the same thing. If atheism is logical, then theism is illogical.

The reason there's an "a" in atheism is because it opposes theism. You cant oppose something if it doesn't exist first. Theism came before atheism, therefore it's impossible for atheism to be logical if theism is illogical. If it's illogical to be a theist then it's illogical to be an atheist as well.

What your saying is similar to saying its right to be amoral and therefore being moral is wrong.

If one is truly amoral they have no concept of right or wrong and therefore cannot logically say being moral is wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

To the atheists in this thread...

I'm fully aware of the problems with the statements I'm making. I'm only making these statements so I can converse with a certain poster at his level of understanding.

This is just an FYI, there's no need to point out the faults in my posts.

I'm pointing them out just fine, why would someone else need to?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The reason there's an "a" in atheism is because it opposes theism. You cant oppose something if it doesn't exist first. Theism came before atheism, therefore it's impossible for atheism to be logical if theism is illogical. If it's illogical to be a theist then it's illogical to be an atheist as well.

No...it makes no difference which came first. The word "opposite" is derived from the word "oppose" lol...theism and atheism are opposites. They refer to opposite positions on the existence of god. If one is true...the other is false. If one is logical...then the other is illogical.

Why do you think that it matters which one is first? You realize that they cannot both be true...right? For the same reason that they cannot both be true...they cannot both be logical. I've already shown atheism to be logical...you haven't done the same for theism.

What your saying is similar to saying its right to be amoral and therefore being moral is wrong.

Morality is completely different. If I were to agree with this analogy...then what you're saying is similar to saying that since being moral is logical, then being amoral is logical too (since it came first). See why that doesn't work? They are opposites.