Atheism

[Skavau]

As it is has been observed, no logical argument has been espoused by any atheist here with regards to refuting the premises proposed in the primary post on this topic.

Your premises:

‪1.‬ If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
‪2.‬ Objective moral values and duties do exist.
‪3.‬ Therefore, God exists.

Were unargued for. There is no reason provided by you to accept that objective moral values require the existence of God. There is also no reason provided by you to assume that objective moral values even do exist. You are notably obtuse and vague as to what 'objective' actually means beyond simply using to define acts that are right or wrong independent of what people think (which raises as many questions as you think it answers).

It is not up to us to make your arguments for you. You have to provide support for your own assertions and not insist that we take them at face value and disprove them. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The burden remains upon you all to offer a logical negation to presmise one and build a sound and logically valid argument which reaches a conclusion opposite of the one stated. Until this happens, the argument stands as being true.

No, it doesn't.

Do you know anything about argumentation at all? You made the claim about objective morality and it is thus upon you to demonstrate or argue how your claims regarding objective morality are true.

By your logic, the legal system would assume guilt not innocence. By your reasoning someone could press charges against someone and have the charges assumed as true until evidence against them is presented.

I have supplied you all several times with an adequate definition of what an acceptable premise is according to contemporary philisophical scholarship and so far no one has been able to show with sufficient evidence why premise one of the moral argument is false. Until you can, premise one is to be taken as true. If it so clearly evident to you all that premise one is not true, then simply reword it however you wish and try to come up with a sound refutation.

That is because you need to elaborate upon how objective morality requires the existence of a God(s). You have not done so and until you do so you will keep hitting the proverbial brick wall. People will not take you seriously.

I'll reword it to how it is to me:

1. If unsupported assertion does not exist, unsupported claim does not exist.
2. Unsupported claim exists.
3. Therefore unsupported assertion exists.

One problem here is that far from being in agreement on what atheism is, the majority of you cannot even agree on what objective morals are. The existence of said morals is even in question to many of you.

You seem surprised. I did point out in my first post to you that the existence of objective morals cannot be assumed and that many people do question them.

Opinions have their place, but not in logical argument.

If you would be successful in your defense of atheism, I would suggest the following:

You appear to be learning this lesson yourself. We are not 'defending atheism' at all. You are being asked to defend your moral argument for God and you are refusing and projecting our refusal to just assume your premises as some kind of pyyrhic victory.

1. Come to some type of general consensus on what atheism is and its ramifications for life.

No-one here, other than you apparently is confused as to what atheism is. No-one here, other than you apparently seem to think that 'atheism' has any direct ramifications on life.

2. Come to some type of consensus on what objective moral values are and whether or not they exist.

In the context of this discussion, that is not our role. That is up to you. You made the claim about objective moral values, not us.

3. Attempt to develop some type of argument to refute the present one and thereby show it to be false.

Develop your own arguments.

It must also be taken into account that this argument is just one of several arguments for theism.

We know. You've referenced them. I can assure you we're all well aware of the arguments for theism from the absurd to the even more absurd.

If anyone is interested, I have several other arguments for theism that are useful in showing that theism is the more plausible worldview as opposed to atheism.

You have learned nothing. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Atheism is not a worldview. How often has this been repeated to you?

I shall begin with the cosmological argument from contingency and proceed from there.

Seeing as the Cosmological Argument has just as many assumption as the moral argument you'll be insisting everyone ignore your many assumptions embedded into your premises and just accept them on face value.

Then you'll lecture everyone on how they should disprove your own assumptions ignoring many debate etiquettes and fallacies commonly understood in philosophy. Wouldn't be able to fault you on consistency at least.

 

[Gadarene]

Thanks for summarising this rather feeble attempt at the moral argument for God, Skavau.

An interesting double-standard in our little Craigian just occurred to me:

These are very good questions, if you hold to the theistic worldview. If you do not, then these questions would be irrelevant to you and therefore cannot be used as an argument against an entity which you categorically deny as existing.

So when atheist asks questions about a God-concept - well, you don't believe in it, so you can't do that!

But the Christian can dictate to atheists what atheism is and isn't - even though he himself is not an atheist

 

[Gadarene]

4. Admit that atheism is a worldview and that it is a belief system. It is an affirmation of the non-existence of a God or gods. This ought not to be confused with agnosticism, which claims not to know. This assertion cannot be empirically verified and proven with mathematical certainty which therefore makes it a belief, i.e something that you believe to be true.

More telling atheists what they should think in order to be atheists.

Look up the definition of "weak atheism" - which I'd wager most of the atheists contributing here are - I am, for one - and then get back to us.

No-one here is asserting that no gods exist. The point of view is actually that there is no good reason - yet - to believe that gods exist because no adequate case for one has yet been made. That doesn't rule out the possibility, and is not a positive claim.

I don't really care if you want to call us agnostics, whatever - although I think it's a bare minimum of respect that you let people self-identify with whatever label they care to choose for the most part - but relabelling us does nothing - NOTHING - at all to the case for the existence of your deity, which is in a pretty poor state of affairs. It is an utter red herring, and has been throughout this entire discussion.

5. Understand that when you postualte the non-existence of a God or gods, you are committing what is referred to as an absolute negation which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain this belief, you must demonstrate that you possess infinite knowledge, which is the same as saying: "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." !!!

Hah, you really don't need infinite knowledge to topple something defined in terms of universals and absolutes. Actually, such constructs are remarkably easy to topple. If a god is defined as always doing X, all you need is one instance of not-X to refute the god-concept.

Also, the notion that there even could be infinite knowledge is a baseless assertion. Finite number of finite things (with finite aspects) to think about implies a finite level of total knowledge available.

 

[Skavau]

This is new:

4. Admit that atheism is a worldview and that it is a belief system. It is an affirmation of the non-existence of a God or gods.

My answer to this will take two forms:

1. You were lying. Earlier, you said to madaz:

An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities.

Ok. Thank you. I shall use this definition from here on out.

Were you lying then or are you lying now? What made you change your mind?

2. Get stuffed. I don't have to admit, concede or declare anything as true or false if I don't believe it. I will speak for myself because I am me and you are not. Therefore you get no say whatsoever on what I say or think. Atheism is not a worldview. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not even necessarily a belief. Atheism is the descriptive term for those who do not believe in the existence of a God(s).

This ought not to be confused with agnosticism, which claims not to know.

Agnosticism is indeed not knowing - but that is entirely compatible with atheism. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge. Atheism concerns itself with belief. An Agnostic would say that it is impossible to know whether or not a God(s) exist. An atheist would not believe in the existence of a God(s). The two are entirely compatible with one another. I am both an Agnostic and an Atheist and I am them with or without your semantic consent.

This assertion cannot be empirically verified and proven with mathematical certainty which therefore makes it a belief, i.e something that you believe to be true.

See above.

5. Understand that when you postualte the non-existence of a God or gods, you are committing what is referred to as an absolute negation which is self-contradictory.

Who here has postulated the non-existence of a God? Perhaps some have. I haven't. Not to you.

For, to sustain this belief, you must demonstrate that you possess infinite knowledge, which is the same as saying: "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." !!!

This is now going far beyond complete nonsense. Presuming that anyone here has even argued that a God cannot exist, who has done it on the basis of infallibility or certain knowledge? I know many strong atheists and they will give arguments against specific renditions of God(s) be they scientific or philosophical in nature but not one will actually insist they know that God cannot exist.

It is also worth wondering whether you apply such absurd standards to yourself. Surely to claim that a God does exist that you yourself are also saying "I have infinite knowledge that there is a being in existence with infinite knowledge."

 

[Ken-1122]

As it is has been observed, no logical argument has been espoused by any atheist here with regards to refuting the premises proposed in the primary post on this topic. The burden remains upon you all to offer a logical negation to presmise one and build a sound and logically valid argument which reaches a conclusion opposite of the one stated. Until this happens, the argument stands as being true.

I haven’t read what you said to everyone else but with my questions; all you’ve done is made a bunch of claims with nothing to back it up!

I have supplied you all several times with an adequate definition of what an acceptable premise is according to contemporary philisophical scholarship and so far no one has been able to show with sufficient evidence why premise one of the moral argument is false. Until you can, premise one is to be taken as true. If it so clearly evident to you all that premise one is not true, then simply reword it however you wish and try to come up with a sound refutation.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']What is “premise one”? I’ve asked you specific questions; can I get an answer?

One problem here is that far from being in agreement on what atheism is, the majority of you cannot even agree on what objective morals are. The existence of said morals is even in question to many of you.

That’s because there is probably very little that we agree on!

Opinions have their place, but not in logical argument.

Of course it does; logic is the tool I use to shape my opinions!

If you would be successful in your defense of atheism, I would suggest the following:

1. Come to some type of general consensus on what atheism is and its ramifications for life.

2. Come to some type of consensus on what objective moral values are and whether or not they exist.

Are you kidding me??? You would have more success “herding cats” Atheism is not a religion; we don’t all think alike; there is very little we agree on. You are gonna have to answer each of us individually.

3. Attempt to develop some type of argument to refute the present one and thereby show it to be false.

I did that already and I'm still waiting for an answer.

4. Admit that atheism is a worldview and that it is a belief system. It is an affirmation of the non-existence of a God or gods. This ought not to be confused with agnosticism, which claims not to know. This assertion cannot be empirically verified and proven with mathematical certainty which therefore makes it a belief, i.e something that you believe to be true.

My world view is based upon my teachings from my parents, the schools I went to, the people I chose to associate with, the city and neighborhood I live, the people I work with, books I’ve read, and a host of other things too many to list! And the same can be said for you and everyone else. The only difference between you and I is your world view includes all those things and your idea of God and mine does not.

5. Understand that when you postualte the non-existence of a God or gods, you are committing what is referred to as an absolute negation which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain this belief, you must demonstrate that you possess infinite knowledge, which is the same as saying: "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." !!!

Do you need infinite knowledge to know Santa Clause does not exist? What about Easter Bunny, or Marvin the Martian? I don’t need to prove a negative in order to doubt the existence of something; now if you have some compelling evidence that proves otherwise…… let’s hear it

Ken

 

[Elioenai26]

I am sympathetic to you all really I am. I too, at one point in my life rejected God and His love, and His kindness towards me. It was not within me to understand so great a love and goodness.

But that changed when He allowed me to go my own way for a time.

My friends, it was not until I came to the end of myself that I saw how much I needed Him.

I pray He is merciful to you all as well.

I shall leave this quote with you all as a solemn reminder:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George Macdonald

 

[Skavau]

I am sympathetic to you all really I am. I too, at one point in my life rejected God and His love, and His kindness towards me. It was not within me to understand so great a love and goodness.

Oh save your sanctimony. I thought you dealt in logic and not emotional preaching and lecturing. To sit here and assume we just can't understand the "great love and goodness" that you're portraying is extreme arrogance.

But that changed when He allowed me to go my own way for a time.

My friends, it was not until I came to the end of myself that I saw how much I needed Him.

I pray He is merciful to you all as well.

I shall leave this quote with you all as a solemn reminder:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George Macdonald

So you leave with a smear. You suggest that we all hate truth.

So loving.

 

[Gadarene]

I am sympathetic to you all really I am. I too, at one point in my life rejected God and His love, and His kindness towards me. It was not within me to understand so great a love and goodness.

Can we just clarify something here? We're not against love and goodness, we're hacked off because you haven't listened to a single word anyone has said about what atheism actually is - this post is a case in point.

Not angry at God - we're angry at you. If you want to be taken seriously here, do something about that.

But that changed when He allowed me to go my own way for a time.

My friends, it was not until I came to the end of myself that I saw how much I needed Him.

I pray He is merciful to you all as well.

So when you couldn't defend your feeble moral argument anymore, you just resort to the nadir of Craigian argument and appeal to the warm and fuzzies.

Next time, just spare the argument stage, ok? It's obvious you have no viable argument and no wish to seriously defend the one you have presented as your premises and objections have been torn to shreds at every turn. Why bother, if all you're going to do is ignore the points raised and just preach? Fire off the token evangelical attempt, and have done with it.

I shall leave this quote with you all as a solemn reminder:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George Macdonald

So now we don't love truth?



Put the shovel down now.

 

[Elioenai26]

So now we don't love truth?

If you loved the truth you would love Jesus.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am sympathetic to you all really I am. I too, at one point in my life rejected God and His love, and His kindness towards me. It was not within me to understand so great a love and goodness.

But that changed when He allowed me to go my own way for a time.

My friends, it was not until I came to the end of myself that I saw how much I needed Him.

I pray He is merciful to you all as well.

I shall leave this quote with you all as a solemn reminder:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George Macdonald

When I've been proven wrong; I admit to my mistake and change my opinions. What do you do?

Ken

 

[Gadarene]

If you loved the truth you would love Jesus. He is Truth. Tell me Gadarene, do you love Jesus?

Pay attention Elioenai - this is what an actual truth-seeker does:

You have not demonstrated that Jesus is truth, you have asserted it.

Over to you.

 

[Gadarene]

This is why Christian apologists are frequently so hard to take seriously - and even someone vaguely competent like Craig does it too - when the arguments fail they just give up and resort to the most sanctimonious preaching.

Again - why bother pretending you actually care about philosophical argument and debate when you just abandon it when it stops appearing to work?

 

[Davian]

If you loved the truth you would love Jesus. He is Truth. <snip>

Speaking of truth, I would ask: Did you pay for that material from William Lane Craig? How much did you spend?

 

[Skavau]

If you loved the truth you would love Jesus.

So you're convinced that we think you're correct, but we hate truth, so we argue with you?

What?

 

[Gadarene]

So you're convinced that we think you're correct, but we hate truth, so we argue with you?

What?

That particular piece of codswallop is definitely straight out of Daddy Craig's playbook.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's alright guys, I still love ya!!

I think we could all use a group hug!!

 

[Gadarene]

It's alright guys, I still love ya!!

I think we could all use a group hug!!

Skip it. That kind of evasion might work at church.

It won't here.

The fact that you still haven't grasped the need to apologise for your conduct is remarkable.

 

[Elioenai26]

Skip it. That kind of evasion might work at church.

It won't here.

The fact that you still haven't grasped the need to apologise for your conduct is remarkable.

No evasion my friend. Im being sincere. Really I am!

 

[Gadarene]

No evasion my friend. Im being sincere. Really I am!

I know, and that's what's staggering. The evasion is that simply saying I LOVE YOU GUYS is just trying to paper over your behaviour. Your behaviour is entirely inconsistent with that statement!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No evasion my friend. Im being sincere. Really I am!

You haven't answered the challenge - that's called evasion.