Atheism

[quatona]

I think you do believe they exist quatona.

I´m sure you mean no offense, but I get a little uneasy when people make assumptions about my beliefs - particularly when these assumptions are opposite to what I explicitly said I believe.
I think it would be in the best interest of both of us (as well as benefiting the conversation) if you´d abstain from doing this. Thank you.

May I respectfully ask you a question?

Of course - although the fact that you ask this question right after having doubted the accuracy of a statement I have made previously makes me wonder if you will do the same with my response to this question.

Is child abuse permissable?

No, it isn´t - by virtue of the very definition of the word "abuse". "Permissible abuse" is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. That´s a fact of semantics rather than a moral or epistemological issue.

I am not sure what exactly you are asking me here. For clarification let´s take an action which - under current law of my country - is considered "child abuse": e.g. hitting your child with a belt.
This action was permissible still 100 years ago in this country, and I´m sure it is permissible in other countries still today. So yes, quite obviously it is permissible.

Or are you asking whether I like the idea that people hit their children with a belt? I don´t - au contraire, I despise it.
Do I want this action to be permitted? Definitely not.

In case this hasn´t answered your question to your satisfaction, please try to reword it so I understand it better.

(What however intrigues me, is how and why you feel that my personal subjective opinion is of any relevance for the question at hand.)

My aim here must be clearly understood. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am simply stating in quite simple terms why I believe that theism is the more plausible explanatory system with regards to the origin of life and the universe as opposed to atheism.

That´s fine and dandy - but how is it supposed to have any explanatory value to your target audience when it simply asserts that which is disputed by this very audience?

The most prominent atheistic minds of today do generally agree with premises one.

To be frank - I have a hard time believing this, and I would love you to support this statement with facts.
Anyway, here you are talking with me, and I don´t agree with this premise. What "prominent atheistic minds generally do" doesn´t impress me much.

There is some divergence and differing views on premise two. I encourage you whenever you are able, to read some of the works written by atheists to understand more clearly what they are claiming.

Allow me to encourage you to provide me with the very statements you are having. You made the claim - you support it.
On the other hand it´s not really necessary since I am just looking for good supportive arguments (and the quality of an argument is unaffected by the personal religious beliefs - or lack thereof - of the person making them). Instead of quoting "prominent atheistic minds" you could as well give me the logic behind the premises yourself.

Please support the validity of your premises. Please don´t replace this support by pointing or appealing to (on top of it: unnamed) alleged authorities.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The backing is the existence of objective moral values that we all recognize and adhere to and believe in.

This premise is simply incorrect.... It is possible for absolutely everyone to be in agreement about a moral view using subjective morality as well. Just because it's a commonly held belief, is no evidence to show that the belief is objective, much less divinely inspired, or comes from outside of us.

Therefore your argument that just because everyone agrees on a point makes it objective is not substantiated. It's indistinguishable from subjective morality that is widely accepted.

How do you know that the moral standard comes from an outside source, and not something that we all just generally agree on?

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

Atheism is not a system of morality, or a philosophy, it's a singular opinion on a single topic... the existence of God.

There is no moral right or wrong in Theism in and of itself either, which demonstrates my point further.

And your assertion that when you remove God, you remove a moral standard is another unsubstantiated assertion. How do you know this is true? I am a moral person, and I don't derive my morals from your religion or God. In fact I think your God (if he exists) is for the most part very immoral.

The values expressed such as: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc are binding upon all and they don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. Therefore it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, to rape, to murder etc. Under the atheistic view, morality is formed in a subjective manner, i.e "whats good for you might not be good for me", or "what is wrong for you might not be wrong for me" etc.

Some of your examples I would agree are never acceptable, however some are acceptable in certain situations.

Sometimes a lie is the most positive way to go.... for example, when your wife asks if a dress makes her look fat, and it does, the most positive answer is one in which you are being dishonest.

Likewise, if you had to steal food, water, medical supplies or whatever to survive... that also is not wrong.

I would agree things like Rape are never acceptable, however that's because I can't think of a possible scenario where it would be the most positive ethical decision you could make. That's not because of a universal law, that's just my own sense of right and wrong.

If one were to take this ideology at face value and follow it to its logical conclusion, you would be witness to what Friedrich Nietzsche speaks of when he says:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God."

That's fine, I believe Secular morality is superior to Christian morality anyway.

The question remains unanswered: "why would you obviously be angry?"

Because he took my food, which I need to survive... How would that not make me angry at him? It's a normal biological response....

Truth is oftentimes arrived at by utilizing several different disciplines that humans have at their disposal. Philosophy is one of them and is indespensible to the discussion at hand.

Philosophy does not deal with fact, it deals with logic. And while philosophy is certainly useful where it applies, determining the factual existence of something is not a philosophical question, it's a scientific one.

It's the exact same situation as the "Logical vs Sound Argument" definition above. You can make a philosophically, logically consistent argument that shows God exists.... but at the root of it, if you don't have scientific evidence to back up your premises, you have no reason to accept those premises as more probable or even remotely likely to be true.

That's why it's a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

 

[quatona]

then this conversation is not for you. (possibly an abnormality of selfish behaviour)

I have been looking at this statement of yours for some time, and trying to interprete it. I see two possibilities:
1. the part in brackets is meant to describe the discussion here.
2. the part in brackets is an unveiled ad hominem directed at me.
Am I missing another option?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think you do believe they exist quatona. May I respectfully ask you a question? Is child abuse permissable?

Whether or not he (or society in general) believes child abuse is permissible, has no bearing on whether it's objective or subjective.

My aim here must be clearly understood. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am simply stating in quite simple terms why I believe that theism is the more plausible explanatory system with regards to the origin of life and the universe as opposed to atheism.

Fair enough... But in the same sense, if you state your case well enough, as a byproduct you will inevitably convince us of your argument.

The problem I'm having is that your arguments to date have not in any way demonstrated that morality has an objective basis. They're indistinguishable from widely accepted subjective beliefs.

You must be able to show that distinction to prove your case.

The most prominent atheistic minds of today do generally agree with premises one. There is some divergence and differing views on premise two. I encourage you whenever you are able, to read some of the works written by atheists to understand more clearly what they are claiming.

I disagree that the most prominent atheistic minds agree with either one of those premises..... And I've read most of the better known Atheistic books.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, I'd really love to know which atheists think an assumption about a god being needed for objective morals is a smart assumption.

I'd argue they're two very confused atheists.

Of course, this kind of argument from authority is par for the course for someone like Lane Craig....

 

[Dave Ellis]

the natural law is spiritual in nature not a physical law, it's in the mind and understood only by intuition.

The natural law hasn't even been demonstrated to exist at all. He provided no justification for belief in the existence of such a law at all.

see post 821

I looked at post 821.... and what's your point?

My argument was: "I stated in a previous post that just because many people across many cultures have fairly similar moral viewpoints, is no evidence to show that there is a universal set of moral values."

Responding with an example of how many cultures have fairly similar moral viewpoints is not addressing the argument at all.

I acknowledge there are similar moral viewpoints among many cultures, but that provides no compelling evidence at all as to the existence of a universal code.

even though the mind works the same, we have empathy for a reason. What is that reason?

Because it is an evolutionary benefit to us as a species to have empathy, Without it we'd never work together effectively. It makes our species stronger.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure... however I can back my opinion with demonstrable fact... The logical flaws in Dr Craig's work are easy to point out.

You also have the right to believe what you want, however if you believe something that has been demonstrated as logically unsound.... You are by definition holding an irrational belief.

You are correct. It would be irrational to hold to a view if it has been shown to be untrue. By the same token, with all respect, it would be irrational to persist in denial of a view if given sufficient evidence of its validity.

I never said the holocaust was not wrong. I was saying it was wrong because we subjectively believe it to be wrong based on our own morals and ethics, and not because of an objective universal moral code.

Ok its wrong. But where do you get the idea of "wrong"?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are correct. It would be irrational to hold to a view if it has been shown to be untrue. By the same token, with all respect, it would be irrational to persist in denial of a view if given sufficient evidence of its validity.

Ok.... so again, where is the evidence?

Simply telling me over and over again that it's irrational to persist in denial of sufficient evidence is pointless, when you have provided no evidence at all.

Ok its wrong. But where do you get the idea of "wrong"?

Because I can imagine how it must have felt for the millions of Jews that got pushed into a gas chamber. That makes me feel sick, and disgusted at the people that did that sort of thing to them.

 

[Elioenai26]

This premise is simply incorrect.... It is possible for absolutely everyone to be in agreement about a moral view using subjective morality as well. Just because it's a commonly held belief, is no evidence to show that the belief is objective, much less divinely inspired, or comes from outside of us.

Possible yes. Probable, no. There are a plethora of different views on moral issues that are universal, let alone subjective.

Therefore your argument that just because everyone agrees on a point makes it objective is not substantiated. It's indistinguishable from subjective morality that is widely accepted.

I never said that Mr. Ellis. I have said there are basic beliefs about morality that are binding upon all and are accepted regardless of culture, location, time etc.

How do you know that the moral standard comes from an outside source, and not something that we all just generally agree on?

This knowledge comes from the logical deduction which states: either there is a God (some supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, moral being) or there isn't. One is true. Both cannot be true and both cannot be false. We know this because scientist have come to the conclusion that the universe had a definite beginning at some point in the distant past. In other words, the universe was created ex nihilo. Now, if the universe came to be at some point in the distant past, then logically it stands that there was a cause for it coming into being. This cause must meet the above qualifications. This outside source as you call it is more plausibly God.

Atheism is not a system of morality, or a philosophy, it's a singular opinion on a single topic... the existence of God.

You are correct atheism is not a system of morality. It is a system of amorality.

There is no moral right or wrong in Theism in and of itself either, which demonstrates my point further.

This is incorrect. Theism states that all that exists, whether immaterial or material, has it's source in God. This includes morality.

And your assertion that when you remove God, you remove a moral standard is another unsubstantiated assertion. How do you know this is true? I am a moral person, and I don't derive my morals from your religion or God. In fact I think your God (if he exists) is for the most part very immoral.

This is to confuse terms. A person can be moral and not believe in God. All this means is that they are living in a contradictory manner to their belief.

I would agree things like Rape are never acceptable, however that's because I can't think of a possible scenario where it would be the most positive ethical decision you could make. That's not because of a universal law, that's just my own sense of right and wrong.

You are saying it is never permissable to rape someone. I agree. This is a statement on morality once again. As an atheist, you have no ground to make such an assertion.

That's fine, I believe Secular morality is superior to Christian morality anyway.

Another statement with regards to morality.

Philosophy does not deal with fact, it deals with logic. And while philosophy is certainly useful where it applies, determining the factual existence of something is not a philosophical question, it's a scientific one.

It's the exact same situation as the "Logical vs Sound Argument" definition above. You can make a philosophically, logically consistent argument that shows God exists.... but at the root of it, if you don't have scientific evidence to back up your premises, you have no reason to accept those premises as more probable or even remotely likely to be true.

That's why it's a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

The scientific method and science assumes certain things that cannot be scientifically and empirically verified. I can give you a list if you would like.

 

[Gadarene]

You are correct atheism is not a system of morality. It is a system of amorality.

If you mean that atheism does not explicitly specify a moral code, fine.

If you mean that atheists are amoral, I strongly advise you to stop there.

 

[createdtoworship]

The natural law hasn't even been demonstrated to exist at all. He provided no justification for belief in the existence of such a law at all.

I never said it was proven, I said it was known by intuition. The inner calling of every man and woman. Not external evidence, thats not even the subject of this matter. Prove to me you are seeing red monkeys in your thoughts? You can't. In the same way you can't prove a moral law. I was wrong to call it objective, I meant to say subjective, because it's TO the person that is fealing these laws. But they are all the same. And the person making the laws is God so the object of the law is holding the same status as the law and not contradicting it, so it is objective technically speaking. But we can't know that much yet.

Responding with an example of how many cultures have fairly similar moral viewpoints is not addressing the argument at all.

on the contrary, it does.

My argument was: "I stated in a previous post that just because many people across many cultures have fairly similar moral viewpoints, is no evidence to show that there is a universal set of moral values."...I acknowledge there are similar moral viewpoints among many cultures, but that provides no compelling evidence at all as to the existence of a universal code.

why? are there similiar moral viewpoints, have not each culture evolved separately for many generations and how would they still have empathy all and each in the same way? Without a moral code, thats universal?

Because it is an evolutionary benefit to us as a species to have empathy, Without it we'd never work together effectively. It makes our species stronger.

who are you to say you are stronger than say , dogs which do cut in line (and have no empathy for each other at all)

 

[Elioenai26]

If you mean that atheism does not explicitly specify a moral code, fine.

If you mean that atheists are amoral, I strongly advise you to stop there.

Respectfully and humbly replying in response to your post, please note that I said two things: that atheism is a system of amorality, and that atheists can be moral beings. Only when they do, they are living in contradiction to their worldview.

 

[Gadarene]

Respectfully and humbly replying in response to your post, please note that I said two things: that atheism is a system of amorality, and that atheists can be moral beings. Only when they do, they are living in contradiction to their worldview.

No, they aren't.

No less offensive a statement, frankly.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok.... so again, where is the evidence?

Simply telling me over and over again that it's irrational to persist in denial of sufficient evidence is pointless, when you have provided no evidence at all.

Because I can imagine how it must have felt for the millions of Jews that got pushed into a gas chamber. That makes me feel sick, and disgusted at the people that did that sort of thing to them.

Mr. Ellis, according to your view, humans are nothing more than a conglomeration of randomly constructed atoms, molecules, blood, bone, flesh, and hair. One of your very own, Mr. Richard Dawkins, a notable and respected atheistic scientist has this to say about us: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Now why on earth Mr. Ellis would you have any feeling for anyone who was compelled to go into a gas chamber?

 

[Gadarene]

Mr. Ellis, according to your view, humans are nothing more than a conglomeration of randomly constructed atoms, molecules, blood, bone, flesh, and hair. One of your very own, Mr. Richard Dawkins, a notable and respected atheistic scientist has this to say about us: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Now why on earth Mr. Ellis would you have any feeling for anyone who was compelled to go into a gas chamber?

Because having a naturalistic explanation for our origins doesn't stop us having empathy?

Stop copying whatever Jesus Lane Christ does, and start thinking, perhaps.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, they aren't.

No less offensive a statement, frankly.

Then I am afraid that you are not familiar with what your own worldview claims.

 

[Gadarene]

Then I am afraid that you are not familiar with what your own worldview claims.

No, I'm afraid it means you need to start listening to what other people say their viewpoints are and stop presuming.

Stop being so arrogant.

 

[Elioenai26]

Because having a naturalistic explanation for our origins doesn't stop us having empathy?

Stop copying whatever Jesus Lane Christ does, and start thinking, perhaps.

I have amicably and humbly responded to every post and reply here with the utmost respect, time and attention. I however, am not compelled to engage in debate with someone who is unwilling to agree to disagree. I shall conclude my responses to you Mr. Gadarene by leaving you with this:

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

I pray you find your way. Good day.

 

[Gadarene]

I have amicably and humbly responded to every post and reply here with the utmost respect, time and attention. I however, am not compelled to engage in debate with someone who is unwilling to agree to disagree. I shall conclude my responses to you Mr. Gadarene by leaving you with this:

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

I pray you find your way. Good day.

You told me what my viewpoint entailed and then ignored my correction.

Apologise, or take your sanctimony elsewhere. Hopefully you will learn not to be so arrogant in future. I see no reason to respect someone who is disrespectful. And make no mistake, that is what you were.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes you are correct. Dr. William Lane Craig is...

Garbage.

He never addresses that his kalam argument is invalid. He uses "started" for "created", as if they are the same. Plus, his condescending wise-ass replies don't help him.