Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't asking about atheism "itself." I asked whether or not the atheistic (non-God) world view (a view that omits God) is logically coherent.
Do you assume that I fail to realize the different views within atheism and theism? Thanks for equating me with an imbecile.
With regard to my questions and assertions, there is either the God view or the non-God view. Does the non-God (atheistic) view provide coherence? Does it provide more REASONABLE answers than the God (theistic) view?
The theist can REASONABLY and LOGICALLY posit the existence of moral absolutes. How does the atheist do this?
There are an endless number of things that can be extrapolated from the atheistic world view. It's just another world view. As such, it is subjected to that same scrutiny that all world views are subject to. Does it provide the most REASONABLE explanations? Logically, if atheism is coherent and true, then it most certainly should provide the best explanations.
Great. Do your decisions include God or do they exclude God?
An atheistic world view could either be coherent or non-coherent, based on whatever the atheistic world view is. Unless you are arguing that EVERY atheistic world view MUST NECESSARILY be incoherent. If so, you are free to make that argument.
And please don't get mad. I don't assume you're an Imbecile. I was only trying to spell out my logic - showing my homework if you will.
I think neither the God view nor the atheist view offer reasonable answers to many questions. I don't think it is reasonable to believe a God created everything out of nothing, or even exists. On the other hand, I also don't think it's reasonable to believe that everything came from nothing, or just always was. That is a big reason why I am now agnostic - I came to realize that most of the non-God explanations are about as unrealistic as the God explanations.
It is logically possible for theist to offer a coherent basis for moral absolutes, just as it is possible for atheist. But I have never actually met a theist who DOES believe in moral absolutes. They often claim to have moral absolute beliefs, but then will explain why that the standards of morality depend upon the time in which the person lived, and the situation the person was in. For example, is it moral to kill the first born children of your enemies? That question, according to many Christians, will depend upon who is doing the killing, and sometimes the time frame in which the action occured.
Finally, you changed your question a bit by saying "if atheism is coherent AND TRUE" it would provide better explanations. You originally only asked if it was coherent. I can defend the coherency of atheism, but not the true-ness.
An atheistic world view could either be coherent or non-coherent, based on whatever the atheistic world view is. Unless you are arguing that EVERY atheistic world view MUST NECESSARILY be incoherent. If so, you are free to make that argument.
That's exactly what I'm questioning. Are ALL atheistic world views coherent? Is there ANY atheistic world view that is coherent? Is YOUR world view coherent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I think neither the God view nor the atheist view offer reasonable answers to many questions.
Agreed. A world view basically offers answers to four necessary questions - questions that relate to origin, meaning, morality and hope that assures destiny. The answers must be correspondingly true and, as a whole, coherent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I don't think it is reasonable to believe a God created everything out of nothing, or even exists.
Do you think that it's illogical to posit a primary first cause agent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
On the other hand, I also don't think it's reasonable to believe that everything came from nothing, or just always was.
Absolutely agree. What other REASONABLE alternatives do you have to the argument for the necessity of a primary first cause agent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
That is a big reason why I am now agnostic - I came to realize that most of the non-God explanations are about as unrealistic as the God explanations.
You cannot realistically live life as an eternal skeptic. Logically, you're going to have to make decisions. The decisions you make will either be based on truth and God or they will be based on falsehood and nonsense. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WITHOUT MAKING DECISIONS? (If you choose to ignore every other question I've asked, please do me the courtesy of at least providing a direct and honest answer to this one.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
It is logically possible for theist to offer a coherent basis for moral absolutes, just as it is possible for atheist.
Lead on. Please explain how it's possible to explain the existence of moral absolutes in the absence of a Transcendent Law Giver (God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
But I have never actually met a theist who DOES believe in moral absolutes.
Wrong. You're having a discussion with one right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
They often claim to have moral absolute beliefs, but then will explain why that the standards of morality depend upon the time in which the person lived, and the situation the person was in. For example, is it moral to kill the first born children of your enemies? That question, according to many Christians, will depend upon who is doing the killing, and sometimes the time frame in which the action occurred.
If we were to argue and debate the existence of tsunamis, would that logically mean that tsunamis do not exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Finally, you changed your question a bit by saying "if atheism is coherent AND TRUE" it would provide better explanations. You originally only asked if it was coherent. I can defend the coherency of atheism, but not the true-ness.
That's exactly what I'm questioning. Are ALL atheistic world views coherent? Is there ANY atheistic world view that is coherent? Is YOUR world view coherent?
Agreed. A world view basically offers answers to four necessary questions - questions that relate to origin, meaning, morality and hope that assures destiny. The answers must be correspondingly true and, as a whole, coherent.
Do you think that it's illogical to posit a primary first cause agent?
Absolutely agree. What other REASONABLE alternatives do you have to the argument for the necessity of a primary first cause agent?
You cannot realistically live life as an eternal skeptic. Logically, you're going to have to make decisions. The decisions you make will either be based on truth and God or they will be based on falsehood and nonsense. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WITHOUT MAKING DECISIONS? (If you choose to ignore every other question I've asked, please do me the courtesy of at least providing a direct and honest answer to this one.)
Lead on. Please explain how it's possible to explain the existence of moral absolutes in the absence of a Transcendent Law Giver (God).
Wrong. You're having a discussion with one right now.
If we were to argue and debate the existence of tsunamis, would that logically mean that tsunamis do not exist?
2 + 2 = 4 True or false? Coherent, or incoherent?
The term "world view" is a slippery concept without a standardized definition. Assuming we mean the same thing when we say "world view" I can imagine a instances of atheist with coherent world views, and cases where atheist have incoherent world views. I would like to think my world view is coherent, and I certainly strive for that but it is hard to examine it all at once.
I don't think it's illogical to posit a primary cause agent for the sake of argument, but I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest what that primary cause agent in fact is, or even that there necessarily must be a primary first cause agent. There is much more unknown then known about the entire issue, and I don't find any of the answers satisfying.
I don't have other reasonable answers for how everything got here, nor do I consider any of those answers already given to be reasonable. Every possible explanation I have seen seem unreasonable to me.
I don't know why you insist one must either believe there is a God or believe there is not a God. For no good reason you completely discount the possibility that a person could believe there may or may not be a God. That is a decision, not a lack of decision. I think that is the most reasonable position, given the lack of evidence we have on the subject.
2 + 2 may equal 4, (2 drops of water + 2 drops of water may equal 1 drop of water), and that is not an incoherent statement.
The questions about moral absolutes is interesting to me. It's a big subject, so first I will address why I don't believe you actually DO believe in moral absolutes, and when that's done I'll defend the proposition that an atheist COULD believe in moral aboslutes. But be advised, I will be gone to the OU Texas game all day tomorrow so I won't be able to finish the discussion until Sunday.
First let us agree on a definition: Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. (From our friends at wiki).
If you agree with that definition of Moral absolutism it's hard to argue that Christianity espouses a morally absolute philosophy. Most Christians will concede that some actions were not immoral in the old testiment, but are immoral today. Further, morality at one point of time was different dependent upon whether or not one was Jewish. Is slavery, as God once commanded, still morally right? What about killing women who are raped in cities? Killing children who curse their parents? Is it immoral to allow women to speak in church? There are many other examples.
One could even go further and say that if morality is absolute, then God is reported to have committed immoral actions in the bible. God killed many people, including children, who were morally blameless. Only if you claim morality isn't absolute, but contextual based on the actor, can you have a separate morality for God then others.
I think it is more accurate to say that Christianity espouses a transcendent, but relativistic, morality. It is based on a transcendent law giver, but the actions alone won't determine the morality, and what is considered moral may change over time and circumstance, dependent upon the discretion of God. Most Christians, whether they admit it or not, are transcendent moral relativist.
i don't know why you insist one must either believe there is a god or believe there is not a god. For no good reason you completely discount the possibility that a person could believe there may or may not be a god. That is a decision, not a lack of decision. I think that is the most reasonable position, given the lack of evidence we have on the subject.
Do you understand that it's not possible to live your life without making decisions?
The term "world view" is a slippery concept without a standardized definition. Assuming we mean the same thing when we say "world view" I can imagine a instances of atheist with coherent world views, and cases where atheist have incoherent world views. I would like to think my world view is coherent, and I certainly strive for that but it is hard to examine it all at once.
I believe that I communicated what it is that I see as constituting a world view. Do you disagree? If so, please elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I don't think it's illogical to posit a primary cause agent for the sake of argument, but I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest what that primary cause agent in fact is, or even that there necessarily must be a primary first cause agent. There is much more unknown then known about the entire issue, and I don't find any of the answers satisfying.
I'm really not interested in which views you find satisfying. Is there a REASONABLE alternative to the concept of a primary first cause agent?
If not, and if you're honest, you will concede that the notion of a first cause agent is the MOST REASONABLE explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I don't have other reasonable answers for how everything got here, nor do I consider any of those answers already given to be reasonable. Every possible explanation I have seen seem unreasonable to me.
Fine. Which one is MOST REASONABLE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I don't know why you insist one must either believe there is a God or believe there is not a God. For no good reason you completely discount the possibility that a person could believe there may or may not be a God. That is a decision, not a lack of decision. I think that is the most reasonable position, given the lack of evidence we have on the subject.
I understand the concept of neutrality. Yes, one can certainly refrain from making certain decisions. My point here is that it's total nonsense to assert that people can go through their entire lives without making decisions. Do you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
The questions about moral absolutes is interesting to me. It's a big subject, so first I will address why I don't believe you actually DO believe in moral absolutes, and when that's done I'll defend the proposition that an atheist COULD believe in moral aboslutes. But be advised, I will be gone to the OU Texas game all day tomorrow so I won't be able to finish the discussion until Sunday.
I'm really not interested in what it is that you believe that I believe. You WILL need to logically and reasonably explain why anyone should believe that moral absolutes do not exist.
Here's a hint: First you're going to have to explain why belief in the existence of God is unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
First let us agree on a definition: Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. (From our friends at wiki).
If you mean to infer that moral absolutes are a priori, then I would see this as an accurate definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
If you agree with that definition of Moral absolutism it's hard to argue that Christianity espouses a morally absolute philosophy. Most Christians will concede that some actions were not immoral in the old testiment, but are immoral today. Further, morality at one point of time was different dependent upon whether or not one was Jewish. Is slavery, as God once commanded, still morally right? What about killing women who are raped in cities? Killing children who curse their parents? Is it immoral to allow women to speak in church? There are many other examples.
One could even go further and say that if morality is absolute, then God is reported to have committed immoral actions in the bible. God killed many people, including children, who were morally blameless. Only if you claim morality isn't absolute, but contextual based on the actor, can you have a separate morality for God then others.
I think it is more accurate to say that Christianity espouses a transcendent, but relativistic, morality. It is based on a transcendent law giver, but the actions alone won't determine the morality, and what is considered moral may change over time and circumstance, dependent upon the discretion of God. Most Christians, whether they admit it or not, are transcendent moral relativist.
The law of identity: Whatever IS, IS. If God exists and this God has communicated a moral law, then your assertions here are superfluous.
However, unless or until you are prepared to make the case for the logical coherence of the atheistic world view, you might do well to avoid making such assertions. You merely present yourself here as being a 'peanut gallery ankle biter.'
Great. Do your decisions include God or do they exclude God?
How does one go about deciding whether or not to brush their teeth in the theist point of view? What about the decisions of whether to buy sushi or hotdogs? or play checkers instead of chess?
Do your decisions include God or do they exclude God?
What about when you decide to sleep instead of think/worship/thank about God? Is that the right choice?
Sometimes, its easy to understand that we don't have to believe anything at all. that all depends on our genes of course, sometimes our genes drive us to end our cognitive dissonance and just choose a faith. Most reasonable sometimes isn't good enough. The better of two evils is sometimes not good enough. When you can simply chose neither evil. false dichotomies are probably not good ways to look at the world around us and what we wish to think about it.
How does one go about deciding whether or not to brush their teeth in the theist point of view? What about the decisions of whether to buy sushi or hotdogs? or play checkers instead of chess?
Do your decisions include God or do they exclude God?
What about when you decide to sleep instead of think/worship/thank about God? Is that the right choice?
If these are an accurate representation of the tough choices you've had to make in your life, I would say that I'm envious. I suspect most people, including myself, have run in to some extraordinarily difficult situations and decisions that presented rather significant moral implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Sometimes, its easy to understand that we don't have to believe anything at all.
Look, I've already freely conceded that there are times when one can abstain from making a decision. Understood.
Please explain how it would be logical for a person to live their entire life without making KEY decisions. Logically, these decisions will either be in line with God's morality of they will oppose God's morality...there is no middle place we can run to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
...that all depends on our genes of course, sometimes our genes drive us to end our cognitive dissonance and just choose a faith. Most reasonable sometimes isn't good enough. The better of two evils is sometimes not good enough. When you can simply chose neither evil. false dichotomies are probably not good ways to look at the world around us and what we wish to think about it.
Hey, if it works for you, go with it. To each their own.
Do you understand that it's not possible to live your life without making decisions?
Of course it is impossible to live life without making decisions. But that is a non-sequitar to our conversation.
Imagine two people are exactly alike in every way, except one: Person A doesn't believe in god at all, person B believes in a cold impersonal god that doesn't intervene in the material world in any way. Infact, person B's god is indifferent to the fate and decisions of humans, and does not grant them immortality.
The decision making process of both people would be remarkably similar.
I would be most like person C: A person that thinks there probably is no god, but can't rule out that a cold impersonal god might exist.
How would my decisions be any different if I were a type A atheist or a type B theist?
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-08-2011 at 08:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
