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 believe that I communicated what it is that I see as constituting a world view. Do you disagree? If so, please elaborate.
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.
Fine. Which one is MOST REASONABLE?
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?
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.
If you mean to infer that moral absolutes are a priori, then I would see this as an accurate definition.
The law of identity: Whatever IS, IS. If God exists and this God has communicated a moral law, then your assertions here are superfluous.
First let me say that I might be misreading the tone of your post, but you seem to have a lot of bitterness. I hope you understand that nothing I am saying is meant to be disrespectful toward you, and I hope you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am.
As to the question of a "world view", as I said previously I can defend the coherency of at least some atheist views, but not the truthfulness, simply because I don't happen to agree that view is true, (similar to how I feel about theism.)
Neither the idea of having a primary cause agent nor NOT having a primary cause agent seem reasonable to me, in approximately equal amounts. If I were forced to choose, I would say the primary first cause agent sounds slightly less reasonable.
I addressed your "making decisions" claim in my previous post. There are very few decisions that I would make differently whether I believed that there was no god or whether I believed there was an impersonal god, or whether I was uncertain about the issue.
Finally, your last assertion is wrong:
Quote:
The law of identity: Whatever IS, IS. If God exists and this God has communicated a moral law, then your assertions here are superfluous.
A god could exist and have a mutable set of moral laws. He could claim certain actions as moral in one century, and immoral in another. He could claim certain actions are moral if one being commits them, and immoral if another does. This is the case with the standard concept of a Christian God.
That would not be moral absolutism. By definition, that is moral relativism.
If you believe like most Christians, then you have a relativist moral philosophy, even if it springs from what you believe is God.
There is no God, because no God has been proven to exist. No aliens either. Period. Move on with your lives...
There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, most which are thought to have planets. If one believes evolution could occur naturally on earth, why would they believe it could not happen on any of the several billion other planets?
first-off, I'll get this off my quote-list early, because I'm in total agreement with regard to tigetmax's seeming hostile attitude here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
First let me say that I might be misreading the tone of your post, but you seem to have a lot of bitterness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What evidence, arguments, data or reasons are there to support the idea of atheism?
Is atheism logically coherent?
Yes, as coherent as any other alternative, of which there are obviously more than just two. You selectively choose to only have two choices: the right one (God) in your eyes, or the wrong one (atheism) in your eyes). How convenient for your point of view, but sadly lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
His implied question was: why should he need evidence, arguments, data, or reasons, to REJECT an idea.. .and how can the REJECTION of an idea be an idea itself.
That's like saying that the opposite of having an idea is having another idea, instead of rejecting that specific idea. Which conflicts with the scholarly philosophical laws of identity.
To him "the idea that gods exist is an unreasonable one" is the rejection of the idea "gods do exist"; not an idea in it of itself, that needs to be validated. for example: he need not validate his believes when they are merely rejections.
In other words, (alternate) beliefs need to be validated, but rejecting unvalidated beliefs does not need to be validated.
Quite so, and a clear example of the illogic running rampant with this particular poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What is the atheistic explanation as to why anything exists, rather than nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Uhhhmmmm.... who says nothing exists? Whomever said that? Where do these truly cookoo groundless ideas come from? Why exaggerate and amplify the absurd? Does that make a good debating point in your eyes, tiget?
Atheists simply reject the obviously corny idea that some supernatural Sky Daddy, whose vast powers and abilities seemingly always match the needs of some ancient biblical (but never modern....) situation, but were also never seen again, are exactly as valid and credible as a well-run and oft-reproduced hypothetical test scenario. Nope. Sorry.
If one is going to acknowledge the existence of evil, logically, they must also acknowledge the existence of good. As well, they must have the ability to differentiate between the two. How does the atheist do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Simple! You wrongly assume atheists, non-Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. etc., or an Abo tribe in the Aussie outback who had no prior exposure to your Christ-Figurine, have no moral basis to judge? How DID the world get along pre-Christianity one wonders? Is there simply no reconciling in your world with a culture's innate ability to live by some obvious and logical rules of common decency? Even if they are based on self-preservation, as all such rules are initially, even those invented by Christians.
But apparently you need a behavioral guide book just to step outside each morning. Me? I'm not that self-limiting. I just know that I want to be treated "nicely", and similarly, I enjoy doing likewise to my fellow man.
The term 'natural' has to do with events that are commonly observed. The term 'supernatural' has to do with events that a not observable. There is nothing illogical about the concept of miracles or events that appear to defy natural explanations.
Everyone has a world view. Why should a person who rejects the existence of God be exempted from applying the same criteria to their own world view? It seems to me, that if atheism is true and coherent, then it should stand up to the test better than all the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Well, yes, and it does, if one reviews the No God perspective with a truly open mind, unafraid of the obvious consequences of there being no Godly entity. If hoever, that terrifies a person to their core, (even if they don't recognize that terror...) and they thus simply auto-reject atheism in their personal internal navel-gazing review, how on earth will they ever escape the deadly morass of intolerant religion?
Everyone has a world view. This world view must either include or exclude God. It isn't possible for one to live their entire life without making choices. These decisions will either include or exclude God - there is no middle ground.
Wrong again, So very wrong. One can accept or reject a God, or atheism, and acknowledge one or another of an infinite number of different theisms, making up the necessary fabrications or stories, all pre-hypothesis and test, to explain it all. They may well burn some of their virgins, or some otherwise innocent sheep, or toss a few sinners into the volcano, or worship the spaceship hidden behind the approaching comet. and so on. Why limit it all to just two choices, and, not liking the on,e make a sadly defective default decision that the other one is thus, obviously (!!!) correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Is the atheistic world view coherent? Does it provide coherent answers that theism cannot provide?
Yes. Most every answer has proven to be ,at least, MORE coherent than the offering of Christianity. Else, please explain why so many intelligent and mostly well-educated people choose to be atheists after they work on the issues for a significant time in their lives?? By direct comparison, by far the majority of devout Christians are not thusly educated nor prone to thinking it all through. You decide, tiget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Well, when you don't accept: "It isn't understood" or "It can't be understood" as coherent answers, and yet you are desperate for answers...sometimes any answers will do, and you can just pretend to yourself that they are coherent by having faith that they are.
Coherence means it is consistent by itself;
could you imagine a place where supernatural gods don't exist and it wasn't created by a supernatural god? the common scholarly sense is: YES
Atheism is coherent... it is metaphysically possible for gods not to exist.
atheism isn't a religion, it isn't out to provide coherent answers.
Besides, the only coherent answers I've heard have been coming from SCIENTISTS, not necessarily ATHEISTS/ or theists. Atheism doesn't contradict science, while the majority of visible or loud theists actively pretend to contradict it.
Most atheists take scientists as their authority, since science is very self-evident and objective.
(by comparison...) Most theists seem to take the most loud-mouth theist next to them as their authority, instead.
The question you should be asking is: Has science been providing more coherent and useful and accurate answers than religion as a whole has been providing?
the answer to coherence is YES
the answer to usefulness is IT DEPENDS on the motives and desires of the judger, yet as a whole YES
the answer to accuracy seems to be YES
majority of Science is motivated by the Agnostic Humble Spirit,
majority of Religion is motivated by the Stubborn Egotistical Spirit.
Nice! And rather hard to argue, but watch nonetheless...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifle_sooth
Asked and answered. But in case you missed it: to both questions: YES.
The theist can REASONABLY and LOGICALLY posit the existence of moral absolutes. How does the atheist do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman_getting_tired
Quite simple, really. We reasonably and logically posit them. No internal struggle there. In fact, we know exactly how to behave properly without disciplinary training and fear-mongering about hell.
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.
[QUOTE-rflmn]Nope. In fact, it usually provides vastly more reasonable conclusions in truth.
Great. Do your decisions include God or do they exclude God?[/quote]
I have to exclude the imaginary in my daily decisions. Why invoke adolescent discipline and monitoring by someone not provably in the room?
As to your attitude, here we go again:
[quote=tigetmax24;21199009] 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 almost_asleep_rflmn
Apparently you have a somewhat skewed idea of what constitutes Reasonable. There's nothing unreasonable about, let's say, Evolution, or of modern artifact dating methods. Or DNA lineage tracking and the great hominid migration out of Africa over tens of thousands of years.
Those very REASONABLE facts discount, and in fact, almost completely demolish the fundamentalist literal Christian's beliefs. When we do the same to most all the other tenets of the Christian belief system, what are we left with?
Q: do you consider those tattered remnants to be THE MOST REASONABLE alternatives?
Really? Alternately, it seems to me that you just hand-wavingly dismiss the assembly and totality of all those inescapable facts, and return to loudly claiming your version, all supernaturally based, and never witnessed by anyone of any observational credibility, are of course far more reasonable. Oh... I forgot to capitalize: FAR MORE REASONABLE!
And then, it's back to that attitude thing...
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:
=rflmn] Again: Asked and answered, many times over, here and elsewhere. But you won't listen, so why, tell me why, I or anyone else here should list them all again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
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.
Hey, if it works for you, go with it. To each their own.
So sorry; common sense is not owned by any God, and most certainly not yours. Frankly, IMHO, He's consistently demo'd a distinct lack of proper respectful behavior by my observation and reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
As to the question of a "world view", as I said previously I can defend the coherency of at least some atheist views, but not the truthfulness, simply because I don't happen to agree that view is true, (similar to how I feel about theism.)
Neither the idea of having a primary cause agent nor NOT having a primary cause agent seem reasonable to me, in approximately equal amounts. If I were forced to choose, I would say the primary first cause agent sounds slightly less reasonable.
Finally, your last assertion is wrong:
A god could exist and have a mutable set of moral laws. He could claim certain actions as moral in one century, and immoral in another. He could claim certain actions are moral if one being commits them, and immoral if another does. This is the case with the standard concept of a Christian God.
That would not be moral absolutism. By definition, that is moral relativism.
If you believe like most Christians, then you have a relativist moral philosophy, even if it springs from what you believe is God.
As to a believable First Cause, why claim it solely as your God's? That is entirely unnecessary in the first place, but also, this was not some simple task; to completely assemble an ordered and functioning universe. It could only have been accomplished by the highly improbable but also minutely and macroscopically concerted efforts of a vastly omnipotent being (who apparently had no beginning, no "parents", and no end, nor anything physical to work with either...).
Or, alternately, by the far simpler adherence of sub-atomic (or smaller) particles to a rather simple set of interactive "rules". Also without any apparent starting blocks, but at least we're all out of the starting gate on an equal footing, despite the Christian denial of that necessity (for something to build an entire universe with I mean...)
We don't make those observed and useful rules up, BTW; we only hypothesize and then "suss them out" by direct or indirect observation and deduction, testing and re-resting. Then we write 'em down for a vastly effective peer-review process that tends to defeat individualism and conceit, thus learning in the process, and being ever more capable of better predicting the Greater Universal Theory in the future.
See: Large Hadron Collider for evidence of predictability, as well as further REASONABLE proof of the No God option.
I'm now really tired. Of this relentless silliness, and of being awake for well over 26h! Apologies to all for any oblivious typoz; and so to bed, perchance to sleep.
First let me say that I might be misreading the tone of your post, but you seem to have a lot of bitterness. I hope you understand that nothing I am saying is meant to be disrespectful toward you, and I hope you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am.
I'm sure you're probably a fine fellow and I haven't taken any comments from you personally nor is it my intention to make any of this personal. As well, I have much better things to do in my life than to wax "bitter" about things I encounter at web forums.
I do enjoy these discussions - that's basically why I'm here taking part in them. However, no one likes having their questions ignored, being attacked personally, being lied to, misrepresented...the list goes on. I certainly don't mean to infer that you are or have been doing these things but just to point out that these sorts of things happen here in the forum just about everyday. I'm a big boy and I can take it...however, I do find a certain number who seem to be good at dishing stuff like this out but can't tolerate having it thrown back at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
As to the question of a "world view", as I said previously I can defend the coherency of at least some atheist views, but not the truthfulness, simply because I don't happen to agree that view is true, (similar to how I feel about theism.)
I'm not asking you to know everyone's particular view of atheism and defend it as being coherent and true. That would obviously be ridiculous. If you don't involve God in your decision making process, and apparently you don't, I'm basically asking you to defend YOUR view and seeking answers as to how it can be REASONABLY viewed as true and coherent with a truth and coherency that may be presumed to be lacking in the BASIC theistic view.
You claim to be an agnostic and that's fine. However, if your decisions don't involve God then, logically, you are making non-God (atheistic) decisions. As well, you seem to freely admit that there is no need to include God as a possible explanation for deeply philosophical questions that science is currently unable to apparently answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Neither the idea of having a primary cause agent nor NOT having a primary cause agent seem reasonable to me, in approximately equal amounts. If I were forced to choose, I would say the primary first cause agent sounds slightly less reasonable.
Okay, which alternative would you rate as slightly more reasonable and why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I addressed your "making decisions" claim in my previous post. There are very few decisions that I would make differently whether I believed that there was no god or whether I believed there was an impersonal god, or whether I was uncertain about the issue.
Right, and as I pointed out above, this equates to a practical application of the non-God view (atheism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Finally, your last assertion is wrong:
A god could exist and have a mutable set of moral laws. He could claim certain actions as moral in one century, and immoral in another. He could claim certain actions are moral if one being commits them, and immoral if another does. This is the case with the standard concept of a Christian God.
That would not be moral absolutism. By definition, that is moral relativism.
If you believe like most Christians, then you have a relativist moral philosophy, even if it springs from what you believe is God.
Are you purposely gliding over my point in order to avoid the obvious implications? I don't know any other way to express this than to simply repeat what I've been saying:
IF GOD exists, and IF GOD has communicated a moral code, then, logically, we have established the existence of moral absolutes.
The only way I see that this can be logically refuted is for you to make the case that belief in the existence of God and the Ten Commandments is unreasonable. Why should anyone believe that God doesn't exist and that the Ten Commandments did not come from God?
You clearly did not read my point at all did you? I pointed out that atheism is not an thing/idea in itself at all so neither of your questions hold.
Atheism is a label given to a position reached by implementing the rule you just quoted from me when replying to me. That is all.
Stop trying to have people prove negatives on unfalsifiable claims. It wont wash. Ever.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I wish you well in trying to sell your notion that atheism "is not a thing/idea in itself." You are most definitely in a very small minority. I could post almost a limitless number of quotes and You Tube vids from the 'new atheists' (people like Hitchins, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) that would refute your assertion.
Anyway, best wishes. I hope it all goes well for you.
Ah yes, the usual go to phrase for people who can not counter anything you said. I wish I had a dollar for every time this phrase is used towards me.
Again atheism is just a lack of belief in one proposition... the idea there is a god. That is all. Nothing else. If you think there is good reason to think there is a god then you are in a position to think atheism incoherent.
However the fact you never give such evidence, but instead harp on about atheists, is VERY telling. If you were so sure about the idea there is a god, you would think you would have SOME substantiation for the claim somewhere. It appears however you do not.
Do not feel bad however. You are not alone. I have asked now countless numbers of people in the last 18+ years. They have none either.
Atheism therefore is just the position of saying "look i have heard your claim but you seem to have literally nothing to support it. I therefore dismiss the claim. Come back when you have something of substance".
I'm sure you're probably a fine fellow and I haven't taken any comments from you personally nor is it my intention to make any of this personal. As well, I have much better things to do in my life than to wax "bitter" about things I encounter at web forums.
I do enjoy these discussions - that's basically why I'm here taking part in them. However, no one likes having their questions ignored, being attacked personally, being lied to, misrepresented...the list goes on. I certainly don't mean to infer that you are or have been doing these things but just to point out that these sorts of things happen here in the forum just about everyday. I'm a big boy and I can take it...however, I do find a certain number who seem to be good at dishing stuff like this out but can't tolerate having it thrown back at them.
I'm not asking you to know everyone's particular view of atheism and defend it as being coherent and true. That would obviously be ridiculous. If you don't involve God in your decision making process, and apparently you don't, I'm basically asking you to defend YOUR view and seeking answers as to how it can be REASONABLY viewed as true and coherent with a truth and coherency that may be presumed to be lacking in the BASIC theistic view.
You claim to be an agnostic and that's fine. However, if your decisions don't involve God then, logically, you are making non-God (atheistic) decisions. As well, you seem to freely admit that there is no need to include God as a possible explanation for deeply philosophical questions that science is currently unable to apparently answer.
Okay, which alternative would you rate as slightly more reasonable and why?
Right, and as I pointed out above, this equates to a practical application of the non-God view (atheism).
Are you purposely gliding over my point in order to avoid the obvious implications? I don't know any other way to express this than to simply repeat what I've been saying:
IF GOD exists, and IF GOD has communicated a moral code, then, logically, we have established the existence of moral absolutes.
The only way I see that this can be logically refuted is for you to make the case that belief in the existence of God and the Ten Commandments is unreasonable. Why should anyone believe that God doesn't exist and that the Ten Commandments did not come from God?
I do believe my "world view" is both coherent and truthful. But I'm not sure which part of it you want me to defend. An assignment to explain my entire world view and defend it's coherency/truthfulness would take me several pages to respond to. If you could narrow down the part you think may be problematic for me, I would appreciate it.
I think all people make "non-God decisions" most of the time, for most of the decisions. There are some decisions that would be made differently if one believed certain types of God existed. From your questions, it seems to me that you want to limit theism to Abrahamism, which is all right with me if that's what you want to do. For the purposes of this thread, we can limit the term of god to the Abrahamic God, and that way I don't have to take into account the impersonal hands-off notions of God.
On to your next point. Given the choice between a primary cause agent and no primary cause agent for the origins of everything, I would say having a primary cause agent is somewhat less reasonable than not having one. This is based on the justification that a primary cause agent doesn't really answer any questions that it doesn't also ask, because we still have to wonder "what caused that" unless we are willing to assume something always existed. So we might as well cut to the chase and just assume something must have always existed to begin with.
And now the final point. I am not gliding over any of your points; as I pointed out I think you are mistaken.
If a god existed, and he handed down a moral code, that doesn't necessarily make the belief system morally absolute. For it to be morally absolute the code would have to indicate that certain actions are in-and-of themselves wrong. It couldn't be relative to the time and circumstances of the actors and still be morally absolutism, by definition.
This is why the Christian tradition is moral relativism. What is moral and immoral changes based upon time and circumstance, and it does not hold that certain actions are always wrong. The fact that it is allegedly based on the word of god doesn't make it absolute, and I'm not sure why you claim that it does.
Do you understand that it's not possible to live your life without making decisions?
No ... uh, yes. No wait, maybe. Oh, I just can't decide.
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.
Wow! You said a mouthful, rflmn!!
