PDA

View Full Version : Weaknesses of atheism



eschaton
12-20-2014, 09:41 AM
I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.

3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

Enjolras
12-20-2014, 10:08 AM
I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

I believe there is such a thing as objective morality, even without God. Silverman is entitled to his opinion; not all atheists share it.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.

I don't believe leprechauns exist, but I don't know that to be the case with certainty. Same with my non-belief in God. Much of the discussion about what it means to be an atheist boils down to pointless semantics, in my view.


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

Atheists differ in their views, just like theists differ in their views. Some atheists find meaning and purpose in life without God, some do not. I'm not sure what that proves, other than the obvious conclusion that there are differing opinions.

Cow Poke
12-20-2014, 10:10 AM
I don't believe leprechauns exist, but I don't know that to be the case with certainty. Same with my non-belief in God. Much of the discussion about what it means to be an atheist boils down to pointless semantics, in my view.

Semantics, perhaps, in trying to differentiate atheists from agnostics?

Enjolras
12-20-2014, 10:19 AM
Semantics, perhaps, in trying to differentiate atheists from agnostics?

Right. If someone tries to make a big point about the fact that I don't know there is no god, and wants to therefore label me an agnostic, I really don't care. One can argue endlessly about the meaning of the terms and accomplish nothing. I don't believe in a god. Call that what you will.

Cow Poke
12-20-2014, 10:23 AM
Right. If someone tries to make a big point about the fact that I don't know there is no god, and wants to therefore label me an agnostic, I really don't care. One can argue endlessly about the meaning of the terms and accomplish nothing. I'm don't believe in a god. Call that what you will.

OK, thanks -- -that's what I thought you were getting at.

Jedidiah
12-20-2014, 02:44 PM
It is true that the common use of the term "atheist" as seen here on TWeb is prone to causing confusion. Another thread somewhere defined the only way I use the terms. Theist - one who believes there is a god. Agnostic - one who will not or can not say one way or the other as to the existence of a god. Atheist - one who believes there is no god. It seems that a lot of agnostics here like to call themselves atheists because they do not believe in a god, but do not believe there is no god. I think it mostly comes from a desire to avoid the need to explain how they know.

Boxing Pythagoras
12-20-2014, 03:35 PM
1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.Discussions of purported immorality in the Bible are intended to show inconsistencies in Christian ethics. If killing the innocent is always objectively wrong, as Christian ethicists generally contend, and if the Bible contains instances wherein God either commands or condones the murder of the innocent, then there is an inconsistency in Christian ethics which needs to be addressed.

As for whether or not morality is objective, not all atheists share Silverman's views.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.Most atheists do not claim to know that deity does not exist, in my experience. Rather, we simply note that we do not believe deity exists. For my part, I generally argue against those who purport to know that deity doesn't exist just as ardently as I argue against those who purport to know that deity does exist.


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.And many modern atheist philosophers disagree with those of the past century, in exactly the same way as Christian philosophers often disagree with those of the past.


4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.I'm not familiar enough with which book or which argument Fr. Barron is addressing. It's completely possible that Hawking doesn't adequately address the issue. I don't see how this can be seen as an indictment upon all atheists.

37818
12-20-2014, 04:01 PM
Right. If someone tries to make a big point about the fact that I don't know there is no god, and wants to therefore label me an agnostic, I really don't care. One can argue endlessly about the meaning of the terms and accomplish nothing. I don't believe in a god. Call that what you will.

Just wondering here: Do you believe that there is an uncaused existence (apart from our known existence which seems to have a beginning)? On the premise there was never such a thing as nothingness. (Regardless whether our known universe has an unique origin or just one more sequence of cycles.)

Doug Shaver
12-20-2014, 04:22 PM
1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality?
I and other atheists have addressed this issue at great length in other threads here. It is not a problem.


Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.
I don't care what Silverman thinks. He is not my moral authority.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God?
I don't know that there isn't one, and I don't need to know.


How can atheists "know" anything?
The same way other people know whatever they know.


Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.
I don't care what Hitchens thinks he knows.


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.
Existentialists might have believed that. I don't agree that they knew it. And the only thing new about the new atheists is their chronological position among all the atheists who have ever lived.


4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.If I get a chance to read Hawking's book, I will decide then whether he adequately addresses that idea. I'm not taking Barron's word for it.

But I don't actually care whether Hawking addresses the idea at all. I don't need Hawking to tell me whether something can happen without a reason. I also don't need Barron to tell me whether that has anything to do with whether God exists.

shunyadragon
12-20-2014, 04:23 PM
I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

The claim of 'objective morality' is a vague, nebulous, undefined morality that is a claim of some theists. I believe in God, and I would never use the foolish claims for an 'objective morality' to justify the existence of God. Morality is neither objective nor subjective. Atheists do not claim that morality does not exist. Turek and Silverman do not represent all atheists. Read Martin Luther concerning a Christian view of the justification of the holocaust, and consider it moral.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.

Of course, there is no argument where we can 'know' whether God exists or not. I believe most atheists consider there does not exist a reason to believe in God(s), and basically do not try to prove God(s) do not exist.


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

Virtually all cultures and societies believe there is a reason for a purpose to life including atheists and agnostics. Many believe the purpose in life is in their children and the success of future generations.


4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.

The reason or 'why?' anything exists is theological question and yes, many atheists believe there is no necessary reason for our existence. Our physical existence including humanity simply exists. Actually Buddhists and Taoists share a similar view.

Enjolras
12-20-2014, 05:28 PM
Just wondering here: Do you believe that there is an uncaused existence (apart from our known existence which seems to have a beginning)? On the premise there was never such a thing as nothingness. (Regardless whether our known universe has an unique origin or just one more sequence of cycles.)

Time may have been created at the beginning of the universe so the question of “before” may not make sense; therefore the question of cause and effect may not make sense. We don’t know if there was a ‘before’ before the singularity of the Big Bang. If there wasn't a “before,” then the whole notion of 1st cause does not make sense. The logic of our experience does not always make sense. The common sense notion that every effect must have a cause may not be true. The Universe may not need a cause. We just don’t know.

whag
12-20-2014, 05:34 PM
Time may have been created at the beginning of the universe so the question of “before” may not make sense; therefore the question of cause and effect may not make sense. We don’t know if there was a ‘before’ before the singularity of the Big Bang. If there wasn't a “before,” then the whole notion of 1st cause does not make sense. The logic of our experience does not always make sense. The common sense notion that every effect must have a cause may not be true. The Universe may not need a cause. We just don’t know.

This debate between Sean Carroll and WLC covers the issue well:

http://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8

pancreasman
12-20-2014, 05:40 PM
I think it's perfectly adequate and honest to answer questions like 'Do you believe in an uncaused existence?' with a firm 'beats me!'

As has already been pointed out, a lot of these objections to atheism are based on the thoughts of one particular atheist. It's rather like objecting to Christianity on the grounds that Pat Robertson says dumb things.

Enjolras
12-20-2014, 06:00 PM
This debate between Sean Carroll and WLC covers the issue well:

http://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8

Thanks for the link!

eschaton
12-21-2014, 07:49 AM
I have added a fifth video. I think it is a pretty interesting discussion concerning Aristotle and the "utility monster."

http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o


http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o

seer
12-21-2014, 09:23 AM
I have added a fifth video. I think it is a pretty interesting discussion concerning Aristotle and the "utility monster."



Very good!

shunyadragon
12-21-2014, 10:15 AM
I have added a fifth video. I think it is a pretty interesting discussion concerning Aristotle and the "utility monster."

http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o


http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o

Aristotle is a little more than ancient and does not address the modern logical questions.

Does Aristotle prove God using morality? No Robert Nozick's thought experiment is too simplistic and unrealistic.

seer
12-21-2014, 12:18 PM
Aristotle is a little more than ancient and does not address the modern logical questions.

Does Aristotle prove God using morality? No Robert Nozick's thought experiment is too simplistic and unrealistic.

Go away Shuny - you again have no idea what you are talking about...

Leonhard
12-21-2014, 01:06 PM
I have added a fifth video. I think it is a pretty interesting discussion concerning Aristotle and the "utility monster."

http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o


http://youtu.be/meyg9MoFQhM?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlx o

Its a nice youtube video, but you make a mistake by merely saying that Aristotle believed that humans have a purpose. Its far deeper than this, and he argues for it, and doesn't merely take it to be a necessary belief in order to arrive at morality. Its something that can be arrived at through observation and deduction.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 04:28 AM
Go away Shuny - you again have no idea what you are talking about...

go away seer - Refer to Leonard's post. It is Robert Nozick's thought experiment, and not really Aristotle.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 06:12 AM
Ever notice how much time Shuny spends defending Atheism? Just a bit strange for someone who says they are a theist.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 06:24 AM
Ever notice how much time Shuny spends defending Atheism? Just a bit strange for someone who says they are a theist.

Been over this many many many times. I attack bad foolish arguments, and from this perspective they are out of date, childish ad foolish. I personally have debated atheists directly, and do not resort to this contrived dishonesty.

I will continue to do this.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 06:27 AM
Been over this many many many times. I attack bad foolish arguments, and from this perspective they are out of date, childish ad foolish. I personally have debated atheists directly, and do not resort to this contrived dishonesty.

I will continue to do this.


In that case, why aren't you attacking you own arguments? They are foolish and bad.

No, you identify with atheists more than theists. That is clear. You should at least admit it to yourself.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 06:38 AM
In that case, why aren't you attacking you own arguments? They are foolish and bad.

No, you identify with atheists more than theists. That is clear. You should at least admit it to yourself.

No they are NOT my arguments. They are contrived bad logic simply old outdated arguments to justify one's own beliefs. Please cite me correctly where I specifically identified with atheism. This is the gang of four slander of my beliefs rearing it's ugly head from the smelly bog, or the other rear.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 06:44 AM
No they are NOT my arguments.
Your arguments are not your arguments?


They are contrived bad logic simply old outdated arguments to justify one's own beliefs.
Yes, your arguments are that bad.



Please cite me correctly where I specifically identified with atheism.
This thread. The thread about the 10 commandments of Atheism. You constantly come to the defense of atheists. As if they could not take care of their own viewpoint and need your help. Yet you claim to be a theist.



This is the gang of four slander of my beliefs rearing it's ugly head from the smelly bog, or the other rear.

Oh please. I believe you THINK you are a theist, but I also think you need to be honest with yourself. Someone who says they are a theist and who spends more time defending atheism instead of theism is not being honest with his own beliefs

Adrift
12-22-2014, 06:49 AM
No they are NOT my arguments. They are contrived bad logic simply old outdated arguments to justify one's own beliefs. Please cite me correctly where I specifically identified with atheism.

Might want to reread what he wrote. He said that YOUR arguments (ie. the ones that you do use) are foolish and bad, and that if you're going to attack bad arguments, you might want to start with your own.


This is the gang of four slander of my beliefs rearing it's ugly head from the smelly bog, or the other rear.

Another great band! Not quite as legendary as the Stooges, but still great stuff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElhAysq3O6c

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 06:50 AM
Your arguments are not your arguments?

Yes, your arguments are that bad.

Please cite me properly, the archaic contrived, archaic arguments against atheism are not my arguments.


This thread. The thread about the 10 commandments of Atheism. You constantly come to the defense of atheists. As if they could not take care of their own viewpoint and need your help. Yet you claim to be a theist.

Actually no, I attack the bad arguments against atheism



Oh please. I believe you THINK you are a theist, but I also think you need to be honest with yourself. Someone who says they are a theist and who spends more time defending atheism instead of theism is not being honest with his own beliefs

Slanderous hyperbole.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 07:00 AM
I think Shuny is going senile.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 07:12 AM
I think Shuny is going senile.

Maybe in thirty years. at present senility is your problem. You have still failed to cite anywhere I identified with atheism. Still waiting . . .

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 07:17 AM
Might want to reread what he wrote. He said that YOUR arguments (ie. the ones that you do use) are foolish and bad, and that if you're going to attack bad arguments, you might want to start with your own.

He has never cited the supposed bad arguments I used!?!? I specifically attack the bad arguments used in this and other threads. Instead of mindless accusations, can YOU cite these bad arguments I made against atheism. So far my challenges have been specific in this thread as to what the bad arguments were presented by the Christians in this thread, ah . . . no response nor rebuttal concerning these arguments, just mindless accusations.

seer
12-22-2014, 07:20 AM
In that case, why aren't you attacking you own arguments? They are foolish and bad.

No, you identify with atheists more than theists. That is clear. You should at least admit it to yourself.

This is why I have been calling Shuny a functional atheist for a while now.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 07:25 AM
Maybe in thirty years. at present senility is your problem. You have still failed to cite anywhere I identified with atheism. Still waiting . . .

LOL. I gave you two examples already.

I am willing to bet that every theist in this thread agrees with me too.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 07:27 AM
LOL. I gave you two examples already.

I am willing to bet that every theist in this thread agrees with me too.

What examples are you referring to???

No competent examples, nor rebuttal to my arguments. Still waiting . . .

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 07:29 AM
This is why I have been calling Shuny a functional atheist for a while now.

Mindless name calling instead of competent arguments is your standard operating mode.

Time to put the three stooges on ignore and respond to specific meaningful posts concerning the topic of the thread.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 07:30 AM
No competent examples, nor rebuttal to my arguments. Still waiting . . .

simply ignoring the evidence does not equate to there being none.

Shuny: "neener neener, I can't see that!"

http://djhill2013.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/see-no-evil-know-no-evil.jpg

eschaton
12-22-2014, 09:13 AM
go away seer - Refer to Leonard's post. It is Robert Nozick's thought experiment, and not really Aristotle.

If I understand the video correctly, he is not saying the utility monster is Aristotle's idea. It is an argument he is applying to Aristotle.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 11:26 AM
If I understand the video correctly, he is not saying the utility monster is Aristotle's idea. It is an argument he is applying to Aristotle.

Applying to Aristotle does not work either as per Leonard's post:



“Happiness depends on ourselves.” More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines happiness as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result he devotes more space to the topic of happiness than any thinker prior to the modern era. Living during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar conclusions. That is, happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, though his virtues are somewhat more individualistic than the essentially social virtues of the Confucians. Yet as we shall see, Aristotle was convinced that a genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being. In this way he introduced the idea of a science of happiness in the classical sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge.

Essentially, Aristotle argues that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between two excesses. Aristotle’s doctrine of the Mean is reminiscent of Buddha’s Middle Path, but there are intriguing differences. For Aristotle the mean was a method of achieving virtue, but for Buddha the Middle Path referred to a peaceful way of life which negotiated the extremes of harsh asceticism and sensual pleasure seeking. The Middle Path was a minimal requirement for the meditative life, and not the source of virtue in itself.

In fact, Aristotle's view closely parallel's the atheist/agnostic view of the purpose of life.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 11:28 AM
LOL. I gave you two examples already.

I am willing to bet that every theist in this thread agrees with me too.

Please, let others speak for themselves. You, of course, can rely on your gang of four to agree with you as before.

The atheists know full well my position and belief in God and my attitude toward their world view.

eschaton
12-22-2014, 11:32 AM
Here is my response to the atheists.


http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

Just kidding around.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 11:38 AM
Please, let others speak for themselves. You, of course, can rely on your gang of four to agree with you as before.

The atheists know full well my position and belief in God and my attitude toward their world view.

OK. sounds like a deal. How about you let the atheists speak for themselves then? I don't think they need you to defend them.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 01:00 PM
OK. sounds like a deal. How about you let the atheists speak for themselves then? I don't think they need you to defend them.

Again, misrepresenting my view and posts. I do not defend atheism. I attack bad arguments what ever the source. This thread is a beaut, all the old outdated bad arguments.

Sparko
12-22-2014, 01:04 PM
Again, misrepresenting my view and posts. I do not defend atheism. I attack bad arguments what ever the source.

sure looks like you are defending atheists and answering for them here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4848-Weaknesses-of-atheism&p=135873&viewfull=1#post135873

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 01:25 PM
sure looks like you are defending atheists and answering for them here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4848-Weaknesses-of-atheism&p=135873&viewfull=1#post135873


Misrepresenting me again, bad habit. I responded to specific bad arguments, and please do not misrepresent me by looks like' remarks. In fact my challenges stand and they were not refuted.

eschaton
12-22-2014, 01:44 PM
Applying to Aristotle does not work either as per Leonard's post:



“Happiness depends on ourselves.” More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines happiness as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result he devotes more space to the topic of happiness than any thinker prior to the modern era. Living during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar conclusions. That is, happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, though his virtues are somewhat more individualistic than the essentially social virtues of the Confucians. Yet as we shall see, Aristotle was convinced that a genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being. In this way he introduced the idea of a science of happiness in the classical sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge.

Essentially, Aristotle argues that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between two excesses. Aristotle’s doctrine of the Mean is reminiscent of Buddha’s Middle Path, but there are intriguing differences. For Aristotle the mean was a method of achieving virtue, but for Buddha the Middle Path referred to a peaceful way of life which negotiated the extremes of harsh asceticism and sensual pleasure seeking. The Middle Path was a minimal requirement for the meditative life, and not the source of virtue in itself.

In fact, Aristotle's view closely parallel's the atheist/agnostic view of the purpose of life.

I suppose Leonhard was responding to the video, but I never said anything about Aristotle assigning a purpose to people. Did the video use the word purpose? I thought it was about ethics. What is truly ethical is that which is based on imitating God. I'll watch it again.

eschaton
12-22-2014, 02:12 PM
Okay, everything has a purpose.

http://orwell1627.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/aristotles-purpose-of-life/


Finally, after much intellectual flexing, Aristotle embarks on his definition of happiness, or Eudaimonia. Everything, including man, has a function, or particular activity for which it is suited. Excellence, and therefore happiness, consists in performing one’s function well. We say that a flute player is a good flute player when he performs his function, playing the flute, well. Man’s function is what distinguishes him from all other beings, and that attribute is his rational ability. Thus, happiness is reasoning well, or acting rationally according to virtue. A man must rationally act according to virtue for his whole life because one day does not make a man happy. This definition encompasses all of the attributes conventionally identified with happiness; i.e. virtue, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, pleasure, external prosperity.

I admit I'm no expert on philosophy, but the author interprets Aristotle's definition as imitating God. I suppose Aristotle was a pagan, but it sounds like those thing are associated with divinity in the pagan religions. It seems like a fair comparison.


http://youtu.be/sQk6t-9mQjE

I found a video that supports exactly what I am saying. I believe the author of the "Utility monster" video makes a fair comparison. Philosophy is the link between human purpose and the divine.

shunyadragon
12-22-2014, 06:04 PM
I suppose Leonhard was responding to the video, but I never said anything about Aristotle assigning a purpose to people. Did the video use the word purpose? I thought it was about ethics. What is truly ethical is that which is based on imitating God. I'll watch it again.

The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God.

Tassman
12-22-2014, 09:26 PM
Ever notice how much time Shuny spends defending Atheism? Just a bit strange for someone who says they are a theist.

No, it's not strange. It just means that shuny holds to a different form of theism than you do.


Please, let others speak for themselves. You, of course, can rely on your gang of four to agree with you as before.

The atheists know full well my position and belief in God and my attitude toward their world view.

Looks like your arguments are proving effective, shuny given the frustrated responses of those unable to rebut them.

MaxVel
12-23-2014, 03:52 AM
Been over this many many many times. I attack bad foolish arguments, and from this perspective they are out of date, childish ad foolish. I personally have debated atheists directly, and do not resort to this contrived dishonesty.

I will continue to do this.

You prefer other kinds of dishonesty, right?

Like (supposedly) advancing a position you don't believe in as if you do so as to 'enhance debate'...

Paprika
12-23-2014, 04:00 AM
What is truly ethical is that which is based on imitating God.
Yes, but not quite: the telos is to be conformed to the image of His Son, that is, to become imago Dei.

Sparko
12-23-2014, 05:15 AM
Misrepresenting me again, bad habit. I responded to specific bad arguments, and please do not misrepresent me by looks like' remarks. In fact my challenges stand and they were not refuted.

No you were defending the atheists. Just because you don't even understand what objective morality is, doesn't make it a "bad argument" -- but the fact that you decided you had to stick up for atheists shows that you identify with them more than you do with theists.

Just keep denying it Shuny. Everyone can see right through that easily enough.

Sparko
12-23-2014, 05:17 AM
No, it's not strange. It just means that shuny holds to a different form of theism than you do.



Looks like your arguments are proving effective, shuny given the frustrated responses of those unable to rebut them.

Well there you go Shuny. You have Tassman on your side. My case is proven. :rofl:

Boxing Pythagoras
12-23-2014, 05:48 AM
Why is a thread which is ostensibly directed towards atheists being turned into an Ad Hominem against Shunyadragon? Could we, perhaps, return to discussing the objections actually raised by atheists, including me, in this thread?

MaxVel
12-23-2014, 06:02 AM
Discussions of purported immorality in the Bible are intended to show inconsistencies in Christian ethics. If killing the innocent is always objectively wrong, as Christian ethicists generally contend, and if the Bible contains instances wherein God either commands or condones the murder of the innocent, then there is an inconsistency in Christian ethics which needs to be addressed.


I'll just pick up on this point...

There are lots of possible responses to your objection :

(1) Pointing at (possible) failures in Christian ethics does nothing to validate or ground an atheistic moral position.

(2) You appear to conflate absolute morality (Moral principle X is always true for everyone everywhere) with objective morality (Moral principle X is true no matter who believes it or not)

(3) People killing the innocent is not the same as God killing the innocent. It's not inconsistent for a Christian to claim (say) that it's wrong for people to do X , but not wrong for God to do X.

(4) Some Christians might respond that where the Bible shows God doing X (objectionable), or claims that God endorses X, it's just wrong - God doesn't do or endorse X, the writers of the Bible simply were wrong, or are using God to justify their own misdeeds.

(5) Some Christians might argue that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, where you think it shows God doing X, or condoning X, He doesn't in fact do so (this would depend on the specifics of what passages you're thinking of).

Boxing Pythagoras
12-23-2014, 06:45 AM
I'll just pick up on this point...Thanks!


(1) Pointing at (possible) failures in Christian ethics does nothing to validate or ground an atheistic moral position.I agree, but it's not really intended to do so. Showing inconsistencies within claims does not require that one supplants those claims with consistent ones. If we are discussing Christian claims for morality, it is entirely proper to discuss perceived faults in those claims. I would similarly say that if we are discussing Humanist claims for morality, a Christian need not support his own moral claims in order to point out inconsistencies in the Humanist claims.


(2) You appear to conflate absolute morality (Moral principle X is always true for everyone everywhere) with objective morality (Moral principle X is true no matter who believes it or not)You are correct! I was conflating the two. I will adjust my discussion to account for the discrepancy.


(3) People killing the innocent is not the same as God killing the innocent. It's not inconsistent for a Christian to claim (say) that it's wrong for people to do X , but not wrong for God to do X.Assuming the clarification that you meant it is wrong for human people to do X, but not for God to do X (as I am assuming that you support the idea that God is a person or persons), I'll say I agree with you.


(4) Some Christians might respond that where the Bible shows God doing X (objectionable), or claims that God endorses X, it's just wrong - God doesn't do or endorse X, the writers of the Bible simply were wrong, or are using God to justify their own misdeeds.I've absolutely heard such objections before. Depending upon the claimant's view of inerrancy, such views could certainly be consistent.


(5) Some Christians might argue that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, where you think it shows God doing X, or condoning X, He doesn't in fact do so (this would depend on the specifics of what passages you're thinking of).I also agree, here, depending upon the passage. Such cases would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.


My intention was not to imply that all Christian ethical philosophies are inconsistent-- I would certainly cringe at hearing such an overbroad generalization. However, when offered specific ethical claims by a Christian, it is not inappropriate to question how he reconciles those claims with passages from his holy text which might seem to contradict the claim.

shunyadragon
12-23-2014, 07:04 AM
You prefer other kinds of dishonesty, right?

Like (supposedly) advancing a position you don't believe in as if you do so as to 'enhance debate'...

If you were remotely familiar with debating classes, workshops and debating clubs on University campuses, you would realize this is a legitimate debating technique to practice debating and not dishonest. I have participated in debating clubs, classes and workshops while in college and it is often the case that you are assigned a topic and position you do not believe or care about, to practice your debating skills. I have done this in the past.

shunyadragon
12-23-2014, 07:06 AM
Well there you go Shuny. You have Tassman on your side. My case is proven. :rofl:

Ad Hominem and dishonest misrepresentation big time!?!?!?!

It would help if you focused on the thread topic instead of personal attacks.

Sparko
12-23-2014, 07:06 AM
If you were remotely familiar with debating classes, workshops and debating clubs on University campuses, you would realize this is a legitimate debating technique to practice debating and not dishonest. I have participated in debating clubs, classes and workshops while in college and it is often the case that you are assigned a topic and position you do not believe or care about, to practice your debating skills. I have done this in the past.

If this were a formal debate and you were assigned to argue the other side, that lame excuse might hold water. But here it doesn't. Why don't you practice your "debating skills" defending what you claim you actually believe?

Sparko
12-23-2014, 07:08 AM
Ad Hominem and dishonest misrepresentation big time!?!?!?!Simply repeating yourself over and over doesn't change anything. You are still identifying more with atheists than theists and seem to think atheists can't handle their own side of the argument.


...well, with Tassman, that might be true. Hmmm.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 09:08 AM
The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God.

Let me inform you on the meaning of philosophy.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language

shunyadragon
12-23-2014, 09:20 AM
Let me inform you on the meaning of philosophy.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language

No need to inform. I full well know the meaning of philosophy. What's your beef?

The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God

eschaton
12-23-2014, 09:27 AM
Wrong Shuny.


No need to inform. I full well know the meaning of philosophy. What's your beef?

The 'utility monster' is from Robert Nozick's thought experiment concerning ethics, morality and purpose. This does not fit Aristotle. Eshaton actually admits part of the confusion in the above post. He felt it fit the 'imitating?' God

Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

shunyadragon
12-23-2014, 09:52 AM
Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

It very well could be 'spirit' or Greek God(s) from the Greek perspective. Your reaching too far to equate the Christian God to the Greek language nor Greek philosophy of the time.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 09:55 AM
It very well could be 'spirit' or God(s) from the Greek perspective. Your reaching too far to equate the Christian God to the Greek language nor Greek philosophy of the time.

I said divinity, I didn't say Christian God. Do I have to watch the video again to see if it says "Christian God?"

Paprika
12-23-2014, 09:58 AM
Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god.
Etymology does not necessarily determine meaning.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 10:00 AM
Etymology does not necessarily determine meaning.

Check the link I gave.

Here's what I said earlier.

I admit I'm no expert on philosophy, but the author interprets Aristotle's definition as imitating God. I suppose Aristotle was a pagan, but it sounds like those thing are associated with divinity in the pagan religions. It seems like a fair comparison.

I didn't say "Christian God." The author made that inference. I say it's a fair comparison.

shunyadragon
12-23-2014, 10:03 AM
I said divinity, I didn't say Christian God. Do I have to watch the video again to see if it says "Christian God?"

Divinity does not work either from the perspective of Aristotle nor Greek philosophy of that period.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 10:07 AM
Tell the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that. They agree with me.

Paprika
12-23-2014, 10:15 AM
Check the link I gave.
but the author interprets Aristotle's definition as imitating God.
:twitch:
No he doesn't. Right after the part you quoted he says that "But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. He regards “eudaimon” as a mere substitute for eu zên (“living well”). These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind."

The source you draw upon refutes your point; that's usually a bad sign.


Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god. But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. He regards “eudaimon” as a mere substitute for eu zên (“living well”). These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind.
(emphasis mine)

Boxing Pythagoras
12-23-2014, 10:22 AM
Divinity does not work either from the perspective of Aristotle nor Greek philosophy of that period.I don't think that's really a tenable claim. Greek philosophers were quite enthralled with understanding the nature of divinity even well before Aristotle came on the scene. Aristotle certainly expends a great deal of his effort on such discussion.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 10:32 AM
:twitch:
No he doesn't. Right after the part you quoted he says that "But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. He regards “eudaimon” as a mere substitute for eu zên (“living well”). These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind."

The source you draw upon refutes your point; that's usually a bad sign.


(emphasis mine)

Give me a break, and listen to what I say. Check the link I gave.


Aristotle indicates several times in VII.11–14 that merely to say that pleasure is a good does not do it enough justice; he also wants to say that the highest good is a pleasure. Here he is influenced by an idea expressed in the opening line of the Ethics: the good is that at which all things aim. In VII.13, he hints at the idea that all living things imitate the contemplative activity of god (1153b31–2). Plants and non-human animals seek to reproduce themselves because that is their way of participating in an unending series, and this is the closest they can come to the ceaseless thinking of the unmoved mover. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works (see for example De Anima 415a23-b7), and in Ethics X.7–8 he gives a full defense of the idea that the happiest human life resembles the life of a divine being.

Paprika
12-23-2014, 10:55 AM
Give me a break, and listen to what I say. Check the link I gave.
Not bad. This part actually supports your thesis; next time try quoting the part that does first instead of the part that obviously doesn't.

eschaton
12-23-2014, 10:57 AM
Not bad. This part actually supports your thesis; next time try quoting the part that does first instead of the part that obviously doesn't.

Thank you. I'll try to take your advice.

shunyadragon
12-24-2014, 02:56 PM
I don't think that's really a tenable claim. Greek philosophers were quite enthralled with understanding the nature of divinity even well before Aristotle came on the scene. Aristotle certainly expends a great deal of his effort on such discussion.

Check Paprika's response in post #68. I believe he describes the problem well.

shunyadragon
12-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Give me a break, and listen to what I say. Check the link I gave.

'Aristotle indicates several times in VII.11–14 that merely to say that pleasure is a good does not do it enough justice; he also wants to say that the highest good is a pleasure. Here he is influenced by an idea expressed in the opening line of the Ethics: the good is that at which all things aim. In VII.13, he hints at the idea that all living things imitate the contemplative activity of god (1153b31–2). Plants and non-human animals seek to reproduce themselves because that is their way of participating in an unending series, and this is the closest they can come to the ceaseless thinking of the unmoved mover. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works (see for example De Anima 415a23-b7), and in Ethics X.7–8 he gives a full defense of the idea that the happiest human life resembles the life of a divine being.'

This link is better, but I will still object that Aristotle's and the Greek view of anthropomorphic Gods and Divine Beings as being equivalent, nor does it come that close to the concept of the God of Christianity's unmoved mover. Greeks classically emulated the Greek Gods and their life resembled the Greek Gods, and yes 'the good is that which all things aim,' but did not consider this as a theistic relationship as the Gods being the source of Happiness in human life., nor the Creator of Humanity. The Greek Gods reflected the fallible human qualities of tragedy, wisdom, rivalry, jealousy, all aspects of love, faults and conflicts between Gods and at times between humans and Gods in a very human way.

A better parallel is the polytheistic world of early Canaanite Judaism.

Boxing Pythagoras
12-24-2014, 03:27 PM
This link is better, but I will still object that Aristotle's and the Greek view of anthropomorphic Gods and Divine Beings as being equivalent, nor does it come that close to the concept of the God of Christianity's unmoved mover.Dude. Seriously? You do realize that the whole concept of the unmoved mover originated with Aristotle, right? Aquinas adapted his take on the subject from Averroes, who was himself commenting on Aristotle. Aristotle's idea of the nature of deity could hardly be considered anthropomorphic.

Truthseeker
12-24-2014, 03:58 PM
A better parallel is the polytheistic world of early Canaanite Judaism.Wow, what an expert on Iron Age Canaan you are! :awestruck: :bow:

shunyadragon
12-24-2014, 04:42 PM
Dude. Seriously? You do realize that the whole concept of the unmoved mover originated with Aristotle, right? Aquinas adapted his take on the subject from Averroes, who was himself commenting on Aristotle. Aristotle's idea of the nature of deity could hardly be considered anthropomorphic.

OK but I do not believe, maybe I am wrong, this relates to his view of topic of how Happiness is defined by Aristotle here:

Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god. But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. He regards “eudaimon” as a mere substitute for eu zên (“living well”). These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind.

I believe he was polytheistic believing in many unmoved movers and one supreme unmoved mover to explain his view of a finite universe of nine sphere's. I believe Aristotle's unmoved mover was at best deist.

eschaton
12-26-2014, 10:00 AM
'Aristotle indicates several times in VII.11–14 that merely to say that pleasure is a good does not do it enough justice; he also wants to say that the highest good is a pleasure. Here he is influenced by an idea expressed in the opening line of the Ethics: the good is that at which all things aim. In VII.13, he hints at the idea that all living things imitate the contemplative activity of god (1153b31–2). Plants and non-human animals seek to reproduce themselves because that is their way of participating in an unending series, and this is the closest they can come to the ceaseless thinking of the unmoved mover. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works (see for example De Anima 415a23-b7), and in Ethics X.7–8 he gives a full defense of the idea that the happiest human life resembles the life of a divine being.'

This link is better, but I will still object that Aristotle's and the Greek view of anthropomorphic Gods and Divine Beings as being equivalent, nor does it come that close to the concept of the God of Christianity's unmoved mover. Greeks classically emulated the Greek Gods and their life resembled the Greek Gods, and yes 'the good is that which all things aim,' but did not consider this as a theistic relationship as the Gods being the source of Happiness in human life., nor the Creator of Humanity. The Greek Gods reflected the fallible human qualities of tragedy, wisdom, rivalry, jealousy, all aspects of love, faults and conflicts between Gods and at times between humans and Gods in a very human way.

A better parallel is the polytheistic world of early Canaanite Judaism.

Where did the idea of an unmoved mover come from Shuny?



The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a monotheistic concept advanced by Aristotle, a polytheist,[2][3] as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[4] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek "Pre-Socratic" philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the Unmoved Mover in the quinque viae.

shunyadragon
12-31-2014, 07:58 AM
Where did the idea of an unmoved mover come from Shuny?

The idea comes from Aristotle's logic view that the universe is finite (nine spheres) therefore the universe requires a source. His unmoved mover is described as deist source without personal involvement in creation.

Lucretius on the other hand sees our physical existence as infinite, consisting of many worlds and suns like ours with no need for an unmoved mover source.

eschaton
12-31-2014, 09:44 AM
The idea comes from Aristotle's logic view that the universe is finite (nine spheres) therefore the universe requires a source. His unmoved mover is described as deist source without personal involvement in creation.

Lucretius on the other hand sees our physical existence as infinite, consisting of many worlds and suns like ours with no need for an unmoved mover source.

You said Aristotle's view is different than the Christian one, and yet the Christian idea is an elaboration of Aristotle. I don't accept your assertions without good source references. I'm starting to believe you just make things up off the top of your head.

Jichard
04-04-2015, 02:14 PM
I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

A few problems.

First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism. So your question presupposes a strawman, where the atheist is committed to rejecting moral objectivism.

Second, one can condemn something even if one is not a moral objectivist. After all, there are non-moral grounds for condemnation. For example, there are moral nihilists who reject moral realism since they think moral realism is committed to external normative reasons [that is: reasons for action, where these reasons don't depend on one's desires, commitments, etc. or what an ideally rational version of oneself would advice one to do] and these nihilists think there are no such things as external normative reasons. Instead, they think there are only internal normative reasons [that is: reasons for action, where these reasons depend on one's desires, commitments, etc. or what an ideally rational version of oneself would advice one to do]. So these moral nihilists would not be able to condemn Nazis based on moral, external normative reasons. However, they would be able to condemn Nazis on the grounds of internal normative reasons.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.

Atheists can know there isn't a God, given the numerous arguments against God's existence, depending on one's definition of God. These include arguments based on inference to the best explanation (where God isn't the best explanation for the phenomena that God would be the best explanation for if God existed), variants of the problem of evil, variants of the problem of non-belief, variants of the problem of evil, moral arguments against God's existence, incoherencies in the definition of God, and so on.

And last I checked, atheists can know stuff. As far as I know, atheism is compatible with most of the mainstream theories/accounts of knowledge (ex: classical foundationalism, coherentism, foudherentism, modest foundantionalism, process reliabilism, truth-tracking accounts, contextualist accounts).


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

Good for those existentialists. Atheism does not entail that there is no meaning or purpose in life.

In any event, I find that most of the people who complain about "new atheists", lack a deep understanding of the views of Dennett or Harris.


4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.

What do you mean by "reason"?

Do you mean something like "intentional act by an agent"? For example: The reason Sam is dead, is because Robert hated Sam and so decided to kill Sam. If so, then there are numerous examples of things that happen for no reason. For example: weather patterns aren't the result of the workings of some intentional agent. Instead, they are due to non-intentional, naturalistic processes.

Do you instead mean something like "cause"? For example: The reason the ball moved is because my foot made contact with it. If so, then I don't see a problem with saying something happens without a reason. One just needs to offer an acausal explanation of the phenomenon, such as a probabilistic explanation (ex: Quentin Smith does this when he argues, given Hawking's cosmology, the existence of a universe like our's is highly probable, even if the universe has no cause). In any event, nothing about the notion of an "event" ("something") entails that that "event" (or "something") has a cause. If theists thought otherwise, then they'd be committed to thinking that God has a cause. Furthermore, one can explain why an event (or "something") would lack a cause. For example: causes temporally precede their effects. So if there is no time prior to an "event" (or "something"), then that "event" (or "something") has no cause.

eschaton
04-09-2015, 09:47 AM
I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

seer
04-09-2015, 10:46 AM
I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

Thanks for the links...

Jichard
04-09-2015, 11:26 AM
I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

All without addressing the objections mentioned.

eschaton
04-09-2015, 06:58 PM
You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism. You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis. You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.


Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

shunyadragon
04-09-2015, 07:42 PM
You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism. You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis. You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

Defining objective morality or moral objectivism is a problem for theists also. From the theist perspective can you provide a good, clear and specific definition for 'Objective Morality,' and examples of what these 'Objective morals' would be???


If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

This is splitting frog hairs. Absolute knowledge whether God exists or not is not necessary for atheists to believe that God(s) do not exist. Just as one may be a theist, and one does not 'know' God exists.


Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.

Assumption on your part and not what atheist believe.



Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

IF everything begins to exist that logically that includes God, unless you resort to special pleading. If our physical existence, and natural law is eternal and infinite there is no cause. If the Quantum world is timeless outside all possible universes there is no other necessary cause then Natural Law.

Jichard
04-10-2015, 01:19 AM
You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism.

There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism. For example: Cornell Realism.


You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis.

That's not a question that moral objectivism addresses. Moral reasons are provided with by normative ethical positions, such as welfare utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and so on, not meta-ethical positions like moral objectivism. And on those normative ethical positions, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the Nazis. For example: they're acting callously, they're harming the well-being of others when there are other viable actions that would not lead to such harm, etc.

And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism.


You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

Not really, since that video doesn't address any of the positions noted above.


If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

Then they'd be agnostic atheists. Atheism is a matter of lacking a belief regarding a concept one understands: God. One lacks a belief that this concept has an existent referent. That's compatible with not knowing there is a God, just as one lacking a belief that intelligent aliens exist, is compatible with one not knowing that intelligent aliens exist.

In sum: lacking a belief that "X exists" is compatible with not knowing that "X exists" and is compatible with not knowing that "X does not exist".


Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.

The universe doesn't need to have meaning, in order for things within the universe to have meaning. This parallels the linguistic usage of the word "meaning", where the term "cat" can have meaning, even if the universe (in which that term appears) does not have meaning. To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of division, in thinking that since the universe as a whole lacks meaning, than parts of the universe lack meaning.

In any event, I don't see why an "overreaching meaning" is necessary. I've heard some Christians go on and on and on and... about this, and still can;t figure out why it's such a big deal to them. So the universe wasn't created by some supernatural agent with humans in mind. So what? Is one so arrogant as to fall into despair, just because the universe isn't centered around one's own species? It's like a child crying when they realize that rainbows aren't specially-made with them in mind, but are instead just a purely naturalistic phenomena. Move on.


Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

No, that isn't called "cause and effect". It's called the first premise of William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. One can deny that premise, while still accepting that cause and effect relationships occur.

Here's a counter-premise: Every cause temporally precedes it's effect. So if there is a first temporal state T1 of the universe, and there are no states temporally prior to T1, then T1 has no cause. And one can affirm my counter-premise, while still accepting that cause and effect occurs. After all, states temporally subsequent to T1, can still have a cause.

Truthseeker
04-10-2015, 04:17 PM
There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism. For example: Cornell Realism.Wow, that's quite a barrage of many possible answers. Pick one.

I had never stumbled over "Cornell Realism" until now.




That's not a question that moral objectivism addresses. Moral reasons are provided with by nor[mative ethical positions, such as welfare utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and so on, not meta-ethical positions like moral objectivism. And on those normative ethical positions, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the Nazis. For example: they're acting callously, they're harming the well-being of others when there are other viable actions that would not lead to such harm, etc.

And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism.I am puzzled. While trying to figure out that passage just above, I recalled Acts 10:9-17, which is a story about God telling Peter that food that was ceremonially unclean (unholy) can now be eaten (no longer sinful). Later verses show Peter telling others what God commanded. I wonder what your reaction would be.




Then they'd be agnostic atheists. Atheism is a matter of lacking a belief regarding a concept one understands: God. One lacks a belief that this concept has an existent referent. That's compatible with not knowing there is a God, just as one lacking a belief that intelligent aliens exist, is compatible with one not knowing that intelligent aliens exist.

In sum: lacking a belief that "X exists" is compatible with not knowing that "X exists" and is compatible with not knowing that "X does not exist".The main thing for Christians to keep in mind is that neither atheists nor agnostics are Christian. The difference between those camps isn't important.





No, that isn't called "cause and effect". It's called the first premise of William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. One can deny that premise, while still accepting that cause and effect relationships occur.

Here's a counter-premise: Every cause temporally precedes it's effect. So if there is a first temporal state T1 of the universe, and there are no states temporally prior to T1, then T1 has no cause. And one can affirm my counter-premise, while still accepting that cause and effect occurs. After all, states temporally subsequent to T1, can still have a cause.Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???

Boxing Pythagoras
04-11-2015, 07:09 AM
Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???I honestly don't see what Quantum Foam has to do with the subject.

eschaton
04-11-2015, 07:38 AM
Jichard,

Thank you for your comments. I may try to respond to you later, or I may just let some of these who are more knowledgeable in the area respond for me. In the mean time I found some information on one of those you mentioned.


https://youtu.be/6UwvXBadRbw

B&H
04-11-2015, 09:45 PM
I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality?

Because a combination of genetics and environmental conditioning caused us to adopt the same general morality that most American folk adhere to: We do not like to see people getting killed and hurt. We no more need objective morality to justify our concern, than kids need objective morality to justify being concerned about the consequences of disobeying dad's wholly subjective relative opinion on when kids should go to bed. Only a fool would say because such a father's opinion is subjective, it is pointless or useless.


Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

You can't. If you hold a biblical view, Jews are persecuted and killed because God is using pagan people to punish them. Ezekiel 38:4, Deuteronomy 28:15, etc, etc.


2. How can atheists know there isn't a God?

We cannot know it absolutely, but you cannot know absolutely there's no little gremlin jumping up and down on your head right now. But inability to achieve absolute certainty doesn't slow you down in the least from concluding that the lack of evidence signifies lack of gremlin, correct?
The stuff you think counts as evidence for God, is always sufficiently explained, or likely will be, by purely naturalistic causes. Now ask me how life can come from non-life, so I can educate you about the god of the gaps fallacy that has been falling down on the heads of apologists for several centuries with each scientific discovery.


How can atheists "know" anything?

The same way babies learn stuff without having a presupposition that god exists: through our 5 physical senses, and you don't have a prayer of showing that we ever learn anything apart from these senses.


3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

Atheism results in the belief that life has no "ultimate" purpose. What's the problem? Do you think when kids find it fun to play in the yard after school, they only find it purposeful because they presuppose god's existence? And if you are honest, you will admit you often find purpose in life without thinking about god. Do you do the laundry only because God has a purpose for your life, or because dirty clothes need to be washed whether god exists or not? Do you shower regularly solely because you think God wants you to, or would you shower regularly even if you didn't believe in god? Get real.


4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.

I don't know what Hawking has to say about it, but it is perfectly absurd in my view to think that something can happen without a reason. Since I deny the big bang, I don't waste time talking about uncaused causality. It is only one theory of quantum mechanics that says virtual particles can appear out of nothing. Other interpretations do not ascribe to this "something from nothing" magic show, and I don't ascribe to it either.

I don't know what you did, but putting atheists on the defensive, you did not.

eschaton
04-12-2015, 08:00 AM
You haven't responded to the other four videos in the playlist, or to the last video posted, which seems to indicate the shallowness of new atheism.

shunyadragon
04-12-2015, 04:21 PM
You haven't responded to the other four videos in the playlist, or to the last video posted, which seems to indicate the shallowness of new atheism.

Even though I believe in God. These views expressed in the videos are shallow, repetitive, and a bit old hat. Actually you should specifically cite the points from the videos her and not argue by web link, ie videos.

B&H
04-12-2015, 09:21 PM
You haven't responded to the other four videos in the playlist, or to the last video posted, which seems to indicate the shallowness of new atheism.

It could also signify that I didn't have the time to comprehensively answer everything asserted in the videos, just like I don't now.

Should I conclude your failure to at least rebut the stuff I DID post, "seems to indicate the shallowness" of your Christianity?

Or does it make sense to first ask why you chose to leave that stuff alone?

Why didn't you rebut the comments that I DID post?

eschaton
04-13-2015, 12:12 PM
It could also signify that I didn't have the time to comprehensively answer everything asserted in the videos, just like I don't now.

Should I conclude your failure to at least rebut the stuff I DID post, "seems to indicate the shallowness" of your Christianity?

Or does it make sense to first ask why you chose to leave that stuff alone?

Why didn't you rebut the comments that I DID post?

To be honest, I don't really understand what you're saying. It's not that what you're saying doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense to me. The videos are easy for me to understand. I might understand your comments if I spent enough time thinking about it, but I'm kinda busy.

B&H
04-13-2015, 05:35 PM
To be honest, I don't really understand what you're saying. It's not that what you're saying doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense to me. The videos are easy for me to understand. I might understand your comments if I spent enough time thinking about it, but I'm kinda busy.

You seem confused. At any rate, whenever you feel like attacking atheism, be sure and let me know. I come online to debate text arguments, I do not come online to comment on apologetics videos.

firstfloor
04-14-2015, 03:27 PM
“ … for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” – Paul
If you can’t trust an angel you might as well be atheist. It’s the safe option for avoiding damnation.

Yttrium
04-14-2015, 03:50 PM
If you can’t trust an angel you might as well be atheist. It’s the safe option for avoiding damnation.

You know, you really need to work on your arguments. One can't avoid a consequence by asserting that it doesn't exist. It's only if the consequence doesn't exist that it's safe to deny the existence of the consequence.

Truthseeker
04-14-2015, 04:24 PM
“ … for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” – Paul
If you can’t trust an angel you might as well be atheist. It’s the safe option for avoiding damnation.That makes sense if there does exist some being who would punish you. Um . . . does it indeed make sense? :dizzy:

shunyadragon
04-15-2015, 02:57 PM
You know, you really need to work on your arguments. One can't avoid a consequence by asserting that it doesn't exist. It's only if the consequence doesn't exist that it's safe to deny the existence of the consequence.

The claims of consequences are most often anecdotal, and as a matter of fact easy for one to deny IF one does not accept the presuppositions of the faith in question.

Yttrium
04-15-2015, 03:58 PM
The claims of consequences are most often anecdotal, and as a matter of fact easy for one to deny IF one does not accept the presuppositions of the faith in question.

Yes. However, that doesn't change the illogic of firstfloor's statement.

shunyadragon
04-15-2015, 07:28 PM
Yes. However, that doesn't change the illogic of firstfloor's statement.

I do not believe firstfloor believes there are consequences.

Yttrium
04-15-2015, 07:33 PM
I do not believe firstfloor believes there are consequences.

Of course he doesn't. He's an atheist. That doesn't change the illogic of his statement.

shunyadragon
04-16-2015, 02:22 PM
Of course he doesn't. He's an atheist. That doesn't change the illogic of his statement.

His statement was not likely intended to be logical. It was more sarcasm then anything else.

Yttrium
04-16-2015, 02:56 PM
His statement was not likely intended to be logical. It was more sarcasm then anything else.

Yes, it was a troll post, like everything else he writes.

shunyadragon
04-16-2015, 05:57 PM
Yes, it was a troll post, like everything else he writes.

I disagree, Troll posts are generally abusive to others and their beliefs, and no everything first floor writes is not Trollish. The above post is on the edge without reason.

If he is an atheist, so What!?!?!?

Jichard
04-21-2015, 11:24 PM
Wow, that's quite a barrage of many possible answers. Pick one.

I didn't give a barrage of possible answers. Just one as an example: Cornell Realism.


I had never stumbled over "Cornell Realism" until now.

OK.

It's gone over in most intro to contemporary meta-ethics courses, sort of like how utilitarianism would be gone over in most intro to moral philosophy courses.


I am puzzled. While trying to figure out that passage just above, I recalled Acts 10:9-17, which is a story about God telling Peter that food that was ceremonially unclean (unholy) can now be eaten (no longer sinful). Later verses show Peter telling others what God commanded. I wonder what your reaction would be.

First, I need to correct a mistake I made. I wrote this:

"And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism."
when I should have written this (bolding added):

"And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral subjectivism."

Second, what is it that you find confusing about it?

Third, I'm not sure what your passage is meant to show in relation to what I wrote. If the point is that our moral obligations are derived from God's commands, then I reject that as being a form of moral subjectivism, with the attendant problems that come with such subjectivism.


The main thing for Christians to keep in mind is that neither atheists nor agnostics are Christian. The difference between those camps isn't important.

Well, one can be an agnostic Christian: belief that the Christian God exists (and belief other tenets of the faith), without claiming to know.


Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???

Simultaneous causation is incoherent, especially when the cause (a temporal state) is causing something (time) that's a logically pre-requisite for the existence of the cause.

And no, quantum events wouldn't help you here, since those don't involve that. Now, you might have acausal simultaneous relationships, such as constitution relationships (ex: X is constituted by Y, or Y is a part of X), identity relationships (ex: X is identical to Y), relationships of logical necessity, some probabilistic/mathematical acausal relationship, etc. And that's how some scientists treat relationships among various quantum phenomena: as acausal, probabilistic relationships.

Truthseeker
04-22-2015, 04:10 PM
I didn't give a barrage of possible answers. Just one as an example: Cornell Realism.You did write this: "There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism."




Simultaneous causation is incoherent, especially when the cause (a temporal state) is causing something (time) that's a logically pre-requisite for the existence of the cause.Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

shunyadragon
04-22-2015, 06:06 PM
Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

No, the reason for the avalanche is the suitable natural conditions determined by Natural Law. There is not any evidence that Natural Law evolved.

Jichard
04-23-2015, 12:50 PM
You did write this: "There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism."

And then I gave one example of an answer: Cornell Realism.


Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

Not so. Assuming determinism, the reason as avalanche started was some aspect of the universe prior to the avalanche (for example: an earthquake occurring before the avalanche). So the cause temporally precedes the effect it produces.

shunyadragon
04-23-2015, 03:07 PM
No, the reason for the avalanche is the suitable natural conditions determined by Natural Law. There is not any evidence that Natural Law evolved.

I for got one point here. The cause being the natural conditions determined by Natural Laws. The cause preceded the event. Jichard gave one example. and earthquake, but there can be a number of natural conditions as causes that precede the event.

Truthseeker
04-23-2015, 03:32 PM
Not so. Assuming determinism, the reason as avalanche started was some aspect of the universe prior to the avalanche (for example: an earthquake occurring before the avalanche). So the cause temporally precedes the effect it produces.What earthquake? The ground is always quaking. Teensy weensy movements and others up to magnitude 10. Minor point anyway, so that's my last reply.

meshak
04-25-2015, 03:34 PM
Dear eschaton,

Thank you for sharing those resources on the weaknesses of atheism.

As far as the video playlist you shared, Dr. Craig really had the atheist Christopher Hitchens on the ropes in that Christianity vs. atheism debate and Hichen's phony excuse that his earphone was not working and he could not hear Craig's request to provide evidence for atheism was a classic debate moment (This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXDd8ALi6LE&index=2&list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo ).

If you want to see a large number of the weaknesses of atheism, this article contains a great number of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

shunyadragon
04-25-2015, 07:41 PM
Dear eschaton,

Thank you for sharing those resources on the weaknesses of atheism.

As far as the video playlist you shared, Dr. Craig really had the atheist Christopher Hitchens on the ropes in that Christianity vs. atheism debate and Hichen's phony excuse that his earphone was not working and he could not hear Craig's request to provide evidence for atheism was a classic debate moment (This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXDd8ALi6LE&index=2&list=PLfFjQYBrjvXE0IX0c8_fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo ).

If you want to see a large number of the weaknesses of atheism, this article contains a great number of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

I reviewed the cite and found it to be a very poor source to understand atheism. First, a fundamentalist view, and opposed to the science of evolution and equating the belief in evolution with atheism. Second, many of the correlations with extreme negative human behavior like pedophilia and atheism is hocus bogus.

Doug Shaver
04-25-2015, 11:26 PM
Well, if you want to know about atheism, who better to ask than people who hate it? After all, if you want to know what Christians believe, your best bet is to ask an atheist, right?

shunyadragon
04-26-2015, 03:47 AM
What earthquake? The ground is always quaking. Teensy weensy movements and others up to magnitude 10. Minor point anyway, so that's my last reply.

Check the news we just had a major earthquake in Tibet, which caused large avalanches.