Atheism: The Death Of Hope.

[firstfloor]

Ok, I'll do it God's way, you do it your way... Good luck

Thanks, as if anyone can choose what to believe? All the best to you too Seer.

[Sir]

No. Either there is the possibility of life after death or there is not. One position offers hope, the other does not.

This does not seem logical to me unless I adopt your presuppositions, which I assume are Christian. To a non-Christian, such as myself, there is no 'hopelessness' attached to life-after-death; the fact of whether or not there is life-after-death is yet to be known (beyond a faith position, that is), so emotional descriptors such as 'hopelessness' are getting way ahead of the issue, which is to establish a reasonable certainty that there is life-after-death.

No it doesn't. There are two categories of people, those who are saved and those who are not. Hope depends on which category you put yourself in.

Yes, given your presuppositions, I would believe the same thing. But I do not have your presuppositions, so I remain eager for you to persuade me of the validity of yours.

[seer]

This does not seem logical to me unless I adopt your presuppositions, which I assume are Christian. To a non-Christian, such as myself, there is no 'hopelessness' attached to life-after-death; the fact of whether or not there is life-after-death is yet to be known (beyond a faith position, that is), so emotional descriptors such as 'hopelessness' are getting way ahead of the issue, which is to establish a reasonable certainty that there is life-after-death.

Perhaps you missed my point. Militant atheist are attempting to undermine the beliefs of others. People who have hope beyond this world. And your presuppositions are really meaningless, if this is all there is then there is no hope beyond this world. No life beyond this one, whether you personally see that as hopeless or not.

Yes, given your presuppositions, I would believe the same thing. But I do not have your presuppositions, so I remain eager for you to persuade me of the validity of yours.

No you aren't...

But here you go: My first principle or assumption is that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

Which explains:

1. Why there is a universe.

2. Why the universe is life permitting.

3. Why biological life arose.

4. Why the universe is intelligible, rational.

5. Why men do both good and evil.

6. Why men are rational, why reality corresponds to our mental life.

7. Why everlasting life is possible.

OK, your turn, what is your first principle or presupposition...

[tabibito]

Well, as far as the floating fern, you all have the details - any input would be nice.

At the risk of being considered a buttinsky:

Yon leaf poses a small difficulty. There is only one person (so far) who can confidently state that the event had a super-natural origin. For someone else, it would be natural and prudent to ascribe the event to ordinary but unidentified causes - a fairly strong thermal, perhaps. I can assert that it was due to supernatural causes, but I have background information to which no-one else is privy: and no-one else can verify that my claim is true. Unless someone else, or some event, verifies the claim to Seer's satisfaction, he (and everyone else) is wholly justified in disbelieving what I have said.

[The Pixie]

My first principle or assumption is that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

Atheism starts from less controversy assumptions:

We can trust our senses
What we remember happening really did happen
Other people think like we do

Even these I would say are only broadly true.

Which explains:

1. Why there is a universe.

2. Why the universe is life permitting.

3. Why biological life arose.

4. Why the universe is intelligible, rational.

5. Why men do both good and evil.

6. Why men are rational, why reality corresponds to our mental life.

7. Why everlasting life is possible.

My assumptions do not explain any of that, but they do allow us to examine evidence is a reliable way, which in turn has allowed mankind to building aeroplanes, cure diseases and discuss these issues on the internet.

The great thing about my assumptions is that you probably make them too. We can all agree on them (again, talking broadly). Yours, on the other hand, is specific to a particular religious faith, and exactly what your Bible says is not even agreed upon within that faith.

[seer]

Atheism starts from less controversy assumptions:

We can trust our senses
What we remember happening really did happen
Other people think like we do

Even these I would say are only broadly true.

But you are starting with three assumptions. As far as being parsimonious, mine is more elegant.

My assumptions do not explain any of that, but they do allow us to examine evidence is a reliable way, which in turn has allowed mankind to building aeroplanes, cure diseases and discuss these issues on the internet.

Yes, your assumption does not have the explanatory power mine does.

The great thing about my assumptions is that you probably make them too. We can all agree on them (again, talking broadly). Yours, on the other hand, is specific to a particular religious faith, and exactly what your Bible says is not even agreed upon within that faith.

Yes, but being rational flows from my first assumption, and explains why we have an intelligible cosmos in the first place. Which one of your assumptions calls for an intelligible universe? Or do you have to add a fourth assumption?

[The Pixie]

But you are starting with three assumptions. As far as being parsimonious, mine is more elegant.

Great.

Except yours tacitly relies on mine. If you cannot trust your senses, how can you trust that what is in the Bible is really there? Unless you trust your memory, how can you believe that what you read in the Bible yesterday is really there? How can you accept anything written in the Bible unless you assume the existence of thinking people to write it?

Yes, your assumption does not have the explanatory power mine does.

There are plenty of other religions that offer alternative assumptions - assumptions that contradict your own - that do. There are fictional books, such as the Silmarillion, that do as well. I could make up an assumption right now that has the same explanatory power. Should we assume all these are good assumptions too?

Yes, but being rational flows from my first assumption, and explains why we have an intelligible cosmos in the first place. Which one of your assumptions calls for an intelligible universe? Or do you have to add a fourth assumption?

That we are rational and that we live in an intelligible cosmos are observations that I can make from my assumptions.

And when I say my assumptions, I mean the assumptions we all make.

[seer]

Great.

Except yours tacitly relies on mine. If you cannot trust your senses, how can you trust that what is in the Bible is really there? Unless you trust your memory, how can you believe that what you read in the Bible yesterday is really there? How can you accept anything written in the Bible unless you assume the existence of thinking people to write it?

No Pixie yours relies on mine. Why we are rational in the first place, why our senses are trustworthy in the first place, why the universe is intelligible in the first place.

There are plenty of other religions that offer alternative assumptions - assumptions that contradict your own - that do. There are fictional books, such as the Silmarillion, that do as well. I could make up an assumption right now that has the same explanatory power. Should we assume all these are good assumptions too?

Pixie you are free to chose any first principle that you like. I gave you mine, and what follows.

That we are rational and that we live in an intelligible cosmos are observations that I can make from my assumptions.

And when I say my assumptions, I mean the assumptions we all make.

Again, the question is why do we live in an intelligible cosmos - my axiom explains that, yours doesn't. None of your three assumptions touch on that question. You really do need a fourth presupposition. Not very parsimonious old chap!

[The Pixie]

No Pixie yours relies on mine. Why we are rational in the first place, why our senses are trustworthy in the first place, why the universe is intelligible in the first place.

Then you are caught in circular logic.

Our senses are truthworthy because of what I have read in the Bible
I can rely on my reading of the Bible because I know my senses are trustworthy

Pixie you are free to chose any first principle that you like. I gave you mine, and what follows.

I have never heard a philosophy espouse that. Wonder why.

Again, the question is why do we live in an intelligible cosmos - my axiom explains that, yours doesn't. None of your three assumptions touch on that question. You really do need a fourth presupposition. Not very parsimonious old chap!

Your argument is based on the assumption that there are easy answers to these things. I see no reason to suppose that that is true.

I will stick with my three. Like most people do.

[seer]

Then you are caught in circular logic.

Our senses are truthworthy because of what I have read in the Bible
I can rely on my reading of the Bible because I know my senses are trustworthy

Are you joking Pixie? You are in the same circle. How do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality? How do you know that your senses are actually trustworthy? Try to justify those deductively - you can not, your only confirmation will end up being circular.

I have never heard a philosophy espouse that. Wonder why.

Heard what?

Your argument is based on the assumption that there are easy answers to these things. I see no reason to suppose that that is true.

I will stick with my three. Like most people do.

But you can't just stick to three. You need a fourth, like I mentioned, just to get off the ground. Like I said, not very parsimonious.

[The Pixie]

Are you joking Pixie? You are in the same circle. How do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality? How do you know that your senses are actually trustworthy? Try to justify those deductively - you can not, your only confirmation will end up being circular.

These are all assumptions we are obliged to make, just like the others I gave.

You then opt to introduce a further one that most people disagree with.

You want to pretend that your songle assumption is more parsominious, but the reality is youy need all the others just like the rest of.

[seer]

These are all assumptions we are obliged to make, just like the others I gave.

So what? It is still just a circular as mine.

You then opt to introduce a further one that most people disagree with.

No Pixie, I'm not adding anything - I'm beginning with one assumption.

You want to pretend that your songle assumption is more parsominious, but the reality is youy need all the others just like the rest of.

Nonsense Pixie, my one assumption, as I originally listed, contains these necessary requirements.

[firstfloor]

Militant atheist are attempting to undermine the beliefs of others. People who have hope beyond this world.

[The Pixie]

Nonsense Pixie, my one assumption, as I originally listed, contains these necessary requirements.

Right. And you can rely on the word of the Bible weithout reply on your senses to read it or relying on your memory to recall it. Quite a trick that.

[firstfloor]

We have become accustomed to Christianity defining the boundaries of our history and even the boundaries of divine revelation. In reality it is a small and recent adjunct to a human cultural history that goes back many thousands of years before the Christians. Should we pin our hopes on that alone because it makes extravagant claims for itself? Of course not. We should try to grasp the bigger picture when we will see that Christianity is a phase we are going through just like all the other transient religions of human beings.