Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.
Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.
Well, that argument unraveled quickly. Well done. 
Topic's author
#32
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause,
Not necessarily.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

(A)THEIST = (WITHOUT)THEISM = no subscription to any specific "god(s)"

(A)GNOSTIC = (WITHOUT)GNOSIS = no memory (of direct experience) of any "higher power(s)"
You can't be devoid of belief if you are a reasoning being who claims to be an atheist. To claim as much you must be aware of what that means, just like you have demonstrated (embolden text). Not subscribing is a denial of God or gods, yet I bet you know about the Christian God. As a Christian I only defend the one God and will refute the rest along with you. As a Christian I believe I can give reasonable or sufficient evidence for belief in the Christian God as the one true God. 

Now, SkepticalOne claims to be ignorant of God ('I don't know') which I very much doubt since he once-upon-a-time claimed to be a Christian. Rather, he rejects and denounces this God revelation as he rejects other gods. So, the problem is that he is not ignorant about this God. He knows a great deal about this God, , just rejecting. In doing so, he can only do so in light of a worldview. He denies the truth of Christianity while affirming his worldview, just as I'm sure you do, if you are an atheist. Both you and he have a conceptual framework that you build upon in forming your views of everything. You are not nuetral. You undermine and reject the Christian God among others in many ways, as is demonstrated by your twenty posts to me alone, let alone those to others. If I pressed you (providing you claimed to be an atheist) I would find you have views on life's ultimate questions, such as origins of life, the universe, morals or values, meaning, purpose, truth and knowledge, for starters. Again, you are not nuetral. If you are an atheist you explain these things without God or gods usually by naturalism and humanism. As an atheist, thus humanist, and naturalist, you would probably think that man is the measure of all things, for that is almost the only being you point to in your reasoning. You might point to alien beings of which you also have no knowledge of really existing as a possible explanation of why you exist and if they are contingent beings they to need an explanation for their existence that would exclude God or gods. I don't know what else that denial of God/gods entails but chance happenstance. You go from intentional being to a random chance force or happenstance. 

Next, you are guilty of avoiding the question, "Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?" Instead you set up a bunch of scapegoat and strawmen posts. 
Topic's author
#33
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...yet something about God too in their denial of Him.
...yet something about NANABOZHO too in your denial of its HOLY MAGNIFICENCE.
I do on the impossibility of the contrary on other god beliefs. Obviously one of the two beliefs (at least) in false since they state different things.

Show me that such a god is reasonable to believe in and I will do my best to show the inconsistency in such a belief.  

...yet something about PANGU too in your denial of its UNDENIABLE GRACE.
Dito. 


...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.
Such belief is logically inconsistent. 


Does your own "disbelief" in these god($) PROVE how much implicit FAITH you have in them?
The only one I recognized and am somewhat aware of is Brahman. I have faith that others believe such a god is reasonable but I do not place my faith in such a god. I believe I have good reason to believe that such a god is anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary. That is, two contrary statements about God cannot both be true. Either the biblical God is true or He is not since the Bible makes exclusive statements about God, as other religions do too. They are contrary to the biblical view. The biblical God cannot be true and false at the same time. That is a logical error to believe such a thing. So, all three laws of logic come into play here, the law of contradiction, the law of exclusive middles, and the law of identity.  

You have discussed the Christian God with me before. I know you have beliefs about such a God, even in a denial. 

By denying the "existence" of these god($) are you not actually AFFIRMING their undeniability?

I mean, how can you "deny" the "existence" of something that doesn't even exist??
Because there is no reasonable evidence of their existence, for one. There is for the biblical God. And for another, truth is a very narrow proposition. The biblical God has given many proofs of His existence by what has been written. It rings true for those who study it. The 66 writings claim to be a revelation from Him and as such many things are either confirmed or reasonable to believe as stated by other historical accounts also. Can you show me other religious belief systems that offer the same kind of quality proofs as biblical prophecy? The Israeli people exist and their interaction with other cultures and nations has been recorded in the biblical narrative. People, places, events are confirmed bysecular historians as well as Bible-believing religious ones. Then there is the internal consistency and unity of these 66 'books' or writings. The OT contains a typology that points to one person, Jesus Christ, on most of its pages. 
Topic's author
#34
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.
Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.

Before I go further, do you claim to be an atheist? If not, what is your belief? Once you answer that I will answer your critique here, then carry on with the rest of your posts. 

And just another reminder, you have not attempted to engage in the topic at hand. 
#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Does this thread assume morality shows a single face? I propose morality is a room of multiple walls filled with masks, particularly in these days of P.C. re-imagination. So, what of reason in either atheism or theism? "Reasonable" has as many masks as morality. So, in fact, do "atheism" and "theism." When you think you're juggling only four balls, suddenly, you have legion.
#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Why does one need a belief?
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Before I go further, do you claim to be an atheist? If not, what is your belief?
I SELF-IDENTIFY AS A DEIST.
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
And just another reminder, you have not attempted to engage in the topic at hand. 
It's strange that you would choose to comment on my internal motives.

I'm not sure how you could possibly know what I've "attempted" one way or another.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Then there is the internal consistency and unity of these 66 'books' or writings.
You might find this interesting. [LINK]
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Because there is no reasonable evidence of their existence, for one.
Well stated.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe I have good reason to believe that "YHWH" is not anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary.
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.
Such belief is logically inconsistent. 
Please present a specific logical error.
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Show me that such a god is reasonable to believe in and I will do my best to show the inconsistency in such a belief.  
It is reasonable to believe in ISHTAR (2150 BCE) because the holy EPIC OF GILGAMESH predates ABRAHAM (1927 BCE).
#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you show me other religious belief systems that offer the same kind of quality proofs as biblical prophecy?
If you value accurate PROPHECY, perhaps you should worship BLACKROCK. [LINK]
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Next, you are guilty of avoiding the question, "Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
yES.

The answer is yES.
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You can't be devoid of belief if you are a reasoning being who claims to be an atheist.
You are an ATHEIST regarding NANABOZHO.

How do you justify your DISBELIEF (devoid of belief) in NANABOZHO?
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Not subscribing is a denial of God or gods, yet I bet you know about the Christian God.
Not subscribing is NOT a "denial" of magazines, yet I bet you know about magazines you do not actually subscribe to.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So, the problem is that you are not ignorant about NANABOZHO. You know a great deal about NANABOZHO, , just rejecting.
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Both you and he have a conceptual framework that you build upon in forming your views of everything.
It's called EPISTEMOLOGY.

And in many respects, IT'S IDENTICAL TO YOURS.
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You are not nuetral. You undermine and reject NANABOZHO among others in many ways, as is demonstrated by your twenty posts to me alone, let alone those to others. If I pressed you (providing you claimed to be a non-follower of NANABOZHO) I would (MIGHT) find you have views on life's ultimate questions, such as origins of life, the universe, morals or values, meaning, purpose, truth and knowledge, for starters. Again, you are not nuetral.

Do you consider yourself "neutral" regarding the existence and undeniable holy might and majesty of NANABOZHO?

Let me take a few wild guesses.

(1) origins of life = "YHWH"
(2) morals or values = "YHWH"
(3) meaning, purpose = SERVE AND OBEY "YHWH"
(4) truth and knowledge = READ THE BOOK OF "YHWH"
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are an atheist you explain these things without God or gods usually by naturalism and humanism.
or not at all.

ATHEIST =/= HUMANIST
ATHEIST =/= NATURALIST
ATHEIST =/= CREED
#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEIST =/= HUMANIST
ATHEIST =/= NATURALIST
ATHEIST =/= CREED
I would add 

SOME GOD(S) =/= AN EXPLANATION 

#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Great point.

MYTH =/= SCIENCE
Topic's author
#54
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You are not nuetral. You undermine and reject NANABOZHO among others in many ways, as is demonstrated by your twenty posts to me alone,
You are recycling my posts with minor adjustments.

You are right, I am not neutral. I do reject NANABOZHO on the basis that I believe the Christian God is the ONE true God. For the two articles I read on this god, there is internal inconsistency in such a belief. 

"Nanabozho's grandmother, who named him,...Nanabozho is a trickster figure and can be a bit of a rascal,..."

He has a grandmother which signified to me that he may have begun to exist and is not the supreme deity but a lesser figure that derives existence from some other source. Such a god seems not be the Creator or Originator, perhaps just one of a myriad of created beings.

"Known as a trickster, Nanabozo plays a dual role in Indigenous oral traditions. On the one hand, he protects and even creates life. On the other, he is associated with mischief and breaking the rules. His adventures and misadventures are meant to teach right from wrong and how to live a good life."

A trickster. How can I trust such a deity?

"As their name suggests however, tricksters are also associated with rule-breaking..."

***

Actually, I have only posted to you four times, this is my fifth. You have added so many posts (15 more addressed to me which makes 45 in total) I find it dizzy trying to keep up with them all.

***

I wanted you to commit before I continued. Now I know you are a deist I will continue in order of post starting with your claims about worldviews. 

Two other questions, what deity do you believe in or are you unsure and what do you know about your said deity? 

let alone those to others. If I pressed you (providing you claimed to be a non-follower of NANABOZHO) I would (MIGHT) find you have views on life's ultimate questions, such as origins of life, the universe, morals or values, meaning, purpose, truth and knowledge, for starters. Again, you are not nuetral.
You are mostly recycling my words.

I find sufficient answers in the biblical God plus I find the 66 writings that comprise the Christian belief that are unified and consistent in major themes such as origins, sin, and God's covenant relationship with Israel as it progresses. I find on almost every page of Scripture in the OT a typological revelation of Jesus Christ and in the NT a greater revelation of Him. I find prophecy that is reasonable and logical to believe as true in that the evidence points to it as being written before the fact or event in question. Prophecy is one of many confirmations. I find the description of the biblical God as sufficient in explaining origins.  

Do you consider yourself "neutral" regarding the existence and undeniable holy might and majesty of NANABOZHO?
No, I believe in no god but the biblical deity, so I am not neutral. Truth is not neutral. It takes a position that is very narrow. That can be easily demonstrated with mathematics as an example. If I have one apple and I add another apple I have two apples. One object plus another object are two objects. 1+1=2, not 5, 10, 14, 70, 755...

Let me take a few wild guesses.

(1) origins of life = "YHWH"
(2) morals or values = "YHWH"
(3) meaning, purpose = SERVE AND OBEY "YHWH"
(4) truth and knowledge = READ THE BOOK OF "YHWH"
Correct. I have not hidden my beliefs like you. Your profile page is blank. You have committed to deity but which one(s)? How is your deity consistent? Are you a native America and Nanabozho is your deity?
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Such a god seems not be the Creator or Originator, perhaps just one of a myriad of created beings.
Perhaps an aspect of a superhyper-natural-god-made-flesh?
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You are recycling my posts with minor adjustments.
If your logic is sound, the words should be interchangeable.
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You are right, I am not neutral. I do reject "YHWH" on the basis that I believe NANABOZHO is the ONE true God.
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
A trickster. How can I trust such a deity?
Are you perhaps familiar with the story of JOB? [LINK]
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Actually, I have only posted to you four times, this is my fifth. You have added so many posts (15 more addressed to me which makes 45 in total) I find it dizzy trying to keep up with them all.
I'm including our previous conversations.
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Two other questions, what deity do you believe in or are you unsure and what do you know about your said deity? 
As a GNOSTIC DEIST, my direct-experiential-communion is a somewhat private affair.