Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Topic's author

#1624

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.15.2023 04:17PM

3

5

8

07.15.2023 04:17PM

-->

@b9_ntt

Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle.
No, it is not. It is a personal statement about belief in a god. That's it. Atheists' lifestyles vary just like theists. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, how does that affect your worldview and lifestyle?

A personal statement that is a belief (yes, atheism is a belief and a belief system) that employs so many other vehicles in looking at the world and universe while stating there is no proof or very little for belief in a God.

A personal statement about belief in God, yes (i.e., I am an atheist), that requires funnelling every thought through the perspective that God does not exist (or that there is no good reason or evidence for God), thus the answers for life's ultimate questions are sorted out outside of God as an explanation. Thus, it is a worldview, a comprehensive view of the world/universe. Atheists choose to look at the world/universe by denying or ignoring that it is created by God or gods, so philosophical naturalism is usually the main vehicle, so to speak, used to examine the universe and everything in it. It is a closed system of thought (everything comes from within that system - the universe); to be consistent, everything has to be (or is) explained or originate from within the universe/multiverse, not outside it, like Carl Sagan's philosophical viewpoint of the universe as all there is, was, or ever will be.

The atheist lives as if no God exists.
Well, yeah. We just go about our lives without that belief. Not a big deal to us.

Maybe not a big deal to you, but consider what you have to believe if you deny an absolute Being who created the universe and everything in it and who has revealed to us right from wrong. So let's briefly consider just this one aspect, for now, morality. How do you explain the "good" if there is no best or if "best" is relative/subjective to an individual or group human viewpoint? What makes his, their view right? Remember, objective is different from subjective. Hitler (in his own subjective thought) believed that killing Jews was right because he viewed them as sub-human. Just because I can say it is good to allow a woman to kill the innocent unborn human being inside her does not necessarily make it right UNLESS there is an ultimate measure or STANDARD. It just all boils down to preferences (likes and dislikes). Some people love their neighbours; others like eating them - what is your preference? Thus, as an atheist, show me your way of looking at things is any "better" than mine and that your ultimate authority can be trusted and true, valid, and trustworthy. I don't believe you can do that. All you can do is tell me that you like your way of looking at things more than you like mine. Big deal, as you say. This thinking is what wars are fought over (one says it is right, the other wrong, and who is to say other than by might). So, can you determine right from wrong without BORROWING from a system of thought (Christianity) that has SUFFICIENT MEANS to justify itself; Christianity has what is necessary (an ultimate, objective, unchanging authority that has revealed Himself)? I don't believe you can, and I welcome you to try. I believe you will find, if you are being honest with yourself, that you can't live CONSISTENTLY from within your denial of God and what that necessarily curtails.

And that is just one aspect of morality. Another is how you get an ought from an is. The world, the universe, just is. It is not mindful of you; it does not care about you. It is just physical.

An ought is what should be the case. It is non-physical and intangible. Only sentient, rational, mindful beings can determine what ought to be the case. The universe, the earth, does not care if you kill your neighbour. It cannot determine the best outcome or the best way for you to live. Since you are subjective and a relative being, you need an ultimate source and one that has revealed itself to humanity for you to determine the right or what ought to be done. Other than that, your opinions are no "better" than anyone else's.

My last point, and I could add a whole bunch more, is, why, if everything is relative and subjective (i.e., no absolute, ultimate, objective, UNCHANGING standard), is there any ultimate meaning in the universe? It just is. It doesn't care. Why do you? Your very short time here means nothing in the big picture because, from an atheistic perspective, meaning is only something human beings interject and construct into this short timeframe that does not matter. Nothing matters. Yet here you are, on a debate platform, acting as if some things do matter, that it matters what we believe. Thus, once again, you are being inconsistent if you live like things ultimately do matter, that murdering 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables does matter and that you, as a person, are appalled and disgusted at what Hitler did. If there is no ultimate standard, nothing that ultimately holds us accountable, 1) there is no such thing as justice, 2) human life is unimportant, 3) human values are made up and contrived, and in the big picture, nothing matters.

An atheist is a person who is their own god
Now you are getting way off base. Do you think that if I don't believe in an external god, then I must be claiming to be my own god? That's incorrect. I'm saying I don't believe in any god.

Who are you ultimately accountable to? Who determines right and wrong in your eyes, in your perspective? Is it you, or do you have a higher authority, and what makes that authority right or true to the actual case? Because you say so? Or do you, as an atheist, view some other human authority as higher than your own, determining what you do and how you live?

God said you should not kill; you shall not commit adultery, you shall not lie, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour, you shall not steal. Honour your father and mother that your days on this earth may be long. Which ones of these do you believe are right, if any, and who determines they are right? Your subjective opinion or that of someone else?

I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.
Here's how it works. Humans evolved in societies which work better when people don't lie, cheat, steal and kill. A small percentage of people do those things, but most of us do not. That's because it works better for us. We get along with our neighbors that way. That doesn't require a god-given morality.

So, you are telling me this is how it works. That is a belief that arises from an atheistic worldview - macroevolution. Are you sure of that?

Another belief is that you find societies work better if we don't lie, cheat, steal, and kill. I agree, but what are your reasons for believing this, because you like this idea, or because it is actually RIGHT, and to not do these things? Again, provide me with your ultimate source for FEELING the way you do and believing this is TRUE.

What happens if a significant percentage believe it is right to take from others whatever you need? Does that then become the right? What happens if a significant segment of society or the majority believes it is right and just to kill innocent Jews in the millions, or innocent Caucasians, or the innocent unborn human being in the millions? Does that then make it right, or is there a higher court of appeal other than human feelings, and if so, what authority or appeal does the atheist use? Please answer that.

And, as I mentioned earlier, what does any of this really matter is there is no ultimate justice, no judgment for what you do, whether you feel that something is right or wrong. Let me answer that; it does not matter in the least if all you are is a biological bag of atoms, some reacting one way, others another, as determined by external biological forces that randomly work with NO purpose or REASON.

If there is no God, as you BELIEVE, then there is no reason or purpose to the universe, no reason to believe that things will continue to work the same way they have in the past (uniformity of nature or natural laws which presuppose a lawgiver) in the future. Without reasoning being, why do you expect things to continue to happen in a uniform and PREDICTABLE manner??? Yet, they do.

And I suggest you don't get carried too far away by Amoranemix and his posts if they at all influence you. Find out if he can justify and make sense of his belief system before you invest in it wholeheartedly. See how he masquerades behind his emperor's clothes. Try and find places where he can make ultimate sense of anything. I don't think you will be able to, but if you do, pass on such findings of his system of thought to me and we can test that too. He is another person crying wolf in the wilderness without sufficient justification.

#1625

b9_ntt

Debates: 2

Posts: 276

0

2

5

b9_ntt

07.15.2023 08:03PM

0

2

5

07.15.2023 08:03PM

-->

@PGA2.0

atheism is a belief and a belief system) that employs so many other vehicles in looking at the world and universe while stating there is no proof or very little for belief in a God.

No! Atheism is a specific non-belief. You can’t extrapolate a system from that.

the answers for life's ultimate questions are sorted out outside of God as an explanation.

I don’t claim that there are answers to life’s ultimate questions.

Atheists choose to look at the world/universe by denying or ignoring that it is created by God or gods, so philosophical naturalism is usually the main vehicle, so to speak, used to examine the universe and everything in it.

Yes, and that is my stance also.

to be consistent, everything has to be (or is) explained or originate from within the universe/multiverse, not outside it,

Correct. Nothing wrong with that.

All you can do is tell me that you like your way of looking at things more than you like mine.

That is correct. I don’t claim to have the last words regarding morality, however, I prefer my way to yours because it is based on the physical world. There is no need for a supernatural world. Adding a supernatural world and supernatural beings greatly complicates your world view without providing any visible benefits.

This thinking is what wars are fought over (one says it is right, the other wrong, and who is to say other than by might).

I beg your pardon? Christians have fought many wars with other Christians over differing theologies. Christians also fought Muslims. Muslims fight everyone, including other Muslims. Yes, atheistic regimes have also fought wars. That’s what humans do: they find some excuse to impose their will over others. That tendency is not exclusive to atheists.

Christianity has what is necessary (an ultimate, objective, unchanging authority that has revealed Himself)

Really? How do you explain the Hundred Years War? The Albigensian Crusade? Popes armies against their political opponents? The thousands of clerical pedophiles? What good is your morality if so many of your leaders and co-believers disregard it?

The world, the universe, just is. It is not mindful of you; it does not care about you. It is just physical.

Correct.

Your very short time here means nothing in the big picture because, from an atheistic perspective, meaning is only something human beings interject and construct into this short time frame that does not matter. Nothing matters. Yet here you are, on a debate platform, acting as if some things do matter, that it matters what we believe.

Yes, for a very simple reason. As a human, I have a personal life in which many things matter a lot to me. Also, because I have the luxury of thinking about things besides survival, I can contemplate the big picture. I have a personal view and a cosmic view. Cosmically speaking, I don’t matter and neither do humanity or Earth. But from a personal view my needs do matter to me. I try to stay alive and live as comfortably as possible. That’s built-in to my human nature. I couldn’t escape it even if I wanted to. This is not inconsistent. It’s just part of the human condition.

Who are you ultimately accountable to?

I am accountable to my conscience, to the laws of the place where I live, and the mores of my community. Those are “right” for my place and time. I am fine with not believing that there is some “ultimate” authority whose standards I must live up to.

Another belief is that you find societies work better if we don't lie, cheat, steal, and kill. I agree, but what are your reasons for believing this

It seems obvious to me. Societies work better when there is less crime, when people can go about their daily lives without thinking that everyone is out to get them, when relationships can be built on trust, and more can be accomplished through cooperation than conflict.

What happens if a significant segment of society or the majority believes it is right and just to kill . . . the innocent unborn human being in the millions?

What happens is what you see happening in the US right now. Lots of conflict and people moving to places where the authorities are more to their liking.

#1626

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,595

3

4

8

FLRW

07.15.2023 08:36PM

3

4

8

07.15.2023 08:36PM

-->

@b9_ntt

“The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” Albert Einstein 1954

#1627

b9_ntt

Debates: 2

Posts: 276

0

2

5

b9_ntt

07.15.2023 09:16PM

0

2

5

07.15.2023 09:16PM

-->

@FLRW

Also along those lines,

“As Feuerbach saw it, God is a projection of human potentiality, an expression of our unrealized ideals. Religion functions perniciously, since as soon as we invent God we devote ourselves to pleasing our imaginary construction instead of working to overcome the shortcomings that led to the invention in the first place.” — James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door

Topic's author

#1628

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.20.2023 11:50PM

3

5

8

07.20.2023 11:50PM

-->

@FLRW

Stupid people are more likely than eggheads to believe in God, a controversial new study claims.
In a move that is bound to offend millions of churchgoers, a British psychologist says he has found a link between having a high IQ and being an atheist.
The discovery helps explain why university academics are less likely to be religious than almost anyone else, he says.

Isn't that always the way when it is the view you support, to decry, lampoon, name-call, and ridicule the ones you're against? You seem to generalize all Christians into this group of stupid imbeciles, so you can brag and boast that you identify with this most elite, more intelligent, and more coherent position. I challenge that atheism is of a higher IQ just because you can showcase a person like Richard Dawkins here and then say, see, he believes it, and so should you. Who is he that I should believe him? He is a fallible human who specializes in a narrow field of study and does not have the answer to life's ultimate questions. If this is the guru you are trusting, my thoughts are, good luck to you.

Topic's author

#1629

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.21.2023 01:05AM

3

5

8

07.21.2023 01:05AM

-->

@b9_ntt

atheism is a belief and a belief system) that employs so many other vehicles in looking at the world and universe while stating there is no proof or very little for belief in a God.
No! Atheism is a specific non-belief. You can’t extrapolate a system from that.

Rubbish, atheism is a system of belief. Atheists try to answer the same ultimate questions any worldview answers; who am I, why am I here, what does it matter, what happens to me when I die? In denying or ignoring God, you come up with answers to these ultimate questions, usually based on philosophical naturalism.

the answers for life's ultimate questions are sorted out outside of God as an explanation.
I don’t claim that there are answers to life’s ultimate questions.

That is more than likely because 1) you have not examined them sufficiently, or 2) you just don't care enough to ask these meaningful questions and figure out if there are answers to them that make sense.

Atheists choose to look at the world/universe by denying or ignoring that it is created by God or gods, so philosophical naturalism is usually the main vehicle, so to speak, used to examine the universe and everything in it.
Yes, and that is my stance also.

Are you claiming that God does not exist? And here you go, claiming that you, as an atheist, have a stance which excludes God as a likely explanation. Thus, if you examine life and existence at all, you look for answers in a manner that uses everything but God as the likely explanation.

to be consistent, everything has to be (or is) explained or originate from within the universe/multiverse, not outside it,
Correct. Nothing wrong with that.

If the universe had a beginning, which is the consensus from the current popular scientific viewpoint, what caused nothing to exist, or did something exist before the universe, thus outside it? If something existed before the universe, then something caused the universe; it did not cause itself (which, btw, is a contradiction because you stated that everything that exists is within the box you call the universe. So you are saying self-creation). If I don't exist, how can I create myself? If the universe is all there is, or was, or ever will be (per Carl Sagan), and it had a beginning, what did it create itself with? There was nothing if, as you say, the universe is all there is, and it is a self-contained system (everything comes from within the box that is the universe). Do you know what nothing is???

All you can do is tell me that you like your way of looking at things more than you like mine.
That is correct. I don’t claim to have the last words regarding morality, however, I prefer my way to yours because it is based on the physical world. There is no need for a supernatural world. Adding a supernatural world and supernatural beings greatly complicates your world view without providing any visible benefits.

Yes, there is. You are saying that morality is physical because you do not need something beyond nature ("super" natural). First of all, morality is not a physical, tangible thing. How do you touch "good"? What does "good" taste like? And how do you measure something that is not physical? In the physical world, we have standards for weights and measurements that anyone can reference and know how long, big, wide, or heavy something is. Morality is a mind issue, just like numbers are. The universe is not mindful. So which mind did you use to come up with the "good," and how do you know that someone is the be-all and end-all for what good is? Is it Hitler? Is his good the "good"? Everything is relative unless you have an ultimate, objective, universal, unchanging standard. That begs the question of why I should trust or believe your thoughts are any better than Hitler's if you cannot point to what is NECESSARY for morality. You are not. So, your task is to show why I should trust you if there is no unchanging standard??? You, as a subjective being, think you know better, so I ask for your proof. What is your "best" that you base the "good" upon??? Do you have a best? Please show it to me.

This thinking is what wars are fought over (one says it is right, the other wrong, and who is to say other than by might).
I beg your pardon? Christians have fought many wars with other Christians over differing theologies. Christians also fought Muslims. Muslims fight everyone, including other Muslims. Yes, atheistic regimes have also fought wars. That’s what humans do: they find some excuse to impose their will over others. That tendency is not exclusive to atheists.

What is done "in the name of Christianity" does not always agree with God's word. So what is your point? That human beings kill each other in horrible, evil ways? Precisely what the Bible conveys in its writings.

Atheism, which came into prominence in the 20th century, is responsible for more deaths than any other belief system in the 20th century - some conservative estimates say over 100 million. Who knows what will happen in this century because Xi is gearing up for a world war? He wants to win at all costs.

Christianity has what is necessary (an ultimate, objective, unchanging authority that has revealed Himself)
Really? How do you explain the Hundred Years War? The Albigensian Crusade? Popes armies against their political opponents? The thousands of clerical pedophiles? What good is your morality if so many of your leaders and co-believers disregard it?

I explain it as human beings living life by ignoring God and not seeking His counsel.

What is good about my morality is not that so many ignore it and do their own thing, as per your list above, but that I have what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality. You do NOT. And I have something you do not, given that God exists - I have justice. Those who do wrong are accountable. In an atheistic universe, there is no accountability. And why are you so upset about these things happening that you don't like if, ultimately, there is no justice? You are being inconsistent again (a glaring defect of atheism, for they are the first to point the finger at others but can't give a flying flute as to why any of this "injustice" matters in the big picture). On the one hand, you say, "This is bad," then when you ask why it or anything else ultimately matters, you say it does not. So you live life inconsistently. WHY??? It does not matter if your way of thinking were to be true. Hear that - it does not matter, so why are you trying to make it matter? Who cares if your way of thinking is true - no ultimate justice.

The world, the universe, just is. It is not mindful of you; it does not care about you. It is just physical.
Correct.

Then why are you living like it does matter? Your criticism above shows you think it does matter. You are living from within my belief system, at the same time denying it. Talk about contradiction.

Your very short time here means nothing in the big picture because, from an atheistic perspective, meaning is only something human beings interject and construct into this short time frame that does not matter. Nothing matters. Yet here you are, on a debate platform, acting as if some things do matter, that it matters what we believe.
Yes, for a very simple reason. As a human, I have a personal life in which many things matter a lot to me. Also, because I have the luxury of thinking about things besides survival, I can contemplate the big picture.

What "big picture." You mean your "worldview" includes more than just disbelief in God. It includes a whole explanation and beliefs like crazy on WHY things SHOULD be the way you LIKE them. And they all exclude God. Per your very first statement, you have a whole philosophy about life while denying you do. Again, inconsistency.

YOU: "No! Atheism is a specific non-belief. You can’t extrapolate a system from that."

I have a personal view and a cosmic view. Cosmically speaking, I don’t matter and neither do humanity or Earth. But from a personal view my needs do matter to me. I try to stay alive and live as comfortably as possible. That’s built-in to my human nature. I couldn’t escape it even if I wanted to. This is not inconsistent. It’s just part of the human condition.

Why SHOULD your personal view matter to anyone but you? I can point out hundreds of thousands of injustices every day, but atheists just state "good" and "evil" are just personal feelings and "preferences" that don't ultimately matter.

The "human condition" is built on the theory of evolution, that only the strong survive, or that which survives and adapts, is stronger than that which does not. Thus, people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao can use social Darwinism as a means to dehumanize and sub-humanize whole ethnic groups in their populations.

Who are you ultimately accountable to?
I am accountable to my conscience, to the laws of the place where I live, and the mores of my community. Those are “right” for my place and time. I am fine with not believing that there is some “ultimate” authority whose standards I must live up to.

Why is your conscience something that is true or should matter? If it doesn't, why are you acting like it does? Big deal if this is all there is, and there is no ultimate accountability. Why are you trying to live a "good" life? Lots steal and kill and get away with it. What makes you any "better" than them? Nothing unless you can show me there is a standard that should apply to all that is above all. You keep claiming that you think what you believe is "good" if I understand you correctly.

Another belief is that you find societies work better if we don't lie, cheat, steal, and kill. I agree, but what are your reasons for believing this
It seems obvious to me. Societies work better when there is less crime, when people can go about their daily lives without thinking that everyone is out to get them, when relationships can be built on trust, and more can be accomplished through cooperation than conflict.

Yes, it works "better" if there is a standard that we can compare it to, that is better. If not, do what you want as long as you can get away with it from those who control you and what you do. In some countries, they kill those who oppose them or suppress the population to the point that their freedoms are very limited and there is no opposition to what they do (Kim Jong-Un, for example).

The great thing about America is that the founders recognized a power greater than human power that created human being unique and special with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What happens if a significant segment of society or the majority believes it is right and just to kill . . . the innocent unborn human being in the millions?
What happens is what you see happening in the US right now. Lots of conflict and people moving to places where the authorities are more to their liking.

So what is right in such cases? Do you have an answer? Is it right to kill innocent human beings (the unborn) or wrong? How can it both be right and wrong at the same time? That is logically contradictory, something that the atheist position thrives on while lecturing those who dare to point out to them that the Emperor has no clothes.

#1630

b9_ntt

Debates: 2

Posts: 276

0

2

5

b9_ntt

07.21.2023 08:57PM

0

2

5

07.21.2023 08:57PM

-->

@PGA2.0

Are you claiming that God does not exist?

No. I claim that I do not believe in a god. I also claim that I don’t know for certain whether there exists a god or not. So I am an atheist agnostic (or agnostic atheist).

And here you go, claiming that you, as an atheist, have a stance which excludes God as a likely explanation. Thus, if you examine life and existence at all, you look for answers in a manner that uses everything but God as the likely explanation. [emphasis mine - b9_ntt]

No, I exclude everything supernatural, and also natural answers that make no sense or have no evidence to support them.

. . . what caused nothing to exist, or did something exist before the universe, thus outside it? . . . it did not cause itself . . . .

I avoid all of the above (the excerpt is from a long paragraph) by saying that the origin of the universe is a mystery (and it really is; this is not just a debate tactic). And I believe that everything else that we observe and can know about it can be derived from the inflationary universe / big bang theory and the laws of physics. This is to be preferred to Christianity and other supernatural “explanations,” because those entail more than one mystery (e.g. Trinity, nature of God(s), resurrection & afterlife, supernatural world and beings, etc), whereas my view entails only one. Economy in explanation is preferable (see William of Ockham).

Morality is a mind issue, just like numbers are. The universe is not mindful.

I agree.

So which mind did you use to come up with the "good," and how do you know that someone is the be-all and end-all for what good is? I don’t know, and I don’t see how lack of the same is relevant. Is it Hitler? Is his good the "good"? Everything is relative unless you have an ultimate, objective, universal, unchanging standard. That begs the question of why I should trust or believe your thoughts are any better than Hitler's if you cannot point to what is NECESSARY for morality.

If you can’t see that, you are in trouble.

What is done "in the name of Christianity" does not always agree with God's word. So what is your point? . . . Atheism, which came into prominence in the 20th century, is responsible for more deaths than any other belief system in the 20th century - some conservative estimates say over 100 million.

If “Christianity” is not responsible for what Christians do, then why is “atheism” responsible for what atheists do?

I have what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality. You do NOT.

I disagree.

On the one hand, you say, "This is bad," then when you ask why it or anything else ultimately matters, you say it does not. So you live life inconsistently. WHY???

I already explained that. Humans have both a personal view and a cosmic view of life.

Who cares if your way of thinking is true - no ultimate justice.

I, and no one else, care. I’m OK with that.

Why SHOULD your personal view matter to anyone but you?

No reason why it should.

I can point out hundreds of thousands of injustices every day, but atheists just state "good" and "evil" are just personal feelings and "preferences" that don't ultimately matter.

They don’t matter in the cosmic view, but they certainly do matter in the personal view.

Why is your conscience something that is true or should matter?

It matters to me.

Yes, it works "better" if there is a standard that we can compare it to, that is better.

I can compare my society (the USA) to other societies and see that mine is better.

So what is right in such cases [killing the unborn]? Do you have an answer?

I don’t believe that human life begins at conception and neither did those who wrote the Bible. I also don’t believe that it is right to force a woman to give birth to a child who has zero chance to survive outside the womb.

Is it right to kill innocent human beings (the unborn) or wrong? [emphasis mine - b9_ntt]

Do you believe in original sin? If so, no one is ever innocent.

What "big picture." You mean your "worldview" includes more than just disbelief in God. It includes a whole explanation and beliefs like crazy on WHY things SHOULD be the way you LIKE them. And they all exclude God.

Yes.

Per your very first statement, you have a whole philosophy about life while denying you do. Again, inconsistency.

No. I deny only that atheism is a philosophy about life, and I think that this is the main problem with our discussion.

I get that you are uncomfortable with ignorance or ambiguity when it comes to ultimate questions. I get that your god is bound up with your world view and lots of other things in your life.

Christianity is not the only thing that I rejected in forming my world view. I rejected the world views of other current religions (e.g. Hinduism), dead religions (Mithraism, et al.), ideologies (Marxism), philosophies (idealism), and so on. Would you say that disbelieving in Brahma or Mithra entails a particular world view?

OK, so you think you have the answer to everything --- I don’t, but I have provisional answers, knowing that I will never know more than that. I am simply a humble human (humble in the face of the universe), and I sincerely believe that some things are unknowable to me and likely are unknowable to anyone. I’m OK with that. It looks like that is not enough for you, and that’s OK with me too.

#1631

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,595

3

4

8

FLRW

07.21.2023 09:05PM

3

4

8

07.21.2023 09:05PM

-->

@PGA2.0

I'm Afraid I Can't Do That, Dave.

Topic's author

#1632

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.21.2023 11:39PM

3

5

8

07.21.2023 11:39PM

-->

@FLRW

I'm Afraid I Can't Do That, Dave.

???

#1633

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,067

3

6

zedvictor4

07.23.2023 06:09AM

3

6

07.23.2023 06:09AM

-->

@PGA2.0

Atheism is sitting there and thinking what a load of tosh, when the religiously brainwashed start to bleat.

But in general, atheist is not being brainwashed with a load of religious tosh.

Of course, other bleating is available, and all levels of intellectual brain state are acquired.

So it could be said that theistic bleating generally occurs within the lower ranges of the intellectual scale relative to formative conditioning.

Though lower level theistic bleating should not be confused with higher level theistic tyranny....Or vice versa.

Such are the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the human mind.

Basically....I am atheist, because I was not taught not to be atheist.

Which is not quite the same as not being taught to be theist.

I was encouraged to be theistic

But also simultaneously encouraged to be open-minded.

Therefore I prefer to think of myself as being open minded rather than atheist, but nonetheless atheist in the sense described above.....Which is to say, not a theist as described above.

Topic's author

#1634

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.24.2023 01:39PM

3

5

8

07.24.2023 01:39PM

-->

@b9_ntt

Are you claiming that God does not exist?
No. I claim that I do not believe in a god. I also claim that I don’t know for certain whether there exists a god or not. So I am an atheist agnostic (or agnostic atheist).

The thing about not knowing for sure is that there is ignorance there on your part. What is evident to some is not apparent to everyone, even though the grounds of evidence, the proofs, are logical and make sense of things that cannot otherwise be made sense of. To not believe in God, even though He exists, is 1) a choice, 2) a fool's paradise, if you don't mind me saying so. (^8

The reason I say a fool's paradise is that you constantly borrow from the Christian framework to make sense of things in life. While you deny, deny, deny, you also confirm, confirm, confirm. The irony.

And here you go, claiming that you, as an atheist, have a stance which excludes God as a likely explanation. Thus, if you examine life and existence at all, you look for answers in a manner that uses everything but God as the likely explanation. [emphasis mine - b9_ntt]
No, I exclude everything supernatural, and also natural answers that make no sense or have no evidence to support them.

There are only a few possibilities,

1) We and the universe were created (supernatural/Being, intangible/non-physical/mindful and intentional),

2) it is uncreated and was always there (natural/physical/tangible, mindless and unintentional),

3) it had a beginning in nothing (natural/self-creation),

or

4) it is illusion.

Which of these four positions is/are reasonable?

2) Science definitely points to a universe that had a beginning. That means (if true) that it did not always exist. That brings to mind the scenario I mentioned before; that is, what caused the beginning since it would have to be something outside itself, something outside the box or the closed system we call the universe. Something that is closed cannot derive something from outside itself or it would rely on something else (open system)?

If you exclude the supernatural, something outside of nature, all that remains is the natural or illusion. Your confirmation bias prevents you from seeing things in any other way than through the natural or illusion. You admit that you exclude EVERYTHING supernatural (confirmation bias).

YOU: "No, I exclude everything supernatural..."

Maybe you did not mean quite everything???

Thus, everything you look at, you look at through this form of BELIEF, naturalism, and yes, you can weed out the explanations that do not appear valid or has no evidence to support them, but I contend that if you go back to beginnings, you will find that even the SYSTEM of naturalism has nothing to support it, nothing that can make sense of it, nothing to ground itself in.

For instance, the uniformity of nature - why? Why, in a mindless universe or a universe not governed by a mind, do things remain constant and in such a manner that we find or discover intricate laws that govern the universe, like the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic, etc.? These things are orderly (and reasonable). Why would you expect that from a mindless, random, chaotic beginning that has NO INTENT OR PURPOSE? You would not. It is like rolling dice. Unless the dice are "fixed," (i.e., intentionality and purpose behind them that CAUSES a fixed result), anything can happen. You try rolling six a million times in a row without fixing the dice. Yet this is what you want me to believe about natural laws. Notice, too, that something is "doing" the rolling. It doesn't just "happen." For the atheist, the universe happens for no reason, intentionality, purpose, or MEANING.

And we express these laws in a manner that derives from something that is not physical or tangible. How? For instance, grab hold of the concept "1." Go on, touch the number 1. Taste it; what does "1" taste like? And these concepts don't hold true just because you can think of them. They are independent of your or any other human mind, yet without "MIND," they are incomprehensible and have no reason to be here. Yet here you are, finding all kinds of reasons for things that should not have any reason or rationale for them. The universe is a vast set of equations and mathematics. Mathematics requires a mind to comprehend. In an illogical, unreasoning universe, why must two plus two equal for, yet in this universe or any other, it must, or it is a contradiction. Everything has its own identity from the laws of logic (another intangible, non-physical that I challenge you to derive and explain from nature). A thing cannot be what it is and something entirely different at the same time (A=A or Green is Green, "good" is good. Green is not red, yellow, blue, or black. Something that is good cannot at the same time and in the same relationship be bad). A "things" IDENTITY makes it what it is, not something else. And the law of contradiction, likewise, states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.

These things and so many more just do not make sense from within an atheist's framework (naturalism). Instead, when he/she wants to make sense of things, they borrow from the Christian framework while denying its existence and ridiculing it at the same time - what a contradiction and inconsistent way to view reality.

3) Then you have the added problem of self-creation. Nothing creating something? How can "nothing" create? What is nothing? Nothing creating is a complete contradiction in terms and must logically be rejected, or it is self-defeating. Something would have to exist before it could create anything else. Thus, the universe we live in had to have something outside itself to create it, if it had a beginning. Or are you saying something existed before the universe, or the universe is eternal? Self-creation is a logical impossibility.

4) If you say it is all an illusion, try crossing the street in front of that speeding bus by denying it exists. If your body is an illusion, along with everything else, take that illusionary hammer and bring it down upon your illusionary hand with massive force. This system of thought is so inconsistent with how you live. As a matter of fact, you can't live within such a system of thought without doing yourself violent harm.

Topic's author

#1635

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

3

5

8

PGA2.0

07.24.2023 01:49PM

3

5

8

07.24.2023 01:49PM

-->

@b9_ntt

More to come. I am not done with your post.

#1636

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,595

3

4

8

FLRW

07.24.2023 03:45PM

3

4

8

07.24.2023 03:45PM

-->

@PGA2.0

I'm Afraid I Can't Do That, Dave.

It was a reference to AI which will eventually replace Humans.

#1637

b9_ntt

Debates: 2

Posts: 276

0

2

5

b9_ntt

07.24.2023 11:46PM

0

2

5

07.24.2023 11:46PM

-->

@PGA2.0

From your post #1634:

To not believe in God, even though He exists, is 1) a choice

I choose not to believe, because I have no good reason to. Or, as Laplace said, I have no need of that hypothesis.

1) We and the universe were created (supernatural/Being, intangible/non-physical/mindful and intentional),
2) it is uncreated and was always there (natural/physical/tangible, mindless and unintentional),
3) it had a beginning in nothing (natural/self-creation), or
4) it is illusion.
Which of these four positions is/are reasonable?

We don’t have enough information to know for certain. For now, it is a mystery.

the SYSTEM of naturalism has nothing to support it, nothing that can make sense of it, nothing to ground itself in.

It is grounded in observation, experience, and reason. As a human, all we can know ultimately comes from our experience.

things remain constant and in such a manner that we find or discover intricate laws that govern the universe . . . Why would you expect that from a mindless, random, chaotic beginning that has NO INTENT OR PURPOSE? You would not.

Does it matter what we would expect? It is foolish to ask “Why is the universe the way it is, rather than some other way?” I think you are imposing your mind’s belief onto the universe.

For the atheist, the universe happens for no reason, intentionality, purpose, or MEANING.

Yes, it has no meaning, other than what we choose to give it. And we find the way the universe is from observation and experience. If the laws of physics were different, we wouldn’t be here. But we are here, and we are here because this universe allows us to be, and because we evolved to survive in the universe we find ourselves in. How could it be otherwise?

[numbers] are independent of your or any other human mind

I don’t believe that. Numbers were invented by humans (for counting things). Some primitive societies get along just fine without them.

The universe is a vast set of equations and mathematics.

That is a very human way of looking at our minute corner of the known universe.

Mathematics requires a mind to comprehend.

Yes.

In an illogical, unreasoning universe, why must two plus two equal four, yet in this universe or any other, it must, or it is a contradiction.

You cannot say anything about other universes. We know nothing about that.

the laws of logic (another intangible, non-physical that I challenge you to derive and explain from nature).

Humans invented the laws of logic. Humans are part of nature.

when [an atheist] wants to make sense of things, they borrow from the Christian framework while denying its existence and ridiculing it at the same time - what a contradiction and inconsistent way to view reality.

Did you already mention what atheists borrowed from Christianity? Please refresh my memory.

are you saying something existed before the universe, or the universe is eternal? Self-creation is a logical impossibility.

As I said, this is a mystery.

4) If you say it is all an illusion . . .

I don’t.