The great atheist deception

Author: Soluminsanis
Religion
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 204
Topic's author
#1
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA. 


P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth. 

P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.

P4. Therefore if atheism is true,  there is no justification for believing anything to be true.

P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.  

P6. Therefore atheism is false.



Topic's author
#2
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
Check and mate...
#3
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1 is just false. They weren't designed intentionally, but evolutionary theory tells us that our sense adapted to acquire data about the physical world. So even if atheism is true, our senses are capable of determining things about reality. 
#4
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
What does P2 even mean? What is untrue about DNA replication? This doesn't even make sense.
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1: If God exists, then we could prove that it exists outside scrolls of religious books.
P2: The closest we have got to "objective proof" of god is just ambiguous things that could be done by a god but could also occur naturally, there is no direct and objective proof of god yet
P3: Thus, at least to us here and now, God doesn't exist.

CHECK AND MATE
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Soluminsanis
How about you prove that God is real? I want real evidence that God exists, NO BIBLE ALLOWED.
#7
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA. 
The user of the word "aimed" implies a specific telos. Rather if atheism is true nothing at all is designed to fulfill any specific telos. Rather we have features which promote the passing of creature's DNA because features which promote the passing of DNA are subsequently made more populous by said DNA by way of a positive feedback loop.

A minor quibble, but the point is essentially the same.

P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth. 
What does this statement even mean?

P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
The fallibility of human sensory perceptions is pretty much a given in any worldview, even a Christian one.

P4. Therefore if atheism is true,  there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
P4 does not follow from P3. Sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth but can possible yield truth. Now, whether justification for truth can be attained is something of an epistemological conundrum, but one that is not limited to atheism particularly.

P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.  
I would disagree that intuition alone provides sufficient justification for anything. I consider this premise as false.

P6. Therefore atheism is false.
P2 is nonsensical, P4 doesn't follow from P3, and P5 is false. Ergo the conclusion does not follow.
#8
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
In other words, your syllogism is neither valid nor sound.
#9
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
So is yours considering it includes an “or proposition” you’ve failed to substantiate.
#10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
What? That isn't in my syllogism, that is part of a definition of a word in my syllogism - which I demonstrated as true by linking to a dictionary that showed that definition. Do you have short term memory?
#11
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Secondly, do you even know what valid and sound mean in regards to a syllogism? Because you certainly don't understand what fallacies are.
#12
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
P1 is false. It may be an acceptable claim for didactive purposes, but not for argumentative purposes. Nature does strictly speaking not design anything.

Biological evolution tends to promote, limited to its abilities, creatures with attributes that favour persistance and multiplication. (Take for example the British Sars-Cov-2 variant, which is more contagious, resulting in there being more of them.)

One attribute is the ability to make good decisions. For that sufficiently complex organisms acquired the ability to build a model of reality, mostly with a brain, which they use for their decision making. Accurate models (e.g. about the location of food) tend to lead to better decisions (e.g. going towards the food) than inaccurate ones.

P4 is false and does not follow from previous propositions. There is good reason to believe that some atheists are in some domains able to distinguish true from false.


@Solunimsanis :
You have presented several arguments sofar, but no good one. Why is that? Are there no good arguments forGod?

#13
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? That isn't in my syllogism, that is part of a definition of a word in my syllogism - which I demonstrated as true by linking to a dictionary that showed that definition.
Coming from the same guy that accuses me of being pedantic, be it as it may if your definition of principles is false then so is your definition of morality by default because it includes principles and no you haven’t provided a dictionary supporting your definition of principles until you do so my argument still stands.

Secondly, do you even know what valid and sound mean in regards to a syllogism? Because you certainly don't understand what fallacies are.
Where is that coming from? I said nothing of the sort about fallacies (at least recently).
#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
I actually did... In fact the definition was linked, you can go check; better yet - here's the one I used.


"A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."


You and Wagyu you both have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
#15
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why do you choose the latter part of the definition as the end all be all over the former? Because judging by that alone the definition is pretty vague but your not saying that are you? Your saying it’s definitively the latter over the former which you’ve yet to substantiate so spare me the “Morality is definitionally of the mind” argument because judging by that definition of principles it’s just as good as mine.
#16
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
The Meaning of the word ( ATHEIST ) 

MUST be into science. 
MUST 100% believe in the TOE. 
MUST NOT belive in a single thing that one could consider,  RELIGIOUS. 

MUST NOT belive in no " afterlife " 
No Nothing.
They are not allowed. 
Not now,  not never, not no how....
FULL STOP
  


 
 
 



 

#17
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
So then you have a choice, either principles used in morals are propositions, or they are fundamental truths 

IF it is the former THEN you would have to demonstrate those propositions, IF it were the latter THEN you would have to demonstrate the principles true

Either way - the definition works.
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
P1: If God exists, then we could prove that it exists outside scrolls of religious books.
P2: The closest we have got to "objective proof" of god is just ambiguous things that could be done by a god but could also occur naturally, there is no direct and objective proof of god yet
P3: Thus, at least to us here and now, God doesn't exist.

CHECK AND MATE

A+1

#19
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Science to me was a chance to light up a bunsen burner. 
Mmmmmm fire. 
Where was I ?

Being religious means you are NOT ALLOWED to operate a bun burner.

#20
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I’d like to remind you that that choice doesn’t only extend to me but to you as well difference is I’m not the one claiming a definition swings in my favor I just deem it as vague and leave it at that. Lastly it can work and still be vague at the same time, vague just means not specific it doesn’t mean wrong.

#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Im saying that morality and the principles used to affirm it are propositional and from the mind, therefore morality is not objective - consider it this - you cannot get an is from an ought - any sense of morality is fundamentally based on a goal - therefore it is subjective. Simple ethics.
#22
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not if the goals to get to heaven.
#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Furthermore, this is all a tu quoque, let's say you're right and I was completely wrong - wouldn't change the fact that this syllogism is neither valid nor sound.
#24
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
That is still a subjective goal... you want to go to heaven. Subjective. Because all goals are subjective.
#25
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
You’re making me go several posts back because I can’t shake this notion of you not getting what it means to affirm something and yes I heard the many times you’ve uttered stated as fact doesn’t mean fact which I agree it doesn’t, but it does mean that every moral claim one makes is stated as fact including you when you make a moral claim, your stating it as fact even though you may or may not be wrong. My question to you (assuming that your right that it’s not fact) is why would you state something as fact if it’s not? Because I have many opinions that I simply state as such I don’t deem them facts.
#26
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Why would you state something as a fact if it wasn't? Because you're wrong.... its that simple. 

The greatest scientists affirmed that the earth was in the center of the universe before 1543
The greatest scientists affirmed that the earth was flat before the 3rd century

You can affirm something and be wrong - or - ever better yet - it can be true to you.

I.e subjective.
#27
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then every time you make your “moral” claims you’re wrong it’s that simple. Do you realize what you’re saying here? Your essentially saying your wrong about every belief you hold.
#28
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If no one sees ya. It's moral. 

It's a bit like, it's only illegal if you get  caught. 
If this religion thing is half good , you would join like a dozen of em. 
Well at lest three. 
Imagine how moral you would be then. 

Hey Did I mention that I once beat a cat with a stick ?

#29
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Incorrect - Im saying whenever you claim a moral claim to be objectively true you are wrong, because morals cannot be objectively true. 
#30
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
But when you affirm something that’s exactly what your doing.