Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.
It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows
Yes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @Shila
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.
It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows
Yes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.
Even Double_R disagrees with 3RU7AL.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.
please explain
Oh pulease, just get a dictionary,  look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
i know the definitions

please explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
This is the exact same thing as arguing that something is wrong because it’s illegal. In that example, according to your logic, the state would be the “objective standard” for morality.
moral legalism
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Sidewalker
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.
please explain
Oh pulease, just get a dictionary,  look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
i know the definitions

please explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED 
Atheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Atheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.
how do you use ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make your position clear ?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.
please explain
Oh pulease, just get a dictionary,  look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
i know the definitions

please explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED 
I see, so you know what the definition of the words are, you just don't understand how putting them together into a sentence works.  Next time that happens, how about you don't type the sentence.

But hey, let me try to dumb it down for you.

The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  

Now, the nature of the above belief relates to whether or not something "exists", in particular a "being" of some kind, then note that "Ontology" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of "being" and "existence".  Ok, so now note that the definitions of both "Atheism" and "Ontology" involve the words "existence" and "being", so it also follows that "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Ontology".  

See how that works, so yes, the words you put together into a sentence do each have definitions,  and it's a good idea to know the definitions of the words you use in a sentence, but there's more, when you do put them together into a sentence you need to put them together in a certain order, and you also need to relate the words to each other in a way that allows the sentence to have meaning. If you don't do that, it's not really a sentence, its just a list of words.

If you still don't understand, then there's nothing more I can do to help you, I guess you'll just have to keep posting lists of word that don't mean anything.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
Atheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.
how do you use ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make your position clear ?
An atheists has to deal with the Ontological question that states.

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God. Such arguments tend to refer to the state of beingor existing. More specifically, ontological arguments are commonly conceived a priori in regard to the organization of the universe, whereby, if such organizational structure is true, God must exist.

Atheists have to understand the epistemological position.

“Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:
  1. The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification
  2. Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perceptionreasonmemory, and testimony
  3. The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs
  4. Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether skepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute skeptical arguments
In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.
That’s not much different from saying my only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.

Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.
Well if you knew what morality was (at least my understanding of it) you would see that your question is redundant in the sense that it already has the answer, morality is the religious path one must follow to achieve eternal bliss, any deviation from that is the literal example of immorality.

Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.
That’s not what I said.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @Tarik
What do you think my original statement was?
Double_R replied: That morality can only make sense of it is objective.


So first of all, you have yet to explain why god is objectively, the moral standard.
I did that already and all you did was reject my reasoning with no explanation as to why
A logically invalid explanation is not an explanation, and I’ve explained why it is invalid multiple times. 

Once again, might =/= right. Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.

This is the exact same thing as arguing that something is wrong because it’s illegal. In that example, according to your logic, the state would be the “objective standard” for morality.

What He can do doesn’t and shouldn’t overrule what He will do, therefore it remains objective.
Double_R replied: Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  
anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".
anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.
That’s not much different from saying my only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.
I have been pointing out for days now how they are completely different.

“Makes sense” is a reference to logic. Logic is the process by which we arrive at conclusions from a given set of premises. The factual accuracy of those premises is irrelevant to logic.

So *if* we start with “morality is that which aligns with god” then morality makes sense as long as we compare actions to god.

*If* we start with “morality is that which aligns with the well being of people” then morality makes sense as long as we consider the results and intentions of peoples actions and compare it to well being.

You don’t need God to make sense out of it, and inserting God as your standard does not make morality itself objective.

Well if you knew what morality was (at least my understanding of it) you would see that your question is redundant in the sense that it already has the answer, morality is the religious path one must follow to achieve eternal bliss, any deviation from that is the literal example of immorality.
I understand your version of it, I’m pointing out that there are plenty other versions out there for one to adopt and apply to their life, which is what makes this subjective.

It also baffles me how you continue to make this argument without seeing the major problem with it. If achieving eternal bliss is what it’s all about then your entire concept of right vs wrong is ultimately derived from a sense of self preservation and enrichment. That’s the complete opposite of what it means to be moral.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
what does your god want me to do ?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  
anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
I know what the principles of your religious faith are, and I know just how important that innane burden of proof game is to your fundamentalism, I but you don't have to let it make you completely incoherent about everything.   

Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.  

But don't worry, you can still turn Atheism into a religion if you want, you haven't lost your ability to blather on about the childish burden of proof game, you can be as irrational as you want,  nobody expects more from you, you can even evangelize your faith here, but you don't get to insist that we join your cult.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
I know what the principles of your religious faith are, and I know just how important that innane burden of proof game is to your fundamentalism, I but you don't have to let it make you completely incoherent about everything.   

Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.  

But don't worry, you can still turn Atheism into a religion if you want, you haven't lost your ability to blather on about the childish burden of proof game, you can be as irrational as you want,  nobody expects more from you, you can even evangelize your faith here, but you don't get to insist that we join your cult.
i'm not "preaching atheism"

i'm a gnostic deist
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".

anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Most Atheists are better informed and educated knowing what they are up against having declared they are nonbelievers or Atheists. They have to be prepared to answer why they chose atheism and why they are going against conventional beliefs and what are the rational and bases for their atheism.
In short they knowledge base is questioned, which is the very roots of epistemology.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Most Atheists are better informed and educated knowing what they are up against having declared they are nonbelievers or Atheists. They have to be prepared to answer why they chose atheism and why they are going against conventional beliefs and what are the rational and bases for their atheism.
In short they knowledge base is questioned, which is the very roots of epistemology.
why does any atheist need to "justify" what they are merely UNCONVINCED of ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
Most Atheists are better informed and educated knowing what they are up against having declared they are nonbelievers or Atheists. They have to be prepared to answer why they chose atheism and why they are going against conventional beliefs and what are the rational and bases for their atheism.
In short they knowledge base is questioned, which is the very roots of epistemology.
why does any atheist need to "justify" what they are merely UNCONVINCED of ?
To prove there is a rationale behind their lack of conviction.
Same reason why Theists are are asked to prove or show evidence there is a god.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
To prove there is a rationale behind their lack of conviction.
Same reason why Theists are are asked to prove or show evidence there is a god.
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?

what about PANGU ?

why don't you believe in PANGU ?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
To prove there is a rationale behind their lack of conviction.
Same reason why Theists are are asked to prove or show evidence there is a god.
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?

what about PANGU ?

why don't you believe in PANGU ?
I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.
You are claiming you god is Krishna. “why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
Your profile says you follow Taoism. Are you lying or just confused?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?

what about PANGU ?

why don't you believe in PANGU ?
I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.
You are claiming you god is Krishna. “why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
Your profile says you follow Taoism. Are you lying or just confused?
try answering at least one of my two questions first
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
It's so funny how all the atheists now have some type of label they think let them bash theists, lol.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?

what about PANGU ?

why don't you believe in PANGU ?
I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.
You are claiming you god is Krishna. “why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
Your profile says you follow Taoism. Are you lying or just confused?
try answering at least one of my two questions first
Already did. I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?

(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.  
You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.

Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.

“why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
Because the evidence does not support the claim.

So in this example, any two individuals who disagree would need to discuss the nature and strength of the evidence in order to determine whether belief is warranted, but even before that they need to find common ground on what type of evidence is needed and what our default position should be in the absence of it.

None of this is atheism. All of this is in the realm of skepticism.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?

(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
None of this is atheism. All of this is in the realm of skepticism.
atheism is what you have before you LEARN about a god and or gods and or the goddess and or goddesses 

that's my point here

you don't have to "justify" atheism

because it is where everyone starts
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
but not real to you
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?

(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
is that a "yes" or a "no" ?