Theists: Who do you consider the most "intellectual" or "sophisticated" atheist?

[IAMRED]

The most intelligent atheist would be someone who acts consistent with what follows from atheism: epistemic and moral skepticism. In other words, a person who would commit suicide. Personally, I'd prefer that they abort atheism before their own lives.

[chimburgandy]

The most intelligent atheist would be someone who acts consistent with what follows from atheism: epistemic and moral skepticism. In other words, a person who would commit suicide. Personally, I'd prefer that they abort atheism before their own lives.

Mirin your 1234 rep count, not mirin you're viewpoint on atheism.

Atheism is just a rejection of god stories. It isn't a rejection of life or any inherent moral standards. We have a lot to live for and a thorough understanding of right and wrong that we derived from an realistic evaluation of actions having consequences, not from a dictating authority demanding us to act a certain way.

Skepticism has as much to do with not believing in god as thinking critically does. The claim of god/afterlife has been submitted - the evidence for this is insufficient to validate the certainty asserted - the claim is dismissed until better evidence can be provided.

That doesn't mean we don't see the richness of life. We might even see it in a broader scope, as everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them.

[IAMRED]

Mirin your 1234 rep count, not mirin you're viewpoint on atheism.

Atheism is just a rejection of god stories. It isn't a rejection of life or any inherent moral standards. We have a lot to live for and a thorough understanding of right and wrong that we derived from an realistic evaluation of actions having consequences, not from a dictating authority demanding us to act a certain way.

Skepticism has as much to do with not believing in god as thinking critically does. The claim of god/afterlife has been submitted - the evidence for this is insufficient to validate the certainty asserted - the claim is dismissed until better evidence can be provided.

That doesn't mean we don't see the richness of life. We might even see it in a broader scope, as everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them.

I am aware that cognitive dissonance is not a state of mind exclusive to theists. But the topic of the thread was about intelligent atheists. I understood that to refer to "someone who acts consistent with what follows from atheism."

But to humor you, I'll even assume for the sake of moral argument that you can discriminate between causes and effects and so forth. What does that have to do with having a sufficient condition for moral knowledge? That I could know b follows from a and d follows from c does not suffice as a reason I should choose a over c or vice versa. For instance, you say "everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them." On what grounds? That I would know a certain choice would effect wide acceptance of the sort of egalitarian ethic you promote does not imply I should make said choice.

Skepticism has as much to do with not believing in god as thinking critically does. The claim of god/afterlife has been submitted - the evidence for this is insufficient to validate the certainty asserted - the claim is dismissed until better evidence can be provided.

Oh? And what have you personally assessed and dismissed which has historically been used to evidence God and the afterlife? And what would count as "sufficient evidence"?

[chimburgandy]

I am aware that cognitive dissonance is not a state of mind exclusive to theists. But the topic of the thread was about intelligent atheists. I understood that to refer to "someone who acts consistent with what follows from atheism."

You took it to mean that because you have a misconception about what atheism is. Atheism isn't a belief system with any laws or doctrine, it is simply the disbelief in all known claims for god on the grounds that no religion has made their case sufficiently in terms of what it takes to consider something part of reality. That is observable, testable, falsifiable, subject to rigorous scrutiny and not solely existent in the minds of wishful thinking humans.

You say "everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them." On what grounds? That I would know a certain choice would effect wide acceptance of the sort of egalitarian ethic you promote does not imply I should make said choice.

Everything after establishing one's belief in atheism is up to each individual. There are atheists who are republicans, democrats, straight, gay, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. Atheism and the disbelief in some ultimate plan or judgement for the lives we live here doesn't mean we automatically feel the need to act like animals and shove off thousands of years of societal conventions and obvious truths about right and wrong. Such as no one should be able to dictate authority over someone elses life on the sole basis that it disagrees with their own belief. There are actions taken by humans that are detrimental to our overall well-being like murder and rape and so on which shouldn't be tolerated by any belief system which we can all mostly agree on.

People being allowed all the rights the opportunity of life presents them simply means that your ability to be who you are shouldn't be limited by someone elses personal or religiously inspired prejudice against you for being gay, of another race, another religion, or for your rejection of their religion. Is that not a reasonable statement about the lives of humans? Obviously people need to be intervened upon when they breach the safety of others for whatever reason, but any doctrine that says "This group should be looked down upon because we say so and that reason alone" should be ripped to shreds and the proponents of those ideals be confronted about how they can care sufficiently about their species and follow such things. Hate people because they are asssholes, not because you just "know" the way their living is "sinful" or an "abomination".

Oh? And what have you personally assessed and dismissed which has historically been used to evidence God and the afterlife? And what would count as "sufficient evidence"?

Well that's essentially the point isn't it? That no evidence has been presented that would qualify as proof to a non-believer who wasn't already part of the religion, raised in the religion, or already inclined to believe in the idea of a deity despite having no real reason to do so. You can't honestly say there is any proof of the afterlife, as no one who has ever died and come back to enlighten us on the subject because they've all been dead. Anyone experiencing near-death or visions on the brink of death or in a coma can't do a good enough job of establishing that what they envisioned wasn't brought on by naturally occurring chemicals which have been found to be released upon death. It may seem unfair to discount them but unfortunately what happens in an individuals head, if it's indistinguishable from a dream or hallucination, is not in any way viable as considerable evidence.

And there's even less evidence for god in any consistent sense, as every religion has their own stories and beliefs and are indistinguishable from one another from a non-believers point of view. Not to mention they mostly contradict each other, what we know to be morally just, not to mention what we know about the universe at this point in 2013. There is no reason to accept any one religion as true when they have all failed to meet their burden of proof.

[IAMRED]

You took it to mean that because you have a misconception about what atheism is. Atheism isn't a belief system with any laws or doctrine, it is simply the disbelief in all known claims for god on the grounds that no religion has made their case sufficiently in terms of what it takes to consider something part of reality. That is observable, testable, falsifiable, subject to rigorous scrutiny and not solely existent in the minds of wishful thinking humans.

That is a belief: a belief that "no religion has made their case sufficiently." You assent to that proposition. Hence, you believe it. And so do other atheists. United by this belief, you stand or fall by it.

Also, your criterion for "what it takes to consider something part of reality" ironically fails on its own terms. The idea a belief must be "observable, testable, falsifiable, subject to rigorous scrutiny..." is itself not observable, testable, falsifiable, and subject to rigorous scrutiny.

Everything after establishing one's belief in atheism is up to each individual. There are atheists who are republicans, democrats, straight, gay, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. Atheism and the disbelief in some ultimate plan or judgement for the lives we live here doesn't mean we automatically feel the need to act like animals and shove off thousands of years of societal conventions and obvious truths about right and wrong. Such as no one should be able to dictate authority over someone elses life on the sole basis that it disagrees with their own belief. There are actions taken by humans that are detrimental to our overall well-being like murder and rape and so on which shouldn't be tolerated by any belief system which we can all mostly agree on.

This is a commonplace response which fails to engage the argument. That people in general agree certain acts are immoral does not imply atheists in particular have recourse to an epistemic system which affords them the ability to justify those beliefs.

You say that on atheistic grounds, "everything... is up to each individual." But then you say there are "obvious truths about right and wrong." You say "no one should be able to dictate authority over someone elses life on the sole basis that it disagrees with their own belief." But then you proceed to do just that by stating how people ought to act, viz. in an egalitarian manner. Which is it? Is morality subjective or objective? Should I care about what is detrimental the overall "well-being" of humanity, setting aside just for the moment that you have not explained what that is? Why?

You seem to think you are not an animal. I can understand why you would want this to be the case, as then I could simply apply your moral paradigm to various species of animals which humans kill every day. But because you don't believe in God, you don't believe we are in God's image. So what is it that differentiates you from animals? Consciousness? A rational faculty? A moral awareness? If so, do these concepts correspond to physical properties? That is, is your understanding of these concepts naturalistic? That suffers from obvious problems (nominalism, the nature of truth, etc.). Or do you subscribe to some sort of dualism? On atheistic grounds, how do you account for the incorporeal?

People being allowed all the rights the opportunity of life presents them simply means that your ability to be who you are shouldn't be limited by someone elses personal or religiously inspired prejudice against you for being gay, of another race, another religion, or for your rejection of their religion. Is that not a reasonable statement about the lives of humans? Obviously people need to be intervened upon when they breach the safety of others for whatever reason, but any doctrine that says "This group should be looked down upon because we say so and that reason alone" should be ripped to shreds and the proponents of those ideals be confronted about how they can care sufficiently about their species and follow such things. Hate people because they are asssholes, not because you just "know" the way their living is "sinful" or an "abomination".

But what if the principle that "your ability to be who you are shouldn't be limited by someone elses personal or religiously inspired prejudice" itself limits my ability to be who I am? You are just presenting a string of self-defeating, question-begging intuitions. This is not the stuff of philosophy. Remember, we are discussing "intelligent" atheism, not "feel good" atheism. As a [hardened?] disbeliever in an afterlife, I'm sure you can muster the coolness to summarily and consistently sweep away any remnants of emotional discomfort and take the path to pessimism. Of course, that still leaves you with epistemic difficulties, but who says you should believe what is true anyway, am I right?

Well that's essentially the point isn't it? That no evidence has been presented that would qualify as proof to a non-believer who wasn't already part of the religion, raised in the religion, or already inclined to believe in the idea of a deity despite having no real reason to do so. You can't honestly say there is any proof of the afterlife, as no one who has ever died and come back to enlighten us on the subject because they've all been dead. Anyone experiencing near-death or visions on the brink of death or in a coma can't do a good enough job of establishing that what they envisioned wasn't brought on by naturally occurring chemicals which have been found to be released upon death. It may seem unfair to discount them but unfortunately what happens in an individuals head, if it's indistinguishable from a dream or hallucination, is not in any way viable as considerable evidence.

No, the point is that no evidence has been presented which you thinks counts as evidence. But perhaps there is evidence and either you haven't encountered it - doubtful, as surely you are aware that Christians such as myself believe Jesus rose from the dead, yet you say "You can't honestly say there is any proof of the afterlife, as no one who has ever died and come back to enlighten us on the subject because they've all been dead" - or, what is more likely, that you have encountered such evidence but the standards you think must be met are unreasonable. In light of the above, this doesn't seem so far-fetched. I might even retort that "no evidence has been presented that would qualify as proof of atheism to one who wasn't already part of atheism, raised in atheism, or already disinclined to believe in the idea of a deity despite having no real reason to do so."

You might then reply that the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. Theists do bear a burden of proof, but so do you. For, firstly, the idea that suspension of judgment ought to be the epistemic default is itself a non-neutral belief. Secondly, I pointed out earlier that as an atheist, you too are making a claim regarding the alleged insufficiency of evidence. That presupposes you know what suffices as evidence. How?

In any case, I notice you failed to answer my questions. I didn't ask you to explain what wouldn't count as sufficient evidence. I asked what would. I also asked what you have personally assessed and dismissed which has historically been used to evidence God and the afterlife. You can hardly expect that someone will change your mind about atheism if you don't read their criticisms of it by way of positive evidence for their own alternatives.

And there's even less evidence for god in any consistent sense, as every religion has their own stories and beliefs and are indistinguishable from one another from a non-believers point of view. Not to mention they mostly contradict each other, what we know to be morally just, not to mention what we know about the universe at this point in 2013. There is no reason to accept any one religion as true when they have all failed to meet their burden of proof.

After reading this, I feel as though I'm wasting my time even attempting to reason with you. You are clearly close-minded.

[chimburgandy]

That is a belief: a belief that "no religion has made their case sufficiently." You assent to that proposition. Hence, you believe it. And so do other atheists. United by this belief, you stand or fall by it.

Also, your criterion for "what it takes to consider something part of reality" ironically fails on its own terms. The idea a belief must be "observable, testable, falsifiable, subject to rigorous scrutiny..." is itself not observable, testable, falsifiable, and subject to rigorous scrutiny.

I suppose there is another way that we determine what is part of reality, like the existence of technologies and mountains and planets and stars and animals and how being alive is better than being dead, is there? These are all things that there is no dispute about, they exist, they are real things and concepts, they are objectively part of reality. Emotions are too, but unprovable ideas eliciting emotions is not in itself proof of anything. If any one religion had proof of a god, there wouldn't be thousands of religions all with opposing viewpoints and sects, some even killing each other over which one has the right interpretation of the same book. If there was any definitive proof you and I wouldn't be having this discussion just like we aren't talking about if gravity actually exists or if we're actually made up of mostly water. These things are irrefutable truths, something that god needs to be, unequivocally, which no one has ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, I hate to break it to you but the whole world isn't one religion and that's because no one can prove anything.

This is a commonplace response which fails to engage the argument. That people in general agree certain acts are immoral does not imply atheists in particular have recourse to an epistemic system which affords them the ability to justify those beliefs.

You say that on atheistic grounds, "everything... is up to each individual." But then you say there are "obvious truths about right and wrong." You say "no one should be able to dictate authority over someone elses life on the sole basis that it disagrees with their own belief." But then you proceed to do just that by stating how people ought to act, viz. in an egalitarian manner. Which is it? Is morality subjective or objective? Should I care about what is detrimental the overall "well-being" of humanity, setting aside just for the moment that you have not explained what that is? Why?

Without complicating things my initial focus was to alleviate any misconceptions that you may have had, and obviously still have, regarding atheism. Atheism is solely the disbelief in gods. That's it. It doesn't encourage or promote any belief after that, considering there are atheists who don't believe in evolution. It just so happens that atheists generally take offense to religious people dictating the lives of others claiming to have a divine right, a right that we don't feel carries any weight given the lack of proof.

Me saying that people should be kind to each other isn't the same as saying people shouldn't be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others if it causes that person harm. Tell me you see the difference. I'm saying the idea of denouncing homosexuals as worthy members of the human race just because an ancient religious book says based on divine command is not only repugnant but detrimental to our society, as any law passed down from from a supposed god can be used as justification for immoral actions. It's so simple. If a book says homosexuality is wrong, it's wrong. It might as well say being blonde is an abomination. Homosexuals are a part of the human experience whether you like it or not. They may not contribute in a direct sense to the propagation of our species but they are human beings who shouldn't have their lives infringed on and be set to a standard as "less-human" because people have derived what is "acceptably human" from a story book.

I don't know why you feel the need to over-complicate things. Just think about it. Being a dick is bad, hurting others is bad. In the wild it may be beneficial to be the physically dominant one but that is why we have a society. Our actions have consequences in the lives of those around us. We need each other to move forward as a species and discover what else there is. Hurting each other stifles that effort. I'm not explaining that to you again.

You seem to think you are not an animal. I can understand why you would want this to be the case, as then I could simply apply your moral paradigm to various species of animals which humans kill every day. But because you don't believe in God, you don't believe we are in God's image. So what is it that differentiates you from animals? Consciousness? A rational faculty? A moral awareness? If so, do these concepts correspond to physical properties? That is, is your understanding of these concepts naturalistic? That suffers from obvious problems (nominalism, the nature of truth, etc.). Or do you subscribe to some sort of dualism? On atheistic grounds, how do you account for the incorporeal?

That's a lot of questions. Basically I am an animal, of course. We all are. We are a highly evolved descendent of a common ancestor between us and apes. It's our intelligence and reasoning power that allowed us to get to this point. We ran and hid when we had to and worked together as small families, then bigger families, then societies, then civilizations to get to where we are now. We just happened to get smart enough to conceptualize our own death and start asking what everything means. There are countless attempts made by man to account for all the complexity of nature but we are living in a time with the most up to date version of Life.exe that there has ever been. We've learned more in the last 50 years than in centuries before it combined.

So, again, there is no "atheistic" grounds for anything. Spriritual, ethereal, eternal, unknowable, incorporeal, these are all buzz words to represent unexplainable concepts that cannot be proven in anyway. They exist for the purpose of facilitating and offering easy answers for the ideas of gods. I don't subscribe to any of these ideas as real and neither should anyone else until someone can prove there is a "spirit" separate from your physical existence, beyond it making them feel good.

But what if the principle that "your ability to be who you are shouldn't be limited by someone elses personal or religiously inspired prejudice" itself limits my ability to be who I am? You are just presenting a string of self-defeating, question-begging intuitions. This is not the stuff of philosophy. Remember, we are discussing "intelligent" atheism, not "feel good" atheism. As a [hardened?] disbeliever in an afterlife, I'm sure you can muster the coolness to summarily and consistently sweep away any remnants of emotional discomfort and take the path to pessimism. Of course, that still leaves you with epistemic difficulties, but who says you should believe what is true anyway, am I right?

Erm, no. If you think being a bigot and inhumane and elevating yourself to some enshrined level that you can look down on homosexuals as not having as many rights or liberties as you, and infringing on that is somehow the same as two men or two woman just wanting to love each other and have a family and to be left alone, we have some serious problems. I don't want to make assumptions about your viewpoints but I feel we're crossing into dangerous territory if my assumptions are right. I believe that what is true is that being kind to people and not judging a person on face value alone is the right way to comport myself, as I would expect the same from others. Just like I don't hurt, rape, discriminate or intimidate others. These are not religious morals, these are derived from living in society and having the fortune to be raised properly. There are obvious subjective views of right and wrong. My stance is that rape or murder is wrong despite the perpetrators view points that it was the right thing to do. Luckily we have laws for most of these universal truths that we have worked out as a society.

**Edit: And no we weren't created in god image, unless god was either some sort of microscopic entity or a neanderthal at some point, whichever makes you feel better. Even if theists believe in evolution, they all have the idea that from our development from primates it went primate-primate-primate-STOP-human, and then imbued us with a soul and his image and blah blah. But the course of our development took hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of years to get us to where we are now and you'd be hard pressed to establish when we stop being descendents of humans and became humans. We reached a point where we became aware of our image, figured if there was a god he must be in the same image as us and decided then that he actually created us in HIS image.

[chimburgandy]

No, the point is that no evidence has been presented which you thinks counts as evidence. But perhaps there is evidence and either you haven't encountered it - doubtful, as surely you are aware that Christians such as myself believe Jesus rose from the dead, yet you say "You can't honestly say there is any proof of the afterlife, as no one who has ever died and come back to enlighten us on the subject because they've all been dead" - or, what is more likely, that you have encountered such evidence but the standards you think must be met are unreasonable. In light of the above, this doesn't seem so far-fetched. I might even retort that "no evidence has been presented that would qualify as proof of atheism to one who wasn't already part of atheism, raised in atheism, or already disinclined to believe in the idea of a deity despite having no real reason to do so."

You can believe something that in unverifiable, runs contrary to everything we know about life or biology, and think someone rose from the dead days after dying. Given that this happened thousands of years ago, was reported based on hearsay alone and not accounted for for decades after the fact doesn't add a lot of weight to the claim. Not to mention how many people were crawling out of their graves at various points in the bible. Even if a resurrection is possible, which you have to believe as the whole basis for your religion hinges on it, that in no way is indicative of that person being a god or the son of god. Even if it happened, it should be more a question of medical science than if god had something to do with it. Christians act like the the very idea of the resurrection is so fantastic and irrefutable because its written about in the bible that it must be true. Unfortunately your standards for evidence is greatly lacking, as your story is no more credible than any religion story that I could blindly pull out of a hat.

You might then reply that the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. Theists do bear a burden of proof, but so do you. For, firstly, the idea that suspension of judgment ought to be the epistemic default is itself a non-neutral belief. Secondly, I pointed out earlier that as an atheist, you too are making a claim regarding the alleged insufficiency of evidence. That presupposes you know what suffices as evidence. How?

I'm not making any claim, except a rejection of yours. If you weren't trying to say there was a god, I wouldn't be here saying well how do you know? Show me. My default stance of not believing until adequate proof has been presented is exactly where you are in terms of every other outrageous story about other gods or creatures or beings. You for some reason think the bible is different in some way from other religious books, and that it is all the proof you need. Nowhere in terms of what should be acceptable as law for all mankind should be present in just one book full of inconsistencies, affronts to general morality and a myriad of unprovable claims.

In any case, I notice you failed to answer my questions. I didn't ask you to explain what wouldn't count as sufficient evidence. I asked what would. I also asked what you have personally assessed and dismissed which has historically been used to evidence God and the afterlife. You can hardly expect that someone will change your mind about atheism if you don't read their criticisms of it by way of positive evidence for their own alternatives.

After reading this, I feel as though I'm wasting my time even attempting to reason with you. You are clearly close-minded.

I really don't like having to restate the same tired points over and over about what would be sufficient as evidence when you should very simply be able to present the irrefutable proof for god at the drop on a hat that I would be unable to argue against. If any believer had such proof the world over would know it and we would be going about our lives under that knowledge, same as we breathe oxygen and walk on 2 legs. God would be an unavoidable part of every humans life on the planet. Such is not the case, especially since those who support christianity either haven't read the bible, or have and immorally defend the barbaric notions about humanity contained within.

I love the way theists have kidnapped the term "close-minded" to refer to people who proportion their beliefs to the evidence rather than accepting on blind faith that something is true despite being unable to be shown or proven. I am absolutely open to anything you've got as evidence if you think you've got it all figured out. All skeptics are, but the bible isn't good enough. Saying science is complicated therefore god is not good enough. You would need to have a definitive link between everything we have today, evolution, dinosaurs, the earth being billions of years old and connect it to a god. And not any of the 10's of 1000's of possible gods. YOUR god, specifically.

[IAMRED]

I suppose there is another way that we determine what is part of reality, like the existence of technologies and mountains and planets and stars and animals and how being alive is better than being dead, is there? These are all things that there is no dispute about, they exist, they are real things and concepts, they are objectively part of reality. Emotions are too, but unprovable ideas eliciting emotions is not in itself proof of anything. If any one religion had proof of a god, there wouldn't be thousands of religions all with opposing viewpoints and sects, some even killing each other over which one has the right interpretation of the same book. If there was any definitive proof you and I wouldn't be having this discussion just like we aren't talking about if gravity actually exists or if we're actually made up of mostly water. These things are irrefutable truths, something that god needs to be, unequivocally, which no one has ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, I hate to break it to you but the whole world isn't one religion and that's because no one can prove anything.

Firstly, the idea that because not everyone is in agreement about a given topic, said topic must be unknown or unknowable is simply fallacious. Epistemic skepticism is self-refuting, yet there are plenty people who still propound it, even posters on this very board.

Secondly, the existence of things you mention are assertions in search of an argument. You are indeed a typical atheist if you think this sort of grandstanding is philosophically persuasive. Since it is so easy, why don't you go ahead and empirically prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mind-independence of the objects you mention which are "objectively" part of reality. Impress me.

Thirdly, there is indeed a means by which we can come to know truth other than empiricism. It's by understanding through reason what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. And it just so happens that I believe that these conditions are favorable to theism. I have even troubled myself to argue such on this board (cf. link; link; link; etc.) so that atheists such as yourself might learn a thing or two, if you can be bothered to for one second check your intuitions at the door and dispassionately examine the validity of the claim.

Fourthly, I do not believe you responded to my point your criterion fails its own test. Care to comment?

Without complicating things my initial focus was to alleviate any misconceptions that you may have had, and obviously still have, regarding atheism. Atheism is solely the disbelief in gods. That's it. It doesn't encourage or promote any belief after that, considering there are atheists who don't believe in evolution. It just so happens that atheists generally take offense to religious people dictating the lives of others claiming to have a divine right, a right that we don't feel carries any weight given the lack of proof.

Me saying that people should be kind to each other isn't the same as saying people shouldn't be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others if it causes that person harm. Tell me you see the difference. I'm saying the idea of denouncing homosexuals as worthy members of the human race just because an ancient religious book says based on divine command is not only repugnant but detrimental to our society, as any law passed down from from a supposed god can be used as justification for immoral actions. It's so simple. If a book says homosexuality is wrong, it's wrong. It might as well say being blonde is an abomination. Homosexuals are a part of the human experience whether you like it or not. They may not contribute in a direct sense to the propagation of our species but they are human beings who shouldn't have their lives infringed on and be set to a standard as "less-human" because people have derived what is "acceptably human" from a story book.

I don't know why you feel the need to over-complicate things. Just think about it. Being a dick is bad, hurting others is bad. In the wild it may be beneficial to be the physically dominant one but that is why we have a society. Our actions have consequences in the lives of those around us. We need each other to move forward as a species and discover what else there is. Hurting each other stifles that effort. I'm not explaining that to you again.

Speaking of uncomplicated points: because atheists do not believe in God, they have no means by which to justify moral absolutes. Now, what about that is difficult to understand? Once again, I don't deny we may agree that a given action is immoral. But we don't justify that belief by the same means. You don't justify it at all. I have yet to see you even attempt to explain why I or anyone should care about what is detrimental or beneficial to society. Why should I care that our species "move forward and discover what else there is"? Why egalitarianism over utilitarianism? You can't explain this to me "again" until you do it in the first place.

You could simply acknowledge the hit, bite the bullet, accept moral nihilism and move on, but the reason the moral argument is so effective against atheism is that it plays on the very intuitions to which atheists tend to retreat in order to escape the philosophical quandary their rejection of God has caused.

That's a lot of questions. Basically I am an animal, of course. We all are. We are a highly evolved descendent of a common ancestor between us and apes. It's our intelligence and reasoning power that allowed us to get to this point. We ran and hid when we had to and worked together as small families, then bigger families, then societies, then civilizations to get to where we are now. We just happened to get smart enough to conceptualize our own death and start asking what everything means. There are countless attempts made by man to account for all the complexity of nature but we are living in a time with the most up to date version of Life.exe that there has ever been. We've learned more in the last 50 years than in centuries before it combined.

So, again, there is no "atheistic" grounds for anything. Spriritual, ethereal, eternal, unknowable, incorporeal, these are all buzz words to represent unexplainable concepts that cannot be proven in anyway. They exist for the purpose of facilitating and offering easy answers for the ideas of gods. I don't subscribe to any of these ideas as real and neither should anyone else until someone can prove there is a "spirit" separate from your physical existence, beyond it making them feel good.

You can backpedal quickly when you want to. Okay then, so let's suppose we're animals. In addition to the above points on morality, why is it wrong for one animal to harm one of its own species but not an animal of another species? Or are you pro-animal rights?

You think incorporeality is unexplained and unproven? You do realize that is self-defeating, right? Our having a conversation presupposes that in principle we could be able to understand each other. Our thought would be univocal. But then truth cannot be physical. Logical Positivism died a long time ago, as I showed in this thread, for instance (link).

[IAMRED]

Erm, no. If you think being a bigot and inhumane and elevating yourself to some enshrined level that you can look down on homosexuals as not having as many rights or liberties as you, and infringing on that is somehow the same as two men or two woman just wanting to love each other and have a family and to be left alone, we have some serious problems. I don't want to make assumptions about your viewpoints but I feel we're crossing into dangerous territory if my assumptions are right. I believe that what is true is that being kind to people and not judging a person on face value alone is the right way to comport myself, as I would expect the same from others. Just like I don't hurt, rape, discriminate or intimidate others. These are not religious morals, these are derived from living in society and having the fortune to be raised properly. There are obvious subjective views of right and wrong. My stance is that rape or murder is wrong despite the perpetrators view points that it was the right thing to do. Luckily we have laws for most of these universal truths that we have worked out as a society.

You have no ontological basis on which to stake rights and liberties which should not be infringed. I couldn't really care less about your personal opinions. If you wish to demonstrate why you think your beliefs are obvious, universal, and true - claims you have repeatedly made - please do so sooner rather than later.

**Edit: And no we weren't created in god image, unless god was either some sort of microscopic entity or a neanderthal at some point, whichever makes you feel better. Even if theists believe in evolution, they all have the idea that from our development from primates it went primate-primate-primate-STOP-human, and then imbued us with a soul and his image and blah blah. But the course of our development took hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of years to get us to where we are now and you'd be hard pressed to establish when we stop being descendents of humans and became humans. We reached a point where we became aware of our image, figured if there was a god he must be in the same image as us and decided then that he actually created us in HIS image.

I'm not an empiricist, so I don't accept your assumption that all we have is a posteriori knowledge.

You can believe something that in unverifiable, runs contrary to everything we know about life or biology, and think someone rose from the dead days after dying. Given that this happened thousands of years ago, was reported based on hearsay alone and not accounted for for decades after the fact doesn't add a lot of weight to the claim. Not to mention how many people were crawling out of their graves at various points in the bible. Even if a resurrection is possible, which you have to believe as the whole basis for your religion hinges on it, that in no way is indicative of that person being a god or the son of god. Even if it happened, it should be more a question of medical science than if god had something to do with it. Christians act like the the very idea of the resurrection is so fantastic and irrefutable because its written about in the bible that it must be true. Unfortunately your standards for evidence is greatly lacking, as your story is no more credible than any religion story that I could blindly pull out of a hat.

So is your criterion of verifiability itself verifiable? If so, please share how you have verified it. Then share how you have verified your alleged moral knowledge. No more stalling, if you please.

You are quite right that empirical evidence does not establish metaphysical claims such as the idea Jesus is divine or the Son of God. Then again, I never said it did. I don't agree with your shallow view of epistemic justification. Read just a few of the posts in the above links I provided. How you can be so confident that my "story is no more credible than any religion story that I could blindly pull out of a hat" when I am running circles around you in this discussion is highly amusing, because you are essentially admitting anything you pull out of a hat would be better than what you currently believe. In any case, my standards for what constitutes knowledge are far more rigorous than your own, for I only accept what is by good and necessary consequence deducible from the necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge, divine revelation.

I'm not making any claim, except a rejection of yours.

Precisely. The problem is that the reject of theism precludes the justification of a system of morality.

If you weren't trying to say there was a god, I wouldn't be here saying well how do you know? Show me. My default stance of not believing until adequate proof has been presented is exactly where you are in terms of every other outrageous story about other gods or creatures or beings. You for some reason think the bible is different in some way from other religious books, and that it is all the proof you need. Nowhere in terms of what should be acceptable as law for all mankind should be present in just one book full of inconsistencies, affronts to general morality and a myriad of unprovable claims.

Those objections are your burden of proof, not mine. You hold the Bible to a standard of proof which does not need to be met because the very standard cannot itself meet its own requirements. I'll even dumb down what I am saying so that you have no excuse for misunderstanding: if you say "everything that can be known must be justified by observation," have you observed that claim? No. So the claim is self-defeating. Even you should be able to see this. But this is the very criticism I have made in regards to your criteria for knowledge. I am awaiting your response with bated breath.

The fact is, we all have axioms upon which we base other claims of knowledge. This does not mean axioms are unknowable, it simply means they cannot be externally justified. They have to be justified by their necessity and the alleged system of knowledge that follows from it. A mutual dependency between axioms and theorems not unlike geometry. Well, that is what I claim the Bible satisfies. It is able to account for principles of logic, language, morality, metaphysics, self-knowledge, the contingency of knowledge, coherency, self-attestation, and so on and so forth.

I really don't like having to restate the same tired points over and over about what would be sufficient as evidence when you should very simply be able to present the irrefutable proof for god at the drop on a hat that I would be unable to argue against. If any believer had such proof the world over would know it and we would be going about our lives under that knowledge, same as we breathe oxygen and walk on 2 legs. God would be an unavoidable part of every humans life on the planet. Such is not the case, especially since those who support christianity either haven't read the bible, or have and immorally defend the barbaric notions about humanity contained within.

You seem to have a knack for writing whole paragraphs without supporting even one speculation or answering even one question. I repeat: what would be sufficient evidence for the existence of God, and what so-called evidence have you examined and dismissed so far? Why are you side-stepping this question? Could it be that you are not the critical thinker or as well read as you had believed you were? I can't provide you with a "proof" for God if you don't tell me what does and doesn't count as evidence, now can I?

I love the way theists have kidnapped the term "close-minded" to refer to people who proportion their beliefs to the evidence rather than accepting on blind faith that something is true despite being unable to be shown or proven. I am absolutely open to anything you've got as evidence if you think you've got it all figured out. All skeptics are, but the bible isn't good enough. Saying science is complicated therefore god is not good enough. You would need to have a definitive link between everything we have today, evolution, dinosaurs, the earth being billions of years old and connect it to a god. And not any of the 10's of 1000's of possible gods. YOUR god, specifically.

Oops, I almost forgot to link you to my critique of empiricism (link). While we're sharing, I love the way that every time I come back to this board, I get to give some new atheist the same old smack-down.

[lucious]

IAMRED I can appreciate you have a bit of education and familiarty with philosopy, but your posting style is obnoxious. You cant just lay down an argument, particularly those of the sort which drag us all down into an infinite black hole of epistemic skepticism, and unabashedly proclaim that youve carved a bloody swathe of 'ownage' throughout the boards atheists.

Even if there were a God, we would never be free of skepticism as it raises a whole lot of questions about metaphysical necessity/gods epistemology etc.

[IAMRED]

IAMRED I can appreciate you have a bit of education and familiarty with philosopy, but your posting style is obnoxious. You cant just lay down an argument, particularly those of the sort which drag us all down into an infinite black hole of epistemic skepticism, and unabashedly proclaim that youve carved a bloody swathe of 'ownage' throughout the boards atheists.

Even if there were a God, we would never be free of skepticism as it raises a whole lot of questions about metaphysical necessity/gods epistemology etc.

Such as? If we cannot be "free of skepticism," are you skeptical of what you just said?

I make it a point to respond in the same sort of tone as my fellow interlocutor. If he thinks my moral system is "barbaric" and an "affront," I don't think it's too obnoxious to point out that at least I can consistently hold a moral system. If my beliefs are "no more credible than any religion story that I could blindly pull out of a hat," so be it, but is it really too much to ask for the standards according to which something is [not] credible? No, and someone who plays dumb in response and tries to get away with the typical "we all know Christianity is for chumps, science ftw, amiright?" deserves a little dressing down imo.

Speaking of tone, you certainly seem to have changed yours since our first meeting, when I attempted to provide a serious argument for theism and you replied with:

Presuppostional apologetics: "We cant provide evidence for God or make a reasonable case for his existence, so we instead try to destroy knowledge"

Sort of ironic since you now seem be a philosophical skeptic yourself, wouldn't you say?

[lucious]

I'm not a total skeptic, I have just never seen anything from presup apologetics which didnt just flow into a sewer of epistemic skepticism and infinite regresses.

God isnt even a magical heal all-the question of Gods epistemological methods namely 'where does he even derive his knowledge' is a huge, gaping unknown.

[IAMRED]

I'm not a total skeptic, I have just never seen anything from presup apologetics which didnt just flow into a sewer of epistemic skepticism and infinite regresses.

That is curious, since the whole point of presuppositional apologetics is to avoid infinitism. I don't recall that you explained why skepticism follows from my position, though.

God isnt even a magical heal all-the question of Gods epistemological methods namely 'where does he even derive his knowledge' is a huge, gaping unknown.

Firstly, who said His knowledge is derived? Secondly, why would ignorance about this imply skepticism?

The question is also somewhat vague - I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for in particular - but to give a short sketch of the background from the Reformed or deterministic perspective to which I hold, there is universal agreement that at least some of God's knowledge is natural or necessary. This includes knowledge of all possible worlds as well as knowledge of necessary truths, or truths that hold regardless of which possible world would be instantiated. Most hold that the rest of God's knowledge is due to what He has freely and eternally determined will occur. I happen to think there is only one possible world, meaning that all God's knowledge would be natural or necessary, as the contrary would imply that God's choice to instantiate one of multiple possible worlds would be arbitrary.

[chimburgandy]

IAMRED I can appreciate you have a bit of education and familiarty with philosopy, but your posting style is obnoxious. You cant just lay down an argument, particularly those of the sort which drag us all down into an infinite black hole of epistemic skepticism, and unabashedly proclaim that youve carved a bloody swathe of 'ownage' throughout the boards atheists.

Even if there were a God, we would never be free of skepticism as it raises a whole lot of questions about metaphysical necessity/gods epistemology etc.

Basically this.

IAMRED, there really is nothing I'm going to able to give you to satisfy all your philosophical inquiries as my background in the subject isn't as developed. What I have gathered though is how through saying so much you haven't really said anything at all. A diatribe of pontification and posturing isn't going to warrant any kind of "smack down" when you put forth in a very thinly-veiled way that you have a moral superiority while at the same time saying that you don't care about my personal opinion that people should be treated fairly and homosexuality isn't an abomination, because it doesn't conform to some objective reality that I need to somehow demonstrate.

I'm sorry that the foundation for your moral framework is so fractured and uneven that you have to go to such great lengths to validate it. If you need a philosophically sound argument why the rights of others to exist does indeed trump your ability to impose your beliefs on someone else I don't think we're ever going to be able to move forward.

[MaximosJ]

I can sympathize to some degree with both sides of the recent discussion. IAMRED is asking some interesting questions, but there is something "obnoxious" (to use lucious' word) about the way that those questions are used here. The approach basically seems to involve taking numerous skeptical concerns from the (roughly) 3000 year history of Western philosophy, splattering them all over the place as though painting in the style of Jackson Pollock, and then (more or less) demanding that the mess be cleaned up. That is at least the way that it comes across. Such demands are unrealistic for an online discussion board occupied largely by non-philosophers -- at the very least, the triumphalistic tone that comes across when those demands are not met is strange, almost like celebrating over a victory "won" with a heavily stacked deck. The behavior suggests that the questioning is disingenuous, i.e., more concerned with "gotchas" and scoring points than with genuine discussion aimed at truth. I realize that this is sometimes the way that debates operate, but that is mostly unfortunate.

EDIT: In fairness, though, I suppose I should add this: there is a lot of triumphalism on this forum from the atheist side, too (fortunately, jf1 just banned himself). That being the case, it may be that there's something worthwhile about responding in kind.

[IAMRED]

Basically this.

IAMRED, there really is nothing I'm going to able to give you to satisfy all your philosophical inquiries as my background in the subject isn't as developed. What I have gathered though is how through saying so much you haven't really said anything at all. A diatribe of pontification and posturing isn't going to warrant any kind of "smack down" when you put forth in a very thinly-veiled way that you have a moral superiority while at the same time saying that you don't care about my personal opinion that people should be treated fairly and homosexuality isn't an abomination, because it doesn't conform to some objective reality that I need to somehow demonstrate.

I'm sorry that the foundation for your moral framework is so fractured and uneven that you have to go to such great lengths to validate it. If you need a philosophically sound argument why the rights of others to exist does indeed trump your ability to impose your beliefs on someone else I don't think we're ever going to be able to move forward.

For me to have reason to care about your personal opinion of homosexuality, I would need to know it is rational. If and since you can't show that atheism can support moral knowledge, why does it matter what you think is good, objective, etc.? Or better, why should it matter?

No matter how intuitive your beliefs may be, the idea that they don't need justification opens the door to any and all manner of the very prejudices you wish to eradicate, and in that case I might as well leave you with this: "If you need a philosophically sound argument why [God exists], I don't think we're ever going to be able to move forward." Your moral beliefs are an exercise in special pleading, plain and simple.

[IAMRED]

I can sympathize to some degree with both sides of the recent discussion. IAMRED is asking some interesting questions, but there is something "obnoxious" (to use lucious' word) about the way that those questions are used here. The approach basically seems to involve taking numerous skeptical concerns from the (roughly) 3000 year history of Western philosophy, splattering them all over the place as though painting in the style of Jackson Pollock, and then (more or less) demanding that the mess be cleaned up. That is at least the way that it comes across. Such demands are unrealistic for an online discussion board occupied largely by non-philosophers -- at the very least, the triumphalistic tone that comes across when those demands are not met is strange, almost like celebrating over a victory "won" with a heavily stacked deck. The behavior suggests that the questioning is disingenuous, i.e., more concerned with "gotchas" and scoring points than with genuine discussion aimed at truth. I realize that this is sometimes the way that debates operate, but that is mostly unfortunate.

EDIT: In fairness, though, I suppose I should add this: there is a lot of triumphalism on this forum from the atheist side, too (fortunately, jf1 just banned himself). That being the case, it may be that there's something worthwhile about responding in kind.

Everything I have argued I believe to be the truth. If it so happens that these arguments are interpreted as having no intrinsic value, I can't help that. Nor can I prevent you or anyone else from trivializing the problems of philosophy. Then again, that's not the point.

At any rate, I see no reason why an online discussion board is an inappropriate place for such conversation. It's not as if I started it, and it's not as if anyone here is compelled to respond. If they don't know an answer to a question, they could just admit it. Especially in the case that one holds a false worldview, doubt rather than stubbornness is to be encouraged.

[MaximosJ]

Everything I have argued I believe to be the truth. If it so happens that these arguments are interpreted as having no intrinsic value, I can't help that. Nor can I prevent you or anyone else from trivializing the problems of philosophy. Then again, that's not the point.

At any rate, I see no reason why an online discussion board is an inappropriate place for such conversation. It's not as if I started it, and it's not as if anyone here is compelled to respond. If they don't know an answer to a question, they could just admit it. Especially in the case that one holds a false worldview, doubt rather than stubbornness is to be encouraged.

What I said had to do primarily, if not entirely, with your manner of posting, not with the topics themselves. Nothing you say here seems to address that. I have no problem with careful, sincere, truth-focused discussion of the issues that have arisen.

[IAMRED]

What I said had to do primarily, if not entirely, with your manner of posting, not with the topics themselves. Nothing you say here seems to address that. I have no problem with careful, sincere, truth-focused discussion of the issues that have arisen.

I have said all I need to say about that in reply to lucious.

[chimburgandy]

For me to have reason to care about your personal opinion of homosexuality, I would need to know it is rational. If and since you can't show that atheism can support moral knowledge, why does it matter what you think is good, objective, etc.? Or better, why should it matter?

No matter how intuitive your beliefs may be, the idea that they don't need justification opens the door to any and all manner of the very prejudices you wish to eradicate, and in that case I might as well leave you with this: "If you need a philosophically sound argument why [God exists], I don't think we're ever going to be able to move forward." Your moral beliefs are an exercise in special pleading, plain and simple.

You are a human being living on earth and in a society, you shouldn't need a complex philosophical argument to convince you that a whole subset of humanity deserves as equal an opportunity to live their lives the way you feel you too are entitled to yours. 50 years ago people opposed integration of races in school and in relationships, these days people oppose homosexual couples in all matters relating to their existence. This is a substantial hurdle that humanity will inevitably overcome and the people who resisted the transition to the next level of human unity will be a mirror image of their predecessors who stood for unfair and unfounded beliefs that couldn't endure the driving power of humanity discovering its interconnectedness.

Atheism, again, is not any particular viewpoint on any one subject other than the disbelief in gods. There are homophobic atheists as well as homosexual activist atheists. Atheism itself isn't required to support any moral code, but it just so happens that most atheists agree than people should be treated fairly. It is my viewpoint that no ancient belief should be adhered to in this day and age when we've done so much to progress humanity past the trivial and inhumane worldview presented by the bible in terms of homosexuality, misogyny, slavery etc. You'd be better off saying you are a prejudiced bigot rather than attributing it to a god as you condemn the idea of your god, as well as yourself, as being an unnecessary part of the human experience.

Again, you haven't made your stance on how literally you take the bible so I'm not attributing any of these characteristics to you. The way you are attempting to philosophize your rationalization that everyones viewpoint is valid whether it goes against what some would view as objectively true, because absolutely anything can be shown to be true or false depending on the depth of the philosophical void you're able to pull someone into, leads me to be worried that's the case. In a way I don't begrudge people these unreasonable notions because of how convinced I know they are that these directives come from a god and that their god is demonstrably true for them. Any time I talk to anyone about this its to try and ascertain exactly what proof they have that one religion is different from any other, and that proof has to lie outside of some intricate and circuitous path around what is or isn't perceived reality for each human being. The reason some things are considered facts and other things are considered speculative hypotheses comes down to what can be proven, which is why certain things are taught in schools to every child and other things aren't.

Biology and chemistry aren't part of the curriculum because someone with a philosophy degree can spin a web that explains how elements and neutrons and electrons may or may not be true. It comes down to physical, tangible facts. Not anecdotal evidence, not assumptions based on opinion no matter how convincing they may sound. If you get to dictate whats right from wrong from up on high because you have a divine connection with god that somehow eludes most of the scientific community and all of the freethinking world, and think that makes it fair to deprive other human beings of their liberties while enjoying yours and then some, you better have some serious proof beyond a mind-numbing speculative consideration of the human mind.

[IAMRED]

You are a human being living on earth and in a society, you shouldn't need a complex philosophical argument to convince you that a whole subset of humanity deserves as equal an opportunity to live their lives the way you feel you too are entitled to yours. 50 years ago people opposed integration of races in school and in relationships, these days people oppose homosexual couples in all matters relating to their existence. This is a substantial hurdle that humanity will inevitably overcome and the people who resisted the transition to the next level of human unity will be a mirror image of their predecessors who stood for unfair and unfounded beliefs that couldn't endure the driving power of humanity discovering its interconnectedness.

Atheism, again, is not any particular viewpoint on any one subject other than the disbelief in gods. There are homophobic atheists as well as homosexual activist atheists. Atheism itself isn't required to support any moral code, but it just so happens that most atheists agree than people should be treated fairly. It is my viewpoint that no ancient belief should be adhered to in this day and age when we've done so much to progress humanity past the trivial and inhumane worldview presented by the bible in terms of homosexuality, misogyny, slavery etc. You'd be better off saying you are a prejudiced bigot rather than attributing it to a god as you condemn the idea of your god, as well as yourself, as being an unnecessary part of the human experience.

Speaking of uncomplicated points: because atheists do not believe in God, they have no means by which to justify moral absolutes. Now, what about that is difficult to understand? Once again, I don't deny we may agree that a given action is immoral. But we don't justify that belief by the same means. You don't justify it at all. I have yet to see you even attempt to explain why I or anyone should care about what is detrimental or beneficial to society. Why should I care that our species "move forward and discover what else there is"? Why egalitarianism over utilitarianism? You can't explain this to me "again" until you do it in the first place.

You could simply acknowledge the hit, bite the bullet, accept moral nihilism and move on, but the reason the moral argument is so effective against atheism is that it plays on the very intuitions to which atheists tend to retreat in order to escape the philosophical quandary their rejection of God has caused.

Again, you haven't made your stance on how literally you take the bible so I'm not attributing any of these characteristics to you. The way you are attempting to philosophize your rationalization that everyones viewpoint is valid whether it goes against what some would view as objectively true, because absolutely anything can be shown to be true or false depending on the depth of the philosophical void you're able to pull someone into, leads me to be worried that's the case. In a way I don't begrudge people these unreasonable notions because of how convinced I know they are that these directives come from a god and that their god is demonstrably true for them.

I'm not "rationalizing" anything because that is not my view. I never said everyone's viewpoint is valid. Rather, I'm assuming atheism for the sake of argument to show you what follows from it: an inability to affirm objective morality, moral absolutes, or moral knowledge.

Any time I talk to anyone about this its to try and ascertain exactly what proof they have that one religion is different from any other, and that proof has to lie outside of some intricate and circuitous path around what is or isn't perceived reality for each human being. The reason some things are considered facts and other things are considered speculative hypotheses comes down to what can be proven, which is why certain things are taught in schools to every child and other things aren't.

You need to realize that you have presuppositions. You can't seriously think every or even the majority of renowned philosophers have been empiricists? From what I can gather, you seem to take for granted that there are mind-independent objects which you perceive, that your perceptions are objectively justified inferences from sensations, that common opinion is common knowledge, etc. This is why I say you are close-minded: not because you believe evidence or proof is necessary for knowledge - I agree - but because you uncritically accept certain standards of evidence or proof which are themselves subject to debate. For instance:

Biology and chemistry aren't part of the curriculum because someone with a philosophy degree can spin a web that explains how elements and neutrons and electrons may or may not be true. It comes down to physical, tangible facts. Not anecdotal evidence, not assumptions based on opinion no matter how convincing they may sound.

This is naive. In addition to what problems I have so far noted to you explicitly, I linked you to a very short critique of empiricism I wrote which criticizes the idea that empiricism is not theory-laden. Either you did not read these or do not care to respond to them. Either is inexcusable from someone who thinks he can lecture me on the need for [the examination of] evidence.

If you get to dictate whats right from wrong from up on high because you have a divine connection with god that somehow eludes most of the scientific community and all of the freethinking world, and think that makes it fair to deprive other human beings of their liberties while enjoying yours and then some, you better have some serious proof beyond a mind-numbing speculative consideration of the human mind.

Thirdly, there is indeed a means by which we can come to know truth other than empiricism. It's by understanding through reason what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. And it just so happens that I believe that these conditions are favorable to theism. I have even troubled myself to argue such on this board (cf. link; link; link; etc.) so that atheists such as yourself might learn a thing or two, if you can be bothered to for one second check your intuitions at the door and dispassionately examine the validity of the claim.

You have been cherry-picking in your responses for some time. Try not to add misrepresentations on top of that, "freethinker."

[chimburgandy]

I'm not "rationalizing" anything because that is not my view. I never said everyone's viewpoint is valid. Rather, I'm assuming atheism for the sake of argument to show you what follows from it: an inability to affirm objective morality, moral absolutes, or moral knowledge.

Ok cool. Just don't assume atheism as anything particular beyond a disbelief in gods, that's all I'm saying. From casting aside religious doctrine anyone rejecting such seemingly set in stone beliefs is able to determine what is right and wrong from a secular version of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Without complicating the matter, I wouldn't want anyone telling me I was less valuable then them because of my skin colour or hair colour or sexual preference, and I try very hard not to have a presupposition about anyone before knowing them based on the surface level alone. People don't like other people for all kinds of reasons, their own prejudice or because those people are dicks and should be disliked. The problem I take issue with is when people follow the word of their religion in discriminating against others on the sole basis that it is in-the-bible and even though they have a problem with it, they still promote it and feel like heretics by even thinking about going against it. My main stance is the people who wrote the bible had all kinds of unpleasant viewpoints on many aspects of life and we aren't like them anymore. Black and white and gay and weird people need to live together because we all make up society, and the spectrum of human existence is broader than people 2000 years ago could have ever imagined it would be. If you want to hate someone for being an assshole go ahead, you should. But just because a book says it, even if it is a gods book? That is when I really start to wonder why people don't immediately question how moral this god really is.

You need to realize that you have presuppositions. You can't seriously think every or even the majority of renowned philosophers have been empiricists? From what I can gather, you seem to take for granted that there are mind-independent objects which you perceive, that your perceptions are objectively justified inferences from sensations, that common opinion is common knowledge, etc. This is why I say you are close-minded: not because you believe evidence or proof is necessary for knowledge - I agree - but because you uncritically accept certain standards of evidence or proof which are themselves subject to debate.

I don't think all philosophers are empiricists, nor do I think it's very relevant what a philosopher thinks is true over a scientist or anyone for that matter who can demonstrate something to be true. Philosophy is valuable I'll admit, but as others have said you aren't going to get as in depth a philosophical debate as you might like from the inhabitants of this board. I'm just a blue-collar stone mason from Ontatrio and don't consider myself to be any expert on the subject of arguing the philosophical existence of god, but I bet there are philosophers as adept at arguing against god as you are at arguing for one and ultimately all any of you can do is create a framework for a hypothetical idea of a god existing or not. The evidence that we both use to determine good and bad decisions in our everyday lives is what constitutes reality.

This is naive. In addition to what problems I have so far noted to you explicitly, I linked you to a very short critique of empiricism I wrote which criticizes the idea that empiricism is not theory-laden. Either you did not read these or do not care to respond to them. Either is inexcusable from someone who thinks he can lecture me on the need for [the examination of] evidence.

I'm sorry again but an internet forum users critique of empiricism is not in any way going to be a demonstration of proof for a god or that beliefs based on the bible are demonstrably true because they say so in the bible and the bible says the bible is the word of a god. So yes they either went over my head or I didn't read them. You and I don't decide what are valuable parts of reality outside of our own interpretations so I get that you don't care what my beliefs are when you have your own well thought out idea of what dictates truth. I'm just saying that you're own viewpoints on how other people should live their lives means absolutely jack shhit to them, the same way my view point means to you, and anyone who thinks their religion trumps that persons ability to reject their religious viewpoint is where I take umbrage. Most people assert their moral superiority without the benefit of your philosophical background and say quite plainly God is real - the bible is gods word - the way you want to live your life is wrong so you don't get to do it - to oppose me is to oppose my right to oppose your rights and impose my beliefs. That is the bare bones problem. You don't get to impose anything on anyone based on your religious belief unless you can prove how your belief is more substantiated than a muslim or jewsish or mormon or scientology or raelien or jedi belief.

You have been cherry-picking in your responses for some time. Try not to add misrepresentations on top of that, "freethinker."

Freethinker is just a term coined, I feel accurately, by people who haven't been indoctrinated, or who have been freed of it, who are free to at that point determine their own purpose in the world.

"It's by understanding through reason what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge"

Absolutely. It is only reasonable to proportion yourself to the evidence available for any particular claim. If Mount Everest didn't exist I wouldn't believe that it did. I don't have to see Mt. Everest to believe it exists because there are varying degrees of what is acceptable evidence given the claim. If you say you bought a new dog, I would be inclined to believe you as that is a fairly harmless claim. If you said your new dog talked to you I would immediately change my standard for evidence regarding your claim and need to see some more proof. If you said your dog talked and told you that all women should have their clitorises cut off, I would say not only do I doubt that your dog talks, but even if he does talk you should put him outside and tell him he's been bad.

If you want an argument beyond what I've been able to present to you regarding my mental capacity and ability to decipher philosophy, I'm sorry but I can't help you.

In any event, boop you're it.

[IAMRED]

Ok cool. Just don't assume atheism as anything particular beyond a disbelief in gods, that's all I'm saying. From casting aside religious doctrine anyone rejecting such seemingly set in stone beliefs is able to determine what is right and wrong from a secular version of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Without complicating the matter, I wouldn't want anyone telling me I was less valuable then them because of my skin colour or hair colour or sexual preference, and I try very hard not to have a presupposition about anyone before knowing them based on the surface level alone. People don't like other people for all kinds of reasons, their own prejudice or because those people are dicks and should be disliked.

I don't need to assume anything else in order to show atheism is not compatible with the idea on should "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I've done that several times over. I believe you missed the quotation of myself to this point, so I'll repeat it:

Speaking of uncomplicated points: because atheists do not believe in God, they have no means by which to justify moral absolutes. Now, what about that is difficult to understand? Once again, I don't deny we may agree that a given action is immoral. But we don't justify that belief by the same means. You don't justify it at all. I have yet to see you even attempt to explain why I or anyone should care about what is detrimental or beneficial to society. Why should I care that our species "move forward and discover what else there is"? Why egalitarianism over utilitarianism? You can't explain this to me "again" until you do it in the first place.

You could simply acknowledge the hit, bite the bullet, accept moral nihilism and move on, but the reason the moral argument is so effective against atheism is that it plays on the very intuitions to which atheists tend to retreat in order to escape the philosophical quandary their rejection of God has caused.

The problem I take issue with is when people follow the word of their religion in discriminating against others on the sole basis that it is in-the-bible and even though they have a problem with it, they still promote it and feel like heretics by even thinking about going against it. My main stance is the people who wrote the bible had all kinds of unpleasant viewpoints on many aspects of life and we aren't like them anymore. Black and white and gay and weird people need to live together because we all make up society, and the spectrum of human existence is broader than people 2000 years ago could have ever imagined it would be. If you want to hate someone for being an assshole go ahead, you should. But just because a book says it, even if it is a gods book? That is when I really start to wonder why people don't immediately question how moral this god really is.

I don't hate anyone. But that's just paltry bully tactics if you think it's going to make me back down from my position that acts like homosexuality are immoral. You can't judge God by morality because you can't know what is moral apart from God. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before it sinks in. Your own personal opinion as to what constitutes morality is, I assert, without foundation. Now, if you wish to argue otherwise, then let us please move past your stock reply and get down to examining what evidence I have presented against the fact atheism that, a disbelief in God, is compatible with moral absolutes, objective morality, moral knowledge, etc.

I don't think all philosophers are empiricists, nor do I think it's very relevant what a philosopher thinks is true over a scientist or anyone for that matter who can demonstrate something to be true. Philosophy is valuable I'll admit, but as others have said you aren't going to get as in depth a philosophical debate as you might like from the inhabitants of this board. I'm just a blue-collar stone mason from Ontatrio and don't consider myself to be any expert on the subject of arguing the philosophical existence of god, but I bet there are philosophers as adept at arguing against god as you are at arguing for one and ultimately all any of you can do is create a framework for a hypothetical idea of a god existing or not. The evidence that we both use to determine good and bad decisions in our everyday lives is what constitutes reality.

I will disillusion you: there are no philosophers adept at arguing against God. There is no one adept at arguing against God, period. You may think that's arrogant, but an advantage of my strongly worded responses so far is that you should at least believe that I believe this is true. Another advantage is that I intend to provoke you to give me a reasoned reply rather than one littered with what yours is: mere personal opinion. When I provided you with the link to the topic in which I argue communication from one who is omniscient is a precondition for knowledge, I implicitly rule out any and all secular philosophies as possibly tenable.

Anyway, you don't use evidence to determine good and bad. You need to reread my criticisms. For instance: That I could know b follows from a and d follows from c does not suffice as a reason I should choose a over c or vice versa. For instance, you say "everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them." On what grounds? That I would know a certain choice would effect wide acceptance of the sort of egalitarian ethic you promote does not imply I should make said choice.

I'm sorry again but an internet forum users critique of empiricism is not in any way going to be a demonstration of proof for a god or that beliefs based on the bible are demonstrably true because they say so in the bible and the bible says the bible is the word of a god. So yes they either went over my head or I didn't read them. You and I don't decide what are valuable parts of reality outside of our own interpretations so I get that you don't care what my beliefs are when you have your own well thought out idea of what dictates truth. I'm just saying that you're own viewpoints on how other people should live their lives means absolutely jack shhit to them, the same way my view point means to you, and anyone who thinks their religion trumps that persons ability to reject their religious viewpoint is where I take umbrage. Most people assert their moral superiority without the benefit of your philosophical background and say quite plainly God is real - the bible is gods word - the way you want to live your life is wrong so you don't get to do it - to oppose me is to oppose my right to oppose your rights and impose my beliefs. That is the bare bones problem.

Try to keep up. I never said a rejection of empiricism implies theism. I'm merely attacking empiricism because then you are forced to confront the need to change your beliefs.

People may not care what I value or what I think, but their carelessness is illogical if I back up what I value and think with sound reasoning. I have provided numerous reasons for my position that atheism (yes, the simple disbelief in God) and absolute morality, objective morals, moral knowledge, etc. are not compatible. Whether that changes people's minds or not is not up to me. I get that. But that my arguments are not a sufficient condition for changing another's mind does not imply they cannot be useful towards that end.

You don't get to impose anything on anyone based on your religious belief unless you can prove how your belief is more substantiated than a muslim or jewsish or mormon or scientology or raelien or jedi belief.

Point? I am quite willing to discuss with these groups just as I am willing to discuss with you. But you're an atheist, so there's no need to concentrate on what we both agree is false.

Freethinker is just a term coined, I feel accurately, by people who haven't been indoctrinated, or who have been freed of it, who are free to at that point determine their own purpose in the world.

Then from my perspective, you aren't a freethinker. In my opinion, you appear indoctrinated against any critique of atheism. That is the only way I can explain why you keep avoiding my arguments that atheism and moral absolutes, objective morality, moral knowledge. etc. are incompatible.

Absolutely. It is only reasonable to proportion yourself to the evidence available for any particular claim. If Mount Everest didn't exist I wouldn't believe that it did. I don't have to see Mt. Everest to believe it exists because there are varying degrees of what is acceptable evidence given the claim. If you say you bought a new dog, I would be inclined to believe you as that is a fairly harmless claim. If you said your new dog talked to you I would immediately change my standard for evidence regarding your claim and need to see some more proof. If you said your dog talked and told you that all women should have their clitorises cut off, I would say not only do I doubt that your dog talks, but even if he does talk you should put him outside and tell him he's been bad.

So then what you consider "evidence" or "proof" is subject to change. That is not the stuff of knowledge. That's the stuff of science. Science is subject to change: everything we now think science has shown could in 500 years be shown to be false. Why you think science and empirical observation is more reliable than necessary truths - truths which cannot be denied without admitting skepticism - just boggles my mind. It's the height of unreasonableness, as is continuing to act as if your moral intuitions are true regardless of any evidence I have presented to the contrary.

If you want an argument beyond what I've been able to present to you regarding my mental capacity and ability to decipher philosophy, I'm sorry but I can't help you.

Then, sadly, it is you who can't help yourself. It is not me who needs the help.

[lucious]

to be fair, IAMRED provided an argument which he obviously put some time into, structure, sophistication, novelty etc. He deserves a thought out response and a proper counter argument from an atheist which deconstructs what he has said. We pride ourselves on rationality, logic and critical thinking.Its only fair that we hold up our end of the bargain.


However, I think he needs to dial it in a bit to be more specific. Philosophical skepticism runs a 2000 year long gauntlet and encompasses pretty much every philosophical unknown/outstanding question there has ever been, many of which are unsolved today.

minituarise the scope a bit and choose a more succinct argument that we can respond to adequately in a few posts or less.

[lasher]

to be fair, IAMRED provided an argument which he obviously put some time into, structure, sophistication, novelty etc. He deserves a thought out response and a proper counter argument from an atheist which deconstructs what he has said. We pride ourselves on rationality, logic and critical thinking.Its only fair that we hold up our end of the bargain.


However, I think he needs to dial it in a bit to be more specific. Philosophical skepticism runs a 2000 year long gauntlet and encompasses pretty much every philosophical unknown/outstanding question there has ever been, many of which are unsolved today.

minituarise the scope a bit and choose a more succinct argument that we can respond to adequately in a few posts or less.

His argument is fairly simple.

1. Empiricism leads to radical skepticism.
2. Atheism has no ontological foundation for morality.
3. OP is a *******.

[lucious]

His argument is fairly simple.

1. Empiricism leads to radical skepticism.
2. Atheism has no ontological foundation for morality.
3. OP is a *******.

this does however lead down many bifurcated paths.


lets choose a single aspect and focus on it shall we?

atheistic morality and its ontological status? ok?

Theists maintain that morals only have true ontology by decree of a divine mind. I disagree. Not only for reasons not the least of which is the entirely arbitrary nature by which said decree is implemented, but for the bigger reason that I see no objection to the notion moral properties cannot simply be as they are, known to humans by virtues of reason and rationality.


Karma is an example of metaphysically necessary ethical ontology which needs no divine foundation

[Alchem]

Most Atheists I've talked with don't even believe that the principal of non-contradiction is absolute, so no argument can be started with these guys, their position is so irrational.

[lucious]

Most Atheists I've talked with don't even believe that the principal of non-contradiction is absolute, so no argument can be started with these guys, their position is so irrational.

do you even quantum physics?


do you even non-aristotelian logic?


e.g an electron is not a particle, it is not a wave, but is both a particle and a wave.

[chimburgandy]

I don't hate anyone. But that's just paltry bully tactics if you think it's going to make me back down from my position that acts like homosexuality are immoral.

You're making it real hard to consider you a person worth acknowledging at all with comments like that. I don't know how you think you are somehow moral, because your morality is dictated by the god of a 2000 year old belief system, and that morality that you follow to the letter includes thinking homosexuality is immoral. You can argue all you want but I don't see how you're anything but a subdued version of a westboro baptist church member.

You can't judge God by morality because you can't know what is moral apart from God. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before it sinks in. Your own personal opinion as to what constitutes morality is, I assert, without foundation. Now, if you wish to argue otherwise, then let us please move past your stock reply and get down to examining what evidence I have presented against the fact atheism that, a disbelief in God, is compatible with moral absolutes, objective morality, moral knowledge, etc.

How is my set of morals derived from observation about the world and my own life, as I am a living being today adjusting my actions to my continued perception of people and reality and consequences or benefits of certain actions, of less value than a dictated set of morals from an authority figure who you still haven't even come close to proving the existence of or why his/her/its laws should be the standard? I do know morality apart from god and I have no problem exercising it every day. Every kind atheist is an example of how you can lack a stuffy, authoritative doctrine and still live your life in a good and meaningful way. Whatever aspect of life they want to indulge in is up to them and hopefully they will do so without hurting others or themselves. Countless people follow the same moral framework you do and still do what you consider evil or immoral acts, even believing as firmly as you do, so I don't see how yours is the more logically sound morality when everyone picks and choose what they want from it as well.

I will disillusion you: there are no philosophers adept at arguing against God. There is no one adept at arguing against God, period. You may think that's arrogant, but an advantage of my strongly worded responses so far is that you should at least believe that I believe this is true. Another advantage is that I intend to provoke you to give me a reasoned reply rather than one littered with what yours is: mere personal opinion. When I provided you with the link to the topic in which I argue communication from one who is omniscient is a precondition for knowledge, I implicitly rule out any and all secular philosophies as possibly tenable.

What an absurd thing to say. Of course there have been philosophical arguments about god with both sides having an equal say. Even if the proposition was true that there never has been an sufficient argument against god, so what. A philosopher can ramble all they want while others go out and test to find out if claims are true. The stance of a philosophical theist is that they can talk their way into proving god or at least the concept, a scientist entering in facts and data can't consider that any form of what we know to be legitimate proof for anything.

Anyway, you don't use evidence to determine good and bad. You need to reread my criticisms. For instance: That I could know b follows from a and d follows from c does not suffice as a reason I should choose a over c or vice versa. For instance, you say "everyone is equally deserving of the fullest opportunity that life has presented them." On what grounds? That I would know a certain choice would effect wide acceptance of the sort of egalitarian ethic you promote does not imply I should make said choice.

I make decisions based on inference and intuition. You do the same but it's clouded by a predetermined moral framework that you haven't developed but adopted and have adhered to, have examined and found it to be sound despite the fact that it says that certain things other humans, who aren't you, do is immoral and they shouldn't do it even if it doesn't affect you or anyone else in any way. And instead of chucking that belief out as immoral or prejudice you have wrapped an argument around it to attempt to validate it. It's never going to happen.

Try to keep up. I never said a rejection of empiricism implies theism. I'm merely attacking empiricism because then you are forced to confront the need to change your beliefs.

Getting pretty sick of your condescension. Is this how you talk to people in real life?

People may not care what I value or what I think, but their carelessness is illogical if I back up what I value and think with sound reasoning. I have provided numerous reasons for my position that atheism (yes, the simple disbelief in God) and absolute morality, objective morals, moral knowledge, etc. are not compatible. Whether that changes people's minds or not is not up to me. I get that. But that my arguments are not a sufficient condition for changing another's mind does not imply they cannot be useful towards that end.

No one's arguing that atheism doesn't support or promote any kind of absolute morality at all. We all get that. But neither does any morality presented by christianity as every individual cherry picks what they want out of it and disregards the rest anyway. You have a different concept of morality from someone else who gets theres from the exact same book, because it is so open to interpretation and so basely offensive to some that they would never even try to hold or argue the stance that homosexuality is immoral, maybe having gay relatives or being gay themselves. My mind needs less changing than yours because you unjustly think that basically the way a "blonde" person lives their lives is wrong. If you or the more vocal of your ilk weren't imposing your beliefs on people based on a fairy tale, there wouldn't be people standing in between them and you.

Then from my perspective, you aren't a freethinker. In my opinion, you appear indoctrinated against any critique of atheism. That is the only way I can explain why you keep avoiding my arguments that atheism and moral absolutes, objective morality, moral knowledge. etc. are incompatible.

Yes I am indoctrinated against criticism against atheism that tries to mindphuck the morality of a god, who discriminates and punishes his creations for the way he created them and expects his adherents to do the same, into existence. I don't expect to know any moral absolutes but there are some things we can just know for sure. The sky is blue, the sun is a star and I am more moral than you.

So then what you consider "evidence" or "proof" is subject to change. That is not the stuff of knowledge. That's the stuff of science. Science is subject to change: everything we now think science has shown could in 500 years be shown to be false. Why you think science and empirical observation is more reliable than necessary truths - truths which cannot be denied without admitting skepticism - just boggles my mind. It's the height of unreasonableness, as is continuing to act as if your moral intuitions are true regardless of any evidence I have presented to the contrary.

Science is a tentative explanation for the world around us and it is nothing but the best explanation of anything that we have at the time. It does change and does so willingly when a better scientific proposition is presented and proven. It has never been met with a religious claim that explained anything better than the science has been able to which is why science has overturned every attempt at a religious understanding for the earth and the universe for thousands of years. I don't think I'm 100% right in believing science or 100% sure that god doesn't exist but I'm going with the side that can actually prove its claims. Plus science doesn't even try to dictate a moral framework, necessary truths about god consist of unprovable stories about an omnipotent all knowing and kind god who is perfect but imperfect enough to have needed to create us, created us sick and demands us to be well, punishes indiscriminately amongst believers and non-believers alike and is more concerned with what we wear and who we fool around with then quelling the starvation and pain all around the world. C'mon.

[chimburgandy]

to be fair, IAMRED provided an argument which he obviously put some time into, structure, sophistication, novelty etc. He deserves a thought out response and a proper counter argument from an atheist which deconstructs what he has said. We pride ourselves on rationality, logic and critical thinking.Its only fair that we hold up our end of the bargain.

He definitely put some time and thought into it, but its time spent on philosophically arguing the moral superiority or at least validation of people and a god who think certain humans are born worse than others. There are some discussions worth having but I don't know how much common ground in debating a fundamentalist homophobic zealot with a fancy tongue. I don't think our end of the bargain is to have to entertain any notion like that whatsoever, as we don't have to respect everyones opinion if they've expressed their opinion and it is wrong and bad.