Atheism

[numberguy12]

As do I.

I think that when a person decides to resort to quipping "babble" and "lol" - such as you have done in this thread - in responses to substantive points, he or she may want to take a step back, pause, and reflect on whether a good case is being made for their beliefs (i.e. it is not).

It's being called babble because.....I call things what they are.

I also lol because at the end of the day, it's amusing. To see some strange grandiose argumentative tone (from a "philosopher" smh) in regards to any of this drivel brings the lol's.

You seem to be unable to even follow a discussion. My initial points, which were clearly stated, were that the proofs of God are not convincing, and that the authors of the NT gospels could merely write stories featuring particular happenings that did not occur in history just to "fulfill" propechy. There is no getting around this: they could have done this, so the the stories are not in themselves evidence of any happenings. You can't even comprehend this basic point for whatever reason.

Instead, you want to go on and on about how mathematical truth is based on axioms (which has nothing to do with why I brought math into this, to show an example of a convincing proof), and how math cannot be used to establish a moral framework (this also has nothing to do with my points). It's like you want to construct some la-la argument and attack it like a 6th grader. They have a word for this, it's called a strawman.

[northernlights7]

Oh look, reddit neckbeard style atheist rants. How new and exciting! It's like it's 2010 all over again!

[wincel]

Plz define "God", and show there exists such a "God" and that the notion of such a "God" is unambiguous.

[Johnez]

Sounds like the dribble of a fat neckbeard redditor OP

I can smell the cheeto residue from your chin

Oh look, reddit neckbeard style atheist rants. How new and exciting! It's like it's 2010 all over again!

Herpin and a derpin. Par for the course...

My advice is to always search for the truth. That should be your guiding principle. The truth of this world isn't about God or pointless discussions that never go anywhere, it's about cause-and-effect.

I agree with seeking truth, but feel if you boiled it down to cause and effect a lot will be missed. Good should be done regardless of the effect.

Universal truth. I've read of sihkism which is fascinating to me, and am thinking about reading the Bible once again, as there really is some valuable wisdom in there. Even in the old testament.

Being Christian is important culturally. What do you gain from being an atheist? You support flooding the country with foreigners who want to destroy it and you. People who don't care about liberty. People who don't care about any of us. Even if you aren't religious you should be allied with Christians. If you don't ally with Christians you leave yourself open to others who actually want to harm you and all of us.

This is the most interesting reply. I've posted before of my anti-immigration views, and don't really see the connection you are making. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, not that we are in a moral free for all situation. I in fact am allied to much of Christianity's moral teachings, however even those are wide in their spectrum. There are Christian churches who feed and provide safe refuge for illegals, what do you say to them? I actually respect that, they are putting their money where their mouth is. I disagree fundamentally, but it is a respectable course of action. Atheists care much for liberty, it's one of the reasons we don't submit to things we don't believe in, nor bend knee for a supposed cultural benefit. Like many fake Christian politicians.

[IAMRED]

It's being called babble because.....I call things what they are.

I also lol because at the end of the day, it's amusing. To see some strange grandiose argumentative tone (from a "philosopher" smh) in regards to any of this drivel brings the lol's.

You seem to be unable to even follow a discussion. My initial points, which were clearly stated, were that the proofs of God are not convincing, and that the authors of the NT gospels could merely write stories featuring particular happenings that did not occur in history just to "fulfill" propechy. There is no getting around this: they could have done this, so the the stories are not in themselves evidence of any happenings. You can't even comprehend this basic point for whatever reason.

Instead, you want to go on and on about how mathematical truth is based on axioms (which has nothing to do with why I brought math into this, to show an example of a convincing proof), and how math cannot be used to establish a moral framework (this also has nothing to do with my points). It's like you want to construct some la-la argument and attack it like a 6th grader. They have a word for this, it's called a strawman.

Rehashing that you are not convinced is not relevant. Anyone can say that they are not convinced by something. Global skeptics are convinced by nothing - not mathematics, not epistemology, not metaphysics. That doesn't make them right, nor you.

Nor is a hypothetical about what "could have" happened relevant when the conversation is about what did happen. You are merely speculating and offer no good reasons for thinking biblical authors would live and die for a position they would have made up (according to your silly hypothetical).

Straw men have to do with mischaracterizations. But I can't mischaracterize a person who cannot or will not respond to basic questions about his philosophy. If you do not see the relevance, it is because you are not willing to think through the assumptions of the implicit framework you bring to the table when even engaging with somebody else.

[AltarOfPlagues]

on god, my miscer, no cap

[AltarOfPlagues]

Furthermore, even on scientific grounds, you cannot rule out a chronological understanding of Genesis 1, if for no other reason than that "science" qua "observation of the physical universe" never offers definitive "proof" of anything. Inductive evidence is not proof.

there's a giant dildo on pluto, you cant rule that out. only geological time scale and human projective error make that assumption more ridiculous than a chronological understanding of gensis

rule out the dildo.

by your logic here we can make all sorts of ridiculous claims. maybe thats your intent. it is logically consistent though.

[IAMRED]

there's a giant dildo on pluto, you cant rule that out. only geological time scale and human projective error make that assumption more ridiculous than a chronological understanding of gensis

rule out the dildo.

by your logic here we can make all sorts of ridiculous claims. maybe thats your intent. it is logically consistent though.

Logical consistency is a minimal criterion for truth. The purpose of the point I made about the limits of science is to show that it is not a minimal criterion for truth.

People can talk all they want about "ridiculous claims." Many atheists think Christians are ridiculous, and vice versa. That is not a criterion for truth either. Instead, we need to get to the heart of the matter, as I said in the very post from which you quote: if, whether, and how your own presuppositions are can account for truth, being, and morality.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Logical consistency is a minimal criterion for truth. The purpose of the point I made about the limits of science is to show that it is not a minimal criterion for truth.

People can talk all they want about "ridiculous claims." Many atheists think Christians are ridiculous, and vice versa. That is not a criterion for truth either. Instead, we need to get to the heart of the matter, as I said in the very post from which you quote: if, whether, and how your own presuppositions are can account for truth, being, and morality.

Yea I'm skeptical of any existence of objective truth and I think numberguy has "materialism" biases. But that doesn't mean I believe in the bible. If you are coming from an angle of "one should choose* beliefs based on their utility within a sociocultural framework" then I won't argue with you.

*choose here implies a conscious choice, but I mean moreso an unconscious choice.

[IAMRED]

Yea I'm skeptical of any existence of objective truth and I think numberguy has "materialism" biases. But that doesn't mean I believe in the bible. If you are coming from an angle of "one should choose* beliefs based on their utility within a sociocultural framework" then I won't argue with you.

*choose here implies a conscious choice, but I mean moreso an unconscious choice.

Rejecting objective truth essentially would commit you to existential nihilism and purposelessness. I think that the inconsistency in how persons live their lives even though their own words would otherwise commit them to such a position is evidence enough that it is objectively false.

I would also point out that trying to even argue any of these points presupposes objective truth.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Rejecting objective truth essentially would commit you to existential nihilism and purposelessness. I think that the inconsistency in how persons live their lives even though their own words would otherwise commit them to such a position is evidence enough that it is objectively false.

I would also point out that trying to even argue any of these points presupposes objective truth.

so do you back into "god must be real" by saying:

1) i continue to find reasons to live and meaning in life
2) if god isnt real, i wouldnt do that
3) god must be real

can you tell me your proof of objective truth so i dont have to guess it

edit- i think it's ok to be a little inconsistent if the alternative is just making chit up for the sake of consistency

[IAMRED]

so do you back into "god must be real" by saying:

1) i continue to find reasons to live and meaning in life
2) if god isnt real, i wouldnt do that
3) god must be real

can you tell me your proof of objective truth so i dont have to guess it

I'm not "backing into" anything. I just made a point about the implications of your post, a point which you are "proving" for me by how and that you are living your life - e.g. you are responding to me as if this conversation matters, that living itself serves a purpose, etc. These are things which contradict the very position you espouse (skepticism about objective truth).

To answer your request, though, I can no more "prove" objective truth than logic - both would be circular - but that isn't relevant to whether they are objectively true and objectively knowable. The idea "we must prove something in order to know it" is an assumption which, on its own grounds, ought then to be proved (which it never is, nor can it be).

In other words, some beliefs are able to be known apart from verification from something else. I would indeed include knowledge of God and His revelation in this category - not arbitrarily, but because, like logic or truth, they are necessary beliefs in order to account for facets of reality I mentioned earlier: truth itself, being, and morality. Implicitly, we know that we are sinners. We know we have done things which are objectively wrong. Our consciences condemn us. It's just a matter of what we do with that implicit knowledge - do we suppress it, or do we acknowledge the reality for what it is and seek the Savior we need in Jesus Christ? Arguing against this need ironically only serves to indirectly illustrate it.

[IAMRED]

edit- i think it's ok to be a little inconsistent if the alternative is just making chit up for the sake of consistency

But you are just making this up, and not even "for the sake of consistency"

[AltarOfPlagues]

I'm not "backing into" anything. I just made a point about the implications of your post, a point which you are "proving" for me by how and that you are living your life - e.g. you are responding to me as if this conversation matters, that living itself serves a purpose, etc. These are things which contradict the very position you espouse (skepticism about objective truth).

To answer your request, though, I can no more "prove" objective truth than logic - both would be circular - but that isn't relevant to whether they are objectively true and objectively knowable. The idea "we must prove something in order to know it" is an assumption which, on its own grounds, ought then to be proved (which it never is, nor can it be).

In other words, some beliefs are able to be known apart from verification from something else. I would indeed include knowledge of God and His revelation in this category - not arbitrarily, but because, like logic or truth, they are necessary beliefs in order to account for facets of reality I mentioned earlier: truth itself, being, and morality. Implicitly, we know that we are sinners. We know we have done things which are objectively wrong. Our consciences condemn us. It's just a matter of what we do with that implicit knowledge - do we suppress it, or do we acknowledge the reality for what it is and seek the Savior we need in Jesus Christ? Arguing against this need ironically only serves to indirectly illustrate it.

i agree with "objective truth" being not necessarily knowable, and yet possibly existing. that's why i said i was skeptical of it, and not "it doesnt exist".

god is a simplistic kluge for a basis for truth, morality, and human existence. there's whole liberries of alternative (and far more nuanced, complex, and rigorous) explanations for these phenomena. it would be like believing in a geocentric universe. its perfectly true and functional so long as you dont inquire further.

none of this disproves god as such, im just sayin your reasoning sucks.

[IAMRED]

i agree with "objective truth" being not necessarily knowable, and yet possibly existing. that's why i said i was skeptical of it, and not "it doesnt exist".

Who are you "agreeing" with? Not me, because I never said it wasn't "necessarily knowable." Again, the point is that you even being open to a position which rejects objective truth is self-defeating and existentially nihilistic. The more you respond, the more you confirm that you are not really skeptical of it after all. Your actions speak louder than your words.

god is a simplistic kluge for a basis for truth, morality, and human existence. there's whole liberries of alternative (and far more nuanced, complex, and rigorous) explanations for these phenomena. it would be like believing in a geocentric universe. its perfectly true and functional so long as you dont inquire further.

As is often the case, the simplest answers are often the right ones. And as I said, I argue that God and His revelation are *necessary* for truth, being, and morality. I don't think you can pretend, as you are doing, that picking a worldview is like picking a toy to play with. You are welcome to actually defend a position which can account for truth, being, and morality which doesn't depend on God or His revelation, but you seem unwilling. I'm not surprised, but I will reiterate that your actions speak louder than your words. Imagine someone who is skeptical of objective truth and unwilling to defend how else he can know truth, being, and morality thinking so highly of himself as to lecture someone else on what is reasonable.

You gotta laugh.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Who are you "agreeing" with? Not me, because I never said it wasn't "necessarily knowable." Again, the point is that you even being open to a position which rejects objective truth is self-defeating and existentially nihilistic. The more you respond, the more you confirm that you are not really skeptical of it after all. Your actions speak louder than your words.



As is often the case, the simplest answers are often the right ones. And as I said, I argue that God and His revelation are *necessary* for truth, being, and morality. I don't think you can pretend, as you are doing, that picking a worldview is like picking a toy to play with. You are welcome to actually defend a position which can account for truth, being, and morality which doesn't depend on God or His revelation, but you seem unwilling. I'm not surprised, but I will reiterate that your actions speak louder than your words. Imagine someone who is skeptical of objective truth and unwilling to defend how else he can know truth, being, and morality thinking so highly of himself as to lecture someone else on what is reasonable.

You gotta laugh.

I mean I am 100% unwilling to hold your hand and teach you the vast wealth of knowledge on the subjects of truth, being, and morality. It's not my responsibility to teach you these things, and attempting to do so would be exhaustive. I'm not willing to teach a stranger how to design a building, that doesn't mean I don't know how to do it.

this is the best i can do.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorThe

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

these are very comprehensive but also very dry, and probably simple wikipedia entries would be more appropriate ITT


as a post script- it seems to me that god, by his very nature, must be ineffable. belief in him requires a leap of faith. why then does christian apologetics even exist? "yes he's ineffable but let me eff him to you right quick"

[IAMRED]

I mean I am 100% unwilling to hold your hand and teach you the vast wealth of knowledge on the subjects of truth, being, and morality. It's not my responsibility to teach you these things, and attempting to do so would be exhaustive. I'm not willing to teach a stranger how to design a building, that doesn't mean I don't know how to do it.

this is the best i can do.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorThe

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

these are very comprehensive but also very dry, and probably simple wikipedia entries would be more appropriate ITT

I wouldn't expect someone skeptical of objective truth can teach me much of anything. Appreciate the confirmation.

[AltarOfPlagues]

I wouldn't expect someone skeptical of objective truth can teach me much of anything. Appreciate the confirmation.

you are too smart for me!

[IAMRED]

you are too smart for me!

Finally, an objective truth we can both agree on

[AltarOfPlagues]

im left unsatisfied... let me offer some middle ground

- Objective Reality exists, but is "unreachable". It exists only for the Humean "ideal observer".

- In and of himself, God is a perfectly acceptable "placeholder" for the realm of objective realism and descriptions thereof

- All attempts to "materialize" God and objective reality will break down. This breakdown in and of itself does not speak to the nonexistence of god or objectivity. The breakdown is caused by some axiomatic incompleteness (godel?). The break is symptomatic of nature of the Lacanian Real. Further, existence and consciousness are bizarre and often paradoxical.

- The beef between athiest and christians stem from this "materialization failure".

- For a christian bro, explaining god is not unlike Satan telling Jesus to jump off the temple, Luke 4:12. God is not supposed to be induced, deduced, proved nothing. Proving god sublimates faith.

- For a athiest bro, you cannot materialize every aspect of human experience. Just because something appears not rigorous, like calculus, doesn't mean it doesnt function heuristically. Existence is and should be rife with somewhat mystified heuristics (i have not fully formulated this chit lol, just be compelled)




edit - In philosophy, the Real is that which is the authentic, unchangeable truth. It may be considered a primordial, external dimension of experience, referred to as the infinite, absolute or noumenal, as opposed to a reality contingent on sense perception and the material order. The Real is often considered irreducible to the symbolic order of lived experience, but may be gestured to in certain cases, such as the experience of the sublime.

[IAMRED]

- Objective Reality exists, but is "unreachable". It exists only for the Humean "ideal observer".

Define "objective reality." Isn't truth real? Isn't truth objective?

- All attempts to "materialize" God and objective reality will break down.

You put "materialize" in quotes as if you are making an analogy or metaphor, but you need to literalize the meaning too in order for me to understand in what way it is meant to be an analogy.

- For a christian bro, explaining god is not unlike Satan telling Jesus to jump off the temple, Luke 4:12. God is not supposed to be induced, deduced, proved nothing. Proving god sublimates faith.

Notice how Jesus responded by quoting Scripture, the word of God. That is or should be our foundation, as I have been saying.

[QUOTE]- For a athiest bro, you cannot materialize every aspect of human experience. Just because something appears not rigorous, like calculus, doesn't mean it doesnt function heuristically. Existence is and should be rife with somewhat mystified heuristics (i have not fully formulated this chit lol, just be compelled)

You lost me at the metaphor and copy-paste of wikipedia.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Define "objective reality." Isn't truth real? Isn't truth objective?



You put "materialize" in quotes as if you are making an analogy or metaphor, but you need to literalize the meaning too in order for me to understand in what way it is meant to be an analogy.



Notice how Jesus responded by quoting Scripture, the word of God. That is or should be our foundation, as I have been saying.

For a athiest bro, you cannot materialize every aspect of human experience. Just because something appears not rigorous, like calculus, doesn't mean it doesnt function heuristically. Existence is and should be rife with somewhat mystified heuristics (i have not fully formulated this chit lol, just be compelled)

You lost me at the metaphor and copy-paste of wikipedia.

there's different definitions of truth.

some truth is real-real and some Truth is in the realm of the Real. i don't care enough to describe all that. it depends who you ask.

i put materialize in quotes because i mean, as in, materialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

i know thats what you have been sayin. "the bible is true, it says so right there in the bible." i dont think that's a crazy notion.

thats not a copy paste of wikipedia thats my own thoughts. it's really wrote more for numberguy than you, im trying to trigger him too by invoking calculus.

im saying we should embrace "magic" in all its FUNCTIONAL forms, god so long as he functions. nonstandard calculus so long as it functions.

[MuzzieChik786]

Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't cause harm.
Do the right thing.
Treat others as they wish to be treated.

Except the root of those tenets are some form of religious belief.

So we still win.

[numberguy12]

Rehashing that you are not convinced is not relevant. Anyone can say that they are not convinced by something. Global skeptics are convinced by nothing - not mathematics, not epistemology, not metaphysics. That doesn't make them right, nor you.

Nor is a hypothetical about what "could have" happened relevant when the conversation is about what did happen. You are merely speculating and offer no good reasons for thinking biblical authors would live and die for a position they would have made up (according to your silly hypothetical).

Straw men have to do with mischaracterizations. But I can't mischaracterize a person who cannot or will not respond to basic questions about his philosophy. If you do not see the relevance, it is because you are not willing to think through the assumptions of the implicit framework you bring to the table when even engaging with somebody else.

Confirmed I'm talking to someone who is unable to comprehend posts for whatever reason. No longer going to address the straw men you seem obsessed with creating,,,.go create your own arguments for someone else and waste their time.

I will remark on the issue of prophecy though (for like the 7th time, since you still are oblivious to the point). Not sure how easy-to-understand and dumbed-downed I can make this, but I'll try.

Nor is a hypothetical about what "could have" happened relevant when the conversation is about what did happen. You are merely speculating and offer no good reasons for thinking biblical authors would live and die for a position they would have made up (according to your silly hypothetical).

.

That hypothetical "could have" is extremely relevant, since you are using the NT texts in and of themselves as some kind of "evidence" for the the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Mere words in a text are not evidence. There is absolutely no bona fide evidence here, considering the NT writers merely could have just been creating story devices to fulfill prophecy (to any rational person, this is much stronger than could, but that's besides the point). Glad that helps clear things up. You wonder the reason someone might construct a story to fulfill OT prophecy in Jesus (hmmm....gee I dunno, the literal creation of a religion, and creating an importance for its founder by matching prophecy to him?).

Lets illustrate the point with an example, since Im sure this still wont be comprehended. We'll use the virgin birth prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 (even though this entire thing based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew by the author of Matthew) as the example of prophecy being "fulfilled".

-prophecy: a young woman (mistranslated as virgin) will bear a son and will call him Immanuel (from Isaiah 7:14)
-"fulfillment": in words merely written in a text, the author of Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1-2). Note, and this is important.....there is zero external evidence of the virgin birth of Jesus outside the NT gospels. Ziltch.

Now consider the following hypothetical:

-A man in the year 1800, writes down a grandiose prophecy: "Lo and behold...hark my words.....there shalt be a person called John who flips 50,000 heads in a row with a fair coin during the coming centuries" (an event which is essentially impossible)

-Some guy (or if you prefer, anywhere from 1-4 guys), who clearly were aware of the 1800 prophecy text above, write a story in 1940 that some guy named John flipped 50,000 heads in a row. There is no external evidence of John flipping the 50,000 heads, such as official records, video, whatever. "Wow, neat! right?".

-You are in 2019, looking back at the 1940 text. You can either postulate that the 1940 story was merely constructed to fulfill the prophecy, since the probability of flipping 50,000 heads is so utterly close to zero, and the only evidence you have is words written down in text (occam's razor, and rationality seem to side with this). Or you postulate trickery (it actually did happen, but the coin was two-sided heads, etc). Or you can conclude the 50,000 heads in a row flipped by John did happen, against both occam's razor and rationality. Either way, it would at most be ambiguous, thus to say the 1940 text is "evidence" in and of itself of the happening is downright incorrect. Words in a text are not in and of themselves evidence, as George Lucas's star wars novel is not evidence of the events happening within happening.

-This analogy is actually being too fair in a way. Flipping 50,000 heads in a row, while incredibly, incredibly unlikely, is still possible. The same probably cannot be said about virgin birth in humans from a biological standpoint.

To sum it up: Words written down in a text are not in themselves evidence.

[ElrondHubbard]

The Golden Rule! Treat others as you want to be treated. Everything else is just fluff.

Well, not everyone.

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to be used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

[numberguy12]

Except the root of those tenets are some form of religious belief.

Not need be the case whatsoever, but er ok?

[keyboardworkout]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

- Albert Einstein

[EdwardTheGreat]

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to be used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

- Annie Lennox

[numberguy12]

just glanced at the extended discussion on this page above....

Rule of thumb. When you see long drawn out discussions featuring terms like "objective reality", "being", "necessarily knowable".......run for the hills!

You are dealing with a babble-filled philosophical conversation. I see the self-proclaimed "philosopher" IAMRED is at it again (smh).

[ElrondHubbard]

BTW, this whole back and forth about "objective truth"is in reality just so much mutual masturbation. None of you are saying anything that hasn't already been said, and none of you are advancing the concept in any way.

Karl Popper figured this out a few decades ago, and pointed out why the whole debate is asinine.

The TRUTH is that you can't prove anything beyond a formal mathematical statement, and if you want to address objective reality, the only way to do so is not asserting or attempting to prove what it is, but by systematically and gradually discovering what it is not.