The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[shima]

>>Says who?<<

Alright then. Give me a pound of "Justice" then. Or what about two litres of "Ideas"? How about a metre of "Right"?

If you cannot point to something physical and say "that is it" then the concepts doesn't match anything physical and is therefore abstract. Concrete things have existence of their own, abstract things exist only in our mind.

>>Says you?<<

Again yes. If you don't agree, please point to the object, material thing, or whatever that is "Good" and "Evil".

>>Says you? <<

Yup. Game Theory has provided insight into the development of rules. The abstract "Prisoner dilemma" has an optimal solution, and that solution was found by an Genetic Algorithm.

>>They do have the same rules. Goodness is goodness and evil is evil. Free your mind!<<

No, they don't. The rules they have in common are very basic, and are most likely developed through the evolution of their society. From there, everything starts to diverge. If God would have IMPRINTED his moral laws onto our conscience, then we would all have the SAME conscience. Since we clear do NOT have the same conscience, this is proof that we didn't get those rules from God.

>>There is only one holy text--the Scriptures of the Old & New Covenant.<<

Funny, the Muslims say the same about the Qu'ran. Every religion in this world says their own texts are holy. How exactly do you expect to differentiate between a "real" holy text and a "fake" one? You cannot tell from the content of the text alone, because all those texts claim to be "holy". Comparing them with other holy texts is also impossible since you would need at least one text which has been PROVEN to be "holy". Since we have no such text, there is no baseline comparison possible.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
My arguments are based on truth. Look, atheism dumbs you down to the point of having nothingness. That is why it is foolish to even discuss anything with you.

Well, I'd say you've amply demonstrated how enlightening Christianity is...

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima
Give me a pound of "Justice" then. Or what about two litres of "Ideas"? How about a metre of "Right"?

That is how you measure moral attributes?

No, they don't. The rules they have in common are very basic, and are most likely developed through the evolution of their society. From there, everything starts to diverge.

So says Shima?

If God would have IMPRINTED his moral laws onto our conscience, then we would all have the SAME conscience. Since we clear do NOT have the same conscience, this is proof that we didn't get those rules from God.

But we do.

How exactly do you expect to differentiate between a "real" holy text and a "fake" one?

Fairly easy. The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Well, I'd say you've amply demonstrated how enlightening Christianity is...

Yes with a relationship with Christ one finds peace with God, joy, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and meaning in life.

Like atheism is really appealing. Ha! :kookoo:

 

[Freak]

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpouse of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."---C.S. Lewis

 

[Zakath]

Lewis always was fond of arguing by analogy. It basically permitted him to say almost any silly, indefensible thing he wanted and when confronted about it claim, "It was only an analogy, after all."

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Lewis always was fond of arguing by analogy.

But do you see his point?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
But do you see his point?

His logic is flawed. Whether his brain arose from design or not, it does not change the fact that it functions a certain way.

If I randomly draw a full house from a deck of playing cards, or I search for the constituent cards and lay them on the table in front of you, either result is the same. Thus the observable phenomena of a resulting specific order in the hand of cards is independent of the cause.

 

[shima]

Freak:
>>That is how you measure moral attributes?<<

I don't measure moral attributes because that is not possible. Which is exactly my point in stating that they aren't real.

>>So says Shima?<<

Is that going to be your awnser to anything I say?

>>But we do.<<

No, we don't. Sociopaths for example HAVE no concept of right or wrong. Or at least their concepts of right and wrong don't agree AT ALL with those of most other people in society. Since this is a clear contradiction of what you are saying, it debunks your arguement.

>>Fairly easy. The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.<<

And how did you come to this conclusion, based on the text itself? Have you even read the other texts AT ALL? Or, have you accepted ON FAITH that the bible is true? So, how come all those other people who accept those other texts as holy based on their FAITH are wrong, and only the christians are right?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima

I don't measure moral attributes because that is not possible. Which is exactly my point in stating that they aren't real.

When someone like you deny reality, it is very difficult to have any kind of reasonable discussion. It's like trying to talk with someone who is either drunk or doped on drugs.

Sociopaths for example HAVE no concept of right or wrong.

Back this assertion up.

...it debunks your arguement.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps in your fantasy land it does.

And how did you come to this conclusion, based on the text itself?

For Christ is the standard of truth by which we base all reality on.

Have you even read the other texts AT ALL?

Yes.

Question for Shima----on what basis do you tell others atheism is correct?

 

[shima]

Freak
>>When someone like you deny reality, it is very difficult to have any kind of reasonable discussion. It's like trying to talk with someone who is either drunk or doped on drugs.<<

Before I respond to this statement, I want to know how YOU define reality.

>>Back this assertion up. <<

So, if they DO have a conscience and their conscience tells them to rape, mutilate and murder, exactly how does that provide evidence that we all have the SAME ideas of "right" or "wrong"?

If they DON'T have a conscience, then how does this prove that "God" left his moral laws IMPRINTED on our conscience? Since this isn't the case for sociopaths, there are clear exceptions to the rule.

>>For Christ is the standard of truth by which we base all reality on.<<

Wrong. We base "reality" and "truth" on information reaching our brain. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, how does this provide evidence for the "truthfullness" of the bible? The bible is a book. The Qu'ran is a book. Deciding which is true (if any) is only possible by comparing the statements within the books to reality. This requires data on reality. So far, scientific data contradics a LOT of stories written in the bible. Scientific data is the least subjective data we have access to, thus it is most likely that this data is the most "truthfull" data we have. So, if "truth" contradicts the bible, how does it make the bible "true" rather than "false"?

It is YOU who denies reality by inventing one of your own. Scientific data confirms my reality, NOT yours.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by shima
Freak
>>When someone like you deny reality, it is very difficult to have any kind of reasonable discussion. It's like trying to talk with someone who is either drunk or doped on drugs.<<

Before I respond to this statement, I want to know how YOU define reality...

Now, that should be an entertaining read... :ha:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima
Before I respond to this statement, I want to know how YOU define reality.

Look, if you don't know what "reality" is then why continue this discussion?

So, if they DO have a conscience and their conscience tells them to rape, mutilate and murder,

The conscience provides the awarenes of good & evil. It doesn't energize murder or rape.

If they DON'T have a conscience,

But everyone does. So...

Wrong.

Perhaps in your make believe world.

We base "reality" and "truth" on information reaching our brain.

What if the brain tells us a lie?

So, if "truth" contradicts the bible, how does it make the bible "true" rather than "false"?

How long have you been on crank? Thy Word is Truth!

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
Look, if you don't know what "reality" is then why continue this discussion?

Well, I should have expected as much. Or should I say, as little...

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by Freak
So, Zakath:

Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind. Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance. Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.

Atheism fails miserably in providing any kind of eternal significance...Christianity provides hope after death. Zakath, a breath away you are....then what....you might simply dismiss death...but it is a reality that all humans must face...

You are assuming we need this in order to be healthy and well adjusted human beings. Why make this assumption, especially when plenty of cultures have thrived without this wholly conjured "requirement".

Is "hope for something after death" more important than truth about the finality of death? I would say humanity needs hope grounded in truth, not in fairy tales and wishful thinking.

Yet another case of theism "solving" a problem theism itself creates.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Freak
Question for Shima----on what basis do you tell others atheism is correct?

Shima,
You never answered the question.

 

[shima]

Freak:
Look, if you don't know what "reality" is then why continue this discussion?

I know how I define reality but I'm pretty sure that is not the way YOU define reality.

Reality is the world that we can see, hear, touch, smell and otherwise get information of through our senses.

Now, please provide me with your definition please.

The conscience provides the awarenes of good & evil. It doesn't energize murder or rape.

So, if their conscience tells them that it is "good" to rape and murder, then obviously that conscience doesn't coincide with for example my conscience. So, how does that provide evidence for Gods objective moral standard? Or, that God supposedly left his moral law imprinted on our conscience? Its obviously NOT the case for sociopaths.

What if the brain tells us a lie?

Like in delusions or illusions? We simply don't KNOW the difference at that time. However, delusions may pass, and when that happens you usually detect that your "image" of reality didn't really conform to the information you are receiving now.

Yes, we could be living in the Matrix and we wouldn't know it. I never said it was either perfect or complete. What I do know is that reality is very consistent, and while different people may have different images of reality inside their heads, we also know that scientific instruments are much better at probing reality in an objective manner. That is why science is so important.

Without science, it would just be one person argueing with another over wether or not there are microscopically small particles. With science, we detect that they exist.

Now, all people have an image inside their heads of reality. That image may be the same as reality (very unlikely) or it could differ from reality by a LOT. Those that differ way too much are called "insane" and locked away in a mental institute.

You claim that the image in your head (ie God exists etc) is reality. However, it is not reality bu rather what YOU think reality looks like. I ofcourse think it looks different from yours in that God doesn't exist. Neither of us have any objective evidence whatsoever that we are correct. What I do know is that scientific data points to a 4.5 billion years old planet, points to evolution and a host of other natural processes that have convinced me that the image of a reality with God is incorrect. I have therefore discarded that image as untrue and substituted it with my current one.

How long have you been on crank? Thy Word is Truth!

Truth: a statement, image or idea that conforms with reality. Now, since science has proven that we have evolved and that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the global flood didn't happen, those are all conclusions that are contradicted in the bible. As I choose science as an objective standard, I therefore determine that the bible stories are contradicted and therefore untrue. Thus, The Word of God is untrue. So, why would we then still conclude that God exists?

Frank: Question for Shima----on what basis do you tell others atheism is correct?

Well, for me it began when thinking about right and wrong. First, there is no objective way to determine which person (if any) in a conflict is "right" and which is "wrong". We cannot do that because right and wrong are concepts and abstract, not concrete or real. There is no measuring device in this world that will show "right" or "wrong".

Now, since this is the case, I began to think about what "right" and "wrong" actually mean. It is simple: they mean what society has decided what they mean. The "rightness" of an action is often claimed but never proven, and even in the same society people can have very different opinions about wether an action is "right" or "wrong". The recent Iraq invasion is a case in point.

Second, NONE of the worlds religions have any concrete evidence that their particular religion is true. However, we DO know that something like "faith" doesn't constitute proof. The childrens faith in Santa Clause for example doesn't make him real. Neither does faith in Thor make Thor real. And we have noticed that, of all the gods ever worshipped throughout human history, almost ALL of them are no longer believed in. I claim they never even existed in the first place, other than existence in the minds of man. Therefore, I believe that this is also true for the gods we DO worship today.

The third is based on psychological reasons. I have no time now, but will finish this post when I can.

 

[shima]

Lets continue my post.

The third reason is based on psychological reasons. Most of the time, when we want something to be true, this usually affects our "image" of reality in such a way that we can "see" that something happening. A very good case is when we are in love. We so much want that person to love us back, that we can "see" that she gives off certain signals that indicate that she might be in love with us as well (this goes for the "he" case as well). However, a lot of times it turns out that we "misinterpreted" her signals, and she was just being friendly. This "misinterpretation" was caused by our "wishfull thinking", and as such an image of reality can be very much out of synch with reality, even though other parts of the same image don't have that problem.

So, given that "wishfull thinking" can and will affect that image, exactly how does wishfull thinking come into the equation? Through several ways, actually. You see, most people sooner or later ask themselves: who are we? Why are we here? What is the meaning of all this? What happens to us when we die?

These questions have plenty of awnsers, but there is no way to get any objective data that will point to one awnser as "correct". However, we humans are very, very curious about what the correct awnsers are. And as such, we have come up with plenty of awnsers. And some of those awnsers are very appealing to us. We for example want life to continue after we die. We as human being are scared of death, because this fear is what keeps us sharp and alive long enough to reproduce. However, this fear is also what gives us "wishfull thinking", influencing our "image" of reality in such a way that we start to "see" evidence that life does continue after we die.

This "seeing" is what most people would referr to as "evidence" for their particular religion. Most religions in this world state that life does continue after you die. The appealing nature of this awnser is what promts many people to start "wishfull thinking" about a particular religion. In many cases, the religion in question has a lot of awnsers to questions, and those awnsers are also appealing. "Why is the world such a rotten place?" is one such question.

Because of this line of reasoning, I'm questioning everything I see. If something is too good to be true, I wonder if it is true, and not just some figment of my imagination, or of my wishfull thinking.

 

[RogerB]

shima,

keep seeking

 

[Zakath]

Shima,

Just a few thoughts your post stirred up...

One reason (not the only one, but perhaps a major one) that people adopt and maintain a religion is because it makes them feel better about themselves than if they did not hold that particular set of beliefs.

Holding a particular set of beliefs eliminates their need to search for meaning in life (it's provided by the religion), relieves them of the frustration of not knowing what happens in the future (religion tells them they'll get a reward if they're obedient), and it helps them deal with the ultimate fear of the unknown - the fear of self-annihilation by death (promised eternal life, nirvana, etc.).

Thus religions provide great comfort for some people. Since so much of a believer's psyche is wrapped up in their religion, they will interpret much of what they experience through the lens of their religious worldview, and will adamantly refuse to see things that are contradictory to their preconceived ideas about the universe.

For others of us who do not require such comfort, religions are much less useful. The major problem is that most humans are not yet at a stage where they can successfully cope with life without some sort of religious belief. They have gone through more life experience and have come to a realization that they can stand on their own feet without the crutch of religious belief. That is why the average atheist tends to be older, and generally better educated than the average religionist. It also explains why young atheists are much easier to convert to religion than older atheists...