The logical ramifications of atheism

[DGUtley]

There is something profoundingly pedophilia and pedophila for your lust for young children, which you enjoy.

Notice

NOTICE @LescoBrandon THREADBANNED for insults and bad faith posting

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

[Peter1469]

It took you long enough to jump in and play lapdog. What delayed you?

That was support for you. Dummy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And, by the time your argument arrived, it was dead and gone. Imagine bring up a topic that was already brought up.

Thou Shalt Not Contradict Thy OP

Only one poster per opinion? Is that a Commandment? What is my penance? How much do you charge for an indulgence?

[LWW]

Belief in fields like mathematics, science, etc…are based on logic, reason and established knowledge. They are things that can be supported by evidence and physical demonstration. Which is far different than belief in the supernatural that relies solely on faith.

Certainly, there are social implications of rejecting established institutions and the moral codes they have codified, but faith and reason are two different things.

How did you come to these conclusions?

[Cletus]

As promised, a second thread on the logical consequences of a commitment to atheism.

Atheists have been around for quite a while, predating Socrates by centuries at least. So, atheism is also a goat-herding, pre-industrial age belief as are its religious counterparts. But what of it? What is atheism and does it entail anything other than an affirmation that gods do not exist?

First, the definition. An atheist affirms the belief that no gods exist. This is not a "lack of belief", which would be ignosticism. It is not agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of a deity or deities cannot in principle be known for certain.

Materialistic Atheism:
So, atheism, in its most common form, denies the existence of gods, spirits, or other entities that cannot be proven via the scientific method.
1) This entails that all that exists can be accessed by examining the material, physical objects in the universe that can be tested, measured, seen, smelled, or otherwise detected.
2) This precludes not only the existence of gods, but of a human soul that survives death.
3) This DOES NOT preclude the existence of abstract objects that are artifacts of the human brain, like mathematical concepts or morals, or logic. It does entail that these only exist insofar as humans invented them.
4) Number 3) entails, logically, that humans invented morality and that morality is subjective, either based on an individual's beliefs, or the consensus of a group of individuals' beliefs, based solely on their own values or desires.

Subjective morality:
1) If morality is subjective, there are no moral "facts" - no "right or wrong" moral statements. Under atheism, claiming to be "right" about a moral assertion has literally no meaning.
2) As a side note, please differentiate between moral objectivity and moral absolutism (the latter of which I reject, and states something like "lying is always and forever wrong in every situation". Moral objectivity is fact dependant.
3) Since morality is subjective, it is necessarily subject to the whims of humans and their subjective value systems. Ergo, a dictator that values his own well being is just as justified in his laws designed to benefit himself as a group of people are justified in forming their own rules to benefit the group against such whims. It boils down to desires and individual values, and the power to enforce one's will over that of others, and nothing else. In other words, materialistic atheism entails that "might makes right" and that is the only logical form of morality that can logically flow from materialistic atheism.
4) Note, human values may result in a system of morals that resembles in many aspects those of religious based morals. To paraphrase another philosopher, "some people love their neighbors, some people eat them. What is your personal preference?"
5) As such, it is NOT an assertion that atheists cannot be moral. Nor is it an assertion that atheists cannot value a system of morals that in many cases, mirrors those of their religious counterparts. The difference is, atheists cannot logically ground such a system of morality in an objective way, and cannot be "right" about their system of morals, if they want to be internally consistent.

Material atheism must ignore metaphysics and axioms, the "rationality" that atheists claim to use to arrive at their rejection of gods.
1) Science, and even mathematics, are based on metaphysics and axioms. Science entirely depends on deductive and inductive reasoning, which cannot itself be proven via the scientific method. Yet without these tools, science is impotent.
2) Mathematics relies on mathematical axioms, which are unprovable assumptions, which are taken as truth, but which cannot be proven by mathematic proofs. They are, by definition, unprovable, but accepted.
3) Therefore, atheism completely implodes, condemning the very foundational bases for the systems they claim prove many of their assertions for atheism itself.

Just a start for discussion. Again, we're not debating god here, just looking at the implications of claiming that there are no gods on the grounds of there being no scientific evidence, as is most commonly the claim. There are, indeed, non-materialistic versions of atheism, such as some forms of pantheism, which I'm not addressing here. But they are equally as incoherent.

You started off by working from a false premise... your definition of "atheism".

That makes everything that follows just bull$#@!.

[LWW]

You started off by working from a false premise... your definition of "atheism".

That makes everything that follows just bull$#@!.

What would the real definition be?

[Cletus]

What would the real definition be?

It is simply a lack of belief. There are for some an active disbelief, but the primary definition is just a "lack of belief". You can reference Webster's, Cambridge, Oxford, or any respected dictionary to confirm that.

Why do theists feel so threatened by atheists that they have to do things like start threads on a political forum to discuss the "logical consequences" of not believing is a deity? Are you so desperate to validate your own belief system that you feel a need to try to discredit something that isn't even a belief system itself, but a simple lack of belief?

I always have to laugh when theists trot out the old "Without a belief in a deity, there is no basis for morals" or other silly tripe like that.

[LWW]

It is simply a lack of belief. There are for some an active disbelief, but the primary definition is just a "lack of belief". You can reference Webster's, Cambridge, Oxford, or any respected dictionary to confirm that.

Why do theists feel so threatened by atheists that they have to do things like start threads on a political forum to discuss the "logical consequences" of not believing is a deity? Are you so desperate to validate your own belief system that you feel a need to try to discredit something that isn't even a belief system itself, but a simple lack of belief?

I always have to laugh when theists trot out the old "Without a belief in a deity, there is no basis for morals" or other silly tripe like that.

I don't feel threatened at all by atheists, in fact ... I don't believe that they actually exist in the true sense.

A more accurate description is that atheism is a desperate attempt by some to convince themselves that they are the apex of life in the universe.

But, we have been through this before ... you claim that you truly believe that you don't have the free will to come to an opinion.

In a determinist ... no creator ... universe, you cannot have free will.

And you claim to have free will.

You can't have both.

[Standing Wolf]

It is simply a lack of belief. There are for some an active disbelief, but the primary definition is just a "lack of belief". You can reference Webster's, Cambridge, Oxford, or any respected dictionary to confirm that.

Why do theists feel so threatened by atheists that they have to do things like start threads on a political forum to discuss the "logical consequences" of not believing is a deity? Are you so desperate to validate your own belief system that you feel a need to try to discredit something that isn't even a belief system itself, but a simple lack of belief?

I always have to laugh when theists trot out the old "Without a belief in a deity, there is no basis for morals" or other silly tripe like that.

Some Christians are forever bemoaning their being "attacked" by atheists, but in fact the vast majority of non-believers don't go around actively insulting Christians as a group, though they may have occasion to point out the individual dishonestly, hypocrisy or bad behavior of individual Christians. The "professional atheists", the ones who make money from writing books about it, are few.

The Christians who set themselves up for ridicule - as opposed to simply being called out for their own personal misdeeds, or for their insistence on trying to impose their doctrines and traditions on everybody - are the ones who don't seem to understand their own Faith all that well. Maybe it's pride or ego asserting itself, but they bristle at the idea that their religious beliefs cannot be held up alongside the findings of science, or proved by logical means. They read in their own scriptures that Man is to know God by faith alone, but they don't seem to believe it, because their own words and attitudes contradict that teaching.

[Cletus]

I don't feel threatened at all by atheists, in fact ... I don't believe that they actually exist in the true sense.

A more accurate description is that atheism is a desperate attempt by some to convince themselves that they are the apex of life in the universe.

But, we have been through this before ... you claim that you truly believe that you don't have the free will to come to an opinion.

In a determinist ... no creator ... universe, you cannot have free will.

And you claim to have free will.

You can't have both.

That was just word salad.

Yes, atheists exist.

I don't know of anyone other than someone with a strong sense of entitlement who tries to convince himself he is "apex of the universe". In fact, an atheist is far less likely than most to believe that.

I have certainly never said I don't have free will to form an opinion. That is just silly.

Actually, in a "no creator universe", free will is much more likely than it would be in a universe dominated by some supreme deity.

I think you are very confused about some pretty basic stuff.