*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[outhouse]

: I can't help but notice how easily skeptics overlook the fact that these past few posts began with a gross misrepresentation of the cosmological argument—a lie.

That's because it has been refuted for a very long time.

It requires imagination and mythology as its core foundational conclusion

 

[viole]

I think #1083 took care of that, even stating that I think it is better to look at the question from a scientific point of view.

Your post #1083 does mot take care of anything. Obviously.

For instance "Facts, the pride and joy of atheism and the foundation of the scientific enterprise, is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. So, let's start from there." is weird.

To say that every effect has a cause is like saying that every married person has a spouse. For, effects and causes always come in pairs. So, this is tautological. It does not say anything that supports the idea that what begins to exist is an effect, ergo necessitates a cause. Unless you like to beg the question or put words into scientific people.

So, you seem to think that everything that begins to exist is an effect. Or that science says that.

Are you sure about it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

So, you seem to think that everything that begins to exist is an effect

For him everything surrounds a preconceived unsubstantiated conclusion.

If the evidence does not fall into play, he shoves those round blocks in square holes

 

[Reflex]

So, you seem to think that everything that begins to exist is an effect. Or that science says that.

Yup. Or, what is more semantically correct, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the cosmological argument, not "everything that exists must have a cause."

 

[Reflex]

You wrote and I quote: "Atheism claims that it is the hallmark of reason". "Atheism" claims nothing of the sort. That is a lie. Atheism is just an absence of belief in gods and says nothing about reason.

So atheism is a bumper sticker mentality? No wonder it's absurd!

 

[outhouse]

So atheism is a bumper sticker mentality? No wonder it's absurd!

You still have not identified who defined your god concept you made specific definition with certainty about.

 

[outhouse]

Yup. Or, what is more semantically correct, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the cosmological argument, not "everything that exists must have a cause."

You still have not identified who defined your god concept you made specific definition with certainty about.

 

[viole]

Atheism is a world view without God and religion, and with a perspective on the universe based on scientific materialism and naturalism. Atheism doesn't produce any fruit because it has no moral principles, or codes of conduct. If any atheist has morals, then it is influenced by religion. No one is influenced by atheism.

First of all, you are talking about naturalists, who are a small subset of atheists. I even know atheists who doubt evolution or believe in some sort of Star Wars spiritual force .

Second, when you say our morals are influenced by religion, do you include condoning genocide and closing an eye on the mass murders perpetrated by God in his "holy" book?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yup. Or, what is more semantically correct, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the cosmological argument, not "everything that exists must have a cause."

Yes.

Do you think that your will to write that post began to exist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Atheism is a world view without God and religion, and with a perspective on the universe based on scientific materialism and naturalism. Atheism doesn't produce any fruit because it has no moral principles, or codes of conduct. If any atheist has morals, then it is influenced by religion. No one is influenced by atheism.

sad when nothing in your post is true.
Tell me, what deity do you favour and does said deity condone such dishonesty?

 

[Reflex]

First of all, you are talking about naturalists, who are a small subset of atheists. I even know atheists who doubt evolution or believe in some sort of Star Wars spiritual force .

Second, when you say our morals are influenced by religion, do you include condoning genocide and closing an eye on the mass murders perpetrated by God in his "holy" book?

This is much more revealing that the post directed at me. "Naturalism" and "atheism" are, for all practical intent and purpose, synonymous. Properly speaking, "atheistic" Buddhism (for example) isn't really atheistic, nor is someone who believes in some sort of Star Wars "Force." In the former, the universe or ultimate reality is benevolent (hence it careful to say there is no creator God). The latter is superstition or discomfort with the word "God"--an example of what Francis Bacon was talking about in his essay.

Second, I would rephrase what MP said: atheism has no rational grounds for moral principles, or codes of conduct, apart from personal likes and dislikes. But he was right to suggest that many of the values adopted by atheists have religious roots. However, I'm hesitant to say Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not influenced by atheism.

Do you think that your will to write that post began to exist?

Will and the will to do something are two very different things.

 

[ArtieE]

This is much more revealing that the post directed at me. "Naturalism" and "atheism" are, for all practical intent and purpose, synonymous. Properly speaking, "atheistic" Buddhism isn't really atheistic, nor is someone who believes in some sort of Star Wars "Force." In the former, the universe or ultimate reality is benevolent (hence it careful to say there is no creator God). The latter is superstition or discomfort with the word "God"--an example of what Francis Bacon was talking about in his essay.

Second, I would rephrase what MP said: atheism has no rational grounds moral principles, or codes of conduct

Neither does theism. A person can tell you he's a theist and you have no clue whether he's a "saint" or serial killer or member of KKK or IS.

 

[viole]

This is much more revealing that the post directed at me. Properly speaking, "atheistic" Buddhism isn't really atheistic, properly speaking, nor is someone who believes in some sort of Star Wars "Force." In the former, the universe or ultimate reality is benevolent (hence it careful to say there is no creator God. The latter is superstition or discomfort with the word "God."

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Belief in fairies and not God is still atheistic. By definition. Unless you think that garden fairies and God share the same job description.

Please do not confuse naturalism with atheism. The former is a strict subset of the latter.

Second, I would rephrase what MP said: atheism has no rational grounds moral principles, or codes of conduct, apart from personal likes and dislikes. But he was right to suggest that many of the values adopted by atheists have religious roots. However, I'm hesitant to say Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not influenced by atheism.

Well, since > 99% of the population was religious in a way or the other, that seems obvious. It is like saying that having two legs and a nose was important to give us moral values.

Will and the will to do something are two very different things.

However, your will to write that post activated a chain of physical effects: keyboard have been pressed, the state of some transistors have been changed, bits have been transmitted on a fiber channel, more memory chips had their state changed, etc. etc.

Lets call X all those physical changes. Do you think the causal chain that led to X began to exist recently, or at the "birth" of the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Even if one accepts the cosmological argument as a proof of a First Cause, an objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that it does not necessarily identify that First Cause with a god.

 

[Reflex]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Belief in fairies and not God is still atheistic. By definition. Unless you think that garden fairies and God share the same job description.

Please do not confuse naturalism with atheism. The former is a subset of the latter.

Yes, but they are effectively the same thing (that's why one is a subset of the other).

Well, since > 99% of the population was religious in a way or the other, that seems obvious. It is like saying that having two legs and a nose was important to give us moral values.

Right, but who decides and why?

However, your will to write that post activated a chain of physical effects: keyboard have been pressed, the state of some transistors have been changed, bits have been transmitted on a fiber channel, more memory chips had their state changed, etc. etc.

Lets call X all those physical changes. Do you think the causal chain that led to X began to exist recently, or at the "birth" of the Universe?

Logic dictates (that is, if you want to be consistent with the scientific method) that every event has as a prior cause. It does not follow, however, that every cause must have a cause. The "chain of physical events" you describe is just that: a chain of physical events. It has nothing to do with the cosmological argument properly stated. Rightly understood, the "first cause" is radically different than anything sequential. It's the ground of being and ontologically distinct from any chain of events.

I will say this: if the will to write the post activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events. If the will to post was instead activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms."

 

[outhouse]

. It has nothing to do with the cosmological argument properly stated

It has everything to do with this failed argument

There is no proper statement because the argument is not credible and no credible conclusion has EVER been proposed.

The argument is such a failed idea of ancient men who had no clue of reality, it has taken many forms in vain, trying to keep the carcass moving.

 

[viole]

Yes, but they are effectively the same thing (that's why one is a subset of the other).

Nope. if A is a strict subset of B, then A is not equal to B. I can be an atheist without being a naturalist.

For instance, gays are a subset of humans. Is humans = gays? Are you gay?

Right, but who decides and why?

Who decided at the time of ancient Greece? Apollo?

Logic dictates (that is, if you want to be consistent with the scientific method) that every event has as a prior cause. It does not follow, however, that every cause must have a cause. The "chain of physical events" you describe is just that: a chain of physical events. It has nothing to do with the cosmological argument properly stated. Rightly understood, the "first cause" is radically different than anything sequential. It's the ground of being and ontologically distinct from any chain of events.

Honestly, I don't care about the cosmological argument, yet. I am just addressing the claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause". But if you say that not all causes have a cause, how many uncaused causes do you have in mind?

Incidentally, science says also that any physical state is reducible to a prior physical state. Prior to your decision to change it and even prior to your existence. There are no new physical states popping out into existence. Information is conserved.

Do you agree with this physical principle?

I will say this: if the will to write the post activated a chain of physical effects, then will exists independently of or transcends the chain of physical events. If the will to post was instead activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms."

Yes, but I would not call it intellectually suicide. This is just what physics tells us. I would say that thinking otherwise si intellectual suicide. There is no evidence whatsoever that thought can create novelty in the physical state of the Universe. There is no new information created by thought. There cannot be.

That change in the physics of the computer caused by your post is reducible to the state of the Universe billions of years before your existence. Your will, as the product of physical events itself, is itself reducible to that prior state.

Anything short of that is metaphysical, and flies in the face of what we know about physics. Which begs the question: why do you use science to prove your points when science conclusions are in complete opposition to what you want to prove?

Maybe we should stick with philosophy or metaphysics; don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but they are effectively the same thing (that's why one is a subset of the other).

So, by this logic, Catholicism and Christianity are effectively the same thing? (Also, there are branches of naturalism that aren't necessarily atheist, but most of those are deistic and arguably still reasonably identified as atheistic)

 

[Reflex]

Nope. if A is a strict subset of B, then A is not equal to B. I can be an atheist without being a naturalist.

Only if you don't mind being inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.

Who decided at the time of ancient Greece? Apollo?

Shared values based on culture and religion. That is, values were not strictly a matter of personal likes and dislikes.

Honestly, I don't care about the cosmological argument, yet. I am just addressing the claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause". But if you say that not all causes have a cause, how many uncaused causes do you have in mind?

Well, you said you're not interested, so......

Incidentally, science says also that any physical state is reducible to a prior physical state. Prior to your decision to start it and even prior to your existence. There are no new physical states popping out into existence. Information is conserved.

Do you agree with this physical principle?

I don't ignore the the impasse science finds itself in.

Yes, but I would not call it intellectually suicide. This is just what physics tells us. That change in the physics of the computer caused by your post is reducible to the state of the Universe billions of years before your existence. Your will, as the product of physical events itself, is itself reducible to that prior state.

Irrelevant. The entailments stand, unpleasant as they may be.

Anything short of that is metaphysical, and flies in the face of what we know about physics. Which begs the question: why do you use science to prove your points when science conclusions are in complete opposition to what you want to prove? Why don't you stick with philosophy or metaphysics?

Science alone is at at an impasse. You commit intellectual suicide if you ignore what it entails. If you just "shut-up and calculate," you might as well have the life of a baboon busily scratching its ***.

 

[viole]

Only if you don't mind being inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.

Even a third grader knows that two sets that do not contain exactly the same elements are not equal. Science and math are not exactly your cup of tea, right?

Shared values based on culture and religion. That is, values were not strictly a matter of personal likes and dislikes.

So, not inspired by what they believed in. Correct?

Well, you said you're not interested, so......

Not yet. Lucky you. it is pretty easy to destroy it.

I don't ignore the the impasse science finds itself in.

The impasse is only in your mind.

Irrelevant. The entailments stand, unpleasant as they may be.

Well, it does not. Unless you found out a violation of the conservation of information because of human thought. In that case I will offer you dinner when you come to Stockholm to collect your Nobel prize.

Science alone is at at an impasse. You commit intellectual suicide if you ignore what it entails. If you just "shut-up and calculate," you might as well have the life of a baboon scratching its ***.

You are losing your cool

Ciao

- viole