Jump to content

On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself


hakutaku

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

One is an objective, unchanging, eternal moral law given by one unchanging, infinite and eternal being.

They are both objective laws

There is a fact of the matter about whether or not you are obeying God, and there is an objective fact of the matter about whether you are harming people.  There is also an objective fact of the matter about whether or not we should do what God says, and whether or not we should harm people.

They are both unchanging and eternal.  It's not like it's ok to harm people on Tuesdays, or that if we wait long enough it will be ok to harm people.

All we have left is that "God's opinion is special" (or as I put it, you are privileging God's opinion).  So what is it actually about God that makes "we should do as God says" not an opinion?  You've listed unchanging, infinite, and eternal.  But you haven't crossed the is-ought gap.  Show why those properties imply that we should do as he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah an infinite-regress is absurd. Perhaps someone will debate you on that. Its a waste of my time.

Just like it was a waste of your time to look up whether atheists were moral or not before you asserted they were immoral.

Like I said, infinite series are difficult to think about, and highly counter intuitive.  People do often say they are absurd without "wasting" the time to actually understand the concepts involved.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

As for there being "no such thing as an objective meaning" - that's nonsense.

When people say "objective meaning" they usually mean the objective fact about what was intended by the author, which I fully agree is an objective fact. 

People (e.g. Ed Feser) tend to think that if there is no objective all-by-itself meaning, then you can't ever say that someone is "wrong" about what something means.  But that's not true, you just need to know their objective.  If their objective is to match the author's meaning, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether or not they have done so.  If they fail to do so, then they are wrong.

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

So your life and the way that you live it has no ultimate impact on anything whatsoever. And you know plenty well that if you read the serious atheists writers (the existentialists and so forth) - they all admit this.

And I am pointing out that Christian writers all admit that even if the murderer was going to hell anyway, and the good christian was going to heaven anyway, it would still be wrong to murder the good christian even if it doesn't change anyone's final destination (consider, for example, end of life euthanasia.)  So "impact on final destination" is not required for an act to be moral or immoral according to Christian morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Just like it was a waste of your time to look up whether atheists were moral or not before you asserted they were immoral.

That is something that can be debated. I have looked at the evidence on both sides. I don't care to spend the time debating it. I stated my conclusion. If you don't accept it, that's perfectly fine by me. You will kindly note that when I made the comment I was not having a discussion with you, but with @Machine_Washable. If I wanted to debate you on that topic I would have addressed you directly, which I did not.

39 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Like I said, infinite series are difficult to think about, and highly counter intuitive.  People do often say they are absurd without "wasting" the time to actually understand the concepts involved.

They aren't difficult to think about any more so than the tooth-fairy dropping a ten-dollar bill under my pillow is difficult to think about. I know with absolute certainty that neither is possible. Now if you think that the existence of the tooth-fairy or an infinite regress is an endeavor worth spending time debating - go for it. Perhaps someone will take you up on it. It will not be me. If you don't accept my conclusion, that's perfectly fine by me.

39 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

When people say "objective meaning" they usually mean the objective fact about what was intended by the author, which I fully agree is an objective fact. 

People (e.g. Ed Feser) tend to think that if there is no objective all-by-itself meaning, then you can't ever say that someone is "wrong" about what something means.  But that's not true, you just need to know their objective.  If their objective is to match the author's meaning, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether or not they have done so.  If they fail to do so, then they are wrong.

Yeah I don't care what "people" have to say about it. If you are correct, your life has absolutely no meaning in the sense that it has no impact on the ultimate state of the universe. Ultimately whether you live or die has no significance. Your entire existence is absurd. All the existentialists admit that.

39 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

And I am pointing out that Christian writers all admit that even if the murderer was going to hell anyway, and the good christian was going to heaven anyway, it would still be wrong to murder the good christian even if it doesn't change anyone's final destination (consider, for example, end of life euthanasia.)  So "impact on final destination" is not required for an act to be moral or immoral according to Christian morality.

My point about your life being objectively meaningless had nothing to do morality so this is irrelevant to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

They are both objective laws

There is a fact of the matter about whether or not you are obeying God, and there is an objective fact of the matter about whether you are harming people.  There is also an objective fact of the matter about whether or not we should do what God says, and whether or not we should harm people.

They are both unchanging and eternal.  It's not like it's ok to harm people on Tuesdays, or that if we wait long enough it will be ok to harm people.

All we have left is that "God's opinion is special" (or as I put it, you are privileging God's opinion).  So what is it actually about God that makes "we should do as God says" not an opinion?  You've listed unchanging, infinite, and eternal.  But you haven't crossed the is-ought gap.  Show why those properties imply that we should do as he says.

If God is a human construct so to is the soul. Man would then just be a mere animal. When animals 'harm' other animals there is no right or wrong about it. Any animal that snaps the neck of any other animal on Tuesday is not guilty of murder on Wednesday, nor any day thereafter. There is no real right or wrong in a world without God but merely made up opinions, of right and wrong, human constructs to explain irrational emotions that are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain. 

As I understood the purpose of this thread was for you to defend and debate atheism, in any event that is how I will treat it. I will argue against your positions as if I were an atheist it is on you to defend your position. 

If I were a atheist concepts like love, hate, good, evil, right, wrong or morals all together would all be nothing more than opinions, made up to give meaning and value where non actually existed. 

Edited by KnightofChrist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

Man would then just be a mere animal. When animals 'harm' other animals there is no right or wrong about it.

Christians think animals have souls too, just not the kind that go to heaven.  They originally invented the concept because they couldn't figure out why living things move around; the "motive force" that made the living move was called the soul.  Once ancient vitalism was thrown out and we realized metabolism is the reason things move around, the soul concept had to retreat from explaining all the motive forces, to only explaining things like creativity, or love, or abstract reasoning.

To deny the soul doesn't mean that humans suddenly don't have the ability to be creative, love, or reason abstractly.  We can still recognize that there are categorical differences in our capabilities and those of other animals that explain our different moral obligations.  Its like how we have different moral obligations for babies than adults: they have different capabilities.

13 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

If I were a atheist concepts like love, hate, good, evil, right, wrong or morals all together would all be nothing more than opinions, made up to give meaning a value where non actually existed. 

I mean, you still haven't answered my call to show that "we should do what God says" is not an opinion.  So it seems to me that you're just arbitrarily deciding which things are opinions and which are not, which isn't really an argument for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I don't care to spend the time debating it. I stated my conclusion. If you don't accept it, that's perfectly fine by me. You will kindly note that when I made the comment I was not having a discussion with you, but with @Machine_Washable. If I wanted to debate you on that topic I would have addressed you directly, which I did not.

Haha!  You were just preaching to the choir so it was fine to malign atheists by asserting sweeping generalizations you yourself agree are debatable. 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

They aren't difficult to think about any more so than the tooth-fairy dropping a ten-dollar bill under my pillow is difficult to think about.

It is the position of the catholic church that the infinity of God is so difficult to think about that we literally can't comprehend it.  But since you think infinite quantities are not difficult, perhaps you'd be interested in a debate about the trinity in a separate thread?  I've always wanted to hash that out with someone who really got the concept of infinity.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

If you are correct, your life has absolutely no meaning in the sense that it has no impact on the ultimate state of the universe.

And it is my position that "absolutely no meaning" is weasel wording. 

It is true that we do not have meaning "to" the universe.  It is true that our meaning should not be defined in terms of our impact to the final state of the universe. 

Regardless of those facts, I have described a framework in which there is still meaning.  In other words: no "ultimate" meaning does not imply "no meaning whatsoever."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hakutaku said:

Christians think animals have souls too, just not the kind that go to heaven.  They originally invented the concept because they couldn't figure out why living things move around; the "motive force" that made the living move was called the soul.  Once ancient vitalism was thrown out and we realized metabolism is the reason things move around, the soul concept had to retreat from explaining all the motive forces, to only explaining things like creativity, or love, or abstract reasoning.

That animals have a type of soul I believe predates Christianity. No matter, the point of course that without a soul man is nothing but an animal was that man has no more value than any other animal. An atheistic world view that is consistent with itself must really admit all human constructs are merely opinions and imagination. Not only God but morals as well. 

1 minute ago, hakutaku said:

To deny the soul doesn't mean that humans suddenly don't have the ability to be creative, love, or reason abstractly.  We can still recognize that there are categorical differences in our capabilities and those of other animals that explain our different moral obligations.

Its like how we have different moral obligations for babies than adults: they have different capabilities.

What, if anything, proves that? Nothing, it is all more examples of human and cultural constructs to give meaning to an existence that has no meaning. 

1 minute ago, hakutaku said:

I mean, you still haven't answered my call to show that "we should do what God says" is not an opinion.  So it seems to me that you're just arbitrarily deciding which things are opinions and which are not, which isn't really an argument for anything.

I repeat I will argue against your positions as if I were an atheist, it is on you to defend your position. It is your position that morals objectively exist from an atheistic world view. Prove that is true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I repeat I will argue against your positions as if I were an atheist, it is on you to defend your position. It is your position that morals objectively exist from an atheistic world view. Prove that is true. 

Sure, but the question I was asking about "why should we do what God says?" was meant to establish the evidentiary bar you were expecting me to meet.  If you can just arbitrarily disqualify any argument you don't like as an "opinion that therefore doesn't count" then there's not much point in even trying.

So don't continue trying to dodge the original question: 

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

What makes the theistic "we should obey God" not an opinion, vs an atheistic "we should not harm people"?

Give me an answer so I can know what constitutes an answer do your demand.

Edited by hakutaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Haha!  You were just preaching to the choir so it was fine to malign atheists by asserting sweeping generalizations you yourself agree are debatable. 

It is the position of the catholic church that the infinity of God is so difficult to think about that we literally can't comprehend it.  But since you think infinite quantities are not difficult, perhaps you'd be interested in a debate about the trinity in a separate thread?  I've always wanted to hash that out with someone who really got the concept of infinity.

And it is my position that "absolutely no meaning" is weasel wording. 

It is true that we do not have meaning "to" the universe.  It is true that our meaning should not be defined in terms of our impact to the final state of the universe. 

Regardless of those facts, I have described a framework in which there is still meaning.  In other words: no "ultimate" meaning does not imply "no meaning whatsoever."

OK I cannot continue on with this foolishness.

Look pal. Both you and I know plenty well that God exists. But you want to live your life as if God did not exist.

You are not trying to attempt to convince any of the Catholics on this site that God does not exist. You know plenty well that will never happen.

If not that then what? You are trying to convince yourself that God does not exist with all of these silly debates, because your heart knows that is false.

My question for you is why? How did you come to hate God, or why is it that you want to rid God from your life?

Now, I know you will never admit to us or your atheist friends that you know that God exists. Perhaps you will not even allow your conscience mind acknowledge God's existence. The facade must be maintained even if it means lying to yourself. I understand that.

But when you have a free moment and you look yourself in the mirror at night, when you aren't here on Phatmass fronting as if God does not exist, I suggest that you ponder why you are denying what your heart knows is false, and whether you truly want to live a life without a relationship with your creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

Look pal. Both you and I know plenty well that God exists. But you want to live your life as if God did not exist.

I am quite confident that the Catholic God does not exist.  If you start a debate thread on the subject I'll happily participate.

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

You are not trying to attempt to convince any of the Catholics on this site that God does not exist. You know plenty well that will never happen.

If not that then what?

  • Get a deeper understanding of catholic theology, in which I have an academic interest.
  • Practice rhetoric
  • Enjoying a good debate
10 minutes ago, Peace said:

Now, I know you will never admit to us or your atheist friends that you know that God exists. Perhaps you will not even allow your conscience mind acknowledge God's existence. The facade must be maintained even if it means lying to yourself. I understand that.

But when you have a free moment and you look yourself in the mirror at night, when you aren't here on Phatmass fronting as if God does not exist, I suggest that you ponder why you are denying what your heart knows is false, and whether you truly want to live a life without a relationship with your creator.

That kind of flailing in the dark looks a bit pathetic.

Edited by hakutaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hakutaku said:

 

  • Get a deeper understanding of catholic theology, in which I have an academic interest.
  • Practice rhetoric
  • Enjoying a good debate

Sure friend. Sure. If that is what you need to tell yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Sure friend. Sure. If that is what you need to tell yourself.

I generally try to avoid assuming people's feelings, but if anyone isn't enjoying the debate, I would say it is you.  You don't have to keep going if you don't want to.  I won't think less of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Sure, but the question I was asking about "why should we do what God says?" was meant to establish the evidentiary bar you were expecting me to meet.  If you can just arbitrarily disqualify any argument you don't like as an "opinion that therefore doesn't count" then there's not much point in even trying.

So don't continue trying to dodge the original question: 

Give me an answer so I can know what constitutes an answer do your demand.

It is not as easy having to defend atheism than it is to argue against theism, is it? After all offense against a position is often far easier than to defend a position. I doubt you have defended your own beliefs, opinions, positions as much as you've argue against others beliefs etc. That is the way of many atheists that have visited Phatmass.

I did answer your original question to me to be fair, but again my purpose here is to play devil's advocate, or rather atheist advocate and have you defend your position that morals are objective without God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

I generally try to avoid assuming people's feelings, but if anyone isn't enjoying the debate, I would say it is you.  You don't have to keep going if you don't want to.  I won't think less of you.

Enjoy your day. And say thanks to your creator tonight before you go to sleep. I won't think less of you, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I did answer your original question to me to be fair

By basically saying that "its not an opinion because God" which is a bit of a non-answer.

Of course if you say "I believe all moral system not based on God are invalid" and then refuse to define what you mean by valid, no one can debate you.  They can't show that non-God based moral systems are actually valid because you haven't given the criteria you used to decide atheistic moral systems are invalid.

I could try to argue, for example, that the fact we are rational implies that we have categorical reasons to regulate our behavior towards others.  But then you could just say "nope, invalid, and I don't have to say why."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...