Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[jlay]

I Disagree. I don't believe having morals is making a case for objective morals. Please explain why you believe this is the case.

You said that your morals were not "defective." Which means that you are saying there is a way morals OUGHT to be. Otherwise morals cannot be defective. They might be different, but to be defective then there has to be something to measure by. You've already mentioned that there isn't a 'physical' or material basis for morals. (I agree) Much like logic, what does nature care about truth or morals? it doesn't. It is blind, indifferent. Nature doesn't care whether humans survive, much less whether they behave the way they 'ought' to. Yet, here you are saying that your morals are functioning properly. Well, properly according to what? Popular opinion? who cares? popular opinion can change. And that means the term 'defective' is arbitrary and meaningless. It will change to. and therefore defective today could mean effective tomorrow.

With the eye, we can know what constitutes defective. We can measure how the eye OUGHT to function, and then make a judgment that color blindness is defective. I asked you earlier to make a case for OM sans creator. I notice that you've neglected to offer any response.

[Kenny]

You said that your morals were not "defective." Which means that you are saying there is a way morals OUGHT to be. Otherwise morals cannot be defective. They might be different, but to be defective then there has to be something to measure by. You've already mentioned that there isn't a 'physical' or material basis for morals. (I agree) Much like logic, what does nature care about truth or morals? it doesn't. It is blind, indifferent. Nature doesn't care whether humans survive, much less whether they behave the way they 'ought' to. Yet, here you are saying that your morals are functioning properly. Well, properly according to what? Popular opinion? who cares? popular opinion can change. And that means the term 'defective' is arbitrary and meaningless. It will change to. and therefore defective today could mean effective tomorrow.

On Page 9, the 121th post on that page, I gave a list of things I believe is required by someone for me to consider them moral. I am capable of those things; thus IMO that means my morals are good

With the eye, we can know what constitutes defective. We can measure how the eye OUGHT to function, and then make a judgment that color blindness is defective.

The eye is physical; it has an actual existence. Morals only exist in your head.

I asked you earlier to make a case for OM sans creator. I notice that you've neglected to offer any response.

I have no Idea what you meant. What does OM sans creator mean?

Ken

[jlay]

On Page 9, the 121th post on that page, I gave a list of things I believe is required by someone for me to consider them moral. I am capable of those things; thus IMO that means my morals are good

So how do you know the list isn't defective. We can do this all day Kenny.

The eye is physical; it has an actual existence. Morals only exist in your head.

What is your point? You only pointed out that the eye is physical. You haven't proven that morals exist only in your head. Your eye, only exist in your head.
Do your thoughts really exist?
So are you now saying that your non defective morals don't really exist?

I have no Idea what you meant. What does OM sans creator mean?

Kenny, google is your friend. Sans means without. The challenge still stands.

[Kenny]

Jlay
So how do you know the list isn't defective. We can do this all day Kenny.

Ken
If you can prove to me that they are defective, I’m all ears. Otherwise I have no reason to assume they are

Jlay
What is your point? You only pointed out that the eye is physical. You haven't proven that morals exist only in your head. Your eye, only exist in your head.
Do your thoughts really exist?
So are you now saying that your non defective morals don't really exist?

Ken
My non-defective morals are thoughts. Thoughts do not have a physical existence; they are like ideas, opinions, math, and other non-physical man-made creations



Jlay
Kenny, google is your friend. Sans means without. The challenge still stands.

Ken
I thought I made it clear I do not believe OM exists, and I don’t believe your idea of God exists. So why are you asking me to make a case of OM without your idea of God? I can’t even make a case of OM with the existence of your God.


Ken

[jlay]

Jlay
So how do you know the list isn't defective. We can do this all day Kenny.

Ken
If you can prove to me that they are defective, I’m all ears. Otherwise I have no reason to assume they are

Jlay
What is your point? You only pointed out that the eye is physical. You haven't proven that morals exist only in your head. Your eye, only exist in your head.
Do your thoughts really exist?
So are you now saying that your non defective morals don't really exist?

Ken
My non-defective morals are thoughts. Thoughts do not have a physical existence; they are like ideas, opinions, math, and other non-physical man-made creations



Jlay
Kenny, google is your friend. Sans means without. The challenge still stands.

Ken
I thought I made it clear I do not believe OM exists, and I don’t believe your idea of God exists. So why are you asking me to make a case of OM without your idea of God? I can’t even make a case of OM with the existence of your God.


Ken

No Ken, it's not clear, because you keep making claims that imply OM. Such as claiming that your morals aren't defective.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. I'm not claiming your morals are defective. Im asking you to support your claim that they aren't. Big difference.
Also I never argued that the Bible is the source of OM. Whether objective moral values exist is not the same argument. If OM values exist, then they existed before the Bible was written down. That's what makes them objective.

If morality is subjective then what grounds do you have to say the Bible isn't true?

[Kenny]

Jlay
So how do you know the list isn't defective. We can do this all day Kenny.

Ken
If you can prove to me that they are defective, I’m all ears. Otherwise I have no reason to assume they are

Jlay
What is your point? You only pointed out that the eye is physical. You haven't proven that morals exist only in your head. Your eye, only exist in your head.
Do your thoughts really exist?
So are you now saying that your non defective morals don't really exist?

Ken
My non-defective morals are thoughts. Thoughts do not have a physical existence; they are like ideas, opinions, math, and other non-physical man-made creations



Jlay
Kenny, google is your friend. Sans means without. The challenge still stands.

Ken
I thought I made it clear I do not believe OM exists, and I don’t believe your idea of God exists. So why are you asking me to make a case of OM without your idea of God? I can’t even make a case of OM with the existence of your God.


Ken

jlay
No Ken, it's not clear, because you keep making claims that imply OM. Such as claiming that your morals aren't defective.


Ken
Just because I don’t believe my morals are defective doesn’t mean objective morality. I realize many people (Bigots, racists, ethnic separatists maybe even some religious fundamentalists) probably would consider my morals defective; but I don‘t, I consider theirs defective.


jlaySorry, but the burden of proof is on you. I'm not claiming your morals are defective. Im asking you to support your claim that they aren't. Big difference

Ken
I thought I answered this already! Did you read what I wrote on pg 9 the llth post on that page?

I am empathetic
I understand the consequences of actions
I balance the pros and cons of said actions and how they affect my neighbor
And I start from the position that wellbeing of my neighbor is good and suffering of my neighbor is bad

Does that answer your question?


jlay
Also I never argued that the Bible is the source of OM.

Ken
Nobody in this conversation claimed you did! Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.


Jlay
If morality is subjective then what grounds do you have to say the Bible isn't true?

Ken
My claim that the bible isn’t true has nothing to do with morality.

Ken

[outlaw]

Is the declaration "God exists" true by definition and "God does not exist" unprovable?

This is 2 separate questions, correct?

Let me go ahead and put emphasis on the first one
The declaration "God exists" is not only true by definition alone, but it also is reality (forcefully) once it is acknowledged as INTUITIVE knowledge about said reality. Weather or not someone wants to admit that they have that intuitive knowledge is up to them.

As for
"God does not exist" being unprovable. Depends on what someone calls a "Proof", and that depends on what theory of knowledge someone subscribes to. If someone believes that ALL knowledge comes from and ONLY FROM sense experience, then the answer is yes BUT there is a MASSIVE AMOUNT of knowledge that such a person cannot show "Proof" for and as a consequence their worldview is circular in reasoning and full of phenomenalism that cannot be rationally explained.

My best friend is an atheist his contention is the lack of evidence for God despite not having any evidence of the non existence of God (which is not important for him) and compound by the genetic fallacy he sees as lack of evidence of true belief (if truth believers are themselves inauthentic believers, why would anyone be interested in their ideas since most likely they'll be untrue).

Well, I would ask him, "Where is there a lack of evidence?" and "What kind of evidence are you looking for?"
I would also ask him, "What is your theory of knowledge?"
Once you have answers to that, you can see if he has a theory that is consistent and rational once you probe with their theory for a bit.

My friend doesn't like philosophy, so he adheres only to his common sense in a sort of popular science and the scientific method as far as he understands it.

Well, the first problem with your friend is that he (declares?) that he does not like philosophy, yet science is a philosophy. I would tell him "I also subscribe to the philosophy of science, but philosophy of science as your only source of ALL knowledge does not give you rational answers and is circular reasoning."

He brings lots of "what ifs" to our arguments and the notion that we can only based our understanding in things known and not in things we don't know does not seem to impress him!

Thats fine. I would have a field day with your friend is he likes "what ifs" arguments. Maybe you can PM me, and I'll give you some pointers.

What would make him re-consider his position, any ideas?

This is pretty common, and often successful in getting people to wise up

Do you believe in the existence of "stuff" that cannot be sensed?
No (This is often the answer)
Do me a favor and explain this (do a hop)
Can you tell me why it is that I hopped and then I am not standing on the ground again?
Because of gravity (This is often the answer)
I thought you said you don't believe in the existence of "stuff" that cannot be sensed?
I don't or I can sense gravity (or something like this)
No, you don't. You sense what gravity does. How is it that you can believe in the existence of gravity by what it does? If a theist says they believe in the existence of God by what he does, would you accept that?

This often gets the atheists to wise up to their intellectual dishonestly really quickly. Their defense for believing in gravity is often going to then spiral down to defending some sort of existence of math, but again math is "stuff" that cannot be sensed, too. Asking someone who believes in science to prove math exists is the ultimate collapse of the science they believe that they can do. They won't get there. I've heard it all.

Ever heard of newton? Gravity is a measurable force, How do you measure what god does?

[1over137]

If you want to 'measure' what God does, go and ask Christians what he has done for them.

[outlaw]

If you want to 'measure' what God does, go and ask Christians what he has done for them.

That would be a measure of what christians perceive god has done for them.

Just because you attribute things to something it doesn't prove that theres something actually there.

[Kurieuo]

Trust me outlaw, the irony in your words isn't lost on us.

[1over137]

Trust me outlaw, the irony in your words isn't lost on us.

He is already banned.

[patrick]

Wow. Thank you and thank you again Kurieuo, both from making this thread and from having the patience to draw out the beliefs of those with wildly different views from your own. I've been trying to understand why so many people choose to believe in a God despite the lack of evidence and now I can see I've been hoodwinked into believing that this even supported the position of atheism in the first place!

You don't strike me as the nihilistic type to be posting on boards such as this, and claiming some things I've said are wrong (straw men) and that I've made mistaken generalisations.

Nonetheless, one needs a solution to the predicament of uncertainty. Otherwise they'll go insane in circular reasoning not believing A or ~A on anything, effectively become dysfunctional and a rambling mess. What can be logically proven won't get you certainty, for you must even first prove the logic that you use. But, what is logically most practical based on what appears most obvious, intuitive or probable will help you to be certain about many things. It's a resolution I had to come to myself.

If you're not going to embrace and concept of reality because you can't be logically prove 100% anything to do with reality, then while Nihilism a position you can take... I'm sure as you live your life that you nonetheless embrace some things as true. If not, then our discussion must come to an end for there's nothing really to discuss. This discussion perhaps isn't even happening.

This was the turning point for me. What do we really believe? Anyone can claim to not believe anything unless it's substantiated by empirical evidence, but there's evidence all throughout this thread to the contrary. I don't think I spotted a single honest atheist in this thread. (EDIT: I take this back, I merely mean their beliefs strike me as inconsistent.)

I still have more to learn before I know whether I am a Christian or not, but I am definitely a theist as of today. I apologize that I thus cannot answer to the challenge of this thread but I would be more than happy to try to clear things up if any atheists are confused about the points I've made here.

[Kenny]

Wow. Thank you and thank you again Kurieuo, both from making this thread and from having the patience to draw out the beliefs of those with wildly different views from your own. I've been trying to understand why so many people choose to believe in a God despite the lack of evidence and now I can see I've been hoodwinked into believing that this even supported the position of atheism in the first place!

You don't strike me as the nihilistic type to be posting on boards such as this, and claiming some things I've said are wrong (straw men) and that I've made mistaken generalisations.

Nonetheless, one needs a solution to the predicament of uncertainty. Otherwise they'll go insane in circular reasoning not believing A or ~A on anything, effectively become dysfunctional and a rambling mess. What can be logically proven won't get you certainty, for you must even first prove the logic that you use. But, what is logically most practical based on what appears most obvious, intuitive or probable will help you to be certain about many things. It's a resolution I had to come to myself.

If you're not going to embrace and concept of reality because you can't be logically prove 100% anything to do with reality, then while Nihilism a position you can take... I'm sure as you live your life that you nonetheless embrace some things as true. If not, then our discussion must come to an end for there's nothing really to discuss. This discussion perhaps isn't even happening.

This was the turning point for me. What do we really believe? Anyone can claim to not believe anything unless it's substantiated by empirical evidence, but there's evidence all throughout this thread to the contrary. I don't think I spotted a single honest atheist in this thread.

I still have more to learn before I know whether I am a Christian or not, but I am definitely a theist as of today. I apologize that I thus cannot answer to the challenge of this thread but I would be more than happy to try to clear things up if any atheists are confused about the points I've made here.

I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

[patrick]

I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence. In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system. Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

[RickD]

I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence. In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system. Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

This is what I've been saying all along! You just explained it better!

Kenny pay attention to this!