12/9/09

Atheism and Creation Ministries International, part 6

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker at this link
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 comments:

  1. GodlessonsDecember 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

    This issue is one that I find both sad and funny at the same time. The fact is, God is not in the minds of people, even ones that believe in him, enough to be much of a deterrent. Even when I was a believer, I never gave thought to any ultimate big brother idea when I did something wrong. I only gave thought to the people that might catch me.

    Morality is merely an opinion, and that opinion can be justified in many ways, but when you get to the ultimate end of things it is some relatively arbitrary foundational belief that causes people to act the way they do. For some, that foundational belief may be God, for others it may be that it is not good to treat people in a way you don't wish to be treated. The reality is, people realize that if they make it okay to rape people, it is more likely that they or their families may get raped.

    In reality, I sometimes wonder about people that place their moral foundation on a god. This is where I find it sad to a degree. What happens to those people if they ever lose their belief in God? Do they immediately go out and rape and murder? I have talked to some people that say they would, but in reality, people tend to want to hold onto most of their beliefs, so they merely change their foundation to a more humanist point of view.

    The funny point of view is when people claim knowledge of some objective source for morality. To atheists, this idea is very silly, but to many believers, it is absolute truth. If there is an objective source, what is it? Some claim it is the bible, but there are things in the bible that we would absolutely condemn now, such as slavery. Others claim that it is just some type of collective knowledge that we all tap into, but if that were the case, why do we have people that actually profess to hold positions on morality such as homosexuality is not immoral and they actually aren't lying. If it was objective that homosexuality is immoral, anyone that said it wasn't would have to be lying.

    When you boil it down, nobody is all that scared of God. Morality is an opinion, and worrying about where morality stems from is merely an interesting philosophical question that may never be fully answered. Since morality is an opinion, it is important to teach children proper morals so that they grow up to be decent human beings.

    All of this is still irrelevant to whether or not a God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bossmanhamDecember 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

    Is it just your opinion that morality is just an opinion? Or is that meant as an objective fact?

    ReplyDelete
  3. GodlessonsDecember 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM

    I didn't realize a lesson in epistemology was necessary here. Aside from the fact that we are talking about morality, and not objective facts, there is no paradox in saying yes to that answer. In reality though nothing is objective fact. Is it objective that nothing is objective? Since there is no way to know anything absolutely outside of yourself, I would have to say no, but yes.

    We make foundational assumptions in order to avoid skepticism and solipsism. One of those assumptions is that other minds exist, and the experiences we have actually happen outside of our mind. If you share that foundational assumption, and share the foundational assumption that objective things exist, you can say things can be objective, but otherwise you can't say much of anything.

    If that isn't clear enough for you, it is time to get a little knowledge in philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DMDecember 9, 2009 at 11:47 PM

    LIBERATION!


    Sing from the rooftops:

    "Atheism is dead!"


    http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856_

    ReplyDelete
  5. bossmanhamDecember 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM

    I didn't realize a lesson in epistemology was necessary here

    I really hope you aren't responsible for teaching anyone epistemology.

    Aside from the fact that we are talking about morality, and not objective facts, there is no paradox in saying yes to that answer

    Sure there is. If it's just your opinion that morals are opinions, then there is no reason for anyone else to be persuaded by that view. But you state it as if it's a view that is an objective reality. Also, in stating so, you have just made a moral judgement. So that moral judgement is only held by you and is not objectively true. But, again, you are making a moral judgement as if it is objectively true, when stating moral judgments are only based in the individual.

    In reality though nothing is objective fact

    You just stated an objective fact right there. It's a self defeating statement.

    Is it objective that nothing is objective

    It's a logical impossibility, because at least that notion is objective.

    Since there is no way to know anything absolutely outside of yourself

    Okay, Berkley.

    I would have to say no, but yes.

    Do you enjoy logical contradictions?

    We make foundational assumptions in order to avoid skepticism and solipsism

    We make foundational assumptions in order to embrace skepticism and solipsism too.

    One of those assumptions is that other minds exist, and the experiences we have actually happen outside of our mind.

    To think otherwise would require the presupposition that our senses can't be trusted, or that God lies to us. I reject both for good reasons.

    If you share that foundational assumption, and share the foundational assumption that objective things exist, you can say things can be objective, but otherwise you can't say much of anything.

    I assume you think this statement in and of itself is objectively true about me, correct?

    If that isn't clear enough for you

    It's clear you refuted your own points.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GodlessonsJanuary 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    So in other words, you like to play with words and make no point whatsoever. People can come to their own conclusions about what I said, and they can decide if they think it is true in their opinion.

    I assume that you're playing with what I am saying, not to get to some heightened understanding, but because you either find it funny or you don't like what I have to say and have no valid argument to show mine as being invalid.

    I make my statement with a foundational belief that there are objective things, but can I say absolutely that there are objective things? Absolutely not. That is why it is a foundational belief.

    Now, you may be confusing what I am saying. There are objective things that exist in the sense that things are what they are. Objective absolute knowledge on the other hand is limited to knowledge of one's own thoughts. There is no absolute knowledge beyond that, only derivatives with a core of foundational beliefs. Since foundational beliefs are not axiomatic, they aren't absolute.

    I know you'll try to mess with the previous paragraph too, and I can't help you in that case. Again, I find no need to give you an epistemology lesson. Go do your own research. Find out if philosophers say you can absolutely know anything outside your own mind. When you get to that point, you will realize that you stand, if not alone, nearly alone.

    Now, since I have a foundational belief that the things I learn by analog actually exist, I can feel justified in attempting transfer thoughts by analog, and sufficiently intelligent people can understand what I am saying.

    Now, since you don't seem to understand that in order for concepts like this to be conveyed, we must use language that can be looked at as contradictory. The concepts themselves, once in a person's mind, are not contradictory at all until they try to convey them to other people.

    Now you've had your fun wasting your time and mine by trying to help people misunderstand what I am saying. Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)