Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

The problem for you is that this is exactly what we observe - a world where societies fashion the moralities that they see fit.The vast plurality of human moral experience is considerable evidence that there exists no standard of absolute morality. Explain to me why "because I wouldn't like it if it happened to me" is an insufficient answer. It's obvious - to perhaps everyone but you - that a society that would allow you to do these crimes would also be one that would allow them to be done to you.Ultimately you can reduce morality to the "selfish" things that people want. Morality is no problem for atheists.Now, the problem for you is that we've told you this before, in half a dozen threads, and you've never given a substantial rebuttal. I predict the same here.

Actually it doesn't do that at all. It simply pushed back the need for explanation another level. Under theism you're forced to ask not "why is there a universe" but "why is there a God?"If theism was an acceptable explanation to a lot of rational people, don't you think they all would be theists? I disagree - atheism explains at least as well as theism, and possibly more so - because it's consistent with the evidence that a moral, omnipotent God does not exist. The fact that you've chosen primal superstition over difficult scientific inquiry is noted. Can we assume you'll be turning in your antibiotics and electronics and moving to a cave, now?

Wrong again. That would be "scientism." Yes. That's how we know we're getting closer to the truth. Which would you rather be: almost right, and getting closer, or eternally and unchangingly wrong? As a rational person, I have no need for faith. But I have plenty of trust in the findings of science. Why would it? Atheism merely says that there's no reason to believe that God exists. It's not an explanitory framework. I suspect you're conflating several separate philosophies that atheists tend to hold. The thing is I suspect you're doing the same with theism. Neither atheism nor theism are explanitory frameworks. They're simply different positions on the question "is there reason to believe that God exists?" Oh, I believe in plenty. I just have no faith. Why do I begin to suspect you don't really know any atheists? Maybe about 55% or so. Atheism is considerably more common among scientists than the population at large.But of course my point was, if belief in God is so rational, why doesn't every scientist believe in God, instead of a little more than half? You'll pardon me if I think that says a little more about your debate abilities than anything else.

I'll go toe-to-toe with you in any venue you choose. I'll pit my brains and knowledge against yours any day of the week.

See, this is what I'm talking about with your debate skills. Of course I'm not judging you on whether or not you convince your opponent. I'm judging you on your ability to understand your opponent's position and make your own position understood. You seem to be failing at both.It's "you're", by the way. Also, ad hominem attacks are infantile, not condusive to intelligent debate, and against the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.

---

You know, those rules you agreed to when you registered. Just a note. Now, was there something of substance you wanted to talk about? After all I've made a number of as-yet-unchallenged rebuttals to your misinformation about atheists. Do you have any response besides name-calling?{AHEM - SEE PREVIOUS MESSAGE! - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-27-2004]

Well, I'm glad to see admin action a little sooner this time.(Surely though you can realize that I was composing my much-longer message while you were writing yours, and so had already posted it before I read your post. I'm not in the habit of ignoring admin posts, by all means.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-27-2004]

Well, that would have been the mature way to put it. And then the mature thing of me to say would have been to calmly explain to you how I was responding to the tone of arrogance that permeated your first posts, and that offended me. But name-calling pre-empts intelligent debate. I think we're both guilty, so we might as well call it off.

Right, and now the purpose of the debate is make sure we understand each other's positions. I'm not certain that you truly understand what atheism is, or why it's a reasonable position. Because each new model explains more and more data, and makes increasingly accurate predictions. Essentially, the scientific method ensures that each new model representes a better approximation of reality. Sure, but to what end?This is the "epistimological problem of knowledge." How do we know what we know? How do you know that you're not a brain in a jar?The answer is, it doesn't matter if you're a brain in a jar if the simulation behaves exactly as reality would. And it doesn't matter if your magic demons are fooling science so long as they continue to fool science in exactly the same way. If the demons are content to allow our VCR's to keep working, then who cares if they're fooling science or not? It's not. But then, neither is anything else. Even in the demon-plagued simulation you think we could live in, science is still the best way to find anything out. You don't have to. That's why scientists publish their results, data, and methodology. If you don't believe their conclusions, you can analyze the data yourself.But what's the peer-review process for prophecy? How can I distinguish between a man who's talking to God and a man who's simply a good liar? Who, exactly? None of the Bible authors, as far as I know, were witnesses to the resurrection. And the Bible itself is hardly a reliable historical text. Do you really think a bad model would make accurate predictions all the time? Hrm, I'm looking back, looking... nope. I don't see where I was arrogant enough to tell you what you believe. Why couldn't you afford me the same courtesy? Oh, it shows. The mature thing to do would have been to ask "how does atheism work, exactly?" Why do I need God to have a purpose? My life has as much purpose as I decide it has. It always has. Yeah, it does. It does because it makes me happy to not fool myself. It makes me happy that I'll never be disappointed when I rely on a God that doesn't exist. I'm a lot happier now than I was when I was a hardcore Christian, that's for sure.I guess the question is, why are you so incomplete and insecure that it takes A Creator of the Universe to tell you what your purpose is? Isn't that overcompensating a little?

What's so bad about dying? Living forever, now that's a nightmare. (You might wish to ask, since you think you're going there, if there's free will in heaven. If there's no evil in heaven, and if you need evil to have free will, then I guess there's not, is there? An eternity as a robot is appealing to you?)

But how are you going to know that's the truth? What if that's just demon lies, too?Science remains the best way to know things. Every other way gets fooled too easy. Acts was written most likely by Luke, who did not witness the resurrection. He was neither a disciple nor eyewitness of Jesus. Paul was the author of Corinthians and I don't think he was a disciple of Jesus either (unless you count his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, which probably didn't actually happen.)

Can we just drop it? It's really besides the point. He tried to mock me, it was infantile, etc. We get it. If George Gershwin can say "I've got plenty o' nothin'" then so can this guy. (Or was it Ira Gershwin who wrote the words?)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-27-2004]

Would you want to be owned as a slave?Why is it that you never explain why the Golden Rule is insufficient moral justification? We've invoked it several times to no response.It's pretty simple reasoning. No matter how much I might want to rape or kill someone, I don't want those things to happen to me. And the only way that I'm going to get society to prevent those things from happening to me is to propose rules/systems that will prevent tose things from happening to everybody. Hence, laws and police.As yet you have not rebutted this reasoning. Is there any reason to pay attention to you, then?

Do they want to be raped?You misunderstood the justification. It's not based on "do unto others as you want them to do unto you." It's "do unto others as you would have them do unto everybody."So, what you want is irrelevant, insomuch as you have no particular desire for personal misfortune. The majority of society doesn't want to be raped, so being raped will be illegal.If you want to rape people, that's fine - you just can't do it here. If you can't play by society's rules, then you don't get to live here. It may be that if you do something bad enough, you don't get to live anywhere.It's totally subjective, yes. It's based on the observable fact that societies determine their own morals. You're free to play by those rules or go somewhere else. It makes a lot more sense than the theistic worldview, which can't explain how to tell the difference between the divinely-inspired moral code and the human- or devil-originating morals that work just fine anyway. If the animal is capable of expressing its discontent, then I suggest that you let it go. Other than that I don't think any reasonable people expect animals to care about their own sense of self-determination, if they even have it. Honestly I don't see the relevance of this question here. There's plenty of moral relativists who think you shouldn't own animals, or even eat them. But like all moral choices it ultimately comes down to society's preferences.

No, it makes perfect sense.Where would societies get morals if there's no God around to deliver them? Why, they make them up themselves.If they're making them up themselves, which morals will the choose? The ones that most of the people living in the society can agree with.Even in a religious autocracy, morality is democratic. It's theism that can't rationally account for the vast plurality of valid, functional moral codes in the world.

It's his signature text, not a comment in regards to the topic. I think what he means is that common sense isn't really all that common. Or maybe he means it isn't all that sensical.