EvC Forum: Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

Dr Jack

Member

Posts: 3514

From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch

Joined: 07-14-2003

Member Rating: 8.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 8 of 171 (80812)
01-26-2004 5:58 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM

Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system

To demonstrate this, Christian philosophers demonstrate the inability of atheism to account for morality. The logical conclusion of a world without an absolute standard of morality (God) is that all is subjective to the individual or society.

Correct. And?

This presents quite a problem for atheists since they ultimately can not hold people responsible for their crimes since every action committed is simply a reaction to an electrical impulse triggered in the brain. There is also a problem of dealing with problems such as why is it wrong to rape or torture someone?

I'm getting real tired of this nonsense getting trotted out. If people's behaviour is entirely a result of their brains then it is more reason not less to hold people responsible for their actions. Think about it, if people's actions are determined by their brains then they will act again in a (theoretically) predictable manner, and respond to punishment/treatment in a (theoretically) predictable manner. In other words, we have due reason to suspect they'll do it again and due reason to suspect they'll respond to our punishment/treatment in a positive manner.

If, instead, we take the dualist view that mind is some undetectable, non-deterministic, something then we have no rational reason to believe that because something has done something they'll do it again, and no reason to believe that whatever punishments we employ will work.

This world and all that is in it is a direct reflection of His wonder and glory.

So what does the tapeworm tell us about God?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by grace2u, posted 01-25-2004 10:43 PM		grace2u has not replied

Dr Jack

Member

Posts: 3514

From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch

Joined: 07-14-2003

Member Rating: 8.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 66 of 171 (81471)
01-29-2004 11:09 AM

Reply to: Message 65 by grace2u
01-29-2004 10:50 AM

I know this was addressed to Crashfrog, but I will answer it anyway.

The problem with your response is that it is entirely subjective.

Morality is entirely subjective.

Now, in light of the error I have presented in your reasoning, why is it not ok for me to own a slave but ok for me to own another animal?

Because in my entirely subjective view; humans are more important than animals. My entirely subjective morality also holds that it is entirely reasonable for a state to act to impose that morality on others whether they like it or not.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 65 by grace2u, posted 01-29-2004 10:50 AM		grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 71 by grace2u, posted 01-29-2004 12:42 PM		Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack

Member

Posts: 3514

From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch

Joined: 07-14-2003

Member Rating: 8.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 88 of 171 (81614)
01-30-2004 5:26 AM

Reply to: Message 71 by grace2u
01-29-2004 12:42 PM

1)I like to be raped. Is it wrong for me to rape someone else? Explain why or why not.

Yes it is. Why? Because my entirely subjective morality states that rape is wrong. Societies entirely subjective morality also states it is wrong, so if they can catch you they will punish you for it.

Hitlers Germany said it was not wrong to kill jews. Was it wrong for Hitler to kill millions of jews?

Yes it was. Why? Because my entirely subjective morality states that it was wrong for him to do so.

There is no external to humanity criteria on which to base these judgements. None. At all. Ever. Anywhere. It is not a fact about the universe that it was wrong for Hitler to murder jews. There is no right/wrong facts about the universe. None. No-where. Ever.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 71 by grace2u, posted 01-29-2004 12:42 PM		grace2u has not replied

Dr Jack

Member

Posts: 3514

From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch

Joined: 07-14-2003

Member Rating: 8.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 89 of 171 (81616)
01-30-2004 5:52 AM

Reply to: Message 84 by grace2u
01-29-2004 6:16 PM

Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians

2) Doesn’t this statement clash with what an atheistic worldview would imply(in particular an evolutionary one)? Shouldn’t that be allowed? To abuse lesser beings so your being could better survive and volve to a better standard?

Only an idiot uses science as a basis for morality. That's like claiming that the theory of gravity means I should run in circles round fat people.

3)Do you not see, how from an internal criticism, this statement seems arbitrary and subjective yet you assume it is true? In other words, you say human dignity basically exists and it is basically good as long as it is not used as a justification to abuse lesser beings. In context with a naturalistic atheistic worldview, how is this a rational and consistent statement? It is in a Christian worldview because that lesser being is created in Gods image as we are and is of equal worth to God.

Who said anything about assuming truth? There is no truth in morality. It is entirely subjective.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 84 by grace2u, posted 01-29-2004 6:16 PM		grace2u has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

0 online now:
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0