Underlying Philosophy

Definition of philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.And another more cogent definition of philosophy: a system of philosophical doctrine.In the second definition, "a system of philosophical doctrine" refers to ones network or "system" of conclusions and beliefs which they come to by following the first definition. So when one rationally investigates the truths of a certain subject (1st definition), and they then come to certain conclusions - and thus form a system - , they have formed a system of philosophical thought, or, "a philosophy" (2nd definition).Given this, we know that any atheist on this forum who has rationally investigated the subject of God has formed a "philosophy" with regards to that subject.Now there is, of course, the possibility of having an atheist who hasn't ever though about their atheism, in which case they would most likely have no well-formed philosophy on that subject.With regards to fairies, if one says "I don't believe in tooth fairies", then they might, or they might not, have any reasons for their disbelief in fairies, meaning they might, or they might not, have a philosophy with regards to fairies.In the same way, if someone says "I believe in fairies", they may, or they may not, have a reason for their belief. So someone who believes in fairies, but has never thought about why they believe in fairies, would be someone who has no philosophy with regards to that subject.So to all you atheists - when you are asked what your underlying philosophy is, it is the same as asking "what are your reasons for coming to the conclusion that a belief in God is insufficient?". Or, perhaps you have no reason for your disbelief in God, or you have never investigated the subject, in which case you have no underlying philosophy with regards to a belief (or disbelief) in God. So if (this is just an example) you have never thought about why you have a disbelief in God, and I have numerous reasons for my belief in God, then I have won the debate, because I have a philosophy, and you don't.In the same way, if Bob got into an argument with you about fairies, and Bob had some very good reasons for believing in fairies, and you can't muster up any reasons as to why there are not fairies, then Bob has won the debate, which doesn't necessarily mean he's right, it just means that he was won the debate (note that this is just an example).As a Christian, my method of apologetic is to show you that if you do not have God as the foundation of your philosophy, you have no reason for doing anything that you do. For example, how did the laws of logic come about in such a way that they apply to the entire universe? Or, since when did it become wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to do bad things? What makes a "bad" thing a "bad" thing? How do abstract things in general (such as the laws of logic, which, by the way, applied to the universe before man was around to formalize them) arise in a material universe? How did the rules of debate come to be, and why should we follow them? Why shouldn't I murder at every turn? Why should I even think at all? Why should I do science? Why should I worry about how I live my life?...You get the point. I have a single response to all these questions - because Jehovah God exists as the Creator of this universe, which he created in a logical, orderly way because he is a logical and orderly God. Why do I believe this? Because of the impossibility of the opposite!The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork; (Psalm 19:1). For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist; (Col. 1:16-17). For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things; (Rom. 1:18-23). In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth; (Gen. 1:1). Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

And just an off-hand question: what is the foundation of your philosophy as an atheist? And don't tell me you have no foundation, because all systems of thought must have something to stand on, otherwise they will fall over (just as a house would).

I exist.
Contradictions are impossible.
My mind can know the truth.Don't believe something is true that which cannot be demonstrated is true.You can demonstrate truth by showing how it is consistent with itself, it is coherent with other known truths, it has correspondence with accessible experience, that it leads to reliable practical applications. So essentially rational empiricism. Show me the evidence and provide me with a rational explanation that leads from the evidence to the conclusion, and we can talk about how confident we are in light of something so important it requires its own line to highlight it:-the principle of fallibility. It has yet to be demonstrated :a) That God exists
b) What properties God has.
c) What capacities God has.
d) What God has done.Believing in God is not sufficient grounds to demonstrate its truth - as can be demonstrated by showing people that believe God does not exist. Since one of them is wrong - belief alone is insufficient. And if Bob said: Fairies exist.
And I said: Do they, how do you know?
And Bob said: I believe it is true very strongly. My parents believed it. My culture has believed it for thousands of years. Believing it makes me feel good. How can we explain how plants can grow without being eaten by predators without fairies? Why are plants so pretty if not for the artistry of fairies? Why do some things, when eaten allow you to see the spirit world where fairies are more common?
I would reply: That doesn't persuade me that fairies exist. Can you prove fairies exist in the same sense you can prove rats exist? Don't forget the part about ignoring what people say in contradiction to this. And you must definitely never mention that with God as the foundation, you just end up with no reason either - just a set of arbitrary instructions that must be carried out on pain of torture (and with treats for doing well). You could try it if you like. I'm betting your life will be less pleasant as a result. They have the death penalty in your State, right?That's right - an appeal to consequences. Exactly the same way a God based morality ultimately is. I wonder which one adheres to the principle of parsimony?

If you are not confused about existence and the reality you are in, this means that you are UTTERLY confused and misguided. I question the depth of your reasoning abilities and the naivety that atheists demonstrate on this forum.

It certainly isn't nice. It would depend on the cause for me to ascribe the subjective label "wrong" to it. No I'm not. Rape causes an unstable society because it disrupts society. And a disruptive society isn't a good society for this species to thrive and prosper in. If you really were starving, you wouldn't even have to break into my home, I'd gladly share some of my food with you. But you're not starving, are you? Irony, I love it. He doesn't condemn it anywhere, and sets up rules for it. Not actions someone that is against slavery would take. It is. Yep. I deal with reality via the evidence it leavews behind. That's all that's needed. Mumbo jumbo about "the nature of reality" is completely irrelevant. Even if all this is an illusion, unless we have some way of showing this, it doesn't matter, it's still all we have to go on. Because it doesn't matter. I have an experience of something, then I walk into a situation resembling my experience, and act on that experience. It turns out that so far, my experience was correct. The big bang was not an explosion. I don't know. It is irrelevant. Also, the big bang wasn't an explosion, so it's a nonsensical question pertaining to this universe. Your evidence that animals don't have an aesthetic sense? And again, since the big bang wasn't an explosion this question is nonsensical.

Come on... don't you think Peafowl have an aesthetic sense?

Modulous, What is "the truth" in your mind? Note that I said "this is an example". Also, you seem to have missed the point. Note that I said that Bob "had some very good reasons for believing in fairies", not foolish reasons, like the ones you listed.And if you think that those "reasons" listed by Bob are somehow similar to my reasons for believing in God, then get out. Or first, go back and read my arguments, which say God must be the foundation of our thought because of the impossibility of the opposite, and then read some of my reasons for saying this. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26: 4-5) Try me. Is that really the only reason? So then, if I don't care how pleasant my life is, I could be Jack the Ripper and be okay, right? Or is there still something about the nature of murder that is wrong? Is it only the consequences that should keep one from murdering, or do you admit that there is something about murder that is inherently wrong?Let me set some new rules for debate: the first person to kill the other is automatically the right one. So, adhering to these rules, I will come and murder you, and thus win the debate, and prove to everybody around me that God exists. And by the way, I don't care about the consequences, just as long as I can prove that God exists, even if I have to resort to murder...is there anything wrong with this, or would murdering you still be wrong? God-based morality does not come as a result of "consequences". Although sins against God do have eternal (note that I said eternal. Although they may have immediate consequences, they have primarily eternal consequences) consequences, this is not the basis for obedience to God. "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4). What this says is that a God-based morality is brought about by walking according to God's law in the Spirit, so that we desire to do that which is good. This desire is brought about as we become closer and closer to God. Curiously, the principle of parsimony is in accordance with the rule of Occam's razor, which was formulated by a friar...and you somehow think this principle is better adhered to by the atheist philosophy.Isaac Newton said "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes." Isaac Newton was also a renowned Christian theologian, and said himself that he placed more importance in his theological writings than in his scientific studies.Personally, I think the principle of parsimony is followed much better by Christianity than atheism. This is because all Christian morals are based on God's character, so that if someone were to actually see and understand God, they would understand perfectly the "do's and don'ts" of the Law. As it is though, our eyes are blinded by sin, so that we cannot understand perfectly God's moral system, which is entirely our own fault. The problem I have with your morality is that it has no basis. And, as I have argued earlier in this message, it does not provide a good reason for why certain things are bad and certain things are wrong.

That which is true.I don't know if my mind contains only truths, and it probably doesn't. But in order to get anywhere in learning the truth we have to assume that our minds are capable of knowing truth. If it is not capable then anything else that follows as far as seeking the truth is concerned, is useless folly. Yes - and I used your example to explain my point. Is that problematic? Well - if I thought they were good reasons, then presumably I wouldn't be arguing with Bob to begin with. I'd be agreeing. I was just giving some hypothetical reasons for believing in fairies based upon my experience with the kinds of reasons people give for believing in things. I was assuming the reasons were good enough to be persuasive to some people, but not to me. Needless to say - I find them as equally compelling as the ones for the fairies.But you were asking about my philosophy as an atheist right, and not just using that as a springboard to talk some more about your own? No. It's one reason. And one which ultimately underlies all others (as far as a rough retort can encapsulate the concept). What do you mean 'be okay'. I think not caring how pleasant your life is is far from being 'okay'. It's very dangerous. And it's a state of mind that people have no doubt been in when committing both atrocities and heroic deeds.Do I condone all of the actions of people that disregard the negative consequences of their actions upon their own wellbeing? No.You asked for a reason not to murder - I cited a reason not to murder. If you don't care about any given reason or set of reasons, then I lack the power to prevent you from murdering, if murdering is your desire, save physical intervention. Why would we care to do that? For what reason? I think so, yes. And despite his typically arrogant opinion on his insights into theology, it is not for them that we celebrate his genius. I fail to see how telling me about the additional entities you are invoking to explain morality should convince me of the parsimony of your position. So you say. But I say that it has basis, the basis looks basically the same as the theistic account, and requires less entities to get to, meaning the extra entities are essentially unnecessary and can therefore be cut away for the sake of parsimony. No - it simply gives a reason as to why people call things right and wrong while also explaining why they disagree over this property without invoking a God, a sin concept that 'blinds us', and a Law.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Seriously, you'd call that a "philosophy"?Well, by convention on this forum we communicate in the English language. And the assertion of the existence of a single entity, whether it's the Tooth Fairy or the Eiffel Tower, is not a "philosophy" in the English language as it is spoken.

If you are really unable to answer Straggler's question, then this is a fact that you could have communicated more concisely by writing: "I am unable to answer your question".

That's a curious way to use the word "philosophy". Apparently according to your usage I have a philosophy with regards to walruses, a philosophy with regards to unicorns, a philosophy with regards to teacups, a philosophy with regards to tomato ketchup ...... and so, of course, do you. Tell me, what is your philosophy with regards to tomato ketchup? And you are of course wrong: I do have reasons for doing the things that I do. For example, right now I'm going to eat some cheese and pickled onions. The reason is because I'm hungry and I like the taste. See, an atheist doing something for a reason!So this is as easily refuted as your claim that atheists can't use logic. I guess it's logical in the sense that it is not mutually self-contradictory (which hardly requires a God) but what do you mean by "orderly"? Yeah, you keep saying that. I presume that if you had anything that you thought was a good argument for it you'd have mentioned it by now.

That's not an argument, that's an assertion. Have you ever noticed that those two proverbs tell you to do two mutually incompatible things? Why not? We know so much more about the nature of reality today than he knew in the fourteenth century. So although he grasped the principle of looking for a parsimonious explanation, we have a much better idea than he did of what we're looking for a parsimonious explanation for. You are wrong. He was not a renowned theologian, but a secret theologian. Because he was a closet Unitarian.See here: And, though for different reasons, I guess that you find his theology about as important as I do. After all, I just think he was wasting his time, whereas you presumably think he was damning his immortal soul. But this is like saying: "I think that an account of the world that includes the existence of fairy-dust is more parsimonious because if we could ever find some fairy-dust and sprinkle ourselves with it, then we'd be able to walk through walls."It is not parsimonious to invoke the existence of an entity which we cannot observe (God, fairy-dust) to explain an observation which has never been made (perfect understanding, being able to walk through walls).This is the very opposite of parsimony, since if we allow ourselves to do that sort of thing, then we can "multiply entities" under no "necessity" at all (since it is not necessary to explain observations which have not been made).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What do you mean 'be okay'. I think not caring how pleasant your life is is far from being 'okay'. It's very dangerous. And it's a state of mind that people have no doubt been in when committing both atrocities and heroic deeds.

---

This seems to be an arbitrary judgment on moderately insane people. Give reasons why you thing this is not 'okay'.

quote:

---

You asked for a reason not to murder - I cited a reason not to murder. If you don't care about any given reason or set of reasons, then I lack the power to prevent you from murdering, if murdering is your desire, save physical intervention.

---

Pointing ONLY to consequences is an extremely dangerous game, since what actions have negative consequence can vary radically depending on the situation.(Such as a brutal dictator can generally have most people murdered with general impunity.) Generally, if you are in a position of great power, or seeking a position of great power, if consequences are all that hinders a person, then those consequences will not generally be enough to prevent abuses and atrocities from resulting.It also allows any sort of atrocity that is socially acceptable(rape is a perfect example of this, as I'm pretty sure that there have been cultures that turned a blind eye to rape).

Hi Pluto, It is my subjective opinion on what is okay and what is not okay, so in a sense it is an arbitrary judgement - but then sac did ask me to arbitrate on the 'okayness' of a hypothetical serial killer. I prefixed it with "What do you mean 'be okay'?" just in case we weren't talking about my judgement on the matter. I then gave another clue that this was a personal subjective arbitrary judgement: I started the sentence, "I think".And then I gave at least one reason that I think this (it is dangerous). Is there any reason that you want more? I agree that what consequences follow would depend on the circumstances. That doesn't support your concept of it being 'a dangerous game'. You should probably have shown that humans don't universally act according to consequentialism as per the famous trolley car thought experiment. And why does the brutal dictator do that? Is it at least partially because he is free from the consequences (ie he can do so with impunity)? This supports my position that consequences are important to whether or not you decide to murder and if you take them away (or take away the 'caring about the consequences') - bad things can often follow. Agreed. And that's what we so often find happens isn't it? Exactly. And the lesson here? If we want humans to not commit rape - we have to come to a widespread agreement to enact negative consequences on those that rape. I believe there have been some surveys carried out where young men were asked if they could get away with it completely, would they rape someone and a large number of them said 'yes'.

That's not my philosophy, but someone else who truly believes in X,Y,Z might make it their philosophy. Just like you made it your own philosophy that something the size of an atom expanded dramatically to give birth to a self-aware entity like yourself. The Tooth Fairy building a universe is just as unbelieveable as a fluctuation giving birth to a self-aware "I". Your dismay is the result of taking your philosophy way to seriously, whereby forgetting that we practically know NOTHING about anything as far as reality, existence and self-awareness are concerned.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.