Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism: an irrational philosophical system
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 171 (80744)
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
Many theists believe that atheism as a philosophical system is simply irrational in that it fails to deal with the numerous realities of our world in a consistent and intelligible manner. These realities include reason (laws of induction and deduction), existence of mathematics, the ability for science to exist, morality, absolute truth and human dignity.
Instead, many believers of atheism tend to be arbitrary and talk about their own subjective opinions about an alleged God and how they simply dislike said entity. They make claims such as How could a loving God do this (hell,suffering,etc)? or Look at all the harm religion has caused. Reasons for unbelief are rarely grounded on sound philosophical reasoning; instead they are typically based on emotional arguments that are entirely subjective and quite lacking in any real substance. Surely it is self evident that simply because one doesn’t like something or someone, doesn’t mean that this person or entity doesn’t exist. Some atheists understand this and so instead they attempt to demonstrate inconsistencies or contradictions on the nature of this God. Concerning the Christian God, in most cases, these accusations merely demonstrate the atheists complete lack of understanding for Christian Theology.
The same can not be said for inconsistencies within atheism. Very basic problems can be presented and the atheist is left with simply having to trust their instinct (which is error prone by their own admission), or to simply ignore the problems demonstrated to exist, instead simply relying on faith that they are correct.
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. 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?
Many atheists tend to pick and choose what they believe in. Are the truths of issues decided by the majority? Most atheists would say yes. It’s wrong to murder because most people agree. The USA exists as a country because most people agree that the USA exists as a country. Applying this same logic to the question of God however, would generate an answer different to what atheism believes. Since the majority of the world believes God exists (>70% by most studies, >85% in the US by the same), wouldn’t that suggest that God probably does exist?
Concerning human dignity, atheism can not account for various problems that can be presented. Atheists are quick to point out that they are moral and believe in human dignity-and for the record I agree. The claim is not that atheists are immoral and that Christians are perfect, rather we are all ultimately immoral and none are perfect (except Christ of course-all are in a state of rebellion against God). To demonstrate the inconsistencies, I present the following questions:
Is it wrong to own a pack mule? Is it wrong to kill a chicken for dinner, or to kill a monkey and eat its brain? Is it wrong to kill another human in a territorial battle (war)? Most atheists will probably say, pack mules are ok, chickens can be killed for dinner, war is wrong. This is contrary to what an evolutionary world would tend to suggest. Is it wrong to own a human slave(of course it is-why is not wrong to own a pack mule, btw save the biblical references to slaves for another discussion)? Is it wrong to kill another human (of course it is, why is it not wrong to kill a chicken or monkey then)? Why is it wrong for humans to kill others in war, but a pack of wolves can go ahead and fight each other for territorial/positional matters? These questions and many others like them demonstrate how atheism can not deal with the world in a rational or consistent manner.
Furthermore, these examples are not intended to be used as an acedemic proof that atheism is not true, instead to show that atheism fails to deal with many issues that it must adequately deal with if it is to be considered a rational position. In doing this, I think it is quite clear that atheism as a system of thought is quite lacking. In comparison, Christianity can deal with these issues in a consistent and accurate way. Core doctrines are not subjective since there is revealed scripture (I am not debating inerrancy here, while I do believe in this doctrine, this discussion is not on the inerrancy of scripture). Christians can say that Hitler was wrong and even that Christians can be hypocritical at times because we can compare these errant actions to the nature of God, the absolute standard of morality and find the behavior lacking. Christians can say that it is ok to own a pack mule and wrong to own a human slave because that slave is created in the image of God. Christians can at least begin to deal with emotional problems such as hell and needless suffering, because we have standards to measure these alleged problems by.
Every philosophical system in existence has to deal with these issues. Some provide logical, concise answers; others simply ignore the obvious errors and instead require their followers to simply ignore these major flaws. In doing this, the atheist is forced to have a type of blind faith, in order to continue to presuppose their belief.
Ultimately, in my opinion, there is very little rational evidence that an atheist can lean on. The claim is made that the burden of proof is on the believer. I grant this. See arguments in their various forms such as, cosmological, teleological, transcendental, from morality, self-evident, from prophetic revelations, from miracles, changed lives, impossibility of the contrary, etc.
In light of this evidence, why is it more rational to believe in atheism? I will maintain that it is irrational to take this position and that when individuals do this, they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and worshiping the created instead of the creator as Paul stated. They might worship science (which I and many Christian theists appreciate and love including Newton and Pascal) or themselves.
The question of Gods existence can not be answered by science, it is a philosophical question, dealing with the metaphysical. Most atheists/agnostics demand too much proof from the theist. God has given ample evidence to all in the simplest and most concise manner possible. This world and all that is in it is a direct reflection of His wonder and glory.
I will respond to as many comments as possible time permitting.
Christ have mercy,
Grace2u
"The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly consist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requires infinitely the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHEIEFLY consists in a regard to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this" Jonathan Edwards
[This message has been edited by grace2u, 01-25-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Asgara, posted 01-25-2004 11:23 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-26-2004 1:27 AM grace2u has replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2004 1:30 AM grace2u has not replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2004 3:11 AM grace2u has replied
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 01-26-2004 5:58 AM grace2u has not replied
 Message 9 by Abshalom, posted 01-26-2004 4:40 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 01-26-2004 5:22 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 11 by roboto85, posted 01-26-2004 6:36 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 13 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 01-26-2004 7:59 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 14 by :æ:, posted 01-26-2004 8:11 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 01-27-2004 7:01 AM grace2u has not replied
 Message 46 by DBlevins, posted 01-28-2004 2:15 AM grace2u has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 2 of 171 (80750)
01-25-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
Hi Grace,
I'm not going to touch on each of your points because many of them have been done to death in other threads. But I will touch on a few of them.
many believers of atheism tend to be arbitrary and talk about their own subjective opinions about an alleged God and how they simply dislike said entity. They make claims such as How could a loving God do this (hell,suffering,etc)? or Look at all the harm religion has caused.
I don't see this much at all. In fact, the majority of atheists that I know are atheists because of a lack of evidence. Any discussion of subjective opinions and like/dislike are simply literary critiques...the same as I would discuss a character in a popular book and talk about internal inconsistencies or poor characterization, etc. "The way the author set John Doe's personality up in the first three chapters doesn't show that John is capable of doing what the author has him doing in chapter 4. The author gives no justification for this behavior." Just because an atheist can point to supposed inconsistent information or immoral behavior of a character in a book, doesn't mean that we only disbelieve in the real existence of this character because of it.
You go on to bring up your assertions of the existence of universal absolutes. The existence of these has been discussed in several threads here and you haven't convinced anyone of them.
Many atheists tend to pick and choose what they believe in. Are the truths of issues decided by the majority? Most atheists would say yes. It’s wrong to murder because most people agree. The USA exists as a country because most people agree that the USA exists as a country. Applying this same logic to the question of God however, would generate an answer different to what atheism believes. Since the majority of the world believes God exists (>70% by most studies, >85% in the US by the same), wouldn’t that suggest that God probably does exist?
I personally don't believe in anything by majority opinion. I know the USA exists as a country because of facts attesting to this, such as our Declaration of Independence which isn't currently questioned by any other country. I would like references to your statistics on belief in god's existance. Is this YOUR god? or any god? Most references I have seen state that Christianity is believed by only 33% of people on Earth
Religions of the world: numbers of adherents; growth rates
why is it more rational to believe in atheism?
Atheism isn't a belief...it's a LACK of belief

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 171 (80761)
01-26-2004 12:14 AM


Atheism vs. Anti-theism
I think an important problem is that atheism is ofter considered equivilent to anti-theism. While some atheists are indeed anti-theistic, I suspect the vast majority are not. I think that agnostic and atheistic are far more equivilent thatn atheistic and anti-theistic.
Agnostic - don't know if there is a God.
Atheistic - no belief in God.
Anti-theistic - belief that there is no God.
One can be an agnostic atheist, but one can not be an agnostic anti-theistic.
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-26-2004]

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 171 (80778)
01-26-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians
In Message #1, Grace states the following opinions (among many others):
* These questions (regarding the morality of slavery, killing, etc.) and many others like them demonstrate how atheism can not deal with the world in a rational or consistent manner.
* Furthermore, these examples (are intended) to show that atheism fails to deal with many issues that it must adequately deal with if it is to be considered a rational position.
* I think it is quite clear that atheism as a system of thought is quite lacking. In comparison, Christianity can deal with these issues in a consistent and accurate way.
* Core doctrines are not subjective since there is revealed scripture.
*I will respond to as many comments as possible time permitting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, Grace:
Grace, if you have time, please tell me how a Christian Theocracy, totally unrestrained by secular (and God forbid, secular humanist) laws or courts, would deal with violators of Biblical Law regarding, just for an example, adultery.
For reference, the following biblical legal determinations are given:
Leviticus 20:10
(Moses speaking) "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Mark 10:11/12
He (Jesus) answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
In order there not be a claim of "taking out of context," please feel free to refer to Mark, Chapter 10 in its entirety if you like.
In order not to overburden your time, I am just asking for a response to this one question at this time rather than having to address all the other examples that one might drag out regarding the Inquisition and sundry witch trials.
Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 01-25-2004 10:43 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by grace2u, posted 01-28-2004 1:48 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 98 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 1:28 AM Abshalom has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 171 (80779)
01-26-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


The logical conclusion of a world without an absolute standard of morality (God) is that all is subjective to the individual or society.
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.
There is also a problem of dealing with problems such as why is it wrong to rape or torture someone?
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.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 171 (80797)
01-26-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
I must say that the point of view represents in your post is itself irrational. Rather than even attempting to understand what atheism is it constructs a fantasy and attacks that.
Atheism is not a philosophical system. It is a position on one single issue - the belief in a God.
From this it follows that any suggestion that atheism should explain morality in itself is foolish.
Moreover it is also the case that there are many philosophical attempts to deal with morality and that almost all of these are compatible with atheism ! Divine Command Theory which you seem to recognise as the ONLY valid system is in fact generally consdered one of the worse attempts.
So we can see that your post lacks even a basic understanding of what atheism is and is completely ignorant of the relevant philosophy.
There are other equally serious errors - for instance dismissing the various forms of the Argument From Evil by ignoring a basic feature of Christian theology (that God is entirely Good) and therefore misrepresenting the argument. That that is followed by an accusation that those who USE the argument have a "complete lack of understanding for Christian Theology" is pretty amazing.
I suggest that the sources you used as a basis for your post are the ones following a completely irrational philosophic system. What other explanation is there for their ignorance of the most basic facts relevant to their assertions ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 01-25-2004 10:43 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by grace2u, posted 01-28-2004 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 7 of 171 (80804)
01-26-2004 4:04 AM


Grace,
Considering your post is ridden with outrageous claims, may I suggest you narrow the discussion? I'm particularly interested your Absolute Morality proof of God, since you assert it so often. Maybe you can stop by the topic "Morality and God"
http://EvC Forum: Morality and God -->EvC Forum: Morality and God
so you can clarify how God can account for an Absolute Morality better than any moral system based on axioms (e.g. "Never treat another person merely as a means to an end".

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


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

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 171 (80897)
01-26-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
Grace:
We're waiting, dear.

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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 171 (80901)
01-26-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
quote:
To demonstrate this, Christian philosophers demonstrate the inability of atheism to account for morality.
Oh, no, not this again! Christians try to demonstrate the inability of atheism to account for morality. Atheists can account for morality quite well. The problems that you state have nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that the question "why is it wrong to rape or torture someone" cannot be answered. How is this an inconsistency that proves atheism irrational? Why do you think that moral questions need to be answerable?
quote:
instead to show that atheism fails to deal with many issues that it must adequately deal with if it is to be considered a rational position.
Again, why must it adequately deal with these issues?
Secondly, atheism is simply the belief that there is no god (yes, I know that there are some here that disagree with this, but they can make their own arguments). It, in itself, is not a philosophy. It is merely a part of a philosophy that a person has. Suppose that an atheist has a philosophy that does deal with these issues? What then?
quote:
In light of this evidence, why is it more rational to believe in atheism?
Because most factors that influence my life can be explained without postulating the existence of a god. Because even those things for which I don't have explanation, god does not produce a satisfying explanaion - just seems like another way of saying "I don't know", and it's easier, for me, to just say "I don't know and be done with it.
In short, the theist still has not produced any compelling evidence in favor of any god's existence, other than the ocassional argument from ignorance.
quote:
Most atheists/agnostics demand too much proof from the theist.
I don't demany any proof from the theist. She is perfectly free to believe whatever she believes. It doesn't matter to me.

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

  
roboto85
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 171 (80908)
01-26-2004 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
I understand exactly what he's trying to say. He explains, in some detail, how Atheism is the belief in basically nothing, while Theism is the belief in something, which correlates much better to what we have today... that which is something. Heck, if there was nothing I might be leaning towards being atheistic myself, but since that's not the way it happens to be... Of course that's not all that's involved. But just one broad point. His point still stands, Theism explains things, our Universe, and our physical, psychological, and moral laws. Atheism may attempt to do this to some extent, but not nearly as satisfactory. Things need to be explained. So either the explanation has been in front of our noses the whole time... or some may suggest everybody will have to wait a billion years for humans to generate their own explanations on everything that meets their standards. Still doesn't mean those will be right. I myself, choose the first.
[This message has been edited by roboto85, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 01-25-2004 10:43 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2004 7:13 PM roboto85 has replied
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2004 2:53 AM roboto85 has not replied
 Message 33 by grace2u, posted 01-27-2004 6:56 PM roboto85 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 171 (80915)
01-26-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by roboto85
01-26-2004 6:36 PM


Theism explains things, our Universe, and our physical, psychological, and moral laws.
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?
Atheism may attempt to do this to some extent, but not nearly as satisfactory.
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.
I myself, choose the first.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by roboto85, posted 01-26-2004 6:36 PM roboto85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by roboto85, posted 01-26-2004 10:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 171 (80919)
01-26-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
There is also a problem of dealing with problems such as why is it wrong to rape or torture someone?
First of all there is no such thing as absolute morality or truth.
Have you ever heard of empathy? The way I and I'm sure most atheists decide whether their actions are right or wrong is by looking at a action from the other persons point of view.
For instance I would not want to be tortured so if I myself don't want to be tortured why would I want someone else to be. I don't need god to tell me what is wrong or right.
Are the truths of issues decided by the majority? Most atheists would say yes.
Well, I personally have never said this I don't know anyone that has. I agree that in a society something may be acceptable that another society would frown upon, but just because something is accepted by a majority of people doesn't mean it is correct. The reason most people are Atheists is simple because there is no evidence supporting ANY god.
What I think you do not understand is that Atheism is the position that there is no god. Nothing more there is no 10 commandments for Atheism there is no Atheism bible. So to define it as a "philosophical system" is somewhat misleading.

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

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 14 of 171 (80921)
01-26-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
01-25-2004 10:43 PM


Re: Atheism: An irrational philosophical system
grace2u writes:
Many theists believe that atheism as a philosophical system...
Stop right there.
Atheism is NOT a "philosophical system." It is simply the absence of a single belief: the belief that a god or gods exist. For that matter, theism isn't a "philosophical system" per se. It is simply the presence of the belief I mentioned.
That's it, and that's all. Period. End. Fin.
Atheism, therefore, can characterize numerous individual and unique "philosophical system(s)," as can theism. That is, unless you're asserting that Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Satanists, etc... all share the same "philosophical system" since they are all theistic.
Is that your assertion?
They make claims such as How could a loving God do this (hell,suffering,etc)? or Look at all the harm religion has caused.
I personally don't think these issues have any bearing on the existence of a god or gods, strictly speaking. It is only on the existence of certain god-concepts which propose moral perfection and omnipotence as qualities of that entity that these issues carry weight.
Reasons for unbelief are rarely grounded on sound philosophical reasoning
Lack of evidence is just about as sound as it gets.
Concerning the Christian God, in most cases, these accusations merely demonstrate the atheists complete lack of understanding for Christian Theology.
BZZT!! Logical error: Ad Hominem. Do you really think insults make for rational arguments?
The logical conclusion of a world without an absolute standard of morality (God) is that all is subjective to the individual or society. 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.
BZZT!! Logical error: Non-sequitur. Naturalism does not remove volition and for that reason it does not negate culpability.
Are the truths of issues decided by the majority? Most atheists would say yes. It’s wrong to murder because most people agree.
No, it's illegal to murder because most people agree that its wrong. That most people agree on something does not make it an objective truth.
The USA exists as a country because most people agree that the USA exists as a country. Applying this same logic to the question of God however, would generate an answer different to what atheism believes. Since the majority of the world believes God exists (>70% by most studies, >85% in the US by the same), wouldn’t that suggest that God probably does exist?
No.
Is it wrong to own a pack mule? Is it wrong to kill a chicken for dinner, or to kill a monkey and eat its brain? Is it wrong to kill another human in a territorial battle (war)?
All of these depend on a lot of things, and even then the answers would not be objectively true.
This is contrary to what an evolutionary world would tend to suggest.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution doesn't "suggest" any type of behavior any more than a theory of gravity would "suggest" that people should be pushed off of high cliffs in order to follow their natural geodesic. Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive.
These questions and many others like them demonstrate how atheism can not deal with the world in a rational or consistent manner.
Questions don't demonstrate anything. It is only the nature of the answers that does. So far, you have failed to address any of the myriad of answers you've been supplied.
In doing this, I think it is quite clear that atheism as a system of thought is quite lacking.
Atheism is NOT a "system of thought"!!
Core doctrines are not subjective since there is revealed scripture (I am not debating inerrancy here, while I do believe in this doctrine, this discussion is not on the inerrancy of scripture).
Oh, please. "Core doctrines" are derived from interpretations -- which ARE inherently subjective.
Christians can say that it is ok to own a pack mule and wrong to own a human slave because that slave is created in the image of God.
Or they can interpret all the passages that describe how you should treat your slave as an implicit admission that owning slaves is not wrong.
Christians can at least begin to deal with emotional problems such as hell and needless suffering, because we have standards to measure these alleged problems by.
Which are these, and how might we measure them?
In light of this evidence, why is it more rational to believe in atheism?
People don't "believe in atheism." Instead, they don't believe in a god or gods, and that makes them atheists.
This world and all that is in it is a direct reflection of His wonder and glory.
I thought you said that we are all immoral and imperfect. How does this reflect the "wonder and glory" of a supposedly perfect being?
[This message has been edited by ::, 01-26-2004]

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

  
roboto85
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 171 (80947)
01-26-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
01-26-2004 7:13 PM


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.
When it's all said and done, Atheism explains crap. All Atheism is is the religion of science. Our perception of Science is always changing and we are left correcting ourselves. As a rational person myself, I choose not to put my faith in that. I choose the religion of believing in God, who created science. Yes, in many matters of religion there are things that are left unexplained, but the MAJOR things are easily explained. Atheism can't begin to explain these things. Yes, it may require humbling yourself to admitting that it's just if not more likely that an all powerful God created everything, as it is than an all powerful nothing created everything. Major reasons as to why people decide not to believe in God can be cleared up in the Bible through extensive study and an open mind. If your not up for that, go right ahead and believe in nothing.
If theism was an acceptable explanation to a lot of rational people, don't you think they all would be theists?
No, because not all people are rational. LOL, yeah thats gonna get me into some trouble with ya'll, but it was funny nevertheless. The two most intelligent/educated people I know, both believe in God. One know's just about all there is to know about evolution and history. And yet he still believes that God created the Universe. I have conversed with this person through message boards, and he seriously can't be beaten. The other person recieved perfect or just about perfect scores on his SAT's twice, and he believes in God and his purposes. I believe most scientists also believe in God. Maybe the irrational people aren't all that dumb after all.
I realize I've said stuff to offend you and others, but choose not to continue this. I recently just ended another debate that went on for 2 days spanning many posts, and I believe we both came to the same conclusions we had to begin with. My point it is, it didn't seem to accomplish much. I'm not gonna make that same mistake this time.
[This message has been edited by roboto85, 01-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2004 7:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2004 11:11 PM roboto85 has replied
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 01-27-2004 3:27 AM roboto85 has replied
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 01-27-2004 9:13 PM roboto85 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024