A case for strong atheism

[FunkyTown]

Also, think about it, when has Snow been on the right side of the argument before? This is momentous, despite his clear abrasiveness. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

Hahah. Fair enough. To be honest, I don't read his stuff, so it's entirely possible he wrote the entire works of William Shakespeare and I would naturally assume it wasn't worth reading. All right. I'll apologize. I saw post after post of snide remarks and insults and thought, 'Hey... This doesn't seem to be the side we should show someone asking about the church, regardless of their intentions.'

If I misread the situation(And I admit it's a possibility), I apologize.

[Vanhin]

Hahah. Fair enough. To be honest, I don't read his stuff, so it's entirely possible he wrote the entire works of William Shakespeare and I would naturally assume it wasn't worth reading. All right. I'll apologize. I saw post after post of snide remarks and insults and thought, 'Hey... This doesn't seem to be the side we should show someone asking about the church, regardless of their intentions.'

If I misread the situation(And I admit it's a possibility), I apologize.

Oh no that was just Snow. I don't think he can help himself. Though, I did find the following comment quite profound.

Dude! You are on a MORMON board. That quote refers to a Catholic belief that is the opposite of what Mormons believe. In our faith, the self is not an enemy to be annihilated. The self is divine.

Vanhin

Edited March 3, 2010 by Vanhin

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Roundearth. I hope today finds your better than yesterday (in all respects)! :)

I've been meaning to address some of the moral arguments you've made in the previous pages of this thread but because of the massive amounts of comments, posts, and side arguments, it has been hard to keep everything organized. One of the greatest faults, in my opinion anyways, of debating in such a format as a discussion forum. Nonetheless, I have some time now.

I will try to break this line of discussion in to two parts. First, I want to quote some points and arguments that you have made. My intention in quoting your moral and ethical arguments is so that they can be acknowledged, understood and later contrasted. Once we've confirmed that I have understood your position correctly I will move on to present the LDS "Theory of Ethics". I will present what I believe a vast majority (if not all) of Mormons would agree is an accurate description of the LDS theory of ethics.

So, I will now proceed. Below are quotes of what you have offered as descriptors of your moral position. Below your quotes is my summary and understanding of your moral view:

In my philosophy, your life is an end in itself. People should be rational to do well at their work, they should work to do well in life, and they should do well in life to become happy. The rational man spends his life more or less singlemindedly on his work. As a result, he moves from achievement to achievement, and his joy builds as he creates and is admired by everyone. His effort is not dimmed by the belief that if he does not do well in this life, he has another life to make up for it. At the end of his life, he is not afraid, because he knows that he will simply pass out of existence - and he has no regret, because he has lived well. This sort of existence is not meaningless.

Atheism does not allow an individual to set up his morality however he chooses. He is still bound by logic to provide a reasonable answer to moral questions. For example, he cannot hold that some act both is and is not good, and he cannot hold ridiculous moral positions.

Nor does atheism eliminate the need for any specific morality. The reason is that an atheist is a living being with the capacity to choose his actions, and as such requires a code of values that will keep him alive. He needs such a code, or he'll die.

Right, but when we ask whether the atheist "has to" do something, we are asking whether he is bound by logic to do something - at least as I was using the phrase.

Depends on the moral code. On my code, it's okay to do something to someone else only when they violate a contract (under normal circumstances, naturally).

But on your account, correctness and incorrectness are still up to an individual - the superbeing. So what's the different?

Anyway, even if correctness and incorrectness are up to the individual on my account, there's still correctness and incorrectness.

Something is correct given an end. If your aim is to find the answer to the problem 2+2, 4 is correct.

To summarize, this is what I understand you are saying: Life is an end in itself as opposed to life being a means to an afterlife. This fact gives life meaning. We also find meaning by doing well/good/right in our life. You seem to define what is good as that which promotes your survival. Even though the actions that are justified by the principle of self preservation are subjective, you claim nonetheless that logic provides boundaries. You give as an example that an atheist cannot hold ridiculous moral positions. Conclusion: Life itself and doing good in life provide meaning to an atheist. Self preservation is the source of the moral code of an atheist tempered by the bounds of logic.

Did I accurately present your perspective (I will happily be corrected if I am wrong)?

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 5, 2010 by Finrock
Clarification. One sentence in particular just sounded wrong.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Roundearth.

I don't think you understand my argument. Let me point out that my argument concludes that God has no identity. God is not God' date=' if I'm right. I'm not saying "here's nature, and that's what I'm going to call existence." I'm saying, "here's everything that exists, notice that it all has identity, and now notice that to have identity is to be natural."[/quote']

...which is pretty much what you said the first time, except backwards.

On what basis do you think you can just point to “everything that exists” and say, “here it is”?

Would you, by chance, be including anything supernatural in the category “everything that exists”?

No, you’re not: you’re starting with the assumption that the set, “everything that exists” only includes “things that have ‘identity’*,” and is consequently equal to the set, “natural things.”

It’s a circular argument, because your conclusion is one of your original premises.

Stop assuming your conclusion and demonstrate it!

*Your definition of the word “identity” is also biased toward natural things, because you require things to be definable by people like you and me in order for them to have “identity,” when most people see the word “supernatural” as referring to things that people like you and me cannot define.

-----

"There are no contradictions" is a demonstrable universal negative.

No, it isn’t.

But, even if it is, the non-existence of God still isn’t, so this is a complete red herring.

-----

I repeat my conclusion concerning your argument: it doesn’t defeat the naturalistic God that Traveler, Vanhin, FunkyTown and company are talking about, and it doesn’t defeat the supernaturalistic God that you’re talking about.

Everyone else has been arguing that you need to know the Mormon God. But, that comes in the testing phase of the logic process. Before you can test an argument, you have to make sure it’s a valid hypothesis to begin with. Your argument clearly is not, so it fails before the testing stage.

If you took it to a Baptist forum, you would lose there, too.

If you took it to a Hindu forum, you would lose there, too.

It doesn’t matter that you happened to take it to a Mormon forum, because it doesn’t work on any God.

[Roundearth]

you’re starting with the assumption that the set, “everything that exists” only includes “things that have ‘identity’*,”

And that assumption is obviously true. If my conclusion is logically equivalent to it, then my conclusion is also obviously true. Edited March 5, 2010 by Roundearth

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

Bluejay - I am impressed

Likewise.

When I get a reasonable, humble response like this, I feel completely embarrassed when I go back and read the belligerent tone of my posts in the thread leading up to it. We got off to a bad start, and it’s my fault. I’m sorry.

-----

Here is another thought – Anything that can be understood in “nature” can be replicated by those intelligent enough to control the parameter.

So, you’re leaning towards atonement being a natural possibility, but one that the Fall inhibits our ability to master? I suppose it makes sense: it only troubles me in that it makes it hard to decide what the words “natural” and “supernatural” actually mean.

I would consider the Atonement “supernatural” simply because it seems to defy the common logic and empirical reasoning that I equate with the word “natural.” I have tried many times to figure out how the Atonement works, and I have concluded that it doesn’t follow any “natural” principles that I know of. For that reason, I have relegated it to the “supernatural” category until such time as I am granted understanding of it.

The trouble there is that “supernatural” simply becomes a synonym of “unknown” (not that there is a clear way to distinguish the two concepts, anyway).

-----

As to assuming and faith. My point is that there is much we assume in life that we just accept by faith. Science is full of such notions.

Ideally, science shouldn’t include faith, and, in general, I don’t think it does. However, individual scientists very often might do so. Trying to turn Ockham’s razor into an offensive weapon, for example, would be a more proactive approach than something that isn’t faith would normally entail.

-----

A final thought about the internet – say something intelligent or even brilliant and many will agree and find little reason to add to it. But say something completely unreasonable and downright stupid and everyone will get involved and respond. The point here is that large egos feed on attention and will say most anything to get and maintain it.

I’m well aware of that: I’m one of those large egos.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bluejay
"the Atonement" instead of "it": clarity

[Bluejay]

Hi, Roundearth.

And that assumption is obviously true. If my conclusion is logically equivalent to it, then my conclusion is also obviously true.

It's never logically valid for your conclusion to be the same as your assumption.

They actually have a name for what you're doing. It's called Petitio principii or begging the question, and it's universally regarded as a logical fallacy.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Roundearth.

And that assumption is obviously true. If my conclusion is logically equivalent to it, then my conclusion is also obviously true.

I should also point out that you have now reduced your argument to your personal assertion that your argument is obviously true.

So, you have somehow managed to use three different logical fallacies to support your argument:

1. Argument from ignorance: "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

2. Begging the question: "If my conclusion is equivalent to my assumption, my conclusion is true"

3. Ipse-dixitism: "My assumption is obviously true"

[Traveler]

Hi, Traveler.

Likewise.

When I get a reasonable, humble response like this, I feel completely embarrassed when I go back and read the belligerent tone of my posts in the thread leading up to it. We got off to a bad start, and it’s my fault. I’m sorry.

-----

So, you’re leaning towards atonement being a natural possibility, but one that the Fall inhibits our ability to master? I suppose it makes sense: it only troubles me in that it makes it hard to decide what the words “natural” and “supernatural” actually mean.

What troubles you is exactly my conclusion with these things. There is one other thought that gets woven into this tapestry. This is the scriptural use of “the natural man”, which is a reference to what we in our fallen state are capable of sensing and realizing with our various senses.

The natural man is defined as someone that is carnal, sensual and devilish. The first two terms are in general concerning; first – the needs of the flesh and second the senses or what we can determine with our 5 senses. It is only the 3rd term that has strictly religious meaning but carnal and sensual is simply our 3 dimensional needs and sensing capabilities.

I would consider the Atonement “supernatural” simply because it seems to defy the common logic and empirical reasoning that I equate with the word “natural.” I have tried many times to figure out how the Atonement works, and I have concluded that it doesn’t follow any “natural” principles that I know of. For that reason, I have relegated it to the “supernatural” category until such time as I am granted understanding of it.

The trouble there is that “supernatural” simply becomes a synonym of “unknown” (not that there is a clear way to distinguish the two concepts, anyway).

You are correct and this is exactly my thought - supernatural is nothing more than a creation of a beholder to account for what they do not understand.

Ideally, science shouldn’t include faith, and, in general, I don’t think it does. However, individual scientists very often might do so. Trying to turn Ockham’s razor into an offensive weapon, for example, would be a more proactive approach than something that isn’t faith would normally entail.

-----

There can be no progress in anything until someone is willing to venture into and explore beyond the well known into that which is unproven and can only be speculated. A willingness to go beyond what is proven is often called a leap of faith. It is faith by which the first steps toward knowledge are taken. Even in religious circles it is the lack of faith – even in G-d that keeps anyone ignorant. Knowledge of what is proven is a good thing but even in science faith to try and explore is what makes a scientist memorable and outstanding.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

And that assumption is obviously true. If my conclusion is logically equivalent to it, then my conclusion is also obviously true.

Perhaps, but define what "things with identity" means. Is that anything that exists? Or is it anything that exists that mankind has discovered? Those are two entirely different concepts.

Circular logic does not equate true logic. It does not follow in either of these cases.

1. If it is anything that exists is true, then mankind has yet to discover all things that exist, and so we do not have possession of the complete set.

2. If it is anything that exists that mankind has discovered, then while it may be true for that set, it is not necessarily true for anything outside of the set.

Therefore, your claim fails.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Roundearth! I wish you the best for today. :)

Let me first admit that my response to this particular strain of conversation was tongue-in-cheek. I had no serious investment in it's validity, soundness, or truth.

However...

Just for the fun of it I'll point out how your responses are still inadequat to justify your initial claims.

Okay, we need definitions.

arrogance - The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner

~wiktionary

Looking at the definition of hubris, a related term, is also helpful here.

Hubris (also hybris) means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

~wikipedia

The crucial part of the former definition is "making undue claims." For example, Darwin was arrogant if he asserted the theory of evolution based on insufficient investigation.

He famously kept a journal of every fact that seemed to contradict his theory. An arrogant person would have ignored them.

1. You made a categorical statement (Darwin was humble when he examined data). You simply have no way of knowing in what manner Darwin examined his evidence. The best you can do is infer that Darwin probably was humble. 2. One can be arrogant and honest simultaneously. You are asserting that arrogance somehow necessarily speaks to integrity when it doesn't. Else, you are redifining the term arrogant to include dishonesty as well. Which you cannot reasonably do. So, it is completely possible that Darwin was an arrogant person yet he was intellectually honest.

The point is that biologists are authorities on whether or not evolution is true on not. So I'm not making an argument from numbers, I'm making an argument from legitimate authority.

Silly counterargument. Whether it's an appeal to numbers or an appeal to authority, it is nonetheless fallacious. It isn't fallacious because we can't ever rely on expert opinion, but because you are putting biologist and their authority above reproach.

They can't be arrogant. You'd get shot down for publishing an article that made undue claims.

This is question begging.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 5, 2010 by Finrock
Took out redundant statements.

[Snow]

Hi, Roundearth.

It's never logically valid for your conclusion to be the same as your assumption.

They actually have a name for what you're doing. It's called Petitio principii or begging the question, and it's universally regarded as a logical fallacy.

There's no need to be mean Bluejay. Cut the youngster some slack.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Snow.

There's no need to be mean Bluejay. Cut the youngster some slack.

Well, after I was a jerk to everyone else, I had to make sure he didn't think I was on his side, or anything like that.

[personne]

I put more and more in doubt the existence of God...i'm so sad..Je suis désolée si je vous blesse mais je remets parfois en cause ce Dieu.

Jesus lived at the time of the Roman and their world represented a kind of debauchery fearing neither god nor man. Go out of this world to follow Jesus, it was to dress another personality like Jesus who represents the new being whom estimates(appreciates) God because God does not like the way of being of the world which does not respect its laws. To stay in the world, it is to choose satan because it is him who is a leader of the dominant world, to follow Jesus it is to become Christian and to adopt a virtuous and chaste lifestyle. If we love God, we obey his(her,its) laws