No Truth

[iscreamchocolate]

No Truth
..18 views

I am my own self-ruler
I need not any ministry
I see our music scares you
Can't you see that...

There's no truth in modern religion, a god we do not praise
There's no truth in heaven or hell or what lies between
There's no truth in a man-made bible, so who are they to say?
There's no truth, we are our own god and that's the only way

People live their lives
By something never seen
Dreaming all their lives
Of a place they've never been

Why can't you see live a lie?
Humor yourself until you die
We're atheist as you can see
We all control our can see

There's no truth


Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

[Strawberry_Fields_Fo]

Then by all means, don't believe in god. Just don't criticize those with beliefs that differ from yours--it makes you no better than the fundamentalist christians.

[iscreamchocolate]

then i guess christains shouldn't look at this stuff then (the atheist part)... and i wans't trying to critisize anyone it's just a song that i found and liked so i was just presenting it for others to see

[We_All_Shine_On]

is this song on kazaa? I like it... but I sorta think its selfish to believe only in humans.. its whats killed the earth.. we're here to take care of the planet, not to give our pennies to priests, or slaughter the biblical enemy....

[TheHammerSpeaks]

If there is no truth, then it is false that God doesn't exist.

[ErickGhint42]

to believe only in one's self and other people isn't selfish, it's a better way of looking at things. it's saying that you really don't need the outside help of something that isn't going to answer your prayers anyway. it's an odd way of looking at things, but in the long run you're not going to be as dissapointed with most people. god will let you down just as much anyway. putting your trust in something that isn't there will always let you down. that's why you should believe in yourself and in humanity. they acctually exist. damn i'm tired and ranting.....

[Iacchus]

The truth is as plain as the nose on your face ... excepting of course you don't got one! :eek:

[grendel 44]

Eric, I like the quote from Issac Asimov it really does make sense. That is how I feel. Actually I am open to a religion that makes sense, but I am almost 60 now and have not found anything yet.

IceCream, you do not have to apologise for your post. It was what was on your mind and I, for one am with you. This is a forum to discuss non-belief after all.

[Haener]

If there is no truth, then it is false that God doesn't exist.That's a little easy don't you think? You're referring to a song, not some logically constructed argument.

Ofcourse there is truth and the truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up any religion. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence against most religions.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

That's a little easy don't you think? You're referring to a song, not some logically constructed argument.
The poster is making an argument, and a seriously flawed one. If he chooses to do it in the form of a song, then that's his business. But it's an argument nonetheless.

Ofcourse there is truth and the truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up any religion. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence against most religions.
No, there certainly is plenty of evidence to back up Christianity, you just choose not to accept it.

[Razorofoccam]

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:


"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

And not a single word of the path of reason.

Is this all theists and atheists can do....?
Sling shit at eachother?

Are not some of us rational?
Yes...

That is why agnosticism.
Is the path of understanding.

Theism/atheism.. is a path of rebutle and denial. Of groundless claim and groundless counter claim.
While the world slips into a miasma of indifference.
Lulled by hopes of heavenly salvation or ego empowerment.

Occam would like to sit down with jesus and talk about this..
For he would be the LAST one to support such theological crud.


Occam

[Kharakov]

Ofcourse there is truth and the truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up any religion. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence against most religions.Jerry Springer. Jerry Springer.... Religions are scripted to get peoples goat. If you know what the different religions are for...... you might actually find them to be amusing (or maybe not, I still don't watch Springer). Your reaction to religion shows that you do not "get it".

[Kharakov]

That is why agnosticism.
Is the path of understanding.
If I see my neighbor every day can I claim to know that he exists? If I see him once a month can I claim to know that he exists?

If I have another neighbor who is ever present, controlling everything and I do not notice this neighbor because I am looking at the trees instead of the forest, does this mean the neighbor does not exist? Can I claim to know this neighbor exists, although i can only see trees or part of the forest because the forest stretches beyond the reach of my vision?

[Razorofoccam]

If I see my neighbor every day can I claim to know that he exists? If I see him once a month can I claim to know that he exists?

If I have another neighbor who is ever present, controlling everything and I do not notice this neighbor because I am looking at the trees instead of the forest, does this mean the neighbor does not exist? Can I claim to know this neighbor exists, although i can only see trees or part of the forest because the forest stretches beyond the reach of my vision?
Kharkov

If you see him. he exists by the parrameters of human understanding.

If you have a neighbor who controls everything you do. And you cannot
see this . But can see the 'direction' that this neighbor imposes.
Then you are in the same boat as occam

But occam does not call this direction..... god.
He cals it 'direction'.

Occam sees no need to call such direction 'god in heaven'
'God in heaven is a falacy created by humans'
And the bible/koran books made by MEN.

The 'direction' indicative of organised reality.
Has NO link to the christian/moslem god.
That god is a god because we want a god.
Some,, want a god.
And call the existence of life and empirical complexity a
proof of such a god.
This is a deception.

Organisation and complexity in reality requires only..direction.
Not the mythos of a religious god.
The christian/moslem mythis is not required.
By agnostics

Agnosticism= reason

Occam

[ErickGhint42]

i can see where you're comming from with your view of Agnosticism. it is reasonable to say that there may or may not be a god, but i think that the rational answer is that there isn't. and as far as the shit slinging, i agree that people get a bit defensive when it comes to what they do or do not believe in. but that's neither here nor there....

[J_Lazarus]

The-Dumb-Ass-Who-Misrepresented-The-Thread's-Initial-Statement said:


No, there certainly is plenty of evidence to back up Christianity, you just choose not to accept it.

Then by all means, present it. What valid evidence or arguments are there that back up any kind of theism? I don't see anything valid that I don't accept - just invalid nonsense and gibberish that I rightfully reject.


- J Lazarus

[TheHammerSpeaks]

What valid evidence or arguments are there that back up any kind of theism?
If you have faith, then the evidence is all around you all the time. You can see the magnificence of God in His creation. But faith is a choice, and because you lack faith, you choose not to see.

[geckopelli]

it is reasonable to say that there may or may not be a god, but i think that the rational answer is that there isn't...
It pains me to say it- but no, that's not the rational answer. It's a rationalized answer. It fails to take all the known facts into account. It's every bit as much a mattter of assumption and opinion as the other side.

It may be possible that something that displays some or all of the attributes commonly credited to an undefined-god may exist.
That's the rational answer.

[ErickGhint42]

It pains me to say it- but no, that's not the rational answer. It's a rationalized answer. It fails to take all the known facts into account. It's every bit as much a mattter of assumption and opinion as the other side.

It may be possible that something that displays some or all of the attributes commonly credited to an undefined-god may exist.
That's the rational answer.

when dealing with something like god there are no set facts, only theories. therefore through rational thought we can safely say that there is no man up there sitting on a cloud watching every move we make. while there may be arguements both ways, only one is reasonable. think of it this way : to recieve god's help with anything, you have to believe in it. you can believe that you have a cold, and if you convince yourself that it's true, you will start showing symptoms. this leads me to believe that god is nothing more than a subconscious entity that people have made up to feel better about their own lives. it's human nature to need something to lean on. what better than a god that's all powerful? we're told that he's real, so that makes it more present in our minds. if you think about it rationaly, it's nothing more than a story we're told that makes us more comfortable with life. and people follow it blindly to the day they die.

[Defence_mechanism]

If you have faith, then the evidence is all around you all the time. You can see the magnificence of God in His creation. But faith is a choice, and because you lack faith, you choose not to see.
does anyone else feel extremely patronised by this statement? "because you lack faith, you choose not to see". this is the reason im an atheist. people like that. i do NOT choose not to see. i see everything that i possibly can and i welcome everything that i see. the world before me is a beautiful, extraordinary place and has many spiritual beauties that i love. i am forever amazed at how wonderful things are, and at the same time how ugly and dysfunctional things can be in the world. i can accept and welcome these things.

i DO see. however, i do NOT see what you see. that does not mean what i see is wrong. it also does not mean my life will be any more or less wondrous than yours or anyone else who has faith. everyone is the master of their beliefs and in our own minds what we believe is right. however, there is no wrong. please do not patronise people when it comes to beliefs.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

i see everything that i possibly can and i welcome everything that i see.
Well that's obviously false; you don't see God, and trust me, it is possible.

i DO see. however, i do NOT see what you see. that does not mean what i see is wrong. it also does not mean my life will be any more or less wondrous than yours or anyone else who has faith. everyone is the master of their beliefs and in our own minds what we believe is right. however, there is no wrong. please do not patronise people when it comes to beliefs.
Where did that come from? I never said your life is any less valuable than mine. I didn't even say you were wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. However, I do think that my spiritual life is more filled with wonder than yours. Of course, I don't know this for sure; it's just a guess based on the fact that I've never met an atheist who thinks deeply about theological questions.

[J_Lazarus]

Dumb-Ass-Who-Doesn't-Know-What-He's-Talking-About Said:

If you have faith, then the evidence is all around you all the time. You can see the magnificence of God in His creation. But faith is a choice, and because you lack faith, you choose not to see.
Faith is defined as belief in things unseen (Hebrews 11:1)

It may also be defined as: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. " - from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Therefore my question remains. Why do you believe? What evidence or reasons are there that would prompt one towards faith or belief in God?

You say, "Once you believe, the evidence is all around you".

This is faulty because reasons/evidence for belief are a prerequisite for belief to be present. If you have no reason or evidence to believe in a proposition, your holding to that proposition will be necessarily hollow or insincere (if you can embrace it at all).

Whether it be that you accept God on the grounds that your parents raised you that way, or by way of traditional or modern apologetical arguments and approaches, or because of your emotional state feeling materialism or atheism is insufficient, you still embrace god-belief on the grounds of these *reasons*, or these personal evidences.

Thus, your response to me is nonsensical. But please - do come back, and try again.

- JL

[TheHammerSpeaks]

You know what, I don't like your smug, know-it-all attitude. It's clear that you've directed nothing but hostility towards me since your first post; I think anyone can see that, whether he has faith or not. If you keep it up I'll simply stop replying to your posts.


Faith is defined as belief in things unseen (Hebrews 11:1)

It may also be defined as: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. " - from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)
I don't disagree with that, but as usual Webster has failed to capture the totality of the word in his definition, not that I can blame him. Dictionaries are meant to give a brief, consice, and therefore, in some respects, necessarily inadequate hint at what word means. And after all, words fail those who try to describe faith adequately.

You say, "Once you believe, the evidence is all around you".

This is faulty because reasons/evidence for belief are a prerequisite for belief to be present. If you have no reason or evidence to believe in a proposition, your holding to that proposition will be necessarily hollow or insincere (if you can embrace it at all).
Well let's look back to your definition then,

"Faith is defined as belief in things unseen."

Sight, of course, is a sense. So then it follows that that the grounds for faith cannot be in empirical evidence. But let's take this a bit further; there is also no reason to have faith, what I mean by this is that rationality, reason, the rules of logic cannot conclusively determine, one way or the other, if there is or is not a God. So there can be no a priori, rationalised argument for the existence of God nor, therefore, the founding of faith.

So, you see, I agree with this definition. I just took it a little further to show you that Webster defines faith as what it is not, rather than what it is. Doesn't that suggest to you that your definition may be somewhat insufficient?

So what is my belief in the unseen founded upon? To oversimplify, it is based on the removal of the assumption that feeling (I mean feeling of the heart, not of the senses) is less valuable than empirical or rational evidence. So you can see, if not why there can be no reasonable argument supporting God's existence, why such an argument is unnecessary. The very idea of cutting down reason to the level of feeling, or perhaps raising feeling to the level of reason, is offensive to reason itself.

I'll write Webster and ask him to clarify his definition to prevent any further misunderstanding.

[Defence_mechanism]

However, I do think that my spiritual life is more filled with wonder than yours. Of course, I don't know this for sure; it's just a guess based on the fact that I've never met an atheist who thinks deeply about theological questions.atheist simply means i dont believe in god. it doesnt mean i dont think about theological questions. it also doesnt mean that i cant accept that other people believe in god. i think that everyone has spirituality inside of them, some people call it god, others dont. i dont. capiche?

i dont believe your life is any better or worse than mine, just because you believe there's a god.

[geckopelli]

when dealing with something like god there are no set facts, only theories."

Incorrect.
Reality remains Reality- and that is THE overiding fact.

"therefore through rational thought we can safely say that there is no man up there sitting on a cloud watching every move we make. while there may be arguements both ways, only one is reasonable. think of it this way : to recieve god's help with anything, you have to believe in it. you can believe that you have a cold, and if you convince yourself that it's true, you will start showing symptoms. this leads me to believe that god is nothing more than a subconscious entity that people have made up to feel better about their own lives. it's human nature to need something to lean on. what better than a god that's all powerful? we're told that he's real, so that makes it more present in our minds. if you think about it rationaly, it's nothing more than a story we're told that makes us more comfortable with life. and people follow it blindly to the day they die."

This is simply your personal definition of god. Do any of you believers concur with this definition?
I don't.

your aurguments may be "resonable", but they are not logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[TheHammerSpeaks]

atheist simply means i dont believe in god. it doesnt mean i dont think about theological questions.
If you want to know anything about a being, you must presuppose its existences first. If you don't, you're not going to get very far.

it also doesnt mean that i cant accept that other people believe in god.
I never said anything about that.

i think that everyone has spirituality inside of them, some people call it god, others dont. i dont. capiche?
No, I don't understand. Without a belief in God, angels, an afterlife, devils, demons, ghosts, reincarnation, or what have you, things that most atheists tend to shun, how can one have a spiritual life?

i dont believe your life is any better or worse than mine, just because you believe there's a god.
Again, I never said I have a better life than you. You might be far more virtuous than me; I've never met you so I have no way of knowing. However, from what I do know about you (You're an atheist) I do believe that I have a better spiritual life than you, which, it seems to me, is a very important part of life.

[Defence_mechanism]

Without a belief in God, angels, an afterlife, devils, demons, ghosts, reincarnation, or what have you, things that most atheists tend to shun, how can one have a spiritual life?
we both clearly have different definitions of spirituality. obvisouly because i dont believe in those things my spiritual life will be different to yours. i think spirituality is a feeling oneness with your surroundings, a personal feeling of being able to heal yourself from problems, and see beauty in the simplest things. i think its also in the way you treat people, like the way you see others and their points of view, and i think its a feeling of peace within yourself.

would i be right in assuming that your definition of spirituality is closer to religious values? more linked with your religion than say, the world around you? this isnt a vindictive comment, im just trying to understand.


i dont believe your life is any better or worse than mine, just because you believe there's a god.
Again, I never said I have a better life than you. You might be far more virtuous than me; I've never met you so I have no way of knowing. However, from what I do know about you (You're an atheist) I do believe that I have a better spiritual life than you, which, it seems to me, is a very important part of life.
by life i meant 'spiritual life'. and i agree that spirituality is an important part of life, but i think it comes in different forms. thats what im saying. its an individual thing.

[mother_nature's_son]

Without a belief in God, angels, an afterlife, devils, demons, ghosts, reincarnation, or what have you, things that most atheists tend to shun, how can one have a spiritual life?
Spirituality is finding harmony within oneself.
The method to achieve such, is entirely arbitrary. Individuality.
-angels and devils not required-

[TheHammerSpeaks]

we both clearly have different definitions of spirituality. obvisouly because i dont believe in those things my spiritual life will be different to yours.
That makes sense. Our misunderstandings could all be the result of different views of spirituality.

i think spirituality is a feeling oneness with your surroundings
I can relate to that. Christian mysticism is about acheiving oneness with God, and that necessarily involves a feeling of connectedness with all of His creation.

a personal feeling of being able to heal yourself from problems
Here, our views differ, but only superficially. I ask God to give me the strength to solve my problems; I don't expect Him to wave a magic wand and make all my personal suffering go away. However, the main problem (salvation) is not one that I can solve on my own. It's a gift from God ultimately.

and see beauty in the simplest things.
When I see God's creation for what it is, I see beauty in all things. But to see things that way is a choice; that's all I meant by my original post.

i think its also in the way you treat people, like the way you see others and their points of view, and i think its a feeling of peace within yourself.
Without a doubt.

Of course, it's also much more than that. It's contemplating God. It's not only feelings of peace, but the feeling of inadequacy when I compare myself to the Almighty. The list goes on.

would i be right in assuming that your definition of spirituality is closer to religious values? more linked with your religion than say, the world around you? this isnt a vindictive comment, im just trying to understand.
Religious values come from within, just like my perception of the world around me. The two are inseparable.

its an individual thing.
Absolutely.

[J_Lazarus]

Hammer-Tyme said:


Well let's look back to your definition then,


"Faith is defined as belief in things unseen."

Sight, of course, is a sense. So then it follows that that the grounds for faith cannot be in empirical evidence. But let's take this a bit further; there is also no reason to have faith, what I mean by this is that rationality, reason, the rules of logic cannot conclusively determine, one way or the other, if there is or is not a God. So there can be no a priori, rationalised argument for the existence of God nor, therefore, the founding of faith.


So, you see, I agree with this definition. I just took it a little further to show you that Webster defines faith as what it is not, rather than what it is. Doesn't that suggest to you that your definition may be somewhat insufficient?


So what is my belief in the unseen founded upon? To oversimplify, it is based on the removal of the assumption that feeling (I mean feeling of the heart, not of the senses) is less valuable than empirical or rational evidence. So you can see, if not why there can be no reasonable argument supporting God's existence, why such an argument is unnecessary. The very idea of cutting down reason to the level of feeling, or perhaps raising feeling to the level of reason, is offensive to reason itself.


I'll write Webster and ask him to clarify his definition to prevent any further misunderstanding.
While I thank you for your thought-out reply, I must entirely disagree with your assertion that rational or empirical evidence is of less value than emotionalism when attempting to consider a proposition about reality.


Emotionalism focuses on what is inside you - that is, what you are feeling. Strictly speaking, it does not take into consideration objective facts external of one-self, and that is exactly what you are considering (whether there exists a god out there in or outside of the universe, or not). Thus emotionalism is a random method. If a person should role a dice, and your emotion wishes for the number 36 to be the result of the roll, whereas there is only six sides to the dice and the representative numbers are as such, then your response will be entirely wrong. So as said, by establishing a foundation of emotionalism you are employing the use of a random method to consider propositions about the external and objective reality that surrounds you.


Reason and observation are methods by which you do in fact view the external facts in reality in order to come to a conclusion about it. By viewing the numbers of the dice, and by employing reason (e.g. the dice has rolled 4 several times in a row, the likelihood of it hitting 4 again is dubious), you can get a much better idea of what the dice is going to land on. - Instead of basing yourself on emotionalism and receiving any number from 1 to infinity, you base yourself on observation and reason, increasing the likelihood of finding the correct answer.

Also, the rules of logic and etc. have been used to disprove the existence of a god just as they have been attempted to be used to prove the god-concept (TAG vs. Materialist Apologetics). TAG has been successfully defeated, in my view, and I haven't seen any satisfactory refutations of the arguments from materialist apologetics.


See here: www.strongatheism.com (http://www.strongatheism.com/)


The reason for my hostility towards you in the beginning was your statement of there being "evidence of god all around you" (this, in fact, presupposing that you have to **observe** around you or examine that evidence which is around you in order to come to the conclusion of a necessary god-concept). Such an assertion is typical of Fundamentalists - an intellectually shallow position that I am forced to deal with 20 times a day, thus I can lose my patience pretty quickly. If you do not consider yourself a Fundie, I apologize in advance - but I would suggest you word yourself better in the future - as a statement such as that entirely disregards atheology and is an injustice upon it (I suppose, giving respect to a particular worldview).


- JL

[TheHammerSpeaks]

See here: www.strongatheism.com (http://www.strongatheism.com)
I want to deal with this first because while I was surfing around this website, I found a photo of a handsome chap named James Lazarus. Boy, would I like to debate him! First, let me congratulate you; you have some very good arguments, many of which I have never heard before. I applaud your originality and ingenuity.

Now, while I haven't read every essay on the site, I have picked up on five assertions which I would consider the basic premises of Strong Atheism:

1) Atheism (obviously)
2) The belief in an objective world which is in no way influenced by subjective experience, interpretation, ect.
3) A belief in the validity of empirical observation, and, even more so, in the scientific method.
4) This belief in the validity of science is supplimented with a belief in the powers of deduction, mathematics, and logic.
5) Disbelief in subjectivity's ability to tell us anything about the objective world, which is "out there" and completely other.

All of these premises are implicit in the remainder of your post below.

While I thank you for your thought-out reply, I must entirely disagree with your assertion that rational or empirical evidence is of less value than emotionalism when attempting to consider a proposition about reality.
First of all, I was implying that subjective experience is of equal value to deduction and empirical evidence, not that emotion is superior. But let me take this oportunity to clarify. It would be more accurate to say I believe that there are some truths which can be known through sense experience, others which can be known by deduction, and others still which can only be known through feeling.

Emotionalism focuses on what is inside you - that is, what you are feeling. Strictly speaking, it does not take into consideration objective facts external of one-self, and that is exactly what you are considering (whether there exists a god out there in or outside of the universe, or not).
It is often said that God is omnipresent. While I do not believe this description of God to be entirely adequate, I do believe it will serve for the topic at hand. God is everywhere, including within me and even within my own subjective experience. So, while you could say that God is other than me, He is also a part of me. This only begins to scratch the serface of the relationship between God and man.

Reason and observation are methods by which you do in fact view the external facts in reality in order to come to a conclusion about it.
I do not agree. First, I'm sure we can both agree that if the premises of a deduction are fallacious, the deduction will be invalid, even if it is sound. Now let us consider the problem of universals. To make a universal, synthetic statement such as "All men are mortal," you would have to find all men past, present, and future and document their lives ensuring that each one of them dies. This is impossible. So, I do not believe that deduction, in the case of universals, is a undeniable source of truth. This goes for mathematics, too.

Now, let's turn to the scientific method, which, I think, you mean by "observation." You wouldn't say a mental patient is observing objective reality when he sees a dragon or ghost, would you? I find the scientific method to be dishonest. It presupposes the existence of an objective world, though, by its own method, it fails to prove the existence of one. In short, science cannot solve the problem of solipsism. Faith makes no such presupposition; it is admittedly subjective, but in this way it avoids the assumption made by science. Also, by using God as a first principle, the problem of solipsism can be avoided.

Also, the rules of logic and etc. have been used to disprove the existence of a god just as they have been attempted to be used to prove the god-concept (TAG vs. Materialist Apologetics). TAG has been successfully defeated, in my view, and I haven't seen any satisfactory refutations of the arguments from materialist apologetics.
After a brief fascination with TAG, I have grown disenchanted with it. It makes things seem as if God created universals, when really they are man-made. It harkens back to the Platonic forms, I think. I'm not going to refute your entire website; I don't have that kind of time. But, if you post what you believe is your best argument, I'll do my best.

Such an assertion is typical of Fundamentalists - an intellectually shallow position that I am forced to deal with 20 times a day, thus I can lose my patience pretty quickly. If you do not consider yourself a Fundie, I apologize in advance - but I would suggest you word yourself better in the future - as a statement such as that entirely disregards atheology and is an injustice upon it (I suppose, giving respect to a particular worldview).
I'm certainly not a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, which is about as far you get away from fundamentalism on the Christianity spectrum. However, the statement I made is hardly unique to fundamentalists, and no injustice.

[J_Lazarus]

I want to deal with this first because while I was surfing around this website, I found a photo of a handsome chap named James Lazarus. Boy, would I like to debate him! First, let me congratulate you; you have some very good arguments, many of which I have never heard before. I applaud your originality and ingenuity.

Thank you J. After reading your post, and recognizing the intelligence and level of comprehension that you have, I’d like to humbly invite you to join the SA.com forums, here:



www.strongatheism.com/board (http://www.strongatheism.com/board)



We’re always looking for more intellectuals to contribute to the discussion there.



The site itself is relatively new. We’re hoping to have a great more number of articles on there within the next three to four months. If you’d like to address particular arguments on the site extensively, you’re more then welcome to submit rebuttals to the authors and have your work put up on the site as a response. Another theist friend of mine is planning to do just that on the Argument From Scale.





Now, while I haven't read every essay on the site, I have picked up on five assertions which I would consider the basic premises of Strong-Atheism:

1) Atheism (obviously)
2) The belief in an objective world which is in no way influenced by subjective experience, interpretation, etc.
3) A belief in the validity of empirical observation, and, even more so, in the scientific method.
4) This belief in the validity of science is supplemented with a belief in the powers of deduction, mathematics, and logic.
5) Disbelief in subjectivity's ability to tell us anything about the objective world, which is "out there" and completely other.



Right, and also we hold to objective morality, which is something that I really should give notice to on the site (as strong-atheists need not be supporters of OM to hold to their position).

*Makes a mental note to write a summary in the Introduction*

First of all, I was implying that subjective experience is of equal value to deduction and empirical evidence, not that emotion is superior. But let me take this oportunity to clarify. It would be more accurate to say I believe that there are some truths which can be known through sense experience, others which can be known by deduction, and others still which can only be known through feeling.



Gotcha. I misread.



However, my former post did address the reasons why emotionalism is not a very good foundation at all, especially when compared to a base of reason - but you have made further comments, which I will address.


It is often said that God is omnipresent. While I do not believe this description of God to be entirely adequate, I do believe it will serve for the topic at hand. God is everywhere, including within me and even within my own subjective experience. So, while you could say that God is other than me, He is also a part of me. This only begins to scratch the surface of the relationship between God and man.This seems to imply a sort of sensus divinatus. However…

For the sake of argument, allow me to grant you this. Does this still not reduce to God being part of objective and external reality that he might be omnipresent and inside you? Is subjective experience concrete enough when there is very good evidence to suggest that such experiences may be wholly explained from a materialist perspective?

I do not agree. First, I'm sure we can both agree that if the premises of a deduction are fallacious, the deduction will be invalid, even if it is sound. Now let us consider the problem of universals. To make a universal, synthetic statement such as "All men are mortal," you would have to find all men past, present, and future and document their lives ensuring that each one of them dies. This is impossible. So, I do not believe that deduction, in the case of universals, is a undeniable source of truth. This goes for mathematics, too. To the first point: Agreed. – However, this does nothing to damage the necessity of logic when considering facts or its validity in application to propositions. It’s sole ability is to dispel contradictions from our thinking.

I do not think that you would have to find all men to establish the mortality of man – although this is somewhat beside the point. You could simply employ genetics and biology and see that man is made in a certain way which necessitates mortality.

One is able to state absolutes however – for instance, consider the axioms of logic. One cannot deny existence, consciousness, or identity without directly refuting themselves. Such fundamentals are necessary.

Now, let's turn to the scientific method, which, I think, you mean by "observation." You wouldn't say a mental patient is observing objective reality when he sees a dragon or ghost, would you? I find the scientific method to be dishonest. It presupposes the existence of an objective world, though, by its own method, it fails to prove the existence of one. In short, science cannot solve the problem of solipsism. Faith makes no such presupposition; it is admittedly subjective, but in this way it avoids the assumption made by science. Also, by using God as a first principle, the problem of solipsism can be avoided.

Our ability to recognize that a mental patient is suffering from delusion by way of observation reveals the method itself as still valid. You might also employ Descartes’ evil demon example, but I’m sure you already know my response to that.



Further, an objective world is necessary. Positive assertions within Philosophical skepticism already presuppose OR (objective reality). Science certainly takes for granted certain things – but those things, in my view, are well justified.



Please elaborate on God defeating the problem of solipsism – there are multiple routes you could go by that statement, I need to know which particular one you mean to take.





After a brief fascination with TAG, I have grown disenchanted with it. It makes things seem as if God created universals, when really they are man-made. It harkens back to the Platonic forms, I think. I'm not going to refute your entire website; I don't have that kind of time. But, if you post what you believe is your best argument, I'll do my best.


Yeah, it used to be my favorite argument for theism. All in all I suppose it still is – just cuz it’s fun to wrestle with.





I'm certainly not a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, which is about as far you get away from fundamentalism on the Christianity spectrum. However, the statement I made is hardly unique to fundamentalists, and no injustice.


Lol – I’ll certainly grant that Catholicism is usually far far away from Funny-mental-ism, but the latter is known for its bold claims with no back up. That is what I originally saw in your first post – although now I can see an intellectual behind it, so no worries.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Before I reply to your post, I have been trying to decipher from your posts, what philosophers have influenced you. Are you a follower of Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy? I think I saw a David Kelley reference in one of your essays. That would place you in the unofficial Objectivist school, which was excommunicated by Ayn Rand herself, I believe. Does this ever cause you distress? Ayn Rand was philosophical autocrat, expressly forbidding anyone to lable himself an "Objectivist" without her approval. She seemed to think she had an intellectual patent on the word. Kelley did not have her approval.

Thank you J. After reading your post, and recognizing the intelligence and level of comprehension that you have, I’d like to humbly invite you to join the SA.com forums...

The site itself is relatively new. We’re hoping to have a great more number of articles on there within the next three to four months. If you’d like to address particular arguments on the site extensively, you’re more then welcome to submit rebuttals to the authors and have your work put up on the site as a response. Another theist friend of mine is planning to do just that on the Argument From Scale.

I will join your forum, and I think having something published would be a lot of fun. Of course, it may not be the first place I'd choose to have an essay of mine printed, but you've got to start somewhere.

Right, and also we hold to objective morality, which is something that I really should give notice to on the site (as strong-atheists need not be supporters of OM to hold to their position).
I've been wanted to adress this, too. You are a Strong Atheist but there was no stronger atheist than Sartre, who absolutely denied the possibility of an objective morality in a universe without God. In "The case for objective morality," you write that material needs such as such as food are absolutely necessary to survival and, therefore, good. This presupposes that survival is somehow "better" than death. Take the case of, say, Gandhi. Imagine if he died on one of his fasts. By your moral code, it would have been better if he never fasted at all. This morality is also no less subjective than "weak atheist" morality. It is up to the human subject to determine when he is hungary. After that, any action he might take to get food is good, as it is a means to an end, which is a means to an end, which is good (because survival is good and death is bad).

This seems to imply a sort of sensus divinatus. However…

For the sake of argument, allow me to grant you this. Does this still not reduce to God being part of objective and external reality that he might be omnipresent and inside you? Is subjective experience concrete enough when there is very good evidence to suggest that such experiences may be wholly explained from a materialist perspective?To the first question, it does not reduce God to anything, rather it gives us a glimpse of the totality of God. But, if you mean does this still show us that the objective world is a part of God's nature, then the answer is yes. Heideggar wrote that consciousness always implies being conscious of something. If God is a part of your consciousness (meaning, the way you view the world) then you will be conscious of God in the objective world.

To the second question, subjective experience is nothing but concrete because it is entirely empirical, meaning that it is made up only out of concrete, particular experiences, as opposed to universal, abstract concepts gained through reason. Materialism in metaphysics is one of these abstract concepts. I'm interested as to how you would defend materialist metaphysics against idealist metaphysics. Which would you doubt more; a concrete experience felt by the senses, or an abstract concept attained through reason?

To the first point: Agreed. – However, this does nothing to damage the necessity of logic when considering facts or its validity in application to propositions. It’s sole ability is to dispel contradictions from our thinking.Without a doubt, but it makes it very difficult to descibe the attributes of an infinite being without using universals. Even such a concept as "infinity" is out. And if universals are inadequate in descibing God, then the problem of evil ceases to be a necessary contradiction.

I do not think that you would have to find all men to establish the mortality of man – although this is somewhat beside the point. You could simply employ genetics and biology and see that man is made in a certain way which necessitates mortality.Then you run into the problem of how to categorise a man. The word "man" itself is a universal. You could argue that the necessary quality that makes a man a man is mortality, but I don't think that captures the essence of what man really is, do you? You could limit mankind to a certain genetic make-up, but does that really capture what it is to be a man?

One is able to state absolutes however – for instance, consider the axioms of logic. One cannot deny existence, consciousness, or identity without directly refuting themselves. Such fundamentals are necessary.Nietzsche wrote about his fear that faith in God was nothing but faith in grammar. Indeed, I believe that many theologians have been guilty of such bad faith. Many philosophers have comitted the fallacy of bad faith, too. One is Descartes. It is essential to his cogito, that doubt cannot exist without a doubter. Why is this so? After all, if the universe could be uncaused, then why not doubt?

Our ability to recognize that a mental patient is suffering from delusion by way of observation reveals the method itself as still valid.Not for the mental patient, it doesn't. He could be convinced that all the doctors telling him there is no dragon are merely the dragon's henchmen, trying to lull him into a state of ease and unreadiness. The problem of solipsism remains.

Further, an objective world is necessary. Positive assertions within Philosophical skepticism already presuppose OR (objective reality). Science certainly takes for granted certain things – but those things, in my view, are well justified.How? And why?

Please elaborate on God defeating the problem of solipsism – there are multiple routes you could go by that statement, I need to know which particular one you mean to take.I was think specifically of the approach taken by negative theologians. God is something greater than myself therefore, I am not God. If I am not God, then there is a God outside myself. Therefore, there is an objective reality consisting of, at least, God. But there are many others.

no worries.No worries.

[FreakyJoeMan]

Ahhhh!! To much information.

I say two things: First: The human mind cannot come up with a universal truth, as it is subjective. Second: If there were a universal truth, the human mind would not be able to recognize it as such for the same reason.

[dna]

Eric, I like the quote from Issac Asimov it really does make sense. That is how I feel. Actually I am open to a religion that makes sense, but I am almost 60 now and have not found anything yet.

IceCream, you do not have to apologise for your post. It was what was on your mind and I, for one am with you. This is a forum to discuss non-belief after all.
:H Then try going solo,just you alone with God,his word and prayer!
man corupts the truth with his/her own version of it until it no longer
is God's truth but their own.
Seek God,and care what he thinks,and he will find you!

[dna]

Ahhhh!! To much information.

I say two things: First: The human mind cannot come up with a universal truth, as it is subjective. Second: If there were a universal truth, the human mind would not be able to recognize it as such for the same reason.
:H God is real,but you really gotta get sick of living for nothing
before you can understand that!

[dna]

[QUOTE=J_Lazarus]Thank you J. After reading your post, and recognizing the intelligence and level of comprehension that you have, I’d like to humbly invite you to join the SA.com forums

:cool: here is a great site: www.ex-atheist.com (http://www.ex-atheist.com)

[dna]

:sunglasse For those who do not yet know it,evolution is an ancient
religious belief,and thats why it has always been connected
to and with religion.
www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm (http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm)
http://aig.gospelcom.net/docs/4067.asp
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html)

and there is a book out by Henry Morris called" The Long War-
Against God" and it shows where evolution is an ancient pagan religious belief that is back yet again.
(Babylon is back folks)

[J_Lazarus]

Before I reply to your post, I have been trying to decipher from your posts, what philosophers have influenced you. Are you a follower of Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy? I think I saw a David Kelley reference in one of your essays. That would place you in the unofficial Objectivist school, which was excommunicated by Ayn Rand herself, I believe. Does this ever cause you distress? Ayn Rand was philosophical autocrat, expressly forbidding anyone to label himself an "Objectivist" without her approval. She seemed to think she had an intellectual patent on the word. Kelley did not have her approval.

While Objectivism certainly interests me, I do not hold to it myself. On SA.com, if you look at the end of the description of the article you’re clicking on, you can see the author of that particular article. The majority of articles that have come in currently are by a friend of mine, Franc Tremblay. Franc is indeed an Objectivist – so you’ll have to ask him about his security in his position.



Could you give me a link to the quote? I kinda told him not to show any real bias in his writing on morality, and David Kelley is a clear example of Libertarian ethics.





I will join your forum, and I think having something published would be a lot of fun. Of course, it may not be the first place I'd choose to have an essay of mine printed, but you've got to start somewhere.

Lol – true enough.



I've been wanting to address this, too. You are a Strong-Atheist but there was no stronger atheist than Sartre, who absolutely denied the possibility of an objective morality in a universe without God. In "The case for objective morality," you write that material needs such as such as food are absolutely necessary to survival and, therefore, good. This presupposes that survival is somehow "better" than death. Take the case of, say, Gandhi. Imagine if he died on one of his fasts. By your moral code, it would have been better if he never fasted at all. This morality is also no less subjective than "weak atheist" morality. It is up to the human subject to determine when he is hungry. After that, any action he might take to get food is good, as it is a means to an end, which is a means to an end, which is good (because survival is good and death is bad).

The beginning of your response here borders dangerously on an appeal to authority. I can name numerous, well-known Strong-Atheists that hold or have held to objective moral systems – e.g. Martin and Smith.



Once again, Franc is the author of that particular article, but I will attempt to address your points anyway.



Franc writes from the position that life has intrinsic value – a position held by Objectivists. They note that in order for you to pursue any value, you must first be alive to do so – thus, life has intrinsic value, which is the answer to your question. And no – hunger is universally applicable to humanity, no matter at what frequency of intervals it may occur at (similar to any moral question – no matter when or how often a particular situation comes about where you have to make a moral decision, the moral is the same). While I don’t mind Objectivism, I’m glad you pointed out this article to me, because I want the website to be representative of Strong-Atheism in general, not a particular kind of Strong-Atheism (Objectivism).



To the first question, it does not reduce God to anything, rather it gives us a glimpse of the totality of God. But, if you mean does this still show us that the objective world is a part of God's nature, then the answer is yes. Heideggar wrote that consciousness always implies being conscious of something. If God is a part of your consciousness (meaning, the way you view the world) then you will be conscious of God in the objective world.

To the second question, subjective experience is nothing but concrete because it is entirely empirical, meaning that it is made up only out of concrete, particular experiences, as opposed to universal, abstract concepts gained through reason. Materialism in metaphysics is one of these abstract concepts. I'm interested as to how you would defend materialist metaphysics against idealist metaphysics. Which would you doubt more; a concrete experience felt by the senses, or an abstract concept attained through reason?
To your first response – I meant neither point, really. Neither that God is being reduced to something more primitive, or that the outside world is part of God’s nature – but rather that God is a part of objective reality, that he might exist as part of it in order to be omnipresent in it and thus inside of you.



To your second point – you are certainly feeling something – however, if there is strong evidence to show that what you are feeling is not some vague “spiritual” thing at all, but rather is something entirely explainable from a materialistic perspective (as is shown by neurology, psychology, etc.), then how does this provide as sufficient evidence for the existence of a spiritual force? It has been explained as and is shown to be material sensation.





Without a doubt, but it makes it very difficult to describe the attributes of an infinite being without using universals. Even such a concept as "infinity" is out. And if universals are inadequate in describing God, then the problem of evil ceases to be a necessary contradiction.

Why does the fact of an assertion’s premises being problematic in non-contradictory ways - leading to invalid conclusions post-logical process, lead to problems with applying universals? I suppose I’m not understanding your connection. I see no problem with logic when used as it’s supposed to be used.





Then you run into the problem of how to categorize a man. The word "man" itself is a universal. You could argue that the necessary quality that makes a man a man is mortality, but I don't think that captures the essence of what man really is, do you? You could limit mankind to a certain genetic make-up, but does that really capture what it is to be a man?

I would categorize man from the scientific perspective – yes – the particular genetic make-up, etc that is unique to humanity. Thus you could say all [X]’s (humans) have [B] (a specific biological make-up necessitating mortality, which is [Y]), and thus will obtain [Y]. This much is apparent to us and works well – and if you believe there is more, you’re of course welcome to explain and provide evidence/examples. But once again, with no valid objection to this view, there is no problem with using universals.





Nietzsche wrote about his fear that faith in God was nothing but faith in grammar. Indeed, I believe that many theologians have been guilty of such bad faith. Many philosophers have committed the fallacy of bad faith, too. One is Descartes. It is essential to his cogito, that doubt cannot exist without a doubter. Why is this so? After all, if the universe could be uncaused, then why not doubt?

While I note your developed education in philosophy, I must point out that this response appears unrelated to my point. Existence need not have a doubter of it to be so – but even should a doubter proclaim his doubt, he would necessarily have to steal existence in order to do so. There’s no way out of it – it is an axiomatic concept.





Not for the mental patient, it doesn't. He could be convinced that all the doctors telling him there is no dragon are merely the dragon's henchmen, trying to lull him into a state of ease and unreadiness. The problem of solipsism remains.

He could certainly be convinced – but I am not arguing for the validity of sense perception on all levels, all times, etc. My argument is that it is certainly valid on a general level. Humanity, through sense perception, can and has observed mental disorders, and gains an understanding of their existence and how they work. Further, by scientific study (necessitating observation, thus sense perception) we might find cures. Because sense perception on this plane proves quite able to discern the real from the unreal, the genuine from the illusion, etc. – it remains valid.



One could argue that all sense perception may be invalid – like Descartes’ example, as noted before. But, as also noted, you probably already know my response to that.



How? And why?
Once again, I am explaining how such relativism works on a self-defeating level, employing the use of the stolen-concept fallacy. To say, “There is no truth”, or, “There is no reality”, is to make a statement proclaiming a truth or proclaiming a reality, - defeating their very assertion. So, like other mentioned concepts, objective reality is necessary. One cannot escape it; as to deny it one already presupposes it.



I was think specifically of the approach taken by negative theologians. God is something greater than myself therefore, I am not God. If I am not God, then there is a God outside myself. Therefore, there is an objective reality consisting of, at least, God. But there are many others.

While I might like this approach – I’d prefer dissecting it first, anyway. As it is presented similarly to the ontological argument, I would have to point out that this seems to be working backwards. Presupposing existence to count as a predicate, God may only be defined as such if he already exists externally – which, if you don’t accept any other method of verification, leads you to inevitable defeat, because you’d never be able to tell.


Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to your response.

- JL

[TheHammerSpeaks]

While Objectivism certainly interests me, I do not hold to it myself. On SA.com, if you look at the end of the description of the article you’re clicking on, you can see the author of that particular article. The majority of articles that have come in currently are by a friend of mine, Franc Tremblay. Franc is indeed an Objectivist – so you’ll have to ask him about his security in his position.Fair enough. But tell me, do you and Franc share a lot of philosophical common ground? I would imagine so since you are both Strong Atheists.

Could you give me a link to the quote? I kinda told him not to show any real bias in his writing on morality, and David Kelley is a clear example of Libertarian ethics.

In "The case for Objective Morality" Franc wrote, "As David Kelley judiciously writes in 'Logical Structure of Objectivism' (italics his) :

'The place of biological needs in the logical structure of Objectivism is this: since one’s life is one’s ultimate value, one has to know what one needs for the maintenance of life in order to know what to seek as a value.

The needs of a living organism determine its goals. In other words, its needs determine its values.'
(p69-70)"

I wouldn't call it "showing bias," however. I'd call it citing a source, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The beginning of your response here borders dangerously on an appeal to authority. I can name numerous, well-known Strong-Atheists that hold or have held to objective moral systems – e.g. Martin and Smith.Yes, it does but fortunately, it is followed by an argument, which you adress below, after reiterating that Franc wrote the article.

Franc writes from the position that life has intrinsic value – a position held by Objectivists. They note that in order for you to pursue any value, you must first be alive to do so – thus, life has intrinsic value, which is the answer to your question.It seems a presupposition to assume that there are any values to be pursued, let alone to believe that values may be ranked on a scale of worst through best. After all, if all life has intrinsic value, then all life can give a presumably equal value to whatever the lifeform desires. But then, of course, there is the problem of how value is transferred from the lifeform, who has intrinsic value, to the object of his value, which, before being the object of his value, had no value. I have difficulty fathoming how this teleportation of value takes place, especially in a materialist metaphysics.

And no – hunger is universally applicable to humanity, no matter at what frequency of intervals it may occur at The fate of this question depends on the answer to the problem of universals, which I will get to later.

(similar to any moral question – no matter when or how often a particular situation comes about where you have to make a moral decision, the moral is the same).This is an assumption, and one with which I disagree. But again, the answer rests on the solution to the problem of universals.

While I don’t mind Objectivism, I’m glad you pointed out this article to me, because I want the website to be representative of Strong-Atheism in general, not a particular kind of Strong-Atheism (Objectivism).It's good for a reader to know the intellectual roots of the author. It allows him to put the text in context.

To your first response – I meant neither point, really. Neither that God is being reduced to something more primitive, or that the outside world is part of God’s nature – but rather that God is a part of objective reality, that he might exist as part of it in order to be omnipresent in it and thus inside of you.
I am not disputing that God is a part of objective reality; I am asserting that the totality of objective reality can ever be known through the sciences because science always rests on presuppositions which cannot be proven by its own method. Science is based on coherency, not correspondancy, and is therefore subjective. I am also asserting that faith avoids such a fallacy by embracing subjectivity rather than shunning it. Unlike science, faith can be validated by its own method.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

To your second point – you are certainly feeling something – however, if there is strong evidence to show that what you are feeling is not some vague “spiritual” thing at all, but rather is something entirely explainable from a materialistic perspective (as is shown by neurology, psychology, etc.), then how does this provide as sufficient evidence for the existence of a spiritual force? It has been explained as and is shown to be material sensation.
First of all, this "'spiritual' thing" is not vague at all. It's only difficult to explain. It's like trying to describe an object to a man with his eyes closed. But I can assure you that revelation is clear as a bell to me. I think material is the vague thing, an attempt to reduce litterally everything to the "atom," by which I mean the smallest particle, something that human beings have been searching for for 3000 years and still have not been able to locate. So which do I believe? Something that I encounter in everyday experience, or something that is entirely inconceivable?

Why does the fact of an assertion’s premises being problematic in non-contradictory ways - leading to invalid conclusions post-logical process, lead to problems with applying universals? I suppose I’m not understanding your connection. I see no problem with logic when used as it’s supposed to be used.Because the conclusion of a deductive syllogism is valid only when both premises are true, including the major premise. In a deductive syllogism, this premise is always an absolute. However, granted the problem of universals, no absolutes can be known with certainty. So, no deduction can be known with certainty. This gets even more complicated when you contemplate God. Since God is limitless, no absolute, all of which are necessarily limitting, can adequately describe Him.

I would categorize man from the scientific perspective – yes – the particular genetic make-up, etc that is unique to humanity. Thus you could say all [X]’s (humans) have [B] (a specific biological make-up necessitating mortality, which is [Y]), and thus will obtain [Y]. This much is apparent to us and works wellBut every human being has a different genetic make-up. So what you're really doing is placing a clear-cut division between the human and the non-human. I don't think that such a line can easily be conceived. I don't believe that you have such conceived such a line. So it can hardly be considered to "work well"

and if you believe there is more, you’re of course welcome to explain and provide evidence/examples. But once again, with no valid objection to this view, there is no problem with using universals.Love, hatred, pride, fidelity, regret, reproach, these are just a few of the words that could potentially make it to the list, if I even wanted to define "man" as a universal in the first place.

While I note your developed education in philosophy, I must point out that this response appears unrelated to my point. Existence need not have a doubter of it to be so – but even should a doubter proclaim his doubt, he would necessarily have to steal existence in order to do so. There’s no way out of it – it is an axiomatic concept.Faith in grammar is faith in causality, at least partially. I'd also turn to Hume for an argument against cause. To believe that the thought, perception, experience, etc. is contingent upon the thinker, perceiver, expiencer, what-have-you is bad faith. No self is necessary, no unity among perception, experience, thought, and imagination. But I think to really understand this, you have to have an understanding of Nietzsche's metaphysics, which, while I don't want to get into since I don't even want to disprove the existence of the self, is the belief that the universe is entirely irrational. I'm beginning to think this is going nowhere since neither one of us really wants to disprove the existence of the self.

He could certainly be convinced – but I am not arguing for the validity of sense perception on all levels, all times, etc. My argument is that it is certainly valid on a general level. Humanity, through sense perception, can and has observed mental disorders, and gains an understanding of their existence and how they work. Further, by scientific study (necessitating observation, thus sense perception) we might find cures. Because sense perception on this plane proves quite able to discern the real from the unreal, the genuine from the illusion, etc. – it remains valid.Science's assurtion that there is an objective reality is not valid unless it can solve the problem of solipsism. How does it go about this?

Once again, I am explaining how such relativism works on a self-defeating level, employing the use of the stolen-concept fallacy. To say, “There is no truth”, or, “There is no reality”, is to make a statement proclaiming a truth or proclaiming a reality, - defeating their very assertion. So, like other mentioned concepts, objective reality is necessary. One cannot escape it; as to deny it one already presupposes it.

I'm not saying "there's no truth" or "there's no reality." I'm saying "there's no objective reality" (for the sake of argument). Reality may be entirely subjective. I'm not denying the existence of a reality, just the objective reality.

While I might like this approach – I’d prefer dissecting it first, anyway. As it is presented similarly to the ontological argument, I would have to point out that this seems to be working backwards. Presupposing existence to count as a predicate, God may only be defined as such if he already exists externally – which, if you don’t accept any other method of verification, leads you to inevitable defeat, because you’d never be able to tell.That is without a doubt, true. The argument, of course, presupposes the existence of God. But I only said I was going to demonstrate how an objective world can be deduced from using God as a first principle. So you should have expected God's existence to be presupposed in the premises. We'll get to arguments for God's existence later.[/quote]

[FreakyJoeMan]

:H God is real,but you really gotta get sick of living for nothing
before you can understand that!

How can someone get sick of livin fer nothin?

[dna]

Then by all means, don't believe in god. Just don't criticize those with beliefs that differ from yours--it makes you no better than the fundamentalist christians.
:) I thought you might enjoy this site very much.
Thanks for standin' up for truth.
www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html)

[dna]

How can someone get sick of livin fer nothin?
:) Easy! Look at all the College kid's who kill themselves,and
all the teenager who kill themselves.

I suffered years of depression because life had no meaning.
it was like a cruel joke.
I thank God that I gave God a chance,because it is the best
choice I ever made in my whole entire life,amen.
It's just soooooo personal. You can't understand it without
tryin' to.

[geckopelli]

dna,
Are you giving us a choice between suicide and self-delusion?

What about we who don't believe in your god and lead meaningful lives because of the freedom afforded by that non-belief?

I see you as a slave to anothers dogma.

[FreakyJoeMan]

:) Easy! Look at all the College kid's who kill themselves,and
all the teenager who kill themselves.

I suffered years of depression because life had no meaning.
it was like a cruel joke.
I thank God that I gave God a chance,because it is the best
choice I ever made in my whole entire life,amen.
It's just soooooo personal. You can't understand it without
tryin' to.

No, you were depressed because you assigned an inappropriate emotion to an fact. I donno bout you, but I'm happy that life has no meaning, it means I'm free to do whatever I want, whatever is possible. There are no limits.

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks

"First of all, this "'spiritual' thing" is not vague at all. It's only difficult to explain. It's like trying to describe an object to a man with his eyes closed. But I can assure you that revelation is clear as a bell to me."

No, it's actually like trying to describe an object that does not exist.
That you want to exist.
To a person that has never seen the object that may or may not exist.

'Spiritual' means NOTHING but what the speaker puts into it.
You can talk about it forever..
But where is it?
What is it?

"spiritual' is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.
It is an INTERPRETATION.

"I think material is the vague thing, an attempt to reduce litterally everything to the "atom," by which I mean the smallest particle, something that human beings have been searching for for 3000 years and still have not been able to locate. So which do I believe? Something that I encounter in everyday experience, or something that is entirely inconceivable?"

IBM made their logo out of individual atoms.
We can manipulate atoms.
And do it every day.
Atoms are not the smallest particle,
And everyday existence is composed of atoms
As you are...
You encounter them every day..

"Because the conclusion of a deductive syllogism is valid only when both premises are true, including the major premise. In a deductive syllogism, this premise is always an absolute. However, granted the problem of universals, no absolutes can be known with certainty. So, no deduction can be known with certainty. This gets even more complicated when you contemplate God. Since God is limitless, no absolute, all of which are necessarily limitting, can adequately describe Him."

Incorrect

"I reason therefore i exist, and thus 'a' reality exists"
is an absolute truth...

Prove to occam that there is UNCERTAINTY that you exist.
Or that a reality exists for you to [exist] in.
It is not possible to do so.
For every argument is an absolute proof that you DO. [exist]

And .
The word god is our description of a concept created by our predecessors.
Occams description of a god is JUST AS VALID as organised religions.
And more rational
Religious gods spew irrationality.
Such garbage as hell and redeption.

Hume?
Nietzsche?

What is this? the 1800's?

Think for yourself.

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

No, it's actually like trying to describe an object that does not exist.
That you want to exist.
To a person that has never seen the object that may or may not exist.
Well you certainly seem very sure of what my experiences are and what they are not.

'Spiritual' means NOTHING but what the speaker puts into it.
You can talk about it forever..
But where is it?
What is it?
I already went over this. A spiritual experience is no less concrete than any other kind of sensory experience. It's plain as day.

It is an INTERPRETATION.
Yes, it is an interpretation. You're absolutely right. And like all other interpretations, it can only be understood in context - at a certain time, by a certain group of people, which explains why you have no idea what I'm talking about. Now let me ask you something, what "facts" or "truths" are not subject to interpretation?

IBM made their logo out of individual atoms.
We can manipulate atoms.
And do it every day.
Atoms are not the smallest particle,
And everyday existence is composed of atoms
As you are...
You encounter them every day..
No, I have never seen an atom. I've seen the IBM logo, but that doesn't prove that it's made up of atoms. And yes, an atom is the smallest particle. That's what the word has always meant. This particle was thought to be discovered, but then protons were discovered, and then quarks, and some time in the future some smaller particle will no doubt be discovered, and this process will continue on forever because the whole idea is bullshit.

Incorrect
You're right, I misspoke. In a categorical, deductive syllogism the major premise will always be a universal.

Prove to occam that there is UNCERTAINTY that you exist.
Or that a reality exists for you to [exist] in.
Why should I? I don't want to disprove the existence of the self.

The word god is our description of a concept created by our predecessors.
Occams description of a god is JUST AS VALID as organised religions.
And more rational
Religious gods spew irrationality.
Such garbage as hell and redeption.
I don't know what your description of God is, but if it's rational, then it's inadequate. God cannot be described rationally because He is above human understanding.

Hume?
Nietzsche?

What is this? the 1800's?

Think for yourself.
I don't think that's the problem. I've heard plenty of people make the same arguments you are. I think you should take your own advice.

Well this was a lovely little waste of time, but I've got to get back to work now.

[J_Lazarus]

Fair enough. But tell me, do you and Franc share a lot of philosophical common ground? I would imagine so since you are both Strong Atheists.

Yes.




It seems a presupposition to assume that there are any values to be pursued, let alone to believe that values may be ranked on a scale of worst through best. After all, if all life has intrinsic value, then all life can give a presumably equal value to whatever the lifeform desires. But then, of course, there is the problem of how value is transferred from the lifeform, who has intrinsic value, to the object of his value, which, before being the object of his value, had no value. I have difficulty fathoming how this teleportation of value takes place, especially in a materialist metaphysics.



He explains that in his article, I believe. Life = intrinsic value, other values arise from this value, then personal values, and etc. You can check out his arguments on my site, or his: www.objectivethought.com (http://www.objectivethought.com/)



The fate of this question depends on the answer to the problem of universals, which I will get to later.Ok.


I am not disputing that God is a part of objective reality; I am asserting that the totality of objective reality can ever be known through the sciences because science always rests on presuppositions which cannot be proven by its own method. Science is based on coherency, not correspondancy, and is therefore subjective. I am also asserting that faith avoids such a fallacy by embracing subjectivity rather than shunning it. Unlike science, faith can be validated by its own method.Lol – I would say that objective reality can never be known through the sciences due to man’s finitude. However, I’ve already argued for the necessity of objective reality which science rests upon – which you misunderstood, but I’ll get to it again below. Because objective reality is necessary, science is fine as a method of study about it. You’ve also objected to the methods science uses in studying it – but I’ve also explained why those objections are invalid.


First of all, this "'spiritual' thing" is not vague at all. It's only difficult to explain. It's like trying to describe an object to a man with his eyes closed. But I can assure you that revelation is clear as a bell to me. I think material is the vague thing, an attempt to reduce litterally everything to the "atom," by which I mean the smallest particle, something that human beings have been searching for for 3000 years and still have not been able to locate. So which do I believe? Something that I encounter in everyday experience, or something that is entirely inconceivable?Lol – you can take the word “vague” out of my statement and my point still stands. Because as I said, there is strong evidence to show that your “spiritual” experience is nothing more than material experience provided an unnecessary term (and a confusing one, considering the implications generally attributed to it).


Because the conclusion of a deductive syllogism is valid only when both premises are true, including the major premise. In a deductive syllogism, this premise is always an absolute. However, granted the problem of universals, no absolutes can be known with certainty. So, no deduction can be known with certainty. This gets even more complicated when you contemplate God. Since God is limitless, no absolute, all of which are necessarily limiting, can adequately describe Him.Yeah – but this doesn’t hurt logic at all – because logic isn’t a tool meant to find all the facts in the universe, its only meant to weed out contradictions that cannot be facts.


You can have three set ups:


1)All apples are green and not green.


2)All apples are blue.


3)All apples are fruit.


Conclusion to be arrived at: The apple is my hand is (1); (2); or (3).


Using logic, you can discount (1) – using our knowledge and sense perception, you can discount (2), and using knowledge and sense perception, you can conclude (3). Logic is also used in (2) and (3) and we know both still have the possibility of being true because they are not incoherent – however, once we apply those other methods of understanding, we can see which one is valid.


But every human being has a different genetic make-up. So what you're really doing is placing a clear-cut division between the human and the non-human. I don't think that such a line can easily be conceived. I don't believe that you have such conceived such a line. So it can hardly be considered to "work well"
The Human Genome itself can be modeled and applied to all humans. Besides this, it is not the only description available to science. We can get more in-depth if you like.

Humans are a species of mammal belonging to the family homo sapien with a particular genetic sequence unique to them as compared to other living things.

Love, hatred, pride, fidelity, regret, reproach, these are just a few of the words that could potentially make it to the list, if I even wanted to define "man" as a universal in the first place.These are not unique to humans, and still may be reduced to scientific categorization.

I'm not saying "there's no truth" or "there's no reality." I'm saying "there's no objective reality" (for the sake of argument). Reality may be entirely subjective. I'm not denying the existence of a reality, just the objective reality.The statement itself is still applicable to objective reality – that is the point I was trying to make. To say “there is no objective reality” is to make an objective statement, falsifying your own statement.


That is without a doubt, true. The argument, of course, presupposes the existence of God. But I only said I was going to demonstrate how an objective world can be deduced from using God as a first principle. So you should have expected God's existence to be presupposed in the premises. We'll get to arguments for God's existence later.Right – I should’ve said more clearly that is unjustifiably presupposes God’s existence. You’d have to establish God as necessarily existant – and this approach does not do that. To say “God objectively exists and is the solution to solipsism” begs the question of “How do you know God objectively exists?” – from the perspective of solipsism.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

I think that this has gone on long enough. Socratic dialectic is great but it just gets too confusing online. I'm getting the feeling we're just repeating ourselve so I'm going to cut to the chase, the irrefutable proof of God's existence.

The question is, "How do we know that God exists." "Know" is the key word. There are many ways to know something: there is knowing how to build something from a blueprint, and then there's acutally doing it; there's knowing a casual aquaintance, and then there's knowing someone in the union of marriage. All of these have one thing in common, the knower presupposes the existence for the thing known. The difference is in how these things are known. To the engineer, his product is only an abstraction, an experiment in thought. To the comrade of the aquaintance, the complexity of his associate is not appreciated. To the craftsman, his product is concrete (no pun intended), and he knows it well because he built it; he watched it constructed over time. To the husband, his wife is a part of him; he knows her as he known himself.

You cannot think of God as a thought experiment. You cannot know Him this way. You have to make a comitment, like the comitment made by speaking the marrital vows. You have to suffer, you have to struggle as your faith grows. And then you will realise why faith is the most powerful kind of knowledge, because it overpowers any evidence contrary to it. Power is knowledge.