one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
john mann - indigeneous cultures are pretty much atheistic too. we have translated them wrongly. what they call supernatural has to do with this life in its larger than human form - plants, animals, water, air etc - all the things they depend on to live successfully.
Yes.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
john mann, I was just reading the intro to Dan Dennett's book Consciousness explained, on amazon (they let you have a preview before buying) and he actually uses the illustration of a tool - a saw - to illustrate what he means. I'm assuming that he uses the saw to indicate how consciousness cuts through stuff.
anyway he does raise the issue of eliminivatism and says he isn't one. I'm assuming he goes on to explain why he isn't in the book. He does claim to an extent to be a verificationist - I'm wondering if he means that he uses consciousness as a tool to verify things. I guess I would need to read the book to find out.
Dennett rejects the existence of Qualia. There are subdivisions in eliminativism (like qualia vs propositional attitudes).
Sam Harris explicitly rejects the Self. This broad statement makes him the most radical eliminativist.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
To some extent, the monotheism or God concept of Judaism was likely an ancient form of atheism, and to some extent it still is.
This great Cause is in a sense not a deity at all, at least not a deity in the sense of human comprehension. While referred to as "God," the Ultimate Cause is remarkably greater than even this mortal designation.
The Catholic and Orthodox concept of God is virtually similar to the basic Jewish one, namely that for all we might explain about God all definitions fail and God remains mysterious.
That's true. It's Dawkins' argument called "one god further". We truly are atheists and just don't go one God further.
Catholics admit to be atheists in a sense. And God beyond the Trinity is a total mystery.
But we diametrically disagree with nihilism because we say there's a Divine Cause even though a mysterious one.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Modern atheism seems like to orbit in just a denial of the concept of God provided by a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible blended with a baseless scientism (universal applicability of science or everything must be scientific). Modern atheism is not based on science but on philosophical opinions of famous scientists and philosophers. Strangely atheists try to hijack science but their position it's not science but philosophy. In the 19th century atheism was purely philosophical (Nietzsche, etc..) but in the 20th century atheists wanted to be scientific (why?!?).
God is not a subject to science, but God is subject to philosophy and God is philosophically possible. Atheists seems to forget that the very scientific method is a philosophical method applied to the physical world (one aspect of the scientific method is based on a philosophy created by a Catholic monk, the Occam's Razor). So it's very illogical to use scientific method to disprove God.
With this atheistic view it's also impossible to cope with things not reached by scientific method of explanation like morality, justice, etc.
Consciousness cannot be submitted to the ordinary scientific method (we even don't have a definition of it) so the logical conclusion of materialism is consciousness doesn't exists at all. This is called eliminativist materialism or eliminativism. Dennett and Harris being two famous advocates of it (Dawkins is mute about it AFAIK).
Famous atheists also affirm that the universe came to existence (Hawking talks about a strange argument that gravity is the ultimate cause) by itself so logically you have a nothing as a first cause. Ultimately our entire universe (including us) is caused by nothing.
Nihilism says that there's nothing.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
I am sure I am not alone in this, so my point is keep the thread positive, opposing views non-argumentative, as I continue to lurk and learn.
Yes is very good to get opposing views in an expository way. We have at least three views in this topic: cofty (Atheist), David (Jew) and me (Catholic).
IMHO I think a lot of Atheists in this forum use arguments (not this OP) only based on a Sola Scriptura way. And I perceive most atheists here have a clear (and valid) feeling of revolt due to bad experiences with crazy religions. Catholics are not against science, we build universities around the world and scientists like the ones who invented genetics (used in the theory of evolution), the Big-Bang theory and the discovery of the Down Syndrome and a lot more...
Catholic Church is the biggest institution of charity in the world. Our stance on abortion and embryo stem cells is not anti-science.
My goal is not proselytizing but just offer another view (the oldest and majority) of Christianity. The NT as we know today only appeared in the fourth century. Christianity was not built upon the Bible. JW's and Protestantism was founded upon a very peculiar interpretation of the Bible.
I admit that the Sola Scriptura version of Christianity is very flawed. I can't even defend it and I sincerely think it's ultimate logical conclusion is atheism. The Bible read using SS is a book full of nonsense and contradictions but truth must be consistent.
The logical conclusion of Atheism obviously is Nihilism and Nihilism says we are nothing but an illusion. So the ultimate choice is between God or nothing, there's no middle way in this matter.
It's ridiculous to think morality depends on books. Morality is "written" in us. Is an in-built feature. It was not biologically evolved neither because we simply can't trace it down to other species. Belief in God and morality are not products of books or evolution.
When man look to natural world he can't recognize the origin of his consciousness (himself) in it and neither his destiny. While we can recognise the origin of our body we are alone here regarding our consciousness. And I believe consciousness is a property of the soul.
Recently Catholic Church wants a closer dialogue with atheists. There's a good site about this (ranked as #4 atheist site on Internet) called Strange Notions.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Immaterial, intangible but physical.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
I'm, afraid I don't support anything that is detached from matter - for me thoughts are material, imagination is material etc
I know what you mean but thoughts are immaterial. Immateriality doesn't mean something is metaphysical. Computer software is immaterial for instance. That's why materialists prefer the term physicalism.
What materialists/physicalists disagree with theists is that some immaterial properties in our minds are produced by something metaphysical (soul).
Theists defend that this soul is not just immaterial but immortal and independent from the physical body. And is active even after the death of the physical body (and some immaterial properties of the mind that are dependent on the body) .
The theistic view I support says that soul is not our whole minds but is attached to our minds and give it the property of consciousness (and Qualia for example) . We believe this entity (soul) was infused (directly by God) in Homo sapiens not so much time ago (about 4000 bC). Before that Homo sapiens were not conscious but they had a very sophisticated mind able to develop writing and civilization, you can read more about how this is possible in the psychological thesis of Bicameralism by Julian Jaynes.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
In ourselves we can recognise that we can spend quite a while in this space/pause/hesitation.
Exactly, and this ability (among several others) is derived from the sense cofty mentioned: that we are more than just matter, something in us is very ethereal and detached from matter.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
We have a sense that we are somehow separate from the rest of us as if we were something ethereal that inhabits and controls our own minds and bodies.
This is what the "High Priest" of Atheism Daniel Dennett called "Zombic Hunch" and he admitted to feel it too.
I'm very surprised you admit to sense that too.
You say that this sense is just an illusion but you must agree that this very sense is a paramount in ours minds.
If you pay attention to this sense you'll notice that it's not just an instinctive mechanism. Because we can sense it when we are not in real danger and we can think about it and extrapolate it to a lot of other senses, like morality.
Did you never considered this sense can be a real thing? Why do we have this intricate sense and not just a simple instintictive fight-or-flight response in danger situations?
... the conviction that there is a real difference between a conscious person and a perfect zombie — let’s call that intuition the Zombic Hunch — leading them to the thesis of Zombism: that the fundamental flaw in any mechanistic theory of consciousness is that it cannot account for this important difference.
... and many other philosophers of mind don’t just feel the tug of the Zombic Hunch (I can feel the tug as well as anybody), they credit it. They are, however reluctantly, Zombists, who maintain that the zombie challenge is a serious criticism.
Daniel Dennett, The Zombic Hunch: Extinction of an Intuition?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
In no way does this lead to nihilism.
Of course not! Because is already nihilism. You know that! You're an intelligent man!
Sam Harris supports eliminativism and that means consciousness is just an illusion. It's not just elimination about some especific spooky sense of transcendence but the whole Self is just an illusion. In this talk he's clearing refuting reducionism and promoting eliminativism.
Don't fool yourself cofty. You know by killing God you kill yourself too. If God is an illusion so are you. There's no point arguing about "differences" between illusions.
I know in your mind you'll never accept that you are just an illusion, and this will bring a lot of pain in your soul.
I know that not so deep in your mind, when you think about your own death, automatically comes a steady sensation that someway somehow clinical death is not the end.
Don't let bad experiences with false prophets (JW's and Pentecostals) fill your soul with revolt against God.
