This is a reply to FallenToReason's post on Page 5.
Because people keep on saying I don't know what Atheism is...
Atheism
From Merriam-Webster)
A) a disbelief in the existence of deity
B) the doctrine that there is no deity
"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." (Concise Encyclopedia)
Atheism can be the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Amoral:
- being neither moral nor immoral; specifically: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply.
Immoral:
- not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
NOTE: I did mention that Atheism is NOT immoral, but rather amoral. I have cited definitions because I feel there may be confusion here about what those two words mean.
First, I want to reiterate that my goal was to explain why Atheism no longer makes sense to me; FOR THE RECORD I don't care if you believe in it or not, but this thread was started to ask theists what they believe and why, rather than to disprove Atheism. Since (I believe) I have done my homework on this before deciding, I simply shared my view on it.
Whether YOU argue morality or not is irrelevant to my point, because I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about Atheism. I also DID NOT say all Athiests are amoral, as you mentioned; in fact I said that many Atheists ARE moral. The point I am making is that they are moral IN SPITE OF their Athiestic claims. The examples of those people in history are relevant because they were atheists, and when there was no law they acted precisely IN ACCORDANCE with atheism, which claims to lie outside the sphere of moral anchors. This has consistently proven to produce such results in history as I mentioned. And, if you're going to be honest, such accurate consistency is EVIDENCE that cannot be refuted.
Whether or not atheists follow this is a different story, but that only means they are not adhering to atheism, yet claiming to do so. Just because I say I eat beef doesn't make it so; it is only true if I actually do eat beef. I am NOT claiming that atheists have no basis for morality - in fact I am claiming that they DO. HOWEVER, atheism itself claims that morality is integral to human society, because human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function.. but these rules change based on whoever is at the top when God is removed, and it has been proven time and time again that this leads straight to the devolution of the human race when put into practice. In light of all this, I was simply stating that Atheism makes no sense to me, so I don't follow it.
To expand on this, I want to quote someone who worded it more clearly than I seem to be able to:
"One wonders whether there might be a degree of wish fulfillment in the belief that there is no God. For example, people often say they would do the right thing regardless of whether they would be rewarded or punished. However, when the police are visible on the highway, drivers really do slow down. When they think 'the law' is far away, they take significantly greater liberties. Denying the increase in immorality when the law is absent is as naive as discounting the connection between belief in a judgment day (and a Judge) and right living. I am reminded of a Web page that pictured a red, waxen cross. It was melting. This text was included:
No God, no guilt.
The belief in God awakens
fanaticism and guilt.
Live free and responsible.
Debaptize yourself!
But can we really free ourselves from guilt by simply denying the law? Either we have violated the moral law of the universe or we have not. No amount of wishing can change the reality. If there is a God, we can do nothing to free ourselves from him. To do so would not be responsible or bring freedom. Atheists often accuse believers of projection, of creating spiritual reality for their own comfort. But I believe the opposite is true. The atheist imagines a world without ultimate accountability, where he is answerable to no authority beyond this life." - Douglas A. Jacoby, Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible, p. 43
A being that has no purpose cannot create purpose; something cannot come from nothing (as we know from physics, for example). Therefore, if there is no external agent to instill purpose, we cannot have any purpose. If we make our own purpose, it is relative only to ourselves, who in turn are without purpose, so our purpose itself is purposeless. This is making its way towards ex nihilo, which accomplishes nothing. However, with God in mind ex nihilo is avoided because what we call existence itself is merely the genesis of our existence. To an eternal God who is the (original) Creator, He has always been and therefore needs no source before Him. This only works in the case of the Trinity, because it means God is three in one, so rather than having an originator, God originates Himself (better, but not perfect explanation). On a mathematical level it also checks out, because we had to use a similar projecting assumption and then work backwards to reach a bridge between the higher levels of proven mathematics we have today and the lower. I explained this much to give you a fuller (but not complete) picture, but this CLEARLY is getting into debates on other topics, which I have not yet mentioned on these forums and will not mention further in this thread.
You're right, atheism declares itself to be outside the sphere of morality.. which is why it's senseless for an atheist to reject theism on grounds of an immoral God, since they have to step back into the sphere of morality to do so. With atheism being so relative, it cannot have a foundation. (Arguing that science is not relative is irrelevant, since you would be right, but atheism and science are not one and the same, though you'll find atheists acting like they are in nearly every thread on this forum).
There are only 3 possible presuppositions:
1) Atheists believe there is a Designer
2) Atheists believe there is not a Designer
3) Atheists believe there may or may not be a Designer
My presupposition was that they believe there is not a Designer. Your presupposition, therefore, since it does not agree with mine, must either be that they believe there is a Designer, or that they believe there may or may not be a Designer.. but regardless, under the case that the idea of a designer is rejected under said argument, my analogy is perfectly valid.
You argue that more needs to be done here than dressing up my presupposition, but I would argue that you need to do more here than say I'm wrong and move on as if nothing was proven. The real issue here isn't even whether or not atheism stands (though it IS hopelessly muddled) but whether or not God is real. You are hiding behind the definition of atheism to steer away from the conclusion you dislike.
Clearly.. anyone who argues against God through circumlocution, as I mentioned, is making a poor case, and several atheists I've talked to have tried.. so in the spirit of understanding why I reject atheism and accept Christianity, my point is perfectly valid. Again, you did not refute the point, but dodged it by being snide.
So what? It validates the position atheists attack. And since there are only two conclusions - either God exists, or He doesn't (not deciding is not a conclusion) - one being validated in an area points away from the other, though it does not in itself verify the conclusion by itself. Again, my point is not moot.
Well nobody was talking about your beliefs. As the point above, it also points away from contradicting arguments and towards Christianity, because the atheist arguments meant to invalidate the Bible were actually supporting it by invalidate theists who support views contrary to the Bible. Y'know, enemy of my enemy is my friend type stuff. Yet again, my point has not been invalidated - you simply attempted to redirect.
Once anything not-God is refuted, there is reason to explore possible evidence for God, and once that has been found, God is a very good possibility. Again, my ultimate point is to find out if God exists or not. It is not to prove atheism wrong. In addition, I couldn't care less if I convince you or not, but your constant scapegoating back to that does imply that you don't want to address the arguments I have presented, which were actually quite reasonable. This leads me to believe that, perhaps, you aren't really looking for the truth of the matter, but instead trying to advocate what you want to be true.
Your hostility betrays your intentions. The truth is, you can believe whatever you want; nobody will stop you, or even care for that matter. However, I reply to your post in order to clarify the points I made, in hopes that anyone thinking more clearly will be able to make a sound judgment, because I think you're just in denial; you clearly only replied to my thread to attack it.
ON A COMPLETE SIDENOTE: I find it ironic that early Christians were actually considered atheists in the Roman Empire.
Because people keep on saying I don't know what Atheism is...
Atheism
From Merriam-Webster)A) a disbelief in the existence of deity
B) the doctrine that there is no deity
"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." (Concise Encyclopedia)
Atheism can be the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Amoral:
- being neither moral nor immoral; specifically: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply.
Immoral:
- not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
NOTE: I did mention that Atheism is NOT immoral, but rather amoral. I have cited definitions because I feel there may be confusion here about what those two words mean.
First, I want to reiterate that my goal was to explain why Atheism no longer makes sense to me; FOR THE RECORD I don't care if you believe in it or not, but this thread was started to ask theists what they believe and why, rather than to disprove Atheism. Since (I believe) I have done my homework on this before deciding, I simply shared my view on it.
Quote:Why would you condemn atheism like that based on a select few i.e. generals/presidents or other people in power who shaped history? The fact that you straight up confess not all atheists are amoral undermines any sort of point you were trying to make. I mean, I can raise up my hand and say I'm not amoral. Now what..? *shrugs* nothing to see here, so moving on.
Whether YOU argue morality or not is irrelevant to my point, because I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about Atheism. I also DID NOT say all Athiests are amoral, as you mentioned; in fact I said that many Atheists ARE moral. The point I am making is that they are moral IN SPITE OF their Athiestic claims. The examples of those people in history are relevant because they were atheists, and when there was no law they acted precisely IN ACCORDANCE with atheism, which claims to lie outside the sphere of moral anchors. This has consistently proven to produce such results in history as I mentioned. And, if you're going to be honest, such accurate consistency is EVIDENCE that cannot be refuted.
Whether or not atheists follow this is a different story, but that only means they are not adhering to atheism, yet claiming to do so. Just because I say I eat beef doesn't make it so; it is only true if I actually do eat beef. I am NOT claiming that atheists have no basis for morality - in fact I am claiming that they DO. HOWEVER, atheism itself claims that morality is integral to human society, because human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function.. but these rules change based on whoever is at the top when God is removed, and it has been proven time and time again that this leads straight to the devolution of the human race when put into practice. In light of all this, I was simply stating that Atheism makes no sense to me, so I don't follow it.
To expand on this, I want to quote someone who worded it more clearly than I seem to be able to:
"One wonders whether there might be a degree of wish fulfillment in the belief that there is no God. For example, people often say they would do the right thing regardless of whether they would be rewarded or punished. However, when the police are visible on the highway, drivers really do slow down. When they think 'the law' is far away, they take significantly greater liberties. Denying the increase in immorality when the law is absent is as naive as discounting the connection between belief in a judgment day (and a Judge) and right living. I am reminded of a Web page that pictured a red, waxen cross. It was melting. This text was included:
No God, no guilt.
The belief in God awakens
fanaticism and guilt.
Live free and responsible.
Debaptize yourself!
But can we really free ourselves from guilt by simply denying the law? Either we have violated the moral law of the universe or we have not. No amount of wishing can change the reality. If there is a God, we can do nothing to free ourselves from him. To do so would not be responsible or bring freedom. Atheists often accuse believers of projection, of creating spiritual reality for their own comfort. But I believe the opposite is true. The atheist imagines a world without ultimate accountability, where he is answerable to no authority beyond this life." - Douglas A. Jacoby, Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible, p. 43
Quote:I love how in the paragraphs before, you say something like "our desires don't shape truth" (paraphrasing. I'm on my phone and I deleted those paragraphs since I only wanted to respond to these points..). Yet, what do you do; claim that meaninglessness is somehow a point against atheism? But.. why??? Why would your desire for an objective purpose have any bearing on the truth about our purpose (if any)?
Our purpose on earth is subjective in a way that nihilism is self-defeating; you can decide for yourself what your purpose will be, which means that deciding that you have no purpose *is* a choice in itself about what purpose your life has. Either way, this point of yours is again of no negative consequence whatsoever *precisely* because you're speaking from your desires.
A being that has no purpose cannot create purpose; something cannot come from nothing (as we know from physics, for example). Therefore, if there is no external agent to instill purpose, we cannot have any purpose. If we make our own purpose, it is relative only to ourselves, who in turn are without purpose, so our purpose itself is purposeless. This is making its way towards ex nihilo, which accomplishes nothing. However, with God in mind ex nihilo is avoided because what we call existence itself is merely the genesis of our existence. To an eternal God who is the (original) Creator, He has always been and therefore needs no source before Him. This only works in the case of the Trinity, because it means God is three in one, so rather than having an originator, God originates Himself (better, but not perfect explanation). On a mathematical level it also checks out, because we had to use a similar projecting assumption and then work backwards to reach a bridge between the higher levels of proven mathematics we have today and the lower. I explained this much to give you a fuller (but not complete) picture, but this CLEARLY is getting into debates on other topics, which I have not yet mentioned on these forums and will not mention further in this thread.
Quote:You've failed to grasp how the problem of evil works; it assumes God (and therefore the theistic idea of evil) to exist so that an inconsistency *on your turf* can be exposed. It's got nothing to do with atheism per se.
You're right, atheism declares itself to be outside the sphere of morality.. which is why it's senseless for an atheist to reject theism on grounds of an immoral God, since they have to step back into the sphere of morality to do so. With atheism being so relative, it cannot have a foundation. (Arguing that science is not relative is irrelevant, since you would be right, but atheism and science are not one and the same, though you'll find atheists acting like they are in nearly every thread on this forum).
Quote:Your presupposition leads you to say the analogy is valid, but my presupposition doesn't. More needs to be done here than simply pointing to something and dressing it up with your presupposition.
There are only 3 possible presuppositions:
1) Atheists believe there is a Designer
2) Atheists believe there is not a Designer
3) Atheists believe there may or may not be a Designer
My presupposition was that they believe there is not a Designer. Your presupposition, therefore, since it does not agree with mine, must either be that they believe there is a Designer, or that they believe there may or may not be a Designer.. but regardless, under the case that the idea of a designer is rejected under said argument, my analogy is perfectly valid.
You argue that more needs to be done here than dressing up my presupposition, but I would argue that you need to do more here than say I'm wrong and move on as if nothing was proven. The real issue here isn't even whether or not atheism stands (though it IS hopelessly muddled) but whether or not God is real. You are hiding behind the definition of atheism to steer away from the conclusion you dislike.
Quote:Now we're getting desperate! Moving on!!!
Clearly.. anyone who argues against God through circumlocution, as I mentioned, is making a poor case, and several atheists I've talked to have tried.. so in the spirit of understanding why I reject atheism and accept Christianity, my point is perfectly valid. Again, you did not refute the point, but dodged it by being snide.
Quote:Yep.. so what?
So what? It validates the position atheists attack. And since there are only two conclusions - either God exists, or He doesn't (not deciding is not a conclusion) - one being validated in an area points away from the other, though it does not in itself verify the conclusion by itself. Again, my point is not moot.
Quote:Now we're just taking stabs in the dark. The topic of "judgement" isn't exactly something that makes or breaks my beliefs.
Well nobody was talking about your beliefs. As the point above, it also points away from contradicting arguments and towards Christianity, because the atheist arguments meant to invalidate the Bible were actually supporting it by invalidate theists who support views contrary to the Bible. Y'know, enemy of my enemy is my friend type stuff. Yet again, my point has not been invalidated - you simply attempted to redirect.
Quote:you think atheism is some sort of organised philosophy where anything not-God must be included.
Once anything not-God is refuted, there is reason to explore possible evidence for God, and once that has been found, God is a very good possibility. Again, my ultimate point is to find out if God exists or not. It is not to prove atheism wrong. In addition, I couldn't care less if I convince you or not, but your constant scapegoating back to that does imply that you don't want to address the arguments I have presented, which were actually quite reasonable. This leads me to believe that, perhaps, you aren't really looking for the truth of the matter, but instead trying to advocate what you want to be true.
Your hostility betrays your intentions. The truth is, you can believe whatever you want; nobody will stop you, or even care for that matter. However, I reply to your post in order to clarify the points I made, in hopes that anyone thinking more clearly will be able to make a sound judgment, because I think you're just in denial; you clearly only replied to my thread to attack it.
ON A COMPLETE SIDENOTE: I find it ironic that early Christians were actually considered atheists in the Roman Empire.
![[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FAJqsKtG.jpg)
