(February 18, 2010 at 2:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In short, it has nothing to do with God's existence.

Actually it does, as many Atheists (in fact all I have ever encountered) extend the argument to say that since God is evil (because he's responsible) and ontologically God is supposed to be good, then God cannot exist. (Second law of logic, non-contradiction)

(February 18, 2010 at 5:08 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

(February 18, 2010 at 2:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In short, it has nothing to do with God's existence.

Actually it does, as many Atheists (in fact all I have ever encountered) extend the argument to say that since God is evil (because he's responsible) and ontologically God is supposed to be good, then God cannot exist. (Second law of logic, non-contradiction)

1. Note that atheism isn't a religion or faction - stop spelling it with a capital.
2. You've either misconstrued the argument or spoken to some truly dumb advocates of atheism.

(February 18, 2010 at 5:13 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(February 18, 2010 at 5:08 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

(February 18, 2010 at 2:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In short, it has nothing to do with God's existence.

Actually it does, as many Atheists (in fact all I have ever encountered) extend the argument to say that since God is evil (because he's responsible) and ontologically God is supposed to be good, then God cannot exist. (Second law of logic, non-contradiction)

1. Note that atheism isn't a religion or faction - stop spelling it with a capital.
2. You've either misconstrued the argument or spoken to some truly dumb advocates of atheism.

1. Note that Atheism is a worldview, therefore I will capitalize it.
2. I clearly demonstrated that I understood the argument, therefore I've bee speaking to truly dumb Atheists. (With a capital "A".)

hAHA - I told you you'd be swearing in no time

(February 18, 2010 at 5:41 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: hAHA - I told you you'd be swearing in no time

Huh?

(February 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm)objectivitees Wrote: 1. Note that Atheism is a worldview, therefore I will capitalize it.
2. I clearly demonstrated that I understood the argument, therefore I've bee speaking to truly dumb Atheists. (With a capital "A".)

1. In that same respect, I shall call you a Athorist, since I'm sure you don't beieve in the God Thor. Apparently this non-belief constitutes a worldview. Tell me, Athorist, how can you account for the lack of moral absolutes? Hmmmm?

I know in my atheism I pray to not-god all the time and I live my life according to the un-bible. Seriously man, wtf.

Here's a definition of worldview:

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

So what can you deduce about my values, emotions and ethics as they are applied to my stance on various philosophical topics and themes?

My non-belief apparently screams at people.


2. I'm glad we can agree on that, Athorist (With a capital "A")

(February 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: [quote='tavarish' pid='56735' dateline='1266531229']1. In that same respect, I shall call you a Athorist, since I'm sure you don't beieve in the God Thor. Apparently this non-belief constitutes a worldview. Tell me, Athorist, how can you account for the lack of moral absolutes? Hmmmm?

I'm sorry, you think a "non-belief" constitutes a worldview, when worldviews deal with beliefs?

(February 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: I know in my atheism I pray to not-god all the time and I live my life according to the un-bible. Seriously man, wtf.

WTF? that's the same reaction I had to your equivocation.

(February 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: Here's a definition of worldview:
[i]
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Wow, wikipedia huh? That's some real deep research man. Any way, fine, I'll accept that definition because it covers the basics. Worldviews are comprised of a "metaphysic", an "epistemology" and an "ethic".

(February 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: So what can you deduce about my values, emotions and ethics as they are applied to my stance on various philosophical topics and themes?

My non-belief apparently screams at people.

Well, from what you've written so far, I can deduce that you don't have a working understanding of what the discipline of philosophy considers the concept of "moral" to mean, which strips you of an ability to truly understand that "morality" and "survival" are not the same thing.

(February 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm)tavarish Wrote: 2. I'm glad we can agree on that, Athorist (With a capital "A")

The label doesn't bother me, Atheist with a capitol "A". (Especially since Athorism can't actually be a worldview according to the very definiton you provided.

Thorist = Someone who believes in Thor, this is a worldview.
athorist = Someone who doesn't believe in Thor, not a worldview.

Theist = Someone who believes in God, this is a worldview.
atheist = Someone who doesn't believe in God, not a worldview.

Am I missing something here?

(February 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm)objectivitees Wrote: The label doesn't bother me, Atheist with a capitol "A". (Especially since Athorism can't actually be a worldview according to the very definiton you provided.[/color]

Atheism is not a worldview, is is a rejection of a claim, the claim that God exists.

Raelian is a worldview, they believe that aliens created life on this planet, they do not believe in God, but i have nothing else in common with their beliefs.

Budhism is a worldview, they do not believe in God, but their worldview contains many spiritual and supernatural beliefs that i reject.

Humanistic Naturalism is a worldview, one that i hold, it is also Atheistic, but is shares very very little with the two aforementioned atheistic worldviews.

Get it now?

(February 18, 2010 at 5:08 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Actually it does, as many Atheists (in fact all I have ever encountered) extend the argument to say that since God is evil (because he's responsible) and ontologically God is supposed to be good, then God cannot exist. (Second law of logic, non-contradiction)

Then they were being retarded, and I can only apologise for them and inform you that there is a very different breed of atheist here.

"God" as a general concept includes nothing about the "side" he bats for. God's can by definition either be good or bad. So the only way I could see this being turned into an argument against the existence of God would be in regards to specific Gods (say, Yahweh of Christianity). Of course, such arguments are invalid for a number of other reasons, which is why I don't use them.