objectivitees,

The concept of being facetious eludes you. The fact that you can't understand there is a correlation between morals and principles of survival is pretty comical, however.

Here's a hint - think of society as something needing to reproduce and survive.

(February 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm)tavarish Wrote: objectivitees,

The concept of being facetious eludes you. The fact that you can't understand there is a correlation between morals and principles of survival is pretty comical, however.

Here's a hint - think of society as something needing to reproduce and survive.

here's a hint for you... why does it "need" to survive?

---

Quote:The fact that you can't understand there is a correlation between morals and principles of survival is pretty comical, however.

I didn't say I didn't see a correlation, I said a correlation does not make them the same thing. If you are going to twist my words to fit your agenda, there is nothing more for us to earn from each other. It's clear you don't understand how logical fallacies (equivocation) defeat your own argument, but it's not "comical".

---

(February 18, 2010 at 7:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(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.

By "general concept" do you mean to say the ontological construct?

So far, you seem to be of a "different" breed, but i can't yet say that of everyone here. kudoes to you. (So far. hehe)

By general concept I mean God as a general concept, as in definition. As in, "a god is a supernatural (non-temporal) being that created the universe".

Going on that definition alone, nothing more can be said about the nature of God without bringing in other beliefs, of which the religions are built upon. Thus to say "God is evil because he could prevent evil" is to bring in some assertion about the nature of god for which the general concept does not even comment on.

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

So, it's "Metaphysic" is that there is only a natural reality, it's "Epistemology" is the scientific method tempered by Logic and reason, and it's "Ethic" is the majority in a society rules.

It's got the three major components of a worldview, therefore it is a worldview.

Get it now?

So, it's "Metaphysic" is that there is only a natural reality, it's "Epistemology" is the scientific method tempered by Logic and reason, and it's "Ethic" is the majority in a society rules.

It's got the three major components of a worldview, therefore it is a worldview.

Get it now?

No. Whilst these things may well be what many atheist hold to it has nothing to do with atheism itself. Atheism is simply the disbelief in something someone else believes, in this case god or gods, nothing else.

(February 18, 2010 at 8:21 pm)Darwinian Wrote:
So, it's "Metaphysic" is that there is only a natural reality, it's "Epistemology" is the scientific method tempered by Logic and reason, and it's "Ethic" is the majority in a society rules.

It's got the three major components of a worldview, therefore it is a worldview.

Get it now?

No. Whilst these things may well be what many atheist hold to it has nothing to do with atheism itself. Atheism is simply the disbelief in something someone else believes, in this case god or gods, nothing else.

Yes it does have to do with Atheism. Atheism presupposes Naturalism (metaphysic belief), Science and logic are the means by which Atheists claim to be able to know things (Epistemology), and majority rules are all that left when you remove absolute standards. (ethic)

This is a worldview, just because some Atheists are not aware of the Metaphysic or Ethic aspect of their worldview, doesn't mean they don't have one.

No, many atheists may presuppose these things but atheism itself is simply a lack of belief and nothing else.

It sounds like your confusing the word atheism with your personal experience of atheism.

(February 18, 2010 at 8:31 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Yes it does have to do with Atheism. Atheism presupposes Naturalism (metaphysic belief), Science and logic are the means by which Atheists claim to be able to know things (Epistemology), and majority rules are all that left when you remove absolute standards. (ethic)

This is a worldview, just because some Atheists are not aware of the Metaphysic or Ethic aspect of their worldview, doesn't mean they don't have one.

Atheism doesn't presuppose Naturalism. You can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural, since the word "atheist" simply rules out believing in a god, not all supernatural entities. As someone mentioned before, nothing stops an atheist from believing in fairies.

Science and logic are the means by which most people (not just atheists) claim to be able to know things. They are not the only ways, nor (as I also pointed out) is it a requirement of atheism that you must believe in science. You can reject science and still be an atheist, since the concepts at the heart of atheism are philosophical in nature (I thought you agreed with me on that one?).

Atheism does not equate having relative moral values. You can be an absolutist and be an atheist...nothing stops this. The only difference between theistic absolutists and atheistic absolutists is that the absolute nature of morals for the atheist doesn't come from God, but from somewhere else.

(February 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

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

So, it's "Metaphysic" is that there is only a natural reality, it's "Epistemology" is the scientific method tempered by Logic and reason, and it's "Ethic" is the majority in a society rules.

It's got the three major components of a worldview, therefore it is a worldview.

Get it now?

1)
Atheism = only naturalism/materialism?
No, because you can still be an atheist and believe in the supernatural, such is the way of the Buddha.

2)
An atheist must use science as it's Epistemology?
No, You can have non-scientific atheists, such as Buddhists again, or Raelians, or the pre-Socratic philosophers many of whom rejected the idea of a God before there was a scientific method.

3)
An atheist must believe in subjective morality?
No, You could believe in absolute morals whilst being an atheist if you believed in some cosmic or supernatural law excluding a god, Taoism is a good example.

You failed on every account, it's because you are arguing against the very established definition of the word atheist, from the latin A(Without) Theos(belief in god(s)). Theist likewise literally means "belief in God" but i bet you wouldn't argue Theism is a belief system or a world view, you would be an absolute idiot to do so, as you have been arguing that atheism is. Theism is a single statement, Christianity is a belief system.

(February 18, 2010 at 5:55 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

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

Huh?

Well a term which sort of means spitting chips, don't worry, when I first arrived here I was far more unwitting about the arguments of atheism than you are.