Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

Epimethian: I get my correctly termed "God" from a subjective source, my consciousness and the consciousness of collective humanity. I have never made any claim that consciousness is objective or that objectivity even exists. In order to believe that objectivity exists in reality, it is necessary for you to believe in something termed "God". I have repeatedly stated that it is entirely rational that objectivity does not exist, that laws of the universe are purely subjective, but it is illogical to believe one without believing the other.

[Darwinning]

It is illogical for one to believe in objective truth or morality or reality while at the same time believing there is nothing that would correctly be termed "God" by humanity.

Why? Twenty pages in I have yet to see any argument for it.

---

I have repeatedly stated that it is entirely rational that objectivity does not exist, that laws of the universe are purely subjective, but it is illogical to believe one without believing the other.

You have stated that many times, yes. But I have seen no argument to back that up; just babble.

[amkerman]

atheism might more correctly be defined as an affront to logic or reason judging from most of the responses I have seen

again darwinning

all men are mortal
socrates is a man
therefore socrates is mortal

that is a basic argument. It uses only claims and conclusions. It demonstrates nothing. it is neither inherently true or false. It is simply logically valid. It is an argument; it proves nothing.

[Darwinning]

you state I have failed yet you offer no argument for how I have failed.

Would you kindly please respond to my post on page 15 and show us an actual argument that we could discuss? Thanks.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10040-po...#pid217013

[Epimethean]

Your "argument" has yet to be clearly defined. Stop using old and trite syllogisms and create one for your your own bollocks.

---

you state I have failed yet you offer no argument for how I have failed.

Would you kindly please respond to my post on page 15 and show us an actual argument that we could discuss? Thanks.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10040-po...#pid217013

He never responds directly. He twists things into his own brand of thought-abortion, then shows it as if those to whom he is "responding" will claim the bastardization he has spawned.

[Darwinning]

Perhaps it would help if you told us what exactly your premises and what your conclusions are. For example ...

premis 1: all men are mortal
premis 2: socrates is a man
conclusion (based on premis 1 and premis 2): therefore socrates is mortal

Kindly do the same for the argument you are asking us to refute.

[Epimethean]

So far, what he has given might lead to this:

All men breathe
I am a man
Therefore god exists

[Darwinning]

So far, what he has given might lead to this:

All men breathe
I am a man
Therefore god exists

That's funny, because all I've seen is even less like an actual argument from inference.

invalid premise: Logically, squares are round
baseless conjecture: Therefore, kiwi.

[The Grand Nudger]

Humans are humans, robots are robots, gerbils are gerbils. We have defined those things as they are after observing them in the universe. A belief in something which has not been defined or observed in science for which there is no empirical evidence has been termed "God". In order to believe in objective reality and truth, a belief in what is most correctly termed "God" is necessary...

If this is somehow not logical someone explain why this is not the case.

Yes, you've termed it god (because you're attempting to be evasive). The definition is incredibly permissive. Belief in leprechauns, unicorns, magic beans etc are all belief in god by this definition, they are equivalent. So let's run with the equivalnece you've created. Would this imply that a belief in god is a belief in leprechauns, unicorns, and magic beans? Would this imply that a belief in objective reality would require a belief in leprechauns, unicorns, or magic beans? Sure does, sure would, still garbage. Thats the trouble you run into when you make your definition "everything", and why "everything" claims are so easily dismissed. Still waiting to see that argument. What's the deal, were you confused or lying?

[Rhizomorph13]

---

Ok, in all seriousness I believe in an objective physical reality that exists regardless of how I feel about it. Our perception of that objective reality, i.e. morality, taste, touch, emotion, law, dictionary definitions, etc. are all subjective and are only important to us as defined by us.

I agree with you that any person that believes in objective morality, objective truth, or any other objective judgment call that requires intelligence cannot rationally call themselves an atheist. That is not to say that morality does not exist; it does exist by fiat from human conciousness. It is not objective, but we can still make moral decisions based on an arrived at norm defined by the society in which we live.

You'd have to demonstrate that our cosmos (and not just our perception of it) requires "intelligence" for this statement to hold water.

---

Truth and morality are just a couple of examples that require judgements by an intelligence. Without an intelligent perceiver truth and morality have no meaning. If a tree falls in the forest and hits a rock is that moral? Without a perceiver is there any releveance to the truth of whether the tree fell or not?

So, to believe in any objective judgment call that requires an intelligent perceiver, you would have to believe in a perceiver that it outside the reality it is perceiving such that it would not be affected by that reality.

I do not believe in the existence of any objective judgement calls that require an intelligent perceiver. Truth and morality are simply arrived at through the subjective processes of one beings brain. The fact that we can craft up laws relating to those things is still not an objective process.

edit: I do believe in an objectively real physical reality through an act of faith. Faith that I am not just a program in a computer, faith that I am not just a brain in a jar.