RE: Argument against atheism
December 18, 2011 at 11:46 pm
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2011 at 11:56 pm by amkerman.)
faith no more: Yes, I have called atheism illogical, because the argument I make leads me to believe atheism is illogical. That is why the thread is called an argument against atheism. But I haven't made any value judgements about whether atheism is good or bad, right or wrong, etc. i posted the argument because i thought someone would at least attempt to defend their beliefs using reason and thought, but mostly what i am seeing are ad hominem attacks on me and baseless rejection of my argument because it is against atheism.
I think I made an argument why morality as an objective truth makes more sense than morality as a purely subjective construct in my op. No one has defended the position that it would logically make more sense that morality is subjective in nature. because I admitted the fact that it was entirely possible that atheism is correct, and since most of the posters on here are atheists it seems already, they probably agreed with me on that point, and so didn't blast me for it.
Of course my argument is offensive to atheists, it challenges the validity of atheistic beliefs. Are we not to question beliefs and assumptions about how the universe works now? should I just say and do the things which make the most people happy and forgo a quest for knowledge or enlightenment? If anyone just wants to live in blissful ignorance and be stupid, whether they believe in God or not, they are in the end lying to themselves. I take offense at being called a troll. I did not intend to maximize disagreement and my argument is a belief that I hold. But my belief has nothing to do with the argument. The argument must stand or fail on it's own, regardless of my belief.
cthulhu: no one said atheists believe in an objective morality, at least I certainly have not said it.
The fact is I can not do better at defining what God is because science has never considered or acknowledged the possibility of God. It would be like defining exactly how dark matter was created before science even thought dark matter existed.
Your argument about morality is exactly the argument I am making. morality would have to be a law of the universe. it would be real. morality denotes value judgements as being inherently true, value judgments necessitate consciousness as a primary function of the universe... which would most correctly be described as a monotheistic deity, or "God".
I think I made an argument why morality as an objective truth makes more sense than morality as a purely subjective construct in my op. No one has defended the position that it would logically make more sense that morality is subjective in nature. because I admitted the fact that it was entirely possible that atheism is correct, and since most of the posters on here are atheists it seems already, they probably agreed with me on that point, and so didn't blast me for it.
Of course my argument is offensive to atheists, it challenges the validity of atheistic beliefs. Are we not to question beliefs and assumptions about how the universe works now? should I just say and do the things which make the most people happy and forgo a quest for knowledge or enlightenment? If anyone just wants to live in blissful ignorance and be stupid, whether they believe in God or not, they are in the end lying to themselves. I take offense at being called a troll. I did not intend to maximize disagreement and my argument is a belief that I hold. But my belief has nothing to do with the argument. The argument must stand or fail on it's own, regardless of my belief.
cthulhu: no one said atheists believe in an objective morality, at least I certainly have not said it.
The fact is I can not do better at defining what God is because science has never considered or acknowledged the possibility of God. It would be like defining exactly how dark matter was created before science even thought dark matter existed.
Your argument about morality is exactly the argument I am making. morality would have to be a law of the universe. it would be real. morality denotes value judgements as being inherently true, value judgments necessitate consciousness as a primary function of the universe... which would most correctly be described as a monotheistic deity, or "God".
