(February 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Well, how about this then...standard philosophy...Worldviews are comprised of a set of a priori beliefs that serve as a filter through which we interpret information to arrive at our beliefs. At a minimum, Worldviews have a Metaphysic, an Epistemology and an Ethic. Atheism's metaphysic filter is "there are no Metaphysics". (Naturalism) It's Epistemology is "Logic and Reason". (Scientific Method) Finally it's Ethic is "Might makes right". (Majority Rules)Ok, so you start off by admitting that the minimum requirement for being a worldview is to have a metaphysic, and epistemology, and an ethic. I can now demonstrate that atheism has none of these, and you can admit that atheism does not qualify as a worldview by your own criteria.
1) Metaphysics - You make the claim that atheism says "there is no metaphysics" yet this is blatantly untrue. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God...it does not rule out any other supernatural entities. A large percentage of atheists do not believe in the supernatural, but only because atheism tends to lead to skepticism, and skepticism allows people to reserve judgement on these things. It is not true to say, however, that atheism itself says there is no metaphysical realm. So already, "atheism" does not qualify as a worldview. Atheism has no opinion on metaphysics...it doesn't even make the claim that God doesn't exist; the basic definition of atheism is "without gods", or "lacking belief in gods".
2) Epistemology - You claim that the Scientific Method is our epistemology, yet I believe I have shown you before how this is not the case. There is not a single scientific argument that can verify atheism, nor theism. The scientific realm is empirical; it can no more speak on matters of Gods than it can on matters of invisible undetectable dragons. Atheism does not claim any position of knowledge, as it is defined as lacking a belief. Please read the difference between belief and knowledge...it might be helpful. Certain atheists may claim ultimate knowledge of the non-existence of Gods, but to label us all by those is to label all Catholics as paedophiles. You do not label people by their minority, you label them by the belief they have in common. Strong atheists (those who claim God doesn't exist) and weak atheists have one thing in common: they hold have no belief that gods exist.
3) Ethics - There is nothing in atheism to define ethics, nor do most atheists I've talked to argue that "might makes right". There are many instances where the "might" have been wrong (imo), and I do not support things that I believe are wrong. I believe in rights that are established through reasoned argument, on a principle very similar to Christianity's "do undo others...". This is why I respect the American constitution so much, why I think having a document that is held to almost "other-natural" status is a good thing. However, I think I would be right in saying that if you got 10 atheists together, and asked each one 10 different ethical questions, you'd get many different answers. Everyone has their own ethics, even true worldviews like a Christian worldview have different people disagreeing with interpretations. This is why you find Christians who are against abortion, and Christians who think to not abort in certain circumstances is a moral evil.
Quote:You claim it is not a worldview because you know deep down inside that if you admitted that, you'd have to defend your inability to behave in a manner that comports with the presuppositions of the belief.Baseless claim...utterly baseless. I'd like to know how you can know what is inside our heads...if you'd be so kind.
Quote:In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.[/color]You talk about honest debate, yet it you who constantly ignores are points, claims things about our way of thinking for which you have no evidence, or reason to presuppose. I, like Shell, can explain why murder and rape are wrong, even if I do not believe in absolute morality. Whether my explanation is agreed upon by others is very telling of relative morality's realistic nature in this world.
