Argument against atheism

[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.