atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[Mystic]

Beliefs or non-beliefs only require justification when they affect you directly.

What is the justification for morals? What is the justification for free-will? What is the justification for justice? Human rights? Perpetual identity? There is none. Yet these effect us the most.

The most sacred of humanity's beliefs are without justification. They cannot be proven but humanity needs to hold on to them.

[Joel]

Beliefs or non-beliefs only require justification when they affect you directly.

What is the justification for morals? What is the justification for free-will? What is the justification for justice? Human rights? Perpetual identity? There is none. Yet these effect us the most.

The most sacred of humanity's beliefs are without justification. They cannot be proven but humanity needs to hold on to them.

The beliefs on these differ between people; this causes individual justifications for their own belief on the topics.

[Justtristo]

How does one spend 5-1/2 years in high school? Even nearly failing high school myself, I graduated in three.

In Australia High Schools or Secondary Colleges in most areas cover Years 7-12. So it is possible to spend six years in High School here in Australia.

[jstrodel]

Emotional immaturity is when you post a one sentence argument for a position that is a naked assertion that is completely radical, even by the standards of atheist approaches to knowledge, and you think you are automatically right because Christian beliefs are "irrational".

All in one sentence, nice...

But seriously, let's discuss emotional immaturity. I would say an accurate description is one who doesn't yet have control over them. As opposed to an emotional basket case who at one time, had controll but is quite often prone to have a breakdown.

But I'm willing to bet that what you really meant was to insult those who are younger than you and set yourself up as an authority based on age and experience. Do I read you correctly?

Not intending to insult anyone, only to impart a sense of respect for the Christian philosophical tradition, which has included such nobodies and idiots as Augustine, Aquinas, Descarte, Kirkeegaard, William of Occam, John Locke, Pascal, Tolstoy.

Anyone who claims that Christianity is on the same evidential status as the tooth fairy is a liar, and anyone who treats religion as if it is something that should be insulting, rather than considered or rejected, but respectfully, deserves ridicule and rebuke and has made their conclusion without appreciating the immense contributions of religious belief, while not rendering religion true, it confers a sense of respect for the tradition.

[Mystic]

What is the justification for morals? What is the justification for free-will? What is the justification for justice? Human rights? Perpetual identity? There is none. Yet these effect us the most.

The most sacred of humanity's beliefs are without justification. They cannot be proven but humanity needs to hold on to them.

The beliefs on these differ between people; this causes individual justifications for their own belief on the topics.

The details differ, but over all, humanity agrees upon the existence of these things as part our human identity and experience.

We believed in these things before we sought to justify them.

[jstrodel]

Beliefs or non-beliefs only require justification when they affect you directly.

What is the justification for morals? What is the justification for free-will? What is the justification for justice? Human rights? Perpetual identity? There is none. Yet these effect us the most.

The most sacred of humanity's beliefs are without justification. They cannot be proven but humanity needs to hold on to them.

I think they can be proven, but I think people should hold on to them. Maybe not proven directly.

[Justtristo]

Jstrodel, may I ask you are consuming mind altering drugs (which can include certain medications) by any chance?

[jstrodel]

Justtristo I will take that lame insult as evidence you don't have any argument.

[Justtristo]

Justtristo I will take that lame insult as evidence you don't have any argument.

I find a lot of what you are saying consistent with sort of rants made by those on some kind of mind altering substance (for example; crack cocaine).

[Mystic]

What is the justification for morals? What is the justification for free-will? What is the justification for justice? Human rights? Perpetual identity? There is none. Yet these effect us the most.

The most sacred of humanity's beliefs are without justification. They cannot be proven but humanity needs to hold on to them.

I think they can be proven, but I think people should hold on to them. Maybe not proven directly.

Well if you can prove God, you can prove them. However, I don't think God or supernatural benevolent creator can be proven except through these very things. That would make it circular reasoning. If it said belief in God is properly basic, then the proof is only useful to those to whom God seems more manifest than existence of morality, praise, etc...

Although I did have an argument that went on the lines of this (will modify it now):

1) The nature of what we know of praise and morals implies the need of a supernatural Creator as the basis of them for them to be true.
2) We would not have that knowledge of praise and morals implying the need of a supernatural creator if we didn't have knowledge praise and morals or if morals and praise didn't come from a supernatural creator.
3) Therefore we have knowledge of praise and morals and knowledge of supernatural creator as the basis of them to be true.

I am not sure of it, but it seems correct to me.