...Truth?

[ignoramus]

Hammy!. Did that lone speck of dandruff come from Vorlon's head while he was, ........ you know ..............eating mayo?! hehe

[Edwardo Piet]

Hammy!. Did that lone speck of dandruff come from Vorlon's head while he was, ........ you know   ..............eating mayo?! hehe

I haven't been AFing so much lately.... while I was gone did you miss me so much you developed all these fantasies about me, Iggy?

[ignoramus]

I don't think your mayo high speed manufacturing process is a fantasy!
Life good?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep. Life is great.

I actually haven't been mayo-making as much the last couple of months. Do you think I need to see a doctor?

[Amarok]

Sigh I and some concepts of absolute truth I gave a specific example of what I meant and specific  examples of why doubt it .  And clearly said conceptions of absolute truth not absolute truth itself conceptions . So yesmen once again your shown to  be a lying idiot .

As for my credentials I don't give a fuck if you believe me as I was not even talking to you. As for what have done yes I did philosophy courses. And one point then went back and did some biology courses. I didn't pass the philosophy course but just barely and I had to drop out of my biology course last year for personal reasons .

[Ravenshire]

bold mine

That they did it in the name if god. The book makes it pretty clear that was the minions motivation. 

What point?

A person can eat pizza, kill people, or rape in the name of anything. Again, what's your point? Is that it?

Yeah you want to interact with my original point now or are you done?

Oh, yay. Another christer who hasn't read it's own holy book and wants to shift the burden of proof.

Pardon me if I seem unimpressed by your blather. We get a couple of your type every month and there's never anything new.

Now, I'm sure you'll hurl a couple insults and make a bunch of handwaving motions to distract us all from the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims. Sorry, it won't work, and we'll continue to remain unimpressed.

[Amarok]

Yup you can kill in the name of anything . But only with theism can you maintain the pretension an absolute authority sanctioned it.

[Mister Agenda]

Hey guys. I'm trying to find truth. I feel like it's worth finding. I'm currently agnostic.

Welcome. I hope you like our forum.

All I really want right now is to hear people legitimately defend their position. I'm pretty fed up with worldviews in general. I've got a few questions here that I'm just barely opening up. I'm not trying to be terribly profound; this is my first query post here and I just want to get some ideas flowing around that I can look into.

I wish you success. What I really want right now is an exception to the rule that people who aren't atheists come to our forum saying they want to learn and proceed to tell us what we think instead of actually asking us. I'm not optimistic, though.

I've noticed that a lot of atheists pride themselves on not being "duped" or of not "living in a fantasy world," presumably referring to theism, deism, pantheism, or anything that accepts a supernatural element to the world of any sort. I'm just wondering, where in an atheistic worldview is there any impetus for this search for truth?

There are tens of thousands of theistic worldviews. Why would you assume that atheists all have the same one?

From an atheistic point of view, truth has no intrinsic value (if I'm wrong here, I'd love to hear an argument for an intrinsic value of truth from an atheistic perspective), so in an isolated world, there's no reason to search for it apart from whim, and your search for truth on a whim would hardly be a reason to criticize someone else for arriving at a conclusion you deem false.

'Truth has no intrinsic value' does not follow from 'atheist'. And can you give an example of something with intrinsic value for comparison? Everything I can think of that's valued is valued because someone or something capable of assigning value, values it. I think it's a bad idea to believe things that are false, why isn't that sufficient grounds for me to search for truth?

And perhaps you're 'mis-imagining' my motivation for criticizing someone else for arriving a conclusion that I deem false (or more likely, that I consider unjustified)? I'm usually concerned with a person's methods of arriving at their conclusion and the standard of evidence they use.

 An atheist'd have to go Nietzsche's direction along with the other postmodern philosophers and say that truth has no worth and that it doesn't matter whether we believe this or that—the thing that makes something worth believing is simply whether or not we believe it.

Why would an atheist have to do that?

 I've also heard this facet of the issue argued further as "I'm concerned that wide swaths of humanity are duping themselves," but I fail to see from an atheistic perspective why there's any reason not to dupe yourself along with 'em or why you should care if others do, from a logical standpoint.

No one has a 'logical standpoint'. Logic is a tool that's useful for critically analyzing propositions. If I want to avoid falling off a cliff, logic can help me do that, but it can't tell me to want to avoid falling off cliffs if I'm fine with it. Logic can't get us from an 'is' to an 'ought'. What we 'ought' to do depends on what we value.

Another clear aspect of this issue, more related to this last point than to the intrinsic-value-of-truth part of the question, is the social problems associated with religion—i.e., the public practice of it. Granted, a good portion of Christians, Muslims, and many other religions cause harm in the world, but I would argue that, certainly in the former case and I hear in the latter case as well (although I'm not well-versed in Islam), those who cause harm to other people directly through their religion aren't living as their religion demands.

I'm not sure the victims of religiously-motivated violence would be much comforted knowing that their oppressors or murderers are theologically unsound.

In other words, the social issues in the world arising from religion seem to rise from an imperfect practice of religion, not the religion itself. (Once more, if you have an argument to the contrary, I'd love to talk about it.) It's the classic cliché: "I have nothing against Christianity. Christians, on the other hand...."

Certainly, if religion disappeared, there would still be problems in the world. The fundamental problem with religion as far as its impact on society is the idea that one is carrying out the will of a divine being that is right in whatever it orders by definition. Religious dogmatism is not a requirement of religion (Unitarianism comes to mind). It's essentially the problem of any ideology that has a 'Dear Leader' or doctrines set in stone, religious or otherwise.

Regardless, this is a different issue from what I'm talking about and springs from the first, so please don't begin a conversation about not liking religion because the religious infringe on your postmodern right to believing whatever you want.

Please don't arrogantly and condescendingly assume you know what our responses will be.

If that's the only reason you care, please just move on to the next topic. I'll ask about that later. What I'm concerned with here is why atheists care so much about finding the truth about the world from a philosophical perspective.
- Caleb

How do you justify caring so much about finding the truth about the world from a philosophical perspective as an agnostic, Caleb?

[Astonished]

Hey guys. I'm trying to find truth. I feel like it's worth finding. I'm currently agnostic. All I really want right now is to hear people legitimately defend their position. I'm pretty fed up with worldviews in general. I've got a few questions here that I'm just barely opening up. I'm not trying to be terribly profound; this is my first query post here and I just want to get some ideas flowing around that I can look into.

I've noticed that a lot of atheists pride themselves on not being "duped" or of not "living in a fantasy world," presumably referring to theism, deism, pantheism, or anything that accepts a supernatural element to the world of any sort. I'm just wondering, where in an atheistic worldview is there any impetus for this search for truth? From an atheistic point of view, truth has no intrinsic value (if I'm wrong here, I'd love to hear an argument for an intrinsic value of truth from an atheistic perspective), so in an isolated world, there's no reason to search for it apart from whim, and your search for truth on a whim would hardly be a reason to criticize someone else for arriving at a conclusion you deem false. An atheist'd have to go Nietzsche's direction along with the other postmodern philosophers and say that truth has no worth and that it doesn't matter whether we believe this or that—the thing that makes something worth believing is simply whether or not we believe it. I've also heard this facet of the issue argued further as "I'm concerned that wide swaths of humanity are duping themselves," but I fail to see from an atheistic perspective why there's any reason not to dupe yourself along with 'em or why you should care if others do, from a logical standpoint.

Another clear aspect of this issue, more related to this last point than to the intrinsic-value-of-truth part of the question, is the social problems associated with religion—i.e., the public practice of it. Granted, a good portion of Christians, Muslims, and many other religions cause harm in the world, but I would argue that, certainly in the former case and I hear in the latter case as well (although I'm not well-versed in Islam), those who cause harm to other people directly through their religion aren't living as their religion demands. In other words, the social issues in the world arising from religion seem to rise from an imperfect practice of religion, not the religion itself. (Once more, if you have an argument to the contrary, I'd love to talk about it.) It's the classic cliché: "I have nothing against Christianity. Christians, on the other hand...." Regardless, this is a different issue from what I'm talking about and springs from the first, so please don't begin a conversation about not liking religion because the religious infringe on your postmodern right to believing whatever you want. If that's the only reason you care, please just move on to the next topic. I'll ask about that later. What I'm concerned with here is why atheists care so much about finding the truth about the world from a philosophical perspective.


- Caleb

I would hazard a guess that you're freshly out of some faith tradition, not because you say you're agnostic, but because you seem to have an oversimplified understanding of atheism and 'positions'. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I figure if you're looking for answers, you'll want to be aware of a particular vibe you're putting out in regards to your own attitude towards the subject.

Atheism isn't a 'position', at least not in the sense you seem to be describing it; yes, we're on the side of the fence where no god beliefs fit, but we're not making a positive or negative claim about it). It's actually just the way we express the null hypothesis where the claims of theists are concerned. You confuse it with antitheism, the position that indeed, there are no gods. Certain god concepts can be dismissed in this way because they are contradictory (in fact the vast majority of them because they come from organized faiths which because of their rigidity fall prey to this glaring problem). But for the most part we can't say definitively there are none (but this isn't so special because that pertains to every claim where you're trying to prove a negative, godly or otherwise). We simply say "I have not been convinced that what you're saying is true." That literally is the only thing you can say atheists have in common. You're going to have to apply more specific labels and target a small population thereafter if you want to have a discussion about anything else.

Much as you or others may find it distasteful to be so blunt, religious belief is largely a result of someone being duped. When the things they believe in are transparently false and can be proven beyond any doubt, the fact that something has happened in their cognitive development that prevents this from registering or being acknowledged is demonstrable that something ill-fitting has been forced into the machinery there and is causing a malfunction. That doesn't mean it can't be removed and replaced with a working part, it happens all the time. But the result is that they are much more credulous about a claim that has no merit and is in fact in most aspects, utterly false. Now, I'm sure the ratio of people who come into this without indoctrination, make it to adulthood well-educated and have no cultural pressure or other political reasons to adopt faith and as a result reject it is extremely high but inevitably there are exceptions and someone who fits that description will still end up falling down the rabbit hole for whatever reason, but that the overwhelming majority do not, should indicate there's a pretty good reason why that's so infrequent. Whether it's well-meaning parents or a community with an agenda, the children being indoctrinated are being sold a con, completely unknowingly, by the people they are supposed to trust more than any others. Whatever the intention, these people know that they have no real evidence or justification for it, nor do they care about their children's civil liberties to make up their own minds. I don't see how a person can possibly defend that even on the grounds of parents' rights.

What's the reason we search for truth, or a 'greater truth' in whatever sense that means depending on who you ask? What reason is there for us to get out of bed in the morning? What's our motivation to interact with other humans? This is all a nonsensical line of reasoning and I would encourage you to discard it along with any god concepts you may have once entertained. We are thinking agents and have a burning desire to seek truth, purpose, love, etc., it's simply an instinct as much as any other and whether it's a product of mutation or something we developed after our brains reached a certain point of complexity, it's there and it's beautiful. So the idea of settling for a simple answer which is in most cases demonstrably false, is not only something we cannot accept, but which we cannot usually abide others espousing. It demonstrates flawed thinking, weak character and a huge liability. That the form it takes is usually arrogant certainty and the dismissal of any contradictory claims regardless of the amount of evidence usually leads to antagonism and unproductive discussions.

You also seem to misunderstand the way logic works and its purpose. It's a tool we use to make sense of things and is largely ignored when it comes to dogmatic beliefs. The fact that there has never been a shred of empirical evidence for it, coupled with the fact that every abstract argument for it breaks down in every way possible means that there is no room for that in logic. So when the choice comes to being a rational agent seeking facts and building a framework for how reality works, or accepting a prefabricated framework from someone who when pressed to defend it has no merit whatsoever, you could not possibly go into that unbiased and choose the latter unless you are stark raving mad. In this way religion represents a very dangerous idea, namely a contagious mental illness. Think of a plague; you see how badly it's spreading just by contact, and the only thing scarier is hearing someone say, "it's airborne".

I honestly don't give a flying fuck what the particulars are regarding believers' attitudes towards their instructions on how to behave. You can cherry-pick this or that out of any holy book but unless you've been indoctrinated in such a way that you are incapable of questioning them, you're really using your own internal barometer to determine what's right and wrong. But if you insist on saying that your morality does come from your holy book or from a divine authority, you've unfortunately abdicated your responsibility as a moral agent. I like my analogy for this: Someone who decides to only obey the good bits in their books is not the moral superior to the one who believes with all their heart that murdering infidels is the truly best thing they can possibly do. They are both using the same irrational, unjustifiable methodology to reach a conclusion and each could have easily stumbled upon the opposite interpretation if the books had emphasized one thing more than another. In this way, they are both like drunk drivers in this sense, where the 'good' religious moralizer just happens to make it home safely, and the aspiring suicide bomber is the drunk driver who just tragically happens to mow someone down in their stupor.

I'm not going to go into particulars about why I hate religion. I think I've made it clear that its own inherent irrationality is the wrong way to go about developing a framework for reality and morality, and that alone is indictment enough. If you want my opinion on something specific, just ask.

[Mister Agenda]

The theist would say that, because their god is the source of all truth and the ultimate end, a search for truth is an endeavor to get closer to god. After the necessary Kierkegaardian leap of faith into whatever worldview, theists do have a reason to find truth.

Do you think someone who believes in a trickster god, or an evil god, would agree with you? Theist is an awfully broad category to shoehorn into such a narrow worldview.

As for this being fundamentally rational, I'd argue that there are no worldviews that are fundamentally rational. All require the leap into belief. I can argue this if you like.

Sounds like you've answered your own questions, then.

Past that point is what I'm talking about. Once theists establish a reason to be rational and a foundation for it, they then have an impetus to search for truth. I don't see the same in atheism—after establishing rationalism and a foundation for it, I don't detect an immediate reason to find truth.

So you're complaining to us about your inability to imagine reasons to be interested in truth sans theism? Can you imagine reasons for your own ability to be interested in truth as an agnostic?

As for fake news about sabertooth cats, that's a completely different matter. Telling the truth about something, while beneficial in some instances, isn't in many others, and that's beside the point.

Being interested in the truth and telling the truth are completely different matters, being interested in the truth is exactly the point.

These are two different issues: "functional" truth such as "there's a sabertooth cat about to attack" and philosophical truth such as "do I even exist." For the atheist, sure, there's a reason to value the former, but I see no reason to value the latter.

Nothing you said previously could reasonably be construed as 'truth' being short-hand for 'big questions and ultimate meaning' and not 'that which is factual'.

But given that, and given that my personal epistemological framework can best be described as 'rational skepticism', I can tell you that my desire to avoid fake news and non-factual beliefs leads me to scrutinize claims carefully, the more they would impact me if they were true, the more closely I examine them. If you've got a proposition for my existence, lay it on me and I will do you the service of letting you know about any mistakes your case may have.

---

The original question was why "not being duped" is important.

For people who have to be walked through 'why not being duped' is important; there's a bridge in Brooklyn just waiting for them to get in on the ground floor.

---

Kirkawhat and Dessiewho: Two famous philosophers who are highly respected in the philosophy realm.

It's hard to take seriously someone who took that seriously.

---

Also, I don't quite understand "I starting to back away." Are you worried that I'm a theist and that I'll mess up the atheist forums?

He's worried that you're going to be a waste of valuable time and brain cells.

---

I'm sorry that all you guys feel offended by my questioning. I don't get offended by ideas and I guess I just assume other people are the same. I see that's not fair to believe on the internet.

It's not your ideas that are offensive, it's your smug and condescending tone. I would think someone who was actually interested in the truth more than gratifying their ego would be able to convey the humility that allows one to accept new ideas.

I also see that these forums aren't where I should be expecting to find worthwhile philosophical discussion.

You generally reap what you sow around here.

I entered assuming people were ready and willing to talk cooly and logically about philosophy in the context of the history of ideas and the rules of logic in general.

You assumed you could project your suppositions about what you think we must think on us without resistance. And apparently you lack the self-awareness to comprehend that your behavior is rude.

I assumed atheists believed themselves to be intelligent and willing to question. I see now that, with this experience at least, these were unfounded assumptions and I made them unfairly.

Intelligent enough to smell a bullshitter a mile off. I dare you to say something more smug.

So far the only thing I've found is defensiveness, a denial of the things most philosophers would think ludicrous to deny (the validity of two of the greatest philosophers of all time, for instance), and a complete lack of desire to accept real questioning in the name of seeking truth.

I've noticed a marked tendency of our non-atheist visitors being baffled that anyone would be offended by being grossly mischaracterized.

 I see now that the atheists who are willing to reply to me on this forum are no better than the Christians I've engaged with in the past who also committed what seems to me like intellectual suicide of a pretty low form.

I wouldn't be surprised it you get the same reaction from lots of groups...but it can't possibly be your approach, eh?

I don't think this is productive and it's definitely not achieving my original goal of finding intelligent conversation about the things I hold to be important.

I don't for a moment believe that you were ever actually in the slightest interested in an intelligent conversation.

I thought you people wanted to find truth and understand reality. Maybe I was wrong. Or maybe it's just the internet. Regardless, this has become pointless. I don't appreciate that.

Finally the 'you people' comes out. What do you think you've offered that would help with finding truth and understanding reality? You came out of the gate telling us what we must think. If you know what we must think, what the fuck was the point of coming here to find out what we think? Did you do the same thing with the Christians, walk in and tell them what they thought and then demanded that they defend the position you projected on them?

Anyhow, you guys have a fantastic life (to quote the Doctor). You won't see me again. And to anyone who reads the train of posting, I hope you can figure out what prompted the returns I got for my efforts to find truth. Honestly now I just feel sad and more alone than ever in my search.

Likewise. The returns you got were for being an insufferable ass, an impression cemented by this clichéd rage quit post. That's fixable, if you can accept that you have that problem and want to change. And it can start to change at any moment if you try to do better. You're always as good as your last post with me.

---

You confuse it with antitheism, the position that indeed, there are no gods.

It's a nit, but antitheism is the position that no one should be a theist; not a positive claims that no God or gods exist. You can be an antitheist and an agnostic atheist at the same time. Conceivably you could be a theist and an antitheist at the same time, but it would be a little odd.

'I believe in God but I don't want to and I don't think people should, it just encourages him!'