Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Why most people aren't new atheists

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm going to rant.

The New Atheism vs. theism debate isn't really about God. It's about the clash of two worldviews, which are in a death struggle. (The thesis and anti-thesis if you will). One is materialistic, and the other is a classical realist worldview. Under the materialistic worldview, there is just meaningless matter, and things banging into each other. In other words, it's just efficient causality and material causality.

Nobody wants to be a New Atheist, because most people don't like the materialist worldview. There's no purpose or meaning to anything, and there's no ontological value. Why? Because materialism has ditched formal and final causality. Nothing is "for" anything. There's no "what it means to be a man". There isn't a "good" triangle or a "good" man, in the sense that there is an objective form which we should pursue to be like. There's no purpose for any of our organs.

Likewise, there's no purpose to any of our lives. There's no meaning to anything. Of course, we can set our own meanings, but that's subjective and depressing. There's also no ontological good. The alcoholic is just as good as me. Why? Because there's no objective way we should strive to be.

And lots of people disagree with that. They see this as stupid. They don't want to believe that there's no purpose to anything, and that there's no ontological value at all. It's a grim worldview, which has absolutely nothing going for it; maybe Occam's razor, but that's about it.

Ultimately, I think this is why most people aren't New Atheists. Because the New Atheism presumes physicalism. And physicalism has no room for formal and final causality. And most people, unknowingly, believe in final and formal causality.

Agree or disagree?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:11:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ehhh??

You made a topic without a post? How is that possible???
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:35:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm going to rant.

The New Atheism vs. theism debate isn't really about God. It's about the clash of two worldviews, which are in a death struggle. (The thesis and anti-thesis if you will). One is materialistic, and the other is a classical realist worldview. Under the materialistic worldview, there is just meaningless matter, and things banging into each other. In other words, it's just efficient causality and material causality.

I disagree, although in my case it very much is the case, I think the naturalistic (which encompasses materialism) worldview seems obvious and has seemingly limitless explanatory scope, which you already have an idea of some of my reasons for such.

Nobody wants to be a New Atheist, because most people don't like the materialist worldview. There's no purpose or meaning to anything, and there's no ontological value. Why? Because materialism has ditched formal and final causality. Nothing is "for" anything. There's no "what it means to be a man". There isn't a "good" triangle or a "good" man, in the sense that there is an objective form which we should pursue to be like. There's no purpose for any of our organs.

I agree, a lot of my atheist friends (although they are not explicitly atheists, they just don't believe in god and don't think much about the subject, the concept is largely foreign to them) do believe there is a 'reason for things', and many also sometimes take a supernatural side, such as throwing salt over their shoulders for luck and wearing charms.

Although you are talking about 'New Atheists', so I don't really know.. I guess it's one of the things that made it hard for me to accept, since people don't really want to accept there is no ultimate purpose behind things, including life and death.

Likewise, there's no purpose to any of our lives. There's no meaning to anything. Of course, we can set our own meanings, but that's subjective and depressing. There's also no ontological good. The alcoholic is just as good as me. Why? Because there's no objective way we should strive to be.

And lots of people disagree with that. They see this as stupid. They don't want to believe that there's no purpose to anything, and that there's no ontological value at all. It's a grim worldview, which has absolutely nothing going for it; maybe Occam's razor, but that's about it.

Well it is either to accept that or to deliberately deceive yourself in my opinion if you accept naturalism. I don't think it's grim at all though, it's just neutered, a blank slate. Meaning and purpose comes from other sources, such as the way they value their family and friends, and their interest, and vice versa. Yes fundamentally they are all reducible to material, stuff bumping into each other, but it's those processes that give us our reasons to value anything in the first place - our emotions.

Our emotions seems to be a pretty good place to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and set foundations in. Even if they are largely the result of evolution. Everything including one's take on morality seems best rooted in how positively a population will perceive actions based on their emotions.

Ultimately, I think this is why most people aren't New Atheists. Because the New Atheism presumes physicalism. And physicalism has no room for formal and final causality. And most people, unknowingly, believe in final and formal causality.

Agree or disagree?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:35:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm going to rant.

The New Atheism vs. theism debate isn't really about God. It's about the clash of two worldviews, which are in a death struggle. (The thesis and anti-thesis if you will). One is materialistic, and the other is a classical realist worldview. Under the materialistic worldview, there is just meaningless matter, and things banging into each other. In other words, it's just efficient causality and material causality.

Nobody wants to be a New Atheist, because most people don't like the materialist worldview. There's no purpose or meaning to anything, and there's no ontological value. Why? Because materialism has ditched formal and final causality. Nothing is "for" anything. There's no "what it means to be a man". There isn't a "good" triangle or a "good" man, in the sense that there is an objective form which we should pursue to be like. There's no purpose for any of our organs.

Likewise, there's no purpose to any of our lives. There's no meaning to anything. Of course, we can set our own meanings, but that's subjective and depressing. There's also no ontological good. The alcoholic is just as good as me. Why? Because there's no objective way we should strive to be.

And lots of people disagree with that. They see this as stupid. They don't want to believe that there's no purpose to anything, and that there's no ontological value at all. It's a grim worldview, which has absolutely nothing going for it; maybe Occam's razor, but that's about it.

Ultimately, I think this is why most people aren't New Atheists. Because the New Atheism presumes physicalism. And physicalism has no room for formal and final causality. And most people, unknowingly, believe in final and formal causality.

Agree or disagree?

Partially agree; I do think it's an obstacle that New Atheism has to deal with if it seeks to win anyone over, but I don't agree that it is a position that is necessarily stuck with existential nihilism. What is needed is a re-thinking of the whole moral argument, so that purpose is something that is clearly emergent/derived from existence.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think you're right in your conception of the debate - it does seem to become a soulless physicalism vs naive theism argument. It becomes excessively heated, and not about God but about any number of issues.

I think I disagree with you later on in the final evaluation, though, because I don't see it as anything additional. The problem in my mind is that this dichotomy (as you again rightfully pointed out) is that it forces people into two camps, when most people are not on either. Real life is nuanced, and people fall down on either side and anywhere along the line in between. It's good to remember that we don't need to be in a 'camp', and even be proactive to dismiss the absurd Manichean notion that the world fits only at either end of these two views.

I am also interested why you think New Atheism cannot accommodate formal causes. In my experience, the formal cause is the 'structure' of a thing, such as how a statue's marble is crafted into Michaelangelo's David, or how the metals of my car are organized together. Do you mean efficient cause in reference to God, or are we talking about two different concepts entirely?

Good post, and nice to hear new opinions on this matter!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:55:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:31:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Our emotions seems to be a pretty good place to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and set foundations in. Even if they are largely the result of evolution. Everything including one's take on morality seems best rooted in how positively a population will perceive actions based on their emotions.

You made a lot of good comments in the rest of what you said, and I am sorry to focus down on this issue instead of pointing out the great things you said earlier on, but I want to spend a bit of time focussing on one thing you said: evolution creating a morality of co-operation, or that "morality seems best rooted in how positively a population will perceive actions..."

My issue with this is that Darwin noted when he dabbled in ethics. On the population vs population scheme of things, it is clear that the population which is the most co-operative has the advantage of being able to use specialisation and splitting of fixed costs in order to be more efficient than competitors and thus reproduce more. However, inside that community, consider two individuals looking for a mate. If one individual was being wholly co-operative and not hindering the other person's efforts but only maximising his own chances (call him 'Gene' or generosity) while his competitor (call him 'Ruth' or ruthlessness) both maximised his own chances and actively hindered his competitor, Ruth is more likely to reproduce than Gene.

So the co-operative society is more likely to lead to reproduction and survival than the unco-operative society, which means selflessness is an advantage in reproduction on an intra-communal level. By contrast, selfishness is more likely to lead to reproduction, which means selfishness is an advantage in reproduction and survival, on an inter-communal level.

My worry (and the same worry as Darwin) is that this creates a tension that cannot be resolved by analytic means. The tension between the proposition "selfishness is an advantage over the selfless" and "selfless is an advantage over the selfish" is insurmountable through pure armchair speculation.

Two solutions come to mind. The first is that we decide that the terms "selfish" and "selfless" are too vague to be used to describe what leads to evolutionary advantage. However, if we want to say that selflessness is good and selfishness is bad (or the opposite) as my emotions want to say is true to a large degree, then we must abandon this dichotomy. The other is to do in depth scientific exploration to the extents that selfish and selfless behaviour impact our moral code. This sounds almost impossible though, as I cannot imagine a way of neutrally doing this - though I could of course be wrong, as this is a shaky argument from ignorance, I do not see it as doable.

That was just a spiel about evolutionary ethics that I always think about, and I think it is interesting to say and would love to hear your opinion on!

With regards to emotions though, basing an ethical creed on it has its own problems. One common criticism (that I don't really buy into, but for generally controversial reasons) is that of logic. Logic relies on the deduction of conclusions from propositions, or statements that are true or false. Consider the following argument:

P1 - It is wrong to lie
P2 - If it is wrong to lie, it is wrong to get your little brother to lie
C1 - Therefore, it is wrong to get your little brother to lie.

Clearly, in my view at least, each of these statements is either true or false. The argument may be said to be debatably valid or clearly valid (I think the latter, because P2 clearly follows from P1 assuming a strong premise 'If x is wrong, then others doing x is wrong'). If it is valid, that means if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

Take an emotional statement now. Say, "I hate broccoli!" This isn't really a true or false statement, even though it may be dressed up like one. It is essentially going "Boo Broccoli!" just like a sports fan goes "Boo Manchester City! Hurrah Man United!" These statements are not propositions, as they are neither true nor false.

Apply this to the argument I presented (known famously as the Frege-Geach objection). If ethics is emotional, then we can replace "x is wrong" with "boo X!" just like I can replace "I hate broccoli" with "Boo Broccoli!" - the two phrases express the same concept.

P1 - Boo telling lies!
P2 - If boo lies!, then boo your brother telling lies!
C1 - Boo your brother telling lies!

Now, this may seem logically valid still. And indeed, I think it pretty much is. There is no reason to believe that the phrase 'x is wrong' works differently to normal language, like 'y is green'. Yet keep in mind emotive outbursts cannot be true or false. And if something is not true nor false, then something cannot be logically deduced. And if logical deduction does not apply to emotional outbursts, then logical deduction does not apply to ethics. Yet, clearly, logical deduction does apply to ethics. So emotional outbursts are not good enough descriptions of ethics.

To highlight this problem - as originally it seems like sophistry rather than anything - is to take the underlying principles of logic, such as consistency. In logic, we must be consistent. That is why from two premises which necessarily entail the conclusion, we know the conclusion. Or, in other words, if we know that:

P1 - Socrates is a man
and
P2 - All men are mortal

We know it must be the case that...

C1 - All men are mortal.

But take emotion for a moment. Is there any reason why our emotions must be consistent? I can hate exams one moment, and love them the next. I can be angry at someone for doing x, and then not be angry at another person for doing x themselves! I can even loathe x, and then do x myself and be proud for doing it! Emotions are not consistent. So they fail to be applicable in logic, it seems.

My second problem with emotivism (a lot shorter this one!) is essentially it fails, in my view, to do justice to the task of ethics. I'll quote a well written blog here (philosophicaldisquisitions on Sharon Street) to explain my position here much clearer than I ever could:

"Street thinks that the constructivist can rise to meet the expressivist challenge in two ways. First, by giving some account of moral semantics. And second, by arguing that the expressivist preoccupation with moral semantics is misguided.

As regards a constructivist moral semantics, Street thinks that there are several plausible accounts. I'll give just one of these.

A constructivist could argue that a full account of the practical point of view would provide us with an inferentialist moral semantics. Which is to say that moral predicates would derive their meaning from the role they play in the inferences made by practical reasoners.

For example, when I say that "unsaturated fat is good", what I really mean to say is that the consumption of unsaturated fat would help me to satisfy my goal of avoiding heart disease. So "good" derives its meaning from its role in practical inferences.

As regards the misguided nature of expressivism, Street argues that by focusing so much attention on the semantic issue, expressivists miss the key metaethical question: can moral values find a place in a naturalistic worldview?

This question forces us to consider whether values depend on minds or not. The constructivist insists that they do; the realist insists that they don't. Until this debate has been resolved, questions about the meaning of moral terms cannot really be answered.

This is where the expressivist goes wrong."

I realise this is rather long, but I hope it was somewhat interesting! As I've said before, I wish I could do justice and express support for other things you said, but I really enjoy discussing an issue you brought up (though only partially),
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:31:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I agree, a lot of my atheist friends (although they are not explicitly atheists, they just don't believe in god and don't think much about the subject, the concept is largely foreign to them) do believe there is a 'reason for things', and many also sometimes take a supernatural side, such as throwing salt over their shoulders for luck and wearing charms.

This is a little off topic, but it somewhat relates:

I have quite a few good friends who are atheists, and they all told me something along the lines of, "Nothing good has happened to me -- I've had to work for everything myself."

I don't discuss religion with them too much, but one person was quite insistent on atheism and his complete and utter disbelief in God no matter what, that I had to ask him, "So even if you had concrete proof for God, like he came up to you right now, you wouldn't believe in him?" He simply said, "Yeah, I still wouldn't believe."

At that point, I began to wonder. There are few, but a substantial few, atheists at my high school, and I'm assuming it's the same as in other schools, too. But I sometimes wonder if they base their belief off of God from actual searching, or if they just do it because they're rebellious in nature (or maybe they just saw some argument on the internet like the stone paradox and it convinced them through and through).

After all, if you had concrete evidence of God and you still rejected his being, then at that point you aren't doing it off of any sort of reasoning, you're just rejecting God because you can. (Of course, I realize that his response to that question may not necessarily be realistic; what one says and actually does in a situation can be very different.)
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:07:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not going to reply to your post tonight as I have a debate argument if 6,000 words I have yet to write my closing to and this was 8k...

But upon reading it I was not advocating for 'evolutionary ethics', from which there are obvious 'hitlerian' drawbacks. Rather that ethics should be determined objectively by the subjective experience of the population involved (which is largely determined by the brain, and therefore evolution).

Yes that means some actions are going to morally right when performed on some people and wrong on others. I don't think 'objective morality' in the sense that 'murder is wrong' is a tenable position, as holding strictly to these principles makes one vulnerable when the circumstances change from those familiar, such as abortion/euthanasia, etc.

Same for lying, there is an objective answer in a given situation, if it is right or wrong to lie, but lying as a bare act is morally neutral until you consider the effect it has in the people involved.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 5:00:12 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 2:31:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I agree, a lot of my atheist friends (although they are not explicitly atheists, they just don't believe in god and don't think much about the subject, the concept is largely foreign to them) do believe there is a 'reason for things', and many also sometimes take a supernatural side, such as throwing salt over their shoulders for luck and wearing charms.

This is a little off topic, but it somewhat relates:

I have quite a few good friends who are atheists, and they all told me something along the lines of, "Nothing good has happened to me -- I've had to work for everything myself."

Yes, an increasing number nowadays aren't really exposed to religion, so it's not so much they do not believe, they just don't really care about it. It's akin to not caring what is going on in the bowls championship...

I don't discuss religion with them too much, but one person was quite insistent on atheism and his complete and utter disbelief in God no matter what, that I had to ask him, "So even if you had concrete proof for God, like he came up to you right now, you wouldn't believe in him?" He simply said, "Yeah, I still wouldn't believe."

At that point, I began to wonder. There are few, but a substantial few, atheists at my high school, and I'm assuming it's the same as in other schools, too. But I sometimes wonder if they base their belief off of God from actual searching, or if they just do it because they're rebellious in nature (or maybe they just saw some argument on the internet like the stone paradox and it convinced them through and through).

After all, if you had concrete evidence of God and you still rejected his being, then at that point you aren't doing it off of any sort of reasoning, you're just rejecting God because you can. (Of course, I realize that his response to that question may not necessarily be realistic; what one says and actually does in a situation can be very different.)

I don't know. If I was never raised in religion, and I was told at my age the stories and tenets of the major religions, I would probably just find it amusing and not worth my further interest. Especially on this day and age. I'm guessing that is probably the case for some people.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:35:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Agree or disagree?

I agree with you that the new atheism vs. theism debate isn't really about God, but I disagree with you that it's about materialism vs. immaterialism or dualism. I also disagree with you that people don't want to be new atheists because of the bleak worldview it promotes.

I think "new atheism" as opposed to just plain ole atheism is a social movement. Some people want to be part of it because it makes them feel good. Other people don't want to be part of it because they don't respect it.

New atheism is a movement that simultaneously rejects both religion and civility. Of course atheism is necessary component, but atheism alone isn't what distinguishes it from ordinary atheism. I think the primary reason people reject new atheism as a movement is because they don't want to be associated with the leaders and people promoting it.

I'm speculating, of course. I can't really read minds. Actually, I'm projecting a little. If I were an atheist, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with people like Richard Dawkins or anybody else who thinks it's a good strategy to use ridicule to get people to change their beliefs.

I wrote a blog about that.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

As far as materialism being off-putting because of it's logical implications, which you take to be nihilism, I don't think that is what turns people away from new atheism or any other form of atheism since (1) most atheists don't take materialism to its logical conclusion, (2) atheism doesn't necessarily entail materialism, and (3) many atheists are perfectly satisfied with moral subjectivism or relativism. They are content with the meaning they themselves pour into the world. This came out in that debate in Mexico.

https://www.youtube.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:22:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 5:00:12 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 2:31:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I agree, a lot of my atheist friends (although they are not explicitly atheists, they just don't believe in god and don't think much about the subject, the concept is largely foreign to them) do believe there is a 'reason for things', and many also sometimes take a supernatural side, such as throwing salt over their shoulders for luck and wearing charms.

This is a little off topic, but it somewhat relates:

I have quite a few good friends who are atheists, and they all told me something along the lines of, "Nothing good has happened to me -- I've had to work for everything myself."

I don't discuss religion with them too much, but one person was quite insistent on atheism and his complete and utter disbelief in God no matter what, that I had to ask him, "So even if you had concrete proof for God, like he came up to you right now, you wouldn't believe in him?" He simply said, "Yeah, I still wouldn't believe."

At that point, I began to wonder. There are few, but a substantial few, atheists at my high school, and I'm assuming it's the same as in other schools, too. But I sometimes wonder if they base their belief off of God from actual searching, or if they just do it because they're rebellious in nature (or maybe they just saw some argument on the internet like the stone paradox and it convinced them through and through).

After all, if you had concrete evidence of God and you still rejected his being, then at that point you aren't doing it off of any sort of reasoning, you're just rejecting God because you can. (Of course, I realize that his response to that question may not necessarily be realistic; what one says and actually does in a situation can be very different.)

In my experience, that position is not so much "I would not believe in the existence of god even if I had irrefutable proof of his existence" but "I would believe in god's existence but I would still not worship him". I'd fall into that camp, as I don't believe he exists but, even if I did, I'd have some pretty serious issues about worshipping and glorifying a being which had such an extensive track record of genocide and bigotry as the Abrahamic god.

At least, I hope that's what your friend meant. If he didn't then he's an idiot. You can tell him from me, but it's best you sit him down so he can deal with such a tragic blow.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 7:22:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 5:17:23 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Yes, an increasing number nowadays aren't really exposed to religion, so it's not so much they do not believe, they just don't really care about it. It's akin to not caring what is going on in the bowls championship...

My friends are in families where they are exposed to religions (primarily Hindu), and they even tell me, "I'm Hindu at home but atheist at school."


I don't know. If I was never raised in religion, and I was told at my age the stories and tenets of the major religions, I would probably just find it amusing and not worth my further interest. Especially on this day and age. I'm guessing that is probably the case for some people.

I don't think I have a friend who wasn't raised into a religion, but I can see why you'd think that.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:59:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:35:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm going to rant.

The New Atheism vs. theism debate isn't really about God. It's about the clash of two worldviews, which are in a death struggle. (The thesis and anti-thesis if you will). One is materialistic, and the other is a classical realist worldview. Under the materialistic worldview, there is just meaningless matter, and things banging into each other. In other words, it's just efficient causality and material causality.

Nobody wants to be a New Atheist, because most people don't like the materialist worldview. There's no purpose or meaning to anything, and there's no ontological value. Why? Because materialism has ditched formal and final causality. Nothing is "for" anything. There's no "what it means to be a man". There isn't a "good" triangle or a "good" man, in the sense that there is an objective form which we should pursue to be like. There's no purpose for any of our organs.

Likewise, there's no purpose to any of our lives. There's no meaning to anything. Of course, we can set our own meanings, but that's subjective and depressing. There's also no ontological good. The alcoholic is just as good as me. Why? Because there's no objective way we should strive to be.

And lots of people disagree with that. They see this as stupid. They don't want to believe that there's no purpose to anything, and that there's no ontological value at all. It's a grim worldview, which has absolutely nothing going for it; maybe Occam's razor, but that's about it.

Ultimately, I think this is why most people aren't New Atheists. Because the New Atheism presumes physicalism. And physicalism has no room for formal and final causality. And most people, unknowingly, believe in final and formal causality.

Agree or disagree?

Your jumping around a bit, but hey, that's the nature of rants I guess.

One thing that stood out was how such and such is depressing. It reminds me of a Sam Harris point where he points out a revision in your beliefs doesn't guarantee your will be happier. A belief in santa claus and his elves and magical reindeer vs your parents in their pajamas and slave labour in china producing crap.

So yeah religion since can always cater to that. That the good people that you like and believe as you do are good and going to heaven, while the others they are going to hell.

That you live in the light and truth and in Gods good graces while everyone else is in darkness and evil and in wrathful condemnation. If they weren't so evil they would just believe as you do, see how good you are ?

Religion can give you all sorts of assurances about how it all has meaning and value and it all works out in the end well for you anyway. Cause you believe the certain things and made certain affirmations.

Atheism can't compete with that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 5:47:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 5:07:28 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm not going to reply to your post tonight as I have a debate argument if 6,000 words I have yet to write my closing to and this was 8k...

But upon reading it I was not advocating for 'evolutionary ethics', from which there are obvious 'hitlerian' drawbacks. Rather that ethics should be determined objectively by the subjective experience of the population involved (which is largely determined by the brain, and therefore evolution).

Yes that means some actions are going to morally right when performed on some people and wrong on others. I don't think 'objective morality' in the sense that 'murder is wrong' is a tenable position, as holding strictly to these principles makes one vulnerable when the circumstances change from those familiar, such as abortion/euthanasia, etc.

Same for lying, there is an objective answer in a given situation, if it is right or wrong to lie, but lying as a bare act is morally neutral until you consider the effect it has in the people involved.

I am sorry if I was unclear! I meant in regards to a meta-ethical standpoint, instead of a normative standpoint. Of course, you were not arguing what ethics dictates is what is good, but an interesting idea that I had from what you wrote was that, if our ethical language is determined by evolution (that is, ignoring the ontological status of 'good' and 'evil', how do we actually use these words? As we can be using them incorrectly, and referring to what is an evolutionary advantage, even if moral rights and wrongs exist!), then what consequences this had.

When it comes to objective right and wrong, I think you mean categorically wrong or absolutely wrong. There's a difference between objective and categorical ethics. Objective ethics is mind-independent (i.e. the statement "In circumstances C, killing X is wrong" or "Maximise the greatest happiness" are both objective statements, but not categorical). By contrast, categorical or absolute ethics says a certain act is always wrong or right (e.g. "Killing is wrong" or to use your examples "Abortion is wrong" and "Euthanasia is wrong", in the sense that "In all situations, abortion is morally wrong.")

As someone studying towards a degree in the subject, one of the largest mistakes people come into the field with is this. It is just because some sites/people have made this mistake with the terminology, then it festers. A good site on the distinction includes the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, or if you can get a copy of it the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

A question I always rise to objective ethicists is this: how do we know what is objectively right or wrong?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:55:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:11:43 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Ehhh??

You made a topic without a post? How is that possible???

Because I'm a Christian.

And they'll know we are Christians by our power, dadda dedum.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

If you thought Dawkins proved God doesn;t exist, n7, I would think you'd have gone completely insane... :P I know you're smarter than that, lol
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 3:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 1:57:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

If you thought Dawkins proved God doesn;t exist, n7, I would think you'd have gone completely insane... :P I know you're smarter than that, lol

lol yes. If I think that, I'd probably have gone mad with syphilis.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 4:18:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 3:36:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:57:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

If you thought Dawkins proved God doesn;t exist, n7, I would think you'd have gone completely insane... :P I know you're smarter than that, lol

lol yes. If I think that, I'd probably have gone mad with syphilis.

TMI...

http://replygif.net...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 8:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 4:18:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/8/2014 3:36:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:57:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

If you thought Dawkins proved God doesn;t exist, n7, I would think you'd have gone completely insane... :P I know you're smarter than that, lol

lol yes. If I think that, I'd probably have gone mad with syphilis.

TMI...

http://replygif.net...

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 9:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/8/2014 8:30:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/8/2014 4:18:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/8/2014 3:36:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 1:57:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:22:51 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:18:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 11:59:26 AM, n7 wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:09:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/8/2014 12:05:02 AM, n7 wrote:
New atheism by wikipedia is defined as

" a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Nothing about assuming physicalism. Neo atheists often favor naturalism, but nothing binds them to that.

LOL rational arguments

Oh, sorry I meant

Dawkins proved God doesn't exist. Christians aren't euphoric. Atheism is the next evolutionary step!

Dawkins exclaims God doesn't exist, best work his has done is in evolutionary biology, not quite proof of God's nonexistence.

Why would Christians be euphoric at all, according to their bible, increase in knowledge correlates to an increase in sorrow. And the world hates Christians, being a christian one should expect to be attacked and unhappy.

Atheism is the next step? Our society is on a evolutionary backwards path, with people getting shorter attention spans and becoming sheeple. I fail to see how a self induced lobotomy of atheism is an advancement in any sense.

I don't think you understand what evidence is, what the christian perspective is, or what a poison to rational thought atheism is. Because as you have shown it makes one prone to leaps of faith, inferring from a small piece of "evidence" to a huge universally applicable statement. The leap is unfounded.

Poor theist, doesn't understand cause he ain't got a fedora.

Oxford contacted me and asked me to refute your arguments, I did here

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

If you thought Dawkins proved God doesn;t exist, n7, I would think you'd have gone completely insane... :P I know you're smarter than that, lol

lol yes. If I think that, I'd probably have gone mad with syphilis.

TMI...

http://replygif.net...

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com...

*phew* he was pointing at average....