Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is incoherent

Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:26:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We all see alot of doodling with words to sound convincing around here. Well most of the time we can not change a concrete position. The reason atheism is incoherent is because it leads no where. For the atheistic view you are absent of moral value, good or evil have you. Yes, many atheist chooses to be good but there's no standard to go by. Atheist want to kill the thought of God or make it seem incoherent but without God then moral sources go away. Most moral sources come from religion and/or God in some way, without God, where does that source come from? Man? In the atheistic view ultimately only the strong survive. What need is there for the weak? Even the scientific evolution and such shows this. In this view you are lead to positions that took place in Germany, Russia, China, and many others. To rid the world of God you will ultimately set up a powerful leader or nation who does not care about people because in atheism only the strong should survive and you should only care for yours. Now, alot of atheist don't think this way but God is in the world. The overall picture of the atheistic view leads us in this direction. Thoughts?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 8:54:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:26:45 AM, Pennington wrote:
We all see alot of doodling with words to sound convincing around here. Well most of the time we can not change a concrete position. The reason atheism is incoherent is because it leads no where.

It doesn't matter if a belief "leads anywhere" or not; truth isn't based on usefulness.

For the atheistic view you are absent of moral value, good or evil have you. Yes, many atheist chooses to be good but there's no standard to go by.

Morality and religion are completely separate phenomena. Just because many religions claim certain morals does not mean religious belief is a prerequisite for moral correctness. Common sense, whether evolved or innate, tells us what is socially acceptable as "right" and "wrong." While morality is, indeed, entirely subjective, certain morals have still taken root in present-day society and continue to govern the way humans act. This occurs regardless of religious orientation.

Atheist want to kill the thought of God or make it seem incoherent but without God then moral sources go away. Most moral sources come from religion and/or God in some way, without God, where does that source come from? Man?

Indeed. Morality undoubtedly derives from the mind of mankind. This does not mean these morals cannot be abided by in the same way that they would be if they were objective.

In the atheistic view ultimately only the strong survive. What need is there for the weak?

This is ridiculous. The idea that "only the strong survive" is not an atheistic one, it has to do with natural selection. Don't confuse scientific theories with simple atheism, please.

Even the scientific evolution and such shows this.

Again, unrelated to the topic at hand. Atheism does not imply evolution/natural selection.

In this view you are lead to positions that took place in Germany, Russia, China, and many others. To rid the world of God you will ultimately set up a powerful leader or nation who does not care about people because in atheism only the strong should survive and you should only care for yours.

How in the world could one draw the conclusion that atheism denotes fascism? This is the same mindset that forced "under God" into our Pledge and "In God We Trust" onto our currency.

Now, alot of atheist don't think this way but God is in the world. The overall picture of the atheistic view leads us in this direction. Thoughts?

I completely disagree, obviously. The widespread lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't done a whole lot of damage, so I don't believe a lack of belief in Yahweh or Allah or any other god would.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 8:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:26:45 AM, Pennington wrote:
We all see alot of doodling with words to sound convincing around here. Well most of the time we can not change a concrete position. The reason atheism is incoherent is because it leads no where.

What does "leading no where" entail logical incoherence?

For the atheistic view you are absent of moral value, good or evil have you.

Incorrect. It just means you must get moral value, good, and evil from some other source.

Yes, many atheist chooses to be good but there's no standard to go by.

Incorrect. There are plenty of standards to go by.

Atheist want to kill the thought of God or make it seem incoherent but without God then moral sources go away.

Humans are the only source of morality.

Most moral sources come from religion and/or God in some way, without God, where does that source come from? Man?

Yes, man. In fact, that is the only source of morality.

In the atheistic view ultimately only the strong survive. What need is there for the weak? Even the scientific evolution and such shows this. In this view you are lead to positions that took place in Germany, Russia, China, and many others. To rid the world of God you will ultimately set up a powerful leader or nation who does not care about people because in atheism only the strong should survive and you should only care for yours.

Speaking of incoherence... none of these statements follow from anything you said. Atheism doesn't entail social darwinism.

Now, alot of atheist don't think this way but God is in the world. The overall picture of the atheistic view leads us in this direction. Thoughts?

Yes. Atheism is not a "world view" in the same sense as Christianity. Christianity, allegedly, provides everything you need to live in the world. Cosmology, philosophy, morality, etc.

Atheism does not provide this, but that does not mean atheists do not have it, nor does it mean a world view that is atheistic necessarily lacks it.

Consider theism. Bare theism does not provide a moral system. You must add to theism to get it. Atheism is the same way.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:04:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In philosophy and logic, 'coherence' is the property of meaning that propositions have. If atheism really was incoherent, it couldn't be true or false, it'd be unintelligible. But, it's either true or false that God exists, hence atheism is coherent.

As you're using the term, it means something like practically unfeasible. But, it's not at all clear to me that atheism is practically unfeasible, because I'm not sure what you mean by 'atheism'.

I understand the term 'atheism' to be the position that no gods exist. Others use it to mean the position that God doesn't exist, and still others understand it as the lack of belief in one or more deities.

I don't see how meaning, value or morals would be absent if any of these positions held. It might be helpful if you explain why, for instance, objective morality wouldn't exist if atheism was true?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:06:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:26:45 AM, Pennington wrote:
We all see alot of doodling with words to sound convincing around here. Well most of the time we can not change a concrete position. The reason atheism is incoherent is because it leads no where. For the atheistic view you are absent of moral value, good or evil have you. Yes, many atheist chooses to be good but there's no standard to go by. Atheist want to kill the thought of God or make it seem incoherent but without God then moral sources go away. Most moral sources come from religion and/or God in some way, without God, where does that source come from? Man? In the atheistic view ultimately only the strong survive. What need is there for the weak? Even the scientific evolution and such shows this. In this view you are lead to positions that took place in Germany, Russia, China, and many others. To rid the world of God you will ultimately set up a powerful leader or nation who does not care about people because in atheism only the strong should survive and you should only care for yours. Now, alot of atheist don't think this way but God is in the world. The overall picture of the atheistic view leads us in this direction. Thoughts?

I don't have any empty thoughts & speculations like yours to contribute, but I DO HAVE THE FACTS which, are fatal to your or any such similar claims!

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly. (Source: http://moses.creighton.edu...)

&

To sum up:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies... The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a "shining city on the hill" to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
["]
Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical "cultures of life" that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. (Source: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look - Gregory S. Paul, Baltimore, Maryland)

Bottom-Line: e.g. jebus is bad for morally decent societies!
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:33:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 8:54:55 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
It doesn't matter if a belief "leads anywhere" or not; truth isn't based on usefulness. :
You basically said that the truth can be useless. Nonsense. It matters very much if a belief leads to the truth. If it doesn't then why believe it?

Morality and religion are completely separate phenomena. Just because many religions claim certain morals does not mean religious belief is a prerequisite for moral correctness. Common sense, whether evolved or innate, tells us what is socially acceptable as "right" and "wrong.":
Really, well where does that extend from?
While morality is, indeed, entirely subjective, certain morals have still taken root in present-day society and continue to govern the way humans act. This occurs regardless of religious orientation.:
Examples.

Indeed. Morality undoubtedly derives from the mind of mankind. This does not mean these morals cannot be abided by in the same way that they would be if they were objective. :
Moraiity doesn't undoubtedly derive from mankind. This is a plea to properties that can not be shown.

This is ridiculous. The idea that "only the strong survive" is not an atheistic one, it has to do with natural selection. Don't confuse scientific theories with simple atheism, please.:
Please, atheism extends to such scientific theories, or else where would a atheist hang is hat? Nothing?

Again, unrelated to the topic at hand. Atheism does not imply evolution/natural selection. :
How does it not? How would a athiest explain our origin?

How in the world could one draw the conclusion that atheism denotes fascism? This is the same mindset that forced "under God" into our Pledge and "In God We Trust" onto our currency.:
How could one not draw that conclusion? Without religion and belief in God then one could claim that position and therefore any with power can exert their views on the people without any model to go by.

I completely disagree, obviously. The widespread lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't done a whole lot of damage, so I don't believe a lack of belief in Yahweh or Allah or any other god would.:
You forget the widespread belief in those Gods. You have no clue what the shape of the world would be in without such notions of God.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:39:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 8:57:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

What does "leading no where" entail logical incoherence?:
It is incoherant to lead and follow into no where.

Incorrect. It just means you must get moral value, good, and evil from some other source.:
What source and who determines the value of morality?

Incorrect. There are plenty of standards to go by.:
Example.

Humans are the only source of morality.:
Only if you do not believe in God, Big If's.

Yes, man. In fact, that is the only source of morality.:
Only according to a atheist.

Speaking of incoherence... none of these statements follow from anything you said. Atheism doesn't entail social darwinism.:
Ok, what is the conclusion of atheism for our existence and origin?

Yes. Atheism is not a "world view" in the same sense as Christianity. Christianity, allegedly, provides everything you need to live in the world. Cosmology, philosophy, morality, etc.

Atheism does not provide this, but that does not mean atheists do not have it, nor does it mean a world view that is atheistic necessarily lacks it.

Consider theism. Bare theism does not provide a moral system. You must add to theism to get it. Atheism is the same way.:
Bare theism still believes in God. If there is a God then pretty much everything extends from Him, including morality. I disagree, atheism is worldview.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:43:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:33:39 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 8:54:55 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
It doesn't matter if a belief "leads anywhere" or not; truth isn't based on usefulness. :
You basically said that the truth can be useless. Nonsense. It matters very much if a belief leads to the truth. If it doesn't then why believe it?

I didn't say it doesn't matter if a belief leads to the truth. Obviously beliefs are based on one's perception of the truth. I merely said that usefulness does not govern how true a belief is. Something could be true yet extremely unuseful, but its lack of usefulness does not make it any less true.

Morality and religion are completely separate phenomena. Just because many religions claim certain morals does not mean religious belief is a prerequisite for moral correctness. Common sense, whether evolved or innate, tells us what is socially acceptable as "right" and "wrong.":
Really, well where does that extend from?

It derives from the evolution of society.

While morality is, indeed, entirely subjective, certain morals have still taken root in present-day society and continue to govern the way humans act. This occurs regardless of religious orientation.:
Examples.

What?

Indeed. Morality undoubtedly derives from the mind of mankind. This does not mean these morals cannot be abided by in the same way that they would be if they were objective. :
Moraiity doesn't undoubtedly derive from mankind. This is a plea to properties that can not be shown.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that morality derives from any supernatural force.

This is ridiculous. The idea that "only the strong survive" is not an atheistic one, it has to do with natural selection. Don't confuse scientific theories with simple atheism, please.:
Please, atheism extends to such scientific theories, or else where would a atheist hang is hat? Nothing?

While atheism often leads in this direction, there is no direct relationship between the two. Theists are often religious, but not always. Atheists often accept evolution/natural selection (and with good reason), but not always.

Again, unrelated to the topic at hand. Atheism does not imply evolution/natural selection. :
How does it not? How would a athiest explain our origin?

They could simply admit to not knowing for sure where we came from. They could also form their own theory. Lack of belief in one theory does not automatically require the belief in another.

How in the world could one draw the conclusion that atheism denotes fascism? This is the same mindset that forced "under God" into our Pledge and "In God We Trust" onto our currency.:
How could one not draw that conclusion? Without religion and belief in God then one could claim that position and therefore any with power can exert their views on the people without any model to go by.

The Papal system seems evidence enough that this can go both ways.

I completely disagree, obviously. The widespread lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't done a whole lot of damage, so I don't believe a lack of belief in Yahweh or Allah or any other god would.:
You forget the widespread belief in those Gods. You have no clue what the shape of the world would be in without such notions of God.

Nor do you. All we can do ois hypothesize, which is what we are doing.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 9:49:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:04:56 AM, Pwner wrote:

I don't see how meaning, value or morals would be absent if any of these positions held. It might be helpful if you explain why, for instance, objective morality wouldn't exist if atheism was true?:

Ok, Take this back to animals, there are obviously triats humans have that animals do not. In the animal kingdom only the strong survive. The reason it doesn't for us is because we value human life and we have a basic code how humans treat each other. We have a conscience. Point is, if we did not have God or religious belief then why do we have that? Why should we care about anything but our own survival? How can you show that our basic moral values did not extend from religion when almost every belief in God has our basic moralities that still survive today? If religion and God cease how can you be confident that the laws we value as universal be that way in a hundred years? If we had a atheistic world then how could be confident that murder, rape and theft would be considered immoral?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:02:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:43:35 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
I didn't say it doesn't matter if a belief leads to the truth. Obviously beliefs are based on one's perception of the truth. I merely said that usefulness does not govern how true a belief is. Something could be true yet extremely unuseful, but its lack of usefulness does not make it any less true. :
You should show a example of a useless truth.

It derives from the evolution of society.:
Again, thats just opinion. I can say just as easy that humans create immorality.

While morality is, indeed, entirely subjective, certain morals have still taken root in present-day society and continue to govern the way humans act. This occurs regardless of religious orientation.:
Examples.

What? :
Examples of present-day society implementing new moralities.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that morality derives from any supernatural force.:
If morality did not come from a higher source then why do we have it when any other animal on earth lives by the strong survive? Though that doesn't apply to us because we have morality.

While atheism often leads in this direction, there is no direct relationship between the two. Theists are often religious, but not always. Atheists often accept evolution/natural selection (and with good reason), but not always.:
What other options are there for a atheist?

How does it not? How would a athiest explain our origin?

They could simply admit to not knowing for sure where we came from. They could also form their own theory. Lack of belief in one theory does not automatically require the belief in another. :
Lack of knowing and forming ones on theory doesn't make much sense. How can one doubt one theory with these explainations for one that has no idea?

The Papal system seems evidence enough that this can go both ways. :
Agreed the RCC abuses its power but they do have a source to go by.

Nor do you. All we can do ois hypothesize, which is what we are doing.:
Hmm.. no damage huh? Let's take a look at the world since the rise of mainstream atheism. No concern on television for nudity, profanity, steady rise in more diverse criminal behaviors along with rise in crime. Since the movement for new age religions and atheism began or world has seen past moralities fall by the waste side.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:09:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:49:28 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 9:04:56 AM, Pwner wrote:

I don't see how meaning, value or morals would be absent if any of these positions held. It might be helpful if you explain why, for instance, objective morality wouldn't exist if atheism was true?:

Ok, Take this back to animals, there are obviously triats humans have that animals do not. In the animal kingdom only the strong survive. The reason it doesn't for us is because we value human life and we have a basic code how humans treat each other. We have a conscience. Point is, if we did not have God or religious belief then why do we have that? Why should we care about anything but our own survival? How can you show that our basic moral values did not extend from religion when almost every belief in God has our basic moralities that still survive today? If religion and God cease how can you be confident that the laws we value as universal be that way in a hundred years? If we had a atheistic world then how could be confident that murder, rape and theft would be considered immoral?
Pennington I hope all is well....
Reading your post.. I must ask... How can you say If religion and God cease how can you be confident that the laws we value as universal be that way in a hundred years?

Pennington Truth is... You have made "religion and God" to your own values! Do you say "Abortion" is moral!

Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!? Abortion is.. "Killing someone to make life easy"!
Is it not solving a problem by Murder!
Your protestant basic moralities is nonexistent!

Dogknox
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:19:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:09:53 AM, Dogknox wrote:

Pennington Truth is... You have made "religion and God" to your own values! Do you say "Abortion" is moral!:
Abortion is immoral. Murder.

Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!?:
No and it is dumb to claim that too.
Abortion is.. "Killing someone to make life easy"!
Is it not solving a problem by Murder!
Your protestant basic moralities is nonexistent! :
Your ignorant.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:28:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:49:28 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 9:04:56 AM, Pwner wrote:

I don't see how meaning, value or morals would be absent if any of these positions held. It might be helpful if you explain why, for instance, objective morality wouldn't exist if atheism was true?:

Ok, Take this back to animals, there are obviously triats humans have that animals do not. In the animal kingdom only the strong survive. The reason it doesn't for us is because we value human life and we have a basic code how humans treat each other. We have a conscience. Point is, if we did not have God or religious belief then why do we have that? Why should we care about anything but our own survival? How can you show that our basic moral values did not extend from religion when almost every belief in God has our basic moralities that still survive today? If religion and God cease how can you be confident that the laws we value as universal be that way in a hundred years? If we had a atheistic world then how could be confident that murder, rape and theft would be considered immoral?

To answer your first question, I suggest you look into evolutionary psychology and game theory. The short answer is that what's best for the group is best for the individual. And that our genetics actually can determine how we might act.

As to your second question; Vietnam's amount of intentional homicides per 100,000 thousand people is 1.6. Vietnam's population is 81% atheist. Americas amount of intentional homicides per 100,000 people is 4.6. According to the most recent ARIS survey, 0.7% of Americans identify as atheist. I'm not saying atheism means less murders. But it most certainly doesn't mean there will be more.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:30:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:19:53 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:09:53 AM, Dogknox wrote:

Pennington Truth is... You have made "religion and God" to your own values! Do you say "Abortion" is moral!:
Abortion is immoral. Murder.

Murder implies unlawfulness. It isn't unlawful, therefor it isn't murder. Call it killing, at least that might be considered grammatically correct.


Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!?:
No and it is dumb to claim that too.
Abortion is.. "Killing someone to make life easy"!
Is it not solving a problem by Murder!
Your protestant basic moralities is nonexistent! :
Your ignorant.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:55:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:30:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Murder implies unlawfulness. It isn't unlawful, therefor it isn't murder. Call it killing, at least that might be considered grammatically correct.:
Do I have need to be correct by you? It is murder depending on what you consider murder.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:06:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 9:39:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 8:57:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

What does "leading no where" entail logical incoherence?:
It is incoherant to lead and follow into no where.

How so?


Incorrect. It just means you must get moral value, good, and evil from some other source.:
What source and who determines the value of morality?

Secular humanism, for example. And we determine its value.


Incorrect. There are plenty of standards to go by.:
Example.

Secular humanism.


Humans are the only source of morality.:
Only if you do not believe in God, Big If's.

Yes, man. In fact, that is the only source of morality.:
Only according to a atheist.

Speaking of incoherence... none of these statements follow from anything you said. Atheism doesn't entail social darwinism.:
Ok, what is the conclusion of atheism for our existence and origin?

Atheism presents no conclusion save that it involves no god. You'll have to go to other philosophies for that (e.g. nihilism, existentialism, absurdism, etc.)


Yes. Atheism is not a "world view" in the same sense as Christianity. Christianity, allegedly, provides everything you need to live in the world. Cosmology, philosophy, morality, etc.

Atheism does not provide this, but that does not mean atheists do not have it, nor does it mean a world view that is atheistic necessarily lacks it.

Consider theism. Bare theism does not provide a moral system. You must add to theism to get it. Atheism is the same way.:
Bare theism still believes in God. If there is a God then pretty much everything extends from Him, including morality. I disagree, atheism is worldview.

No, you can't get morality from bare theism, you have to add to it to get morality.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:10:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:55:36 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:30:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Murder implies unlawfulness. It isn't unlawful, therefor it isn't murder. Call it killing, at least that might be considered grammatically correct.:
Do I have need to be correct by you? It is murder depending on what you consider murder.

Dictionaries supply objective definitions for words, I thought you liked things that are objective?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:12:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:19:53 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:09:53 AM, Dogknox wrote:

Pennington Truth is... You have made "religion and God" to your own values! Do you say "Abortion" is moral!:
Abortion is immoral. Murder.

Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!?:
No and it is dumb to claim that too.
Abortion is.. "Killing someone to make life easy"!
Is it not solving a problem by Murder!
Your protestant basic moralities is nonexistent! :
Your ignorant.
Your words.. Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!?:

I do not want to fight ...I am pointing out facts..
I say it again.. every single "Protestant Church" condones abortion, if the mother' health is at issue!
In other words.. "If she does not want a baby, her Mental health is the issue!"

Pennington Check out your own church.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 11:12:39 AM, Dogknox wrote:

Your words.. Is it not true every single "Protestant Church" condones the death of the unborn!?:
No, thats your words get it right.

I do not want to fight ...I am pointing out facts..:
Then start talking like a normal human being.
I say it again.. every single "Protestant Church" condones abortion,:
Thanks for admitting you said it the first time not me.
if the mother' health is at issue!
In other words.. "If she does not want a baby, her Mental health is the issue!"

Pennington Check out your own church.:
How ignorant are you? My Church?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:34:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 11:10:40 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:55:36 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:30:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Murder implies unlawfulness. It isn't unlawful, therefor it isn't murder. Call it killing, at least that might be considered grammatically correct.:
Do I have need to be correct by you? It is murder depending on what you consider murder.

Dictionaries supply objective definitions for words, I thought you liked things that are objective?

Don't remember making that claim but I do think there are objectiveness and subjectivity.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:43:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 11:06:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/18/2013 9:39:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 8:57:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

What does "leading no where" entail logical incoherence?:
It is incoherant to lead and follow into no where.

How so?:
This is like committing suicide if it is not illegal. Do you not consider a suicide victim as having serious problems? They knowingly killed themselves so we dont feel bad for them dying but still know the is something wrong with someone killing themselves beyond criminal. Its like a crime against nature. Suicide makes no sense and is incoherant in the same way going no where is. So is seeing no problem with that as well.

What source and who determines the value of morality?

Secular humanism, for example. And we determine its value.:
So secular humanist decides everyones moral values?



Atheism presents no conclusion save that it involves no god. You'll have to go to other philosophies for that (e.g. nihilism, existentialism, absurdism, etc.):
Nice way to backdoor out the question.



No, you can't get morality from bare theism, you have to add to it to get morality.

Yes God.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:04:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 11:34:24 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 11:10:40 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:55:36 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:30:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Murder implies unlawfulness. It isn't unlawful, therefor it isn't murder. Call it killing, at least that might be considered grammatically correct.:
Do I have need to be correct by you? It is murder depending on what you consider murder.

Dictionaries supply objective definitions for words, I thought you liked things that are objective?

Don't remember making that claim but I do think there are objectiveness and subjectivity.

Well considering how you are harping on about how there is no objectivity in atheist morality, I just kinda assumed you really liked objectivity.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Methinks you're using the term "incoherence" in a very idiosyncratic and non-standard way...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:17:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 11:43:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 11:06:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/18/2013 9:39:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 8:57:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

What does "leading no where" entail logical incoherence?:
It is incoherant to lead and follow into no where.

How so?:
This is like committing suicide if it is not illegal. Do you not consider a suicide victim as having serious problems? They knowingly killed themselves so we dont feel bad for them dying but still know the is something wrong with someone killing themselves beyond criminal. Its like a crime against nature. Suicide makes no sense and is incoherant in the same way going no where is. So is seeing no problem with that as well.

This is both a false analogy and incorrect. Suicide is logical coherent. Consider this;

A. Performing X will stop Y
B. Y is unwanted
C. The detriments of X are preferable over Y.
D. X should be performed.

X meaning suicide, suicide is therefore logically coherent.


What source and who determines the value of morality?

Secular humanism, for example. And we determine its value.:
So secular humanist decides everyones moral values?



Atheism presents no conclusion save that it involves no god. You'll have to go to other philosophies for that (e.g. nihilism, existentialism, absurdism, etc.):
Nice way to backdoor out the question.

I don't think that's a thing........




No, you can't get morality from bare theism, you have to add to it to get morality.

Yes God.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:02:49 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/18/2013 9:43:35 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
I didn't say it doesn't matter if a belief leads to the truth. Obviously beliefs are based on one's perception of the truth. I merely said that usefulness does not govern how true a belief is. Something could be true yet extremely unuseful, but its lack of usefulness does not make it any less true. :
You should show a example of a useless truth.
"Usefulness" is a subjective term, therefore I can only provide a hypothetical opinion. You made the statement that atheism "leads nowhere," thus deeming it somewhat "useless" by your standards.
One could argue that a truth such as "the sun is hot" is useless (of course it isn't in my opinion, but for the sake of this example I will say it is). The sun is still hot whether the fact is useful or not, good or not, etc. The Holocaust still occurred despite its usefulness, too, and so have countless other historical events. It doesn't matter if it's useful. The truth is the truth...
So if there is no god--if atheism is legitimate--then it doesn't matter whether it benefits society or not. It doesn't matter how useful it is. The truth is not changed by the fact that it's not useful...It doesn't change the fact that this no god.
It derives from the evolution of society.:
Again, thats just opinion. I can say just as easy that humans create immorality.
Humans do create immortality. Anything subjective is created by humans.
While morality is, indeed, entirely subjective, certain morals have still taken root in present-day society and continue to govern the way humans act. This occurs regardless of religious orientation.:
Examples.
The idea that murder is bad, for example, has been implemented in the minds of humans for an impressively long time. This idea continues to be the "standard" in today's society. Sure, some people don't agree that murder is bad, but for the most part it has become the "social norm."
What? :
Examples of present-day society implementing new moralities.
As society changes, new morals continue to be evolved and implemented. Just look at any social issue.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that morality derives from any supernatural force.:
If morality did not come from a higher source then why do we have it when any other animal on earth lives by the strong survive? Though that doesn't apply to us because we have morality.
Because morality derives from mankind, as I've said numerous times.
While atheism often leads in this direction, there is no direct relationship between the two. Theists are often religious, but not always. Atheists often accept evolution/natural selection (and with good reason), but not always.:
What other options are there for a atheist?
Personal theories, or admittance that one doesn't know all the answers. Before I became more knowledgeable in evolution, I didn't claim it to be truth--instead I simply settled with the fact that I didn't know. Just because I didn't believe in any gods doesn't mean I had the answer.
How does it not? How would a athiest explain our origin?
They don't have to. And if they do, they may form a theory of their own. It's rare, but very possible. There is no direct correlation between evolution and atheism.
They could simply admit to not knowing for sure where we came from. They could also form their own theory. Lack of belief in one theory does not automatically require the belief in another. :
Lack of knowing and forming ones on theory doesn't make much sense. How can one doubt one theory with these explainations for one that has no idea?
Because they find the existing theories ridiculous.
The Papal system seems evidence enough that this can go both ways. :
Agreed the RCC abuses its power but they do have a source to go by.
What source? The Bible? Does that make all their mistakes go away?
Nor do you. All we can do ois hypothesize, which is what we are doing.:
Hmm.. no damage huh? Let's take a look at the world since the rise of mainstream atheism. No concern on television for nudity, profanity, steady rise in more diverse criminal behaviors along with rise in crime. Since the movement for new age religions and atheism began or world has seen past moralities fall by the waste side.
None of those occurrences have anything to do with atheism. Where is your proof?
Even if atheism has caused a downfall in society, that doesn't make atheism incoherent.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*Immoral.
Not immortal. Spelling ishooooos.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 1:58:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 12:17:06 PM, muzebreak wrote:

A. Performing X will stop Y:
Is X the only choice?
B. Y is unwanted:
So would X.
C. The detriments of X are preferable over Y.:
Here is the incoherant statement. Do we have to get into medical opinions to verify that suicide is a mental disorder and some sort of response to depression? When one is in that mind frame then he can no longer determine C.
D. X should be performed.:
Still does not mean D should be preformed.

X meaning suicide, suicide is therefore logically coherent.:
It isn't but theres other ways to explain.
You have a family and they need your support. Though, you take your money and give it away on the street. Does this make sense? He no doubt has a reason to do it but it still makes no sense. It is going in the wrong direction.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 2:03:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://plato.stanford.edu...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 2:05:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 2:03:46 PM, phantom wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu...

This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...