Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Are these really atheist presuppositions?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have heard that an atheist cannot believe in free will.
Why?

I have heard that an atheist cannot believe there is an objective morality.
Why?

I have heard that an atheist must be a materialist/naturalist.
Why?

The ONLY presupposition that I agree with (that I have heard) is that an atheist must believe that the universe might be able to exist without a god.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 9:06:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
(1) because all physical interactions are deterministic

(2) because it's logically incoherent there are definitive rights and wrongs if humans exist for no reason

(3) I don't say that but it any other alternatives would depict some spiritual/soul type realm.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 9:06:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
(1) because all physical interactions are deterministic

You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

(2) because it's logically incoherent there are definitive rights and wrongs if humans exist for no reason

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?

(3) I don't say that but it any other alternatives would depict some spiritual/soul type realm.

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/10/2015 9:06:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
(1) because all physical interactions are deterministic

You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

Then I would question how that is possible for both.

(2) because it's logically incoherent there are definitive rights and wrongs if humans exist for no reason

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?

"The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free."
http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant was a strong advocate of objective morality solely based on human reason. Check out his categorical imperative arguments.

Objective morality means that there are definitive right and wrong pursuits. If human beings have an undefined purpose, there is truly no such thing as definitive right and wrong pursuits. It's incoherent.

(3) I don't say that but it any other alternatives would depict some spiritual/soul type realm.

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.

If they reject God but believe in ghosts I'd call into question the basis for disbelief in God and challenge their belief in ghosts.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:03:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

Then I would question how that is possible for both.

How is free will possible if there is a god?

Also, it has been a while since I read Daniel Dennett, so I would have to recheck his work.

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?


"The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free."
http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant was a strong advocate of objective morality solely based on human reason. Check out his categorical imperative arguments.

Objective morality means that there are definitive right and wrong pursuits. If human beings have an undefined purpose, there is truly no such thing as definitive right and wrong pursuits. It's incoherent.

I made a thread before where I talked about how there could be a natural force that I nicknamed the "Moral Force". I made an analogy to entropy. I would check out that thread (I cannot remember if you did previously or not).

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.

If they reject God but believe in ghosts I'd call into question the basis for disbelief in God and challenge their belief in ghosts.

I would as well, but that isn't really the point. The point is that one can still believe in dualism, and immaterial beings, but not believe in a god.

One argument that I heard for ghosts but no god (I do not come close to accepting it) is that immaterial things, once made, cannot disappear. Consciousness is made when there is a certain level of cognitive ability. The body dies, but the consciousness does not, and that consciousness becomes a "ghost". The reason for there not being a god is that the immaterial world exists, but is parallel to the material. When the material started, the immaterial also started. God would be an immaterial being that would predate the material.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:48:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:13:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:


I would as well, but that isn't really the point. The point is that one can still believe in dualism, and immaterial beings, but not believe in a god.

One argument that I heard for ghosts but no god (I do not come close to accepting it) is that immaterial things, once made, cannot disappear. Consciousness is made when there is a certain level of cognitive ability. The body dies, but the consciousness does not, and that consciousness becomes a "ghost". The reason for there not being a god is that the immaterial world exists, but is parallel to the material. When the material started, the immaterial also started. God would be an immaterial being that would predate the material.

So what would be the explanation for the existence of this immaterial ghosts reside in ? I don't see how dualism is consistent with atheism, dualism not only rests on the idea of mind and brain as seperate entities but that mind proceeds from a God who made both mind and body. Dualism without the idea of a God leaves you baseless explaining how the mind exists on a seperate plane. This is why virtually all atheists suscribe to a materialist view.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:38:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:13:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:03:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

Then I would question how that is possible for both.

How is free will possible if there is a god?

Also, it has been a while since I read Daniel Dennett, so I would have to recheck his work.

That question is irrelevant in questioning whether atheism can account for free will. I'd be interested to hear some arguments from Daniel or whomever.

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?


"The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free."
http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant was a strong advocate of objective morality solely based on human reason. Check out his categorical imperative arguments.

Objective morality means that there are definitive right and wrong pursuits. If human beings have an undefined purpose, there is truly no such thing as definitive right and wrong pursuits. It's incoherent.

I made a thread before where I talked about how there could be a natural force that I nicknamed the "Moral Force". I made an analogy to entropy. I would check out that thread (I cannot remember if you did previously or not).

Let's assume that this is true. Why should I obey my moral force? What establishes its definity? It seems that a "moral force" presupposes objective purpose. If I truly ought not to kill somebody, why is this the case if the person that I'm killing exists for no reason? Why have I truly ought not to have done that? If he truly did exist for a reason, it follows that I've infringed on some underlying purpose - hence the reason why it was truly wrong. If humans are the product of an unembodied natural process, a "moral force" is just a byproduct of this natural process. The unembodied process is totally unsympathetic to whether or not we would obey our moral force and calls into question the definity of such a force.

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.

If they reject God but believe in ghosts I'd call into question the basis for disbelief in God and challenge their belief in ghosts.

I would as well, but that isn't really the point. The point is that one can still believe in dualism, and immaterial beings, but not believe in a god.

One argument that I heard for ghosts but no god (I do not come close to accepting it) is that immaterial things, once made, cannot disappear. Consciousness is made when there is a certain level of cognitive ability. The body dies, but the consciousness does not, and that consciousness becomes a "ghost". The reason for there not being a god is that the immaterial world exists, but is parallel to the material. When the material started, the immaterial also started. God would be an immaterial being that would predate the material.

I would want to see them formulate an argument showing why consciousness is reasonably thought to be immaterial but derives from the material.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:47:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 9:06:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
(1) because all physical interactions are deterministic

Good luck proving that claim.

(2) because it's logically incoherent there are definitive rights and wrongs if humans exist for no reason

Meh.

(3) I don't say that but it any other alternatives would depict some spiritual/soul type realm.

Atheism =/= naturalism. There are tonnes of supernaturalists that don't subscribe to a deity.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:18:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:38:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:13:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:03:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

Then I would question how that is possible for both.

How is free will possible if there is a god?

Also, it has been a while since I read Daniel Dennett, so I would have to recheck his work.

That question is irrelevant in questioning whether atheism can account for free will. I'd be interested to hear some arguments from Daniel or whomever.

I think the question is very relevant. How could free will exist under theism, but not under dualism atheism? What key difference is there?

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?


"The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free."
http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant was a strong advocate of objective morality solely based on human reason. Check out his categorical imperative arguments.

Objective morality means that there are definitive right and wrong pursuits. If human beings have an undefined purpose, there is truly no such thing as definitive right and wrong pursuits. It's incoherent.

I made a thread before where I talked about how there could be a natural force that I nicknamed the "Moral Force". I made an analogy to entropy. I would check out that thread (I cannot remember if you did previously or not).

Let's assume that this is true. Why should I obey my moral force? What establishes its definity? It seems that a "moral force" presupposes objective purpose. If I truly ought not to kill somebody, why is this the case if the person that I'm killing exists for no reason? Why have I truly ought not to have done that? If he truly did exist for a reason, it follows that I've infringed on some underlying purpose - hence the reason why it was truly wrong. If humans are the product of an unembodied natural process, a "moral force" is just a byproduct of this natural process. The unembodied process is totally unsympathetic to whether or not we would obey our moral force and calls into question the definity of such a force.

I never fully developed the "Moral Force" hypothesis because I do not agree with it. It looks like I might have to work on it a bit more.

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.

If they reject God but believe in ghosts I'd call into question the basis for disbelief in God and challenge their belief in ghosts.

I would as well, but that isn't really the point. The point is that one can still believe in dualism, and immaterial beings, but not believe in a god.

One argument that I heard for ghosts but no god (I do not come close to accepting it) is that immaterial things, once made, cannot disappear. Consciousness is made when there is a certain level of cognitive ability. The body dies, but the consciousness does not, and that consciousness becomes a "ghost". The reason for there not being a god is that the immaterial world exists, but is parallel to the material. When the material started, the immaterial also started. God would be an immaterial being that would predate the material.

I would want to see them formulate an argument showing why consciousness is reasonably thought to be immaterial but derives from the material.

I have no idea. Again, not my argument. I am just stating it to show that a belief like that can happen, it just does not seem reasonable.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:20:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:18:24 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:38:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:13:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:03:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 9:12:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You said that you do not say that an atheist must be a materialist. This means that an atheist could take the position that there is an immaterial aspect of a person to allow free will.
Daniel Dennett also has a philosophy about how free will could exist under materialism.

Then I would question how that is possible for both.

How is free will possible if there is a god?

Also, it has been a while since I read Daniel Dennett, so I would have to recheck his work.

That question is irrelevant in questioning whether atheism can account for free will. I'd be interested to hear some arguments from Daniel or whomever.

I think the question is very relevant. How could free will exist under theism, but not under dualism atheism? What key difference is there?

Well in the OP you questioned why free will wasnt admissible under atheism. Whether God allows free will or not is completely detached from that claim. We can discuss it if you want though. I can see why it'd be possible under dualism but I'd need to hear why dualism is possible if atheism is true. I'd need to hear a valid argument.

Is it an atheist presupposition that humans cannot have reason?

Why does an objective morality necessitate reason for human existence?


"The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free."
http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant was a strong advocate of objective morality solely based on human reason. Check out his categorical imperative arguments.

Objective morality means that there are definitive right and wrong pursuits. If human beings have an undefined purpose, there is truly no such thing as definitive right and wrong pursuits. It's incoherent.

I made a thread before where I talked about how there could be a natural force that I nicknamed the "Moral Force". I made an analogy to entropy. I would check out that thread (I cannot remember if you did previously or not).

Let's assume that this is true. Why should I obey my moral force? What establishes its definity? It seems that a "moral force" presupposes objective purpose. If I truly ought not to kill somebody, why is this the case if the person that I'm killing exists for no reason? Why have I truly ought not to have done that? If he truly did exist for a reason, it follows that I've infringed on some underlying purpose - hence the reason why it was truly wrong. If humans are the product of an unembodied natural process, a "moral force" is just a byproduct of this natural process. The unembodied process is totally unsympathetic to whether or not we would obey our moral force and calls into question the definity of such a force.

I never fully developed the "Moral Force" hypothesis because I do not agree with it. It looks like I might have to work on it a bit more.

Ok, I'll discuss it further with you if you wish to defend it.

I know atheists that believe in ghosts. There are other immaterial things in which an atheist can believe. An atheist just rejects the claim that a god exists, that does not mean that an atheist has to reject any other immaterial being.

If they reject God but believe in ghosts I'd call into question the basis for disbelief in God and challenge their belief in ghosts.

I would as well, but that isn't really the point. The point is that one can still believe in dualism, and immaterial beings, but not believe in a god.

One argument that I heard for ghosts but no god (I do not come close to accepting it) is that immaterial things, once made, cannot disappear. Consciousness is made when there is a certain level of cognitive ability. The body dies, but the consciousness does not, and that consciousness becomes a "ghost". The reason for there not being a god is that the immaterial world exists, but is parallel to the material. When the material started, the immaterial also started. God would be an immaterial being that would predate the material.

I would want to see them formulate an argument showing why consciousness is reasonably thought to be immaterial but derives from the material.

I have no idea. Again, not my argument. I am just stating it to show that a belief like that can happen, it just does not seem reasonable.

I agree, but I don't find it reasonable either.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 10:00:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 9:06:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:51:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
(1) because all physical interactions are deterministic

So what? Philosopher J. J. C. Smart stated that "free will is denied whether determinism is true or not. On one hand, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are assumed not to be free; on the other hand, if determinism is false, our actions are presumed to be random and as such we do not seem free because we had no part in controlling what happened."

(2) because it's logically incoherent there are definitive rights and wrongs if humans exist for no reason

Whether there are definite rights or not, atheists can still believe there are. What is your point?

(3) I don't say that but it any other alternatives would depict some spiritual/soul type realm.

Not necessarily, there could be plenty of alternatives that have no such realm attached to them.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth