Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Strong atheism is a belief

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:13:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Objective ideals, truths and morality should exist without God because it effects the believer as much as it effects the atheist. Besides God is a poor example of objectivity because of his subjective attachment to his creation. Like parents who are least likely to be objective about their children because of their parental attachments, so too is God trapped in his role as creator.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:19:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:13:58 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Objective ideals, truths and morality should exist without God because it effects the believer as much as it effects the atheist. Besides God is a poor example of objectivity because of his subjective attachment to his creation. Like parents who are least likely to be objective about their children because of their parental attachments, so too is God trapped in his role as creator.

Don't confuse 'knowledge' with 'objectivity'. In a world where objective ideals exist, they can still freely exist without knowledge of God but require God's existence in order to be grounded. If God is the source of objectivity, whatever is objectively true is necessarily true by God's nature. God can't change whatever is necessarily true because in order to do so would be logically contradictory of his own nature.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:35:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:19:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:13:58 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Objective ideals, truths and morality should exist without God because it effects the believer as much as it effects the atheist. Besides God is a poor example of objectivity because of his subjective attachment to his creation. Like parents who are least likely to be objective about their children because of their parental attachments, so too is God trapped in his role as creator.

Don't confuse 'knowledge' with 'objectivity'. In a world where objective ideals exist, they can still freely exist without knowledge of God but require God's existence in order to be grounded. If God is the source of objectivity, whatever is objectively true is necessarily true by God's nature. God can't change whatever is necessarily true because in order to do so would be logically contradictory of his own nature.

But God is contradicting his own nature whatever that is. He is trying to impose his morality on the world rather than allow man to discover his objective morality. He also forbade Adam to eat of the fruit of knowledge for fear he might discover good and evil which is the basis for morality. Before that Adam did not even know his own nakedness.

Why Gid is not objective with his creation. Read on.

Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Isaiah 54:9 "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.

Genesis 6:6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:54:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:35:37 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:19:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:13:58 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Objective ideals, truths and morality should exist without God because it effects the believer as much as it effects the atheist. Besides God is a poor example of objectivity because of his subjective attachment to his creation. Like parents who are least likely to be objective about their children because of their parental attachments, so too is God trapped in his role as creator.

Don't confuse 'knowledge' with 'objectivity'. In a world where objective ideals exist, they can still freely exist without knowledge of God but require God's existence in order to be grounded. If God is the source of objectivity, whatever is objectively true is necessarily true by God's nature. God can't change whatever is necessarily true because in order to do so would be logically contradictory of his own nature.

But God is contradicting his own nature whatever that is. He is trying to impose his morality on the world rather than allow man to discover his objective morality. He also forbade Adam to eat of the fruit of knowledge for fear he might discover good and evil which is the basis for morality. Before that Adam did not even know his own nakedness.

'Evil' is just nature that contradicts God's nature. If free will exists, man is able to freely choose whether or not to obey things that align with God's nature. God isn't trying to 'impose' his nature on us but we were given the *knowledge* or *moral awareness* to know 'good' from 'evil' to choose for ourselves.

Why Gid is not objective with his creation. Read on.

Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Isaiah 54:9 "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.

Genesis 6:6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

I'm not affirming that the Christian God is true. Im affirming that a God that represents our notions of moral perfection exists.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:06:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Since when does anyone have to accept that one thing is objectively better than another in order to value it?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:09:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

More of t his 'self-refuting' nonsense? Seriously, step back and consider your arguments for just a moment, please.

Why must I objectively agree that truth is better than non-truth? What is 'non-truth' in this context? Why must there be a god for there to be an objective measure of reality?

You're making a whole lot of totally unjustified assumptions and keep starting these threads that are little more than variants on the same word salad arguments.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:24:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 11:06:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Since when does anyone have to accept that one thing is objectively better than another in order to value it?

Because in order to 'value' something it requires rational deliberation. You can't irrationally decide to hold 'belief' in something because 'belief' in and of itself requires rationality.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:34:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 11:09:01 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

More of t his 'self-refuting' nonsense? Seriously, step back and consider your arguments for just a moment, please.

Why must I objectively agree that truth is better than non-truth? What is 'non-truth' in this context? Why must there be a god for there to be an objective measure of reality?

Because 'strong atheism' posits a 'truth' about existence. If you valued truth just as much as non-truth you wouldn't hold any beliefs whatsoever. Therefore *anyone* subscribing to a "belief" system values truth over non-truth. God must exist if 'truth' actually DOES have more value over non-truth. Since 'strong atheism' carries an intrinsic truth value as a belief, all 'strong atheists' must agree that an intrinsic truth value is preferable to anything that has non-truth value. If all strong atheists agree that truth is more valuable than non-truth, they're subscribing to an objective ideal of truth value. Truth can't have objective value if God doesn't exist. Therefore 'strong atheism' is self-refuting.

You're making a whole lot of totally unjustified assumptions and keep starting these threads that are little more than variants on the same word salad arguments.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:36:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 11:24:43 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/5/2015 11:06:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Since when does anyone have to accept that one thing is objectively better than another in order to value it?

Because in order to 'value' something it requires rational deliberation. You can't irrationally decide to hold 'belief' in something because 'belief' in and of itself requires rationality.

You can't decide to believe anything at all; you either believe it or you don't. Belief does not require rationality and this is so easily demonstrated that, even by your standards, this is a particularly insane and poor argument to attempt to make.

People can value things irrationally. They do this all too often. People can believe things irrationally. They do this all too often, as well. Moreover, none of this goes any way to showing what you seem to think it does, which is that to value something there must be an objective metric for doing so. This is absolute nonsense and there are countless examples of relative/subjective value metrics.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:37:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

I have no issue with "strong atheism is a belief", but why must objective ideals come from god? It seems like a non sequitur.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:44:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 11:34:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because 'strong atheism' posits a 'truth' about existence.

It makes a truth claim, you mean? Agreed.

If you valued truth just as much as non-truth you wouldn't hold any beliefs whatsoever.

False. And irrelevant.

Therefore *anyone* subscribing to a "belief" system values truth over non-truth.

Anyone subscribing to a belief system must have values and they hold those values to be true. I don't know why you insist on all this 'non-truth' obfuscatory wording, though. If you believe something then you believe it to be true. That is a tautology. Whether you value that it is the truth is completely irrelevant.

God must exist if 'truth' actually DOES have more value over non-truth.

Unsupported claim.

Since 'strong atheism' carries an intrinsic truth value as a belief, all 'strong atheists' must agree that an intrinsic truth value is preferable to anything that has non-truth value.

Or, as a normal human being would put it, people by definition believe what they think is true rather than what they think is untrue. You're saying far, far less here than you apparently think.

If all strong atheists agree that truth is more valuable than non-truth, they're subscribing to an objective ideal of truth value.

No they aren't. You also keep saying 'valuable' like there's some normative element to it. There isn't, it's simply a hinge principle of epistemic and doxastic process.

Truth can't have objective value if God doesn't exist. Therefore 'strong atheism' is self-refuting.

Firstly, it isn't necessary that people claim objective truth and there are many people who do not. Secondly, it is very far from proven that god is necessary for objective value. Thirdly, the idea that truth is of 'value' in the way you claim is nonsensical.

Basically, you're making a lot of noise and saying very little. Of what you are saying, much is entirely unsupported and the rest is outright wrong.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 4:02:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 11:24:43 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/5/2015 11:06:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Since when does anyone have to accept that one thing is objectively better than another in order to value it?

Because in order to 'value' something it requires rational deliberation. You can't irrationally decide to hold 'belief' in something because 'belief' in and of itself requires rationality.

i didn't see any mention of objectivity in your explanation. Sounds like you can value something simply through rational deliberation, rather than accepting that it's objectively better than the alternative.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.
I agree. Not believing in god because there is no tangible evidence to justify doing so doesn't qualify under this logic, however.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 4:19:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

One does not "affirm non-existence" since one cannot prove a negative. One does not accept the existence of someone or something due to a total lack of any evidence. Rejecting a claim is not the same as making a counterclaim.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

I would agree. If any person were to outright claim that God was nonexistent, they would have to bear the burden of proof and produce evidence. Of course, that was the problem with swans some time ago when they not only believed, but taught in schools that there were only white swans, that is, until they discovered black swans. Hence, the problem of claiming the nonexistence of something, that's why it's rarely, if ever, considered. I don't really see anyone here making such claims.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth.

Strong or positive atheism is not a belief, it is when someone "knows" there are no gods.

Even Richard Dawkins states implicitly he does NOT support strong/positive atheism, as a scientist, he knows only to well he would have to produce hard evidence to support that position.

As well, atheism makes no claims towards truth and non-truth.

If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth.

Sorry, but your logic does not follow to that conclusion. Atheism is about not accepting the claims of theists who say that their god exists, primarily because theists have never produced any evidence of their gods.

But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

LOL. Wow, you made a massively huge leap there. Where the hell do you get the notion that "objective ideals can't exist without God"?d And, could you first please provide evidence for the existence of God? If you decide to refer to the Bible as evodemce, then we are not talking about the existence pf God, we are talking about the validity of Scriptures.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

And, why pray tell is atheism self refuting?

If I told you I won a million dollars on a leprechaun riding a unicorn in the Kentucky Derby, would your non-acceptance of my claim be self-refuting?
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
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.


Yes.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth.

No.

If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth.

No.

But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth.

No.

If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

No.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Just no.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 9:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Ben could you please start a thread w/o posing a strawman as the premise?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:09:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth. If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth. If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

Yeah we here alot about how X can't exist unless "God" exists.

Of course when you press people on this point you get alot of well how else can it be ?
"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
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:16:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
A belief is 'the acceptance that a statement is true'. You can't accept a position affirming God's nonexistence without holding belief.

In addition to this, affirming 'strong atheism' means that you intrinsically value truth over non-truth.

Not any more than the next fellow. Atheism is a belief system which ultimately declares, "There is no theos - no God or gods."

If 'strong atheism' is a belief that carries intrinsic truth value, all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth.

It does not carry "intrinsic truth value" any more than the next belief system might.

But in order to do this you must agree that truth is objectively better than non-truth.

If truth is objectively better than non-truth it follows that strong atheism is self-refuting since objective ideals can't exist without God.

So not only is strong atheism a 'belief' but it's one that's self-refuting.

LMAO. It might be refutable, but I daresay you won't get far with your line of argumentation.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 8:47:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:05:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
since objective ideals can't exist without God.

Evidence for this assertion please.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So what's the over-under on when the OP decides to pretend the challenges presented in this thread just don't exist and he starts another thread making the same/similar assertions?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:50:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

And yet, you are ignoring the feedback in which we are trying to explain to you that it is not a belief, by definition.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Wow, you offer nothing but pure, unadulterated gibberish and you completely ignored everything that was explained to you.

Truly dude, you are brain dead.
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:52:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:50:40 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

And yet, you are ignoring the feedback in which we are trying to explain to you that it is not a belief, by definition.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Wow, you offer nothing but pure, unadulterated gibberish and you completely ignored everything that was explained to you.

Truly dude, you are brain dead.

You're a ripe tomato Daniel.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 1:33:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Plenty of people choose to believe things that they know aren't true. Any spouse desperate to believe that their partner isn't cheating on them chooses to ignore all evidence of infidelity and continue to accept something as true that they know to be a lie. There are numerous examples I could use to further illustrate that point, but the most salient might be the one frequently thrown at atheists: that we actually know god exists and we're choosing to rebel against him. While this is usually just flailing on the part of the theist who says it, it no doubt is the case for some atheists, including some strong atheists. So do those people actually value truth over non-truth in any way that could be described as objective?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:10:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 1:33:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Plenty of people choose to believe things that they know aren't true. Any spouse desperate to believe that their partner isn't cheating on them chooses to ignore all evidence of infidelity and continue to accept something as true that they know to be a lie. There are numerous examples I could use to further illustrate that point, but the most salient might be the one frequently thrown at atheists: that we actually know god exists and we're choosing to rebel against him. While this is usually just flailing on the part of the theist who says it, it no doubt is the case for some atheists, including some strong atheists. So do those people actually value truth over non-truth in any way that could be described as objective?

Belief is defined as "the acceptance that a statement is true" so if somebody "believes" sometiing it can't not be true. It's contradictory to the law of non-contradiction. In your cheating example people can *doubt* their beliefs but they can't think that something they hold as true isn't true. They value truth over non-truth in an objective way because it's impossible to value non-truth equally or lesser than truth while holding any particular belief.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:34:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 2:10:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:33:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Plenty of people choose to believe things that they know aren't true. Any spouse desperate to believe that their partner isn't cheating on them chooses to ignore all evidence of infidelity and continue to accept something as true that they know to be a lie. There are numerous examples I could use to further illustrate that point, but the most salient might be the one frequently thrown at atheists: that we actually know god exists and we're choosing to rebel against him. While this is usually just flailing on the part of the theist who says it, it no doubt is the case for some atheists, including some strong atheists. So do those people actually value truth over non-truth in any way that could be described as objective?

Belief is defined as "the acceptance that a statement is true" so if somebody "believes" sometiing it can't not be true. It's contradictory to the law of non-contradiction. In your cheating example people can *doubt* their beliefs but they can't think that something they hold as true isn't true. They value truth over non-truth in an objective way because it's impossible to value non-truth equally or lesser than truth while holding any particular belief.

LOL. So, you're just repeating yourself over and over the same nonsense? You've learned nothing?
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
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 2:10:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/6/2015 1:33:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:42:01 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ok there's been a lot of feedback so a few things:

(1) objective ideals don't necessitate God's existence
(2) strong atheism is not self-refuting

------

(1) first, what is an 'ideal'? An ideal is a conception of perfection. It's an abstract concept. An "abstract' concept transcends space, time, and matter just as all other abstract concepts do. You'll never find "love" or the number "10" out in the world nor will you ever find "truth" hiding under a rock someplace. Mathematics and logical absolutes are examples of abstract concepts that transcend space and time. In order for *any* abstract, invariant, and universal concept to be 'objective' and 'binding' this requires a transcendent reality. Yes, this requires God's existence. A transcendent reality is logically *impossible* if atheism is true. It's impossible because a transcendent, objective, and binding mental reality is only possible if 'mind' is the prime reality rather than reality emerging from the physical and non-mental.

(2) a 'belief' is "the acceptance that a statement is true." So strong atheists affirm the statement "God does not exist" is true because that's what it means to be a strong atheist. So strong atheism is a belief. That's my first point.

All beliefs have a 'truth value'. This means that *any* belief system has an intrinsic truth value just by being considered a belief because "belief", by definition, must hold a truth value. All belief systems seek to explain the nature of reality because 'truth' is whatever is in accordance with reality. Now that I've explained why ALL beliefs hold an intrinsic truth value, I'll explain why 'strong atheism' (a belief) is self-refuting.

In order to hold 'belief' in something you must value truth more than non-truth. If you didn't value truth more than non-truth it would be *impossible* to hold belief in *anything*. Human beings pursue whatever course of action they desire most. If I desire leisure more than activity I'll stay home rather than going to the gym. If I value my self-image I'll spend more time each morning making sure that my appearance is up to my own standards rather than just rolling out of bed and going out in public. What I'm saying is that we're *rational* beings because we do whatever we desire. If we do whatever we desire we're acting rationally. If we're acting rationally this means that we must forego other choices to pursue any particular course of action. For example, if I desire to go to the movies more than staying home, I'll go to the movies. This is a rational choice.

Choosing "strong atheism" as a belief is a rational choice. We could've chosen not to hold any beliefs whatsoever or we could've chosen a different belief entirely. Since "strong atheism" holds an intrinsic truth value (as a belief), whoever holds this belief must value truth more than non-truth. If "truth" is an intrinsic value of strong atheism, ALL strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a strong atheist to NOT value truth more than non-truth. This value of 'truth' refers to the the rational choice to 'believe' rather than the actual truth of the proposition. Just as going to the movies rather than staying home, it isn't possible for you to have valued staying home more than going to the movies because whatever you valued doing most would've decided your course of action. Having a belief system is a rational choice based on personal desire when we consider that there are alternatives. That being said, this supports my point that all strong atheists must value truth more than non-truth. Since strong atheism holds an intrinsic truth value, this value is objective. Nobody having any kind of belief can value non-truth in equal or lesser regard to truth. Thus, this truth has *objective* value. Since strong atheism is incompatible with objective ideals, such objectively valuing truth over non-truth, strong atheism is inherently self-refuting.

Plenty of people choose to believe things that they know aren't true. Any spouse desperate to believe that their partner isn't cheating on them chooses to ignore all evidence of infidelity and continue to accept something as true that they know to be a lie. There are numerous examples I could use to further illustrate that point, but the most salient might be the one frequently thrown at atheists: that we actually know god exists and we're choosing to rebel against him. While this is usually just flailing on the part of the theist who says it, it no doubt is the case for some atheists, including some strong atheists. So do those people actually value truth over non-truth in any way that could be described as objective?

Belief is defined as "the acceptance that a statement is true" so if somebody "believes" sometiing it can't not be true. It's contradictory to the law of non-contradiction. In your cheating example people can *doubt* their beliefs but they can't think that something they hold as true isn't true. They value truth over non-truth in an objective way because it's impossible to value non-truth equally or lesser than truth while holding any particular belief.

Why is it impossible to value non-truth if you accept that something is true? What does it even mean to value truth or non-truth over the other? A lot of times, I get the impression that you make statements that sound coherent but don't actually have any practical consequence. If I had a friend who was stealing money from me, but my life was easier acting as though he/she wasn't, wouldn't that mean that I value non-truth over truth in that instance?
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:39:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is important not to confuse objective morality with absolutist morality. The latter is a hallmark of religious doctrines, which make statements of the type "thou shalt not". But an objective morality, i.e. a morality based on the facts of reality, does not need to be of that type. All it needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. Because of this, atheism is perfectly compatible with objective morality.