Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You wouldn't be an atheist if you knew

Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.
matt8800
Posts: 2,259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

You talk in terms of truth and belief but the best a theist could ever hope for on the topics you bring up is suspicion in a subjectively assessed range of possibility based on no empirical evidence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:13:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

Advantage based on specific ends. Ends which don't exist if atheism is true.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

Depends on what ends are true. If no ends are true, doesn't matter.

You talk in terms of truth and belief but the best a theist could ever hope for on the topics you bring up is suspicion in a subjectively assessed range of possibility based on no empirical evidence.
dee-em
Posts: 7,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:15:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Classic fallacy of argument from consequences (even if we accept the validity of those alleged consequences).
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
matt8800
Posts: 2,259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:17:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:13:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

Advantage based on specific ends. Ends which don't exist if atheism is true.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

Depends on what ends are true. If no ends are true, doesn't matter.

Whether it matters or not objectively is irrelevant. It subjectively matters to me to know truth from fiction because it gets me what I subjectively want out of life. You can try to tell me money doesn't matter because nothing matters but I still want to make a lot of money regardless of your theory.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:30:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:15:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Classic fallacy of argument from consequences (even if we accept the validity of those alleged consequences).

How?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:32:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:17:35 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:13:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

Advantage based on specific ends. Ends which don't exist if atheism is true.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

Depends on what ends are true. If no ends are true, doesn't matter.

Whether it matters or not objectively is irrelevant.

I disagree. That matters more than anything.

It subjectively matters to me to know truth from fiction because it gets me what I subjectively want out of life. You can try to tell me money doesn't matter because nothing matters but I still want to make a lot of money regardless of your theory.

Money is a means towards an end. It depends on which ends you're pursuing.
dee-em
Posts: 7,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:35:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:30:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:15:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Classic fallacy of argument from consequences (even if we accept the validity of those alleged consequences).

How?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:39:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:35:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:30:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:15:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Classic fallacy of argument from consequences (even if we accept the validity of those alleged consequences).

How?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This is a unique circumstance in which if the position is true, "truth" isn't objectively preferable to fiction. Logical fallacies are presuming that truth is objectively preferable to fiction. So, if atheism is true, it really doesn't matter if what you believe is logically fallacious or not because truth isn't preferable to fiction. Go figure.
matt8800
Posts: 2,259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:42:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:32:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:17:35 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:13:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

Advantage based on specific ends. Ends which don't exist if atheism is true.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

Depends on what ends are true. If no ends are true, doesn't matter.

Whether it matters or not objectively is irrelevant.

I disagree. That matters more than anything.

That is a bias. A strong one at that. It is nearly impossible to discern truth from fiction with a strong bias.

It subjectively matters to me to know truth from fiction because it gets me what I subjectively want out of life. You can try to tell me money doesn't matter because nothing matters but I still want to make a lot of money regardless of your theory.

Money is a means towards an end. It depends on which ends you're pursuing.

My point was that regardless of whether my life has objective meaning or not, I still have subjective desires. It was in your response stating that having an advantage doesn't objectively matter. How does that lessen my desire to have an advantage in life?
Fly
Posts: 2,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:42:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

To the contrary, you wouldn't be a theist if you knew what I know.
"If you say you pray to God, that makes you normal. But if you say you pray to God through your hair dryer, you are clearly a lunatic."
-Sam Harris
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:46:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:42:02 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:32:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:17:35 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:13:39 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

Advantage based on specific ends. Ends which don't exist if atheism is true.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

Depends on what ends are true. If no ends are true, doesn't matter.

Whether it matters or not objectively is irrelevant.

I disagree. That matters more than anything.

That is a bias. A strong one at that. It is nearly impossible to discern truth from fiction with a strong bias.

Discerning truth from fiction is arbitrary if our ends aren't objective.

It subjectively matters to me to know truth from fiction because it gets me what I subjectively want out of life. You can try to tell me money doesn't matter because nothing matters but I still want to make a lot of money regardless of your theory.

Money is a means towards an end. It depends on which ends you're pursuing.

My point was that regardless of whether my life has objective meaning or not, I still have subjective desires. It was in your response stating that having an advantage doesn't objectively matter. How does that lessen my desire to have an advantage in life?

Your subjective desires are meaningless though. It wouldn't matter if your desires were opposite of what they currently are. If it made you happier to believe in a fictional world then it would be more rational for you to prefer fiction over truth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:47:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:42:47 AM, Fly wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

To the contrary, you wouldn't be a theist if you knew what I know.

Such as?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:03:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:57:22 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

I think you are overthinking it. I simply think that to know the difference between what is true and what is not true is an advantage.

For example, if Mormonism is a false religion, don't you think it would be good for the young people to know what is true prior to investing two years of their life on a mission trying to talk people into a false religion?

You talk in terms of truth and belief but the best a theist could ever hope for on the topics you bring up is suspicion in a subjectively assessed range of possibility based on no empirical evidence.

Advantage for what? Heat Death per supernova?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:05:36 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

List this plethera of still existing gods....
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,415
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:08:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?

You know you are simply creating a paradox, right?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that atheism is true.
You are saying that if atheism is true, that there is no value in truth.
You are saying that in order to be rational you must view truth as being valuable.
So, you are saying that you should adopt theism in order to be able to hold value in truth.
BUT, in doing so you would necessarily have to discard theism as it is not true.
That simply gets us back at the start.

So, I reject your argument as it is absurdity in and of itself, and thus fallacious.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:21:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 4:05:36 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

List this plethera of still existing gods....

I could list a plethora of claims for gods - none of which I would endorse. ;-)
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:22:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?

You've not answered my question.
If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. - Edlvsjd

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
keithprosser
Posts: 2,852
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 4:32:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I don't get what god has to do with something being true.
Suppose that tomorrow the clouds part and a mighty voice is heard all over the world:

"I want to make it clear that I take a dim view of gays and anyone getting up to that sort of thing has a particuarly nasty corner of hell waiting for them."

Which of these is 'objectively true': a) Homosexuality is evil or b) God disapproves of homosexuality. I think the divine announcement above implies b) is objectively true, but it doesn't make a) objectively true.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:21:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

Appeal to Incredulity. Fantasy by its very nature is suppose to be preferable to realty.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

False.
Masonic Slayer: Airmax is your typical lying, satanic Jew.
Airmax: Aww that's not nice.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:34:55 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 4:08:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?

You know you are simply creating a paradox, right?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that atheism is true.
You are saying that if atheism is true, that there is no value in truth.
You are saying that in order to be rational you must view truth as being valuable.
So, you are saying that you should adopt theism in order to be able to hold value in truth.
BUT, in doing so you would necessarily have to discard theism as it is not true.
That simply gets us back at the start.

This is about *belief* NOT ontology. Even so, if God doesn't exist ontologically, it'd be preferable to believe whatever gives you the most well-being since truth isn't objectively preferable to fiction.

So, I reject your argument as it is absurdity in and of itself, and thus fallacious.

That's presuming that truth is preferable to fiction but objectively, it couldn't be if atheism is true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:36:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 4:22:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?

You've not answered my question.

If it gives you more well-being, then yes, if you're rational.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:38:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 5:21:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

Appeal to Incredulity. Fantasy by its very nature is suppose to be preferable to realty.

How is it an appeal to incredulity? Why not believe in fantasy if truth has no objective value?

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

False.

Why?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:44:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 4:32:49 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I don't get what god has to do with something being true.
Suppose that tomorrow the clouds part and a mighty voice is heard all over the world:

"I want to make it clear that I take a dim view of gays and anyone getting up to that sort of thing has a particuarly nasty corner of hell waiting for them."

Which of these is 'objectively true': a) Homosexuality is evil or b) God disapproves of homosexuality. I think the divine announcement above implies b) is objectively true, but it doesn't make a) objectively true.

God must exist if humanity has inherent ends. If atheism is true, humanity is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that all of our values and preferences are completely subjective. This means that truth is not objectively preferable to fiction. All beliefs are predicated on the notion that truth is preferable to fiction. This means that if atheism is true, then rationally, you should believe whatever gives you the most well-being.
bulproof
Posts: 26,918
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:48:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:50:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:44:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:31:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:22:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

Can I choose any god claimed by theism to avoid this problem you've perceived? ...and did you intentionally exclude deism?

You can choose anything that created humanity for a purpose

So, let me get this straight - to "be more rational", I should arbitrarily accept one of many claims of god which are very often logically impossible? I'm no philosopher, Ben, but I think you may not have thought this one all the way through.

In order to rationally adopt any belief system you must prefer truth over fiction. Agree or disagree so far?
What makes adopting a belief system rational?
Response: Yet your weak rebuttals show otherwise.
Fly
Posts: 2,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 5:51:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 9/5/2016 3:47:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/5/2016 3:42:47 AM, Fly wrote:
At 9/5/2016 2:27:42 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The implications.

Beginning with the reason for being an atheist in the first place.

If you accept that atheism is true, you've already forfeited the possibility that truth is objectively preferable to fiction.

In doing so, it would be more rational to adopt a position that accepts truth as having objective value -- which can only entail theism.

To the contrary, you wouldn't be a theist if you knew what I know.

Such as?

Heh, you ask that as if this is the very first time you have had this discussion here. We ALL know better than that!

If you want to see a good debate on this, check out Dr. Sean Carroll vs Dr. William Lane Craig on YouTube.
"If you say you pray to God, that makes you normal. But if you say you pray to God through your hair dryer, you are clearly a lunatic."
-Sam Harris