When I put up my earlier post on atheism, I didn’t expect the response I got (though perhaps that’s only because I hadn’t run across Samuel Skinner before; as much time as he spends on other people’s blogs arguing his position, he really ought to start his own). I probably shouldn’t have been surprised, however; what I described as the adolescent atheism of the self-impressed isn’t an attitude conducive to taking criticism well, or to having one’s heroic self-image challenged. Given that, I probably should have expected someone to take umbrage; after all, when you consider yourself the only rational person in the room, as Mr. Skinner evidently does, it’s a little hard to have someone tell you your thinking is shoddy, adolescent, self-deluded and shallow.
Given that there was a response, however, the arrogant, dismissive, and hostile tone of that response was no surprise at all. As R. R. Reno notes, that sort of tone is becoming de rigeur from atheists these days.
The intemperate, even violent tone in recent criticisms of faith is quite striking. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens: They seem an agitated crew, quick to caricature, quick to denounce, quick to slash away at what they take to be the delusions and conceits of faith. And the phenomenon is not strictly literary. All of us know a friend or acquaintance who has surprised us in a dark moment of anger, making cutting comments about the life of faith.
This isn’t how it used to be; atheists of past generations could be calmly superior, unconcerned in their certainty that religion was dying away. Voltaire, for instance, calmly predicted that Christianity would be extinct within fifty years of his death. Why the change?
I suspect the answer is to be found in part in this comment from historian Paul Johnson: “The outstanding event of modern times was the failure of religious belief to disappear.” The calm face of atheism past was founded on its smug certainty that religion was on its way out; that certainty no longer holds, so atheists must actually deal with religion, and as Dr. Reno concludes,
There is something about faith that agitates unbelief. . . . As Byron recognized, modern humanism can easily become cruelly jealous of the modest claims it stakes upon the noble but fragile human condition. To believe in something more—it can so easily seem a betrayal. And because the reality of faith cannot help but ignite a desire for God in others, it is not hard to see why our present-day crusaders against belief take up their rhetorical bludgeons. They fear the contagion of piety.
It seems to me, then, that the sheer persistence of religious faith is eroding the urbane face of atheism, exposing the violent impulse underneath; though Mr. Skinner tried to deny it in his comments, there is a link between atheism and nihilism, because atheism is ultimately a belief in nothing. It isn’t alone in this, either; there are many who consider themselves religious believers who actually, at the core, share that faith in nothing; as the Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has written, the common religion of our culture “is one of very comfortable nihilism.”
As modern men and women—to the degree that we are modern—we believe in nothing. This is not to say, I hasten to add, that we do not believe in anything; I mean, rather, that we hold an unshakable, if often unconscious, faith in the nothing, or in nothingness as such. It is this in which we place our trust, upon which we venture our souls, and onto which we project the values by which we measure the meaningfulness of our lives.
This is, as Dr. Hart notes (in what is truly a brilliant article), the inevitable logical consequence of
an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess . . . a society that believes this must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular moral metaphysics: the unreality of any “value” higher than choice, or of any transcendent Good ordering desire towards a higher end. Desire is free to propose, seize, accept or reject, want or not want—but not to obey. Society must thus be secured against the intrusions of the Good, or of God, so that its citizens may determine their own lives by the choices they make from a universe of morally indifferent but variably desirable ends, unencumbered by any prior grammar of obligation or value.
As Dr. Hart goes on to demonstrate, this is the logical consequence of Christianity, which strips away all other gods, leaving only one choice: Christ, and the paradoxical freedom of the gospel, or nothing, “the barren anonymity of spontaneous subjectivity.” As already noted, there are many who would say they worship Christ who in truth worship at the altar of their own freedom of choice; but they at least have another option before them, however imperfectly or confusedly they may understand it. For the atheist, there is no other option than “an abyss, over which presides the empty, inviolable authority of the individual will, whose impulses and decisions are their own moral index.” Indeed, atheism is a commitment to want no other option; and faith, even as confused as it often is, threatens that commitment. That, our “present-day crusaders against belief” simply cannot tolerate, and so they “take up their rhetorical bludgeons” to destroy “the contagion of piety” once and for all; and when they march, they march under the banner of Nothing to eradicate belief in Something—or rather, Someone.
Samuel Skinner
Wow… someone noticed me. I feel all warm and wuzzy inside. Sure they only did so to mock me, but hey- you take what you can get.
The reason I don’t write a blog- I have a particular delusion; I believe just by talking to people I’ll be able to affect their thoughts. I know that my idea is false in most cases (I blame the net). Also I happen to be both lazy, busy and bad with tech- I don’t want to start a blog and have it die.
Why are atheists more… forthright? Because they have realized atheism isn’t going to die on its own. Ideologies don’t simply die on their own- facism had to wait till we crushed the Nazis, Communism till the fall of the Sov Union and Arab Nationalism with the split of the Arab bloc.
Religious beliefs are particulary immune to external falsification. So you have to active show some one why they are wrong, otherwise they tend to rationalize it.
I don’t know what you mean exactly by piety and faith. If you mean the classic meaning (believing because you wish to, depth of that belief) than I’m afraid I find those quite simply insane. If your talking about something else (you do referance a theologian)… I have no idea.
Yes atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in nothing. Belief in nothing is confined to particle physics experimenters. On a more serious note that defies sanity… how can someone believe in nothing? I certainly don’t and although I have seen nihlists on the web, for the most part people have something.
“New” atheism is a rejection of the idea that a person is free to choose what they want to believe… hey, an actual fact that differentiates them! Which actually means they have external values and reality (at least strong atheists, which probably include the four- people who assert god doesn’t exist). I believe it is impossible to be a strong atheist, antitheist and nihlist- an antitheist has taken a stand and a cause- by default they are not purposeless or without any standard. I also find it odd people believe having god gives purpose. Does the uncaused cause a puroposeless purpose?
Wow… you sound even more authoritarian than I am… lambasting people for valuing freedom (They hate us for our freedoms! – Bush). I know, you are only attacking people for following their own desires instead of… what you think is best for them- well not you, a book you read… that you interpretated.
Nice for you to use theologians- here is a hint though- these people aren’t atheists. So they can’t know what is going on in an atheists head (see daylight ateism forums for the whole discussion about this). If you had a psychiatrist, that would have more weight (my psychiatrist thinks that it is metaphorically true- no fracking clue what that means). For example if you are attacking anarchists, talk to typical anarchist, tell them the holes in their theory and post the responces (and the whole conversation).
Also you forget there are other religions. Heck, there are ideologies, causes, hobbies and goals that can also lend purpose.
I’d just like to add that, in the end I find this ironic. Christians, who consistantly argue that humans have free will, seem appaled when people point out there isn’t a lot of reasons to be good other than being good (there are benefits, but that is pragmatism). It is like they haven’t thought their belief system through.
From the atheist point of view, no, there isn’t much reason for people to be good–nothing that holds, certainly. I’m glad you finally noticed that. Hitchens et al. seem to have missed it.
Also, I disagree that contemporary atheists are more forthright–you really aren’t well up on your forebears if you believe that. They are, rather, more violent–they don’t sound braver, more honest, or any of that, only more desperate.
Finally, how you can presume to critique someone when by your own confession you don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, I have no idea. Come back when you’ve read Hart’s article and understood it. I don’t expect you to agree with it (unlike you, I lack the delusion that mere rational argument is likely to change people’s minds–a fact which well predates the internet), but you need to understand it.
Here are the reasons to be good (add some if I forget): reputation, good of the group, kids, empathy, desire to be good and fear of punishment. These apply equally to theism and atheism.
Unless you are arguing that atheists are unable to come up with morality in the first place. The answer to that is “do the gods love what is good because it is good or is it good because the gods love it?”. Yeah, one of Plato’s good pieces. Almost all moral philosophy works equally well wheter there is a god or not.
Also there isn’t an atheist point of view (not all atheists go for this, but most do)- there is a naturalism point of view. Atheism is a lack of belief, remember?
Violent implies using physical force. They haven’t and show no prediction to do so. Harris is openly more desperate- he worries that the Dominionists will come to power, or a similar result will occur in Europe with Muslims. That would be bad. Especially with nukes (Which France has- as well as a large, disloyal populance of about 10% the country and 15% the military).
I do have a clue what he is talking about- unless he decided to change the meaning of the words on me. It isn’t unique to theologians (it is called jargon). However if he is using the normal meaning than my criticism still holds.
Samuel Skinner
Got around to reading the essay. Couple of problems.
1) Satan is in the play. Last I checked Satan didn’t become the enemy until after Job.
2) Cain isn’t an atheist- he believes in god. He simply doubts his justice, mercy and the like.
3) The meaning of piety and faith mean the same thing in the essay as in real life. Well, sort of- gone is known to exist (their parents have personal experience), so faith and piety in this case are trust in god, not trust that god exists.
The essay does not apply to atheists. Atheists by definition do not believe in god and so can’t rail against them. You could say atheists like that don’t exist, but that doesn’t explain atheists in different cultures… or those who were never introduced to religion.
You’ve misunderstood Reno’s essay, haven’t read Hart’s, are demonstrably unaware of the historical evidence against your assertion that “Almost all moral philosophy works equally well wheter there is a god or not,” and in fact, still haven’t bothered to understand what I’m actually trying to say. Try again.
Samuel Skinner
I understood Reno’s perfectly- he is claiming that faith inherently angers atheists (the classic atheists are angry trick). Most of my critique was directed towards the play, but the salient point still stands- Cain wasn’t an atheist and so the entire analogy falls apart. Cain simply doubts gods justice. Note that god never gives him an explanation, which a just soverign would do.
Hart’s is more substance. He is attacking freedom. I’m not taking this out of context- he believes that the problems of our culture are due to people holding their own wills as supreme. Oh, and he claims freedom leads to nihlism.
To be fair he is right- people adopting moral and religious choices like clothing is wrong. The reason Christianity is the rigght choice? It killed the opposition. Christ appears to be Khrone in his view, despoiler of worlds and crusher of enemies who sits on his skull throne (a metaphor, but that accurately describes his reasoning).
Uh… the Third Reich was Christian. Consumer culture started with the idea that stuff is good in and of itself. Knock it if you want- it helped Capitalism beat back the despotism of communism and secure our current standard of living.
I can’t follow after this. He seems to be arguing based on Christianity subversiveness. However you could equally well declare Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Confucism, Toaism… you get the idea. All of them have subversive tenets (confucism for example implies that everyone is to be held to standards and if your master is wrong it is your duty to disobey.)
New gods have arrised. Witness the cathers, the Protestants, the wiccans (yes they are new- their claim to ancientness is false), etc…
I honestly have no idea what the heck he is talking about towards the end. He seems almost interly detached from reality.
But to be certain atheism leads to nihlism you need to concentrate on atheism. His whole paper is about christianity- he completely ignores atheism except to say that the alternative to christianity is nihlism. Which is odd because the ancients weren’t nihlists.
As for morality without god. Here- I’ll put back my answer- you seem to have missed it.
Here are the reasons to be good (add some if I forget): reputation, good of the group, kids, empathy, desire to be good and fear of punishment. These apply equally to theism and atheism.
Unless you are arguing that atheists are unable to come up with morality in the first place. The answer to that is “do the gods love what is good because it is good or is it good because the gods love it?”. Yeah, one of Plato’s good pieces. Almost all moral philosophy works equally well wheter there is a god or not.
No, you don’t understand Reno’s essay, or you wouldn’t be advancing irrelevances as critiques.
Nor do you understand Hart’s, in the slightest. In character for you, though, to conflate “detached from your point of view” with “detached from reality.”
You do, however, reveal an astonishing ignorance of Christian history–or perhaps not astonishing, since it’s on a par with your ignorance of all other things Christian. Cathars (note proper spelling) and Protestants don’t worship different gods, and I have no clue where you got the idea; nor was the Third Reich Christian–it was simply that its leaders recognized they had to pretend so and co-opt the church. (It’s one of the great shames of Christian history that so many went along with it; but there were many who didn’t.) You’re right about Wicca, though.
As for the “answer” you think I missed, here’s the answer to you which you did miss: “[You] are demonstrably unaware of the historical evidence against your assertion that ‘Almost all moral philosophy works equally well wheter there is a god or not.'” In other words, you can assert it, but it ain’t so. Philosophically, it isn’t, because atheism does not furnish a satisfactory foundation for a solid doctrine of the Good. There’s also the fact that several of your supposed reasons to be good are in fact reasons to appear good, which is far from the same thing.
Samuel Skinner
I call double think.
Second paragraph, where you accused me of conflating have a differnet point of view with detached from reality. The fact is only a nihlist can believe that someone can have a substantially different point of view and not be detached from reality. Non-nihlists believe that their views reflect reality and that people with different views (once they understand them) are detached from reality. Otherwise they would share views (I’m refering to big differances- I can get financial conservatives, authoritarians, liberals and some variation- not everyone has the same values or benefits equally).
The Cahters may not have worshipped different gods, but I doubt their god was anything like the Christian god (Satan creating the world…). The Third Reich had a secular government, with Christian Nationalism. Blame for the Holocaust can’t be dropped on Christianity- blame for the killing of the Jews can (see Luther, and the divine providence comments).
Good- the opposite of evil- helping others without expectation of reward. Acting selflessly, above and beyond the call of duty. Willing to sacrifice your life to prevent others from killing, maiming and injurying innocents. How do I define it this way? It is the frecking definition of the word!
The reason I gave those examples (with the ones based on appearence) is theism and Christianity rely on them for moral behavior. Christianity does not offer anything that a secular value system does not.
For the last time atheism is not a belief or value system.
Christianity does not offer anything that a secular value system does not.
For the last time atheism is not a belief or value system.
It is a belief system: faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society. The faith that you have that there is no God, based on a series of beliefs, gives you your worldview.
But you’re correct that atheism isn’t a value system; which is why it cannot provide something Christianity can: namely, a moral compass and structure for society. You can define good, but you cannot justify your definition–all you can do is appeal to the dictionary (“How do I define it this way? It is the frecking definition of the word!”). And where did the dictionary get its definition? From Christians.
Your atheism, like that of Hitchens et al., is essentially parasitic on Christianity; it can’t even function on its own. That, in a nutshell, would be why I labeled it “adolescent.”
Sammy boy here is operating under the delusion that in proclaiming atheism, he’s simply making a fact statement. He hasn’t figured out yet that it takes just as much faith to believe there isn’t a God as to believe there is. Unless he drops the delusion that he holds the only rational position, he’s not going to understand this conversation.
Samuel Skinner
Atheism isn’t a belief system. There is only one thing that atheism covers- a lack of belief. That is all. Unless lacking belief is a belief, it isn’t a belief system. Strong atheism is part of a belief system- just one component.
Atheism doesn’t come with a value system- so atheist use other, secular value systems. As for “borrowing form Christianity”… you are an idiot. Wait!- I can support this! You see there are other religions. And they also have value systems and morals. And some predate Christianity. Since Christianity by default considers these false religions, these people must have come up with morality and concepts such as good, without divine guidance.
To the Wanderer
There is only one rational position in this arguement. You seem not to see that. I’ll give you an example- there an infinite number of ways to be evil- there is only a few paths to be good.
As for atheism taking faith… no it doesn’t. You are opperating under either “belief in god is necesary” or “you can’t disprove it”. Both of those ideas are wrong. The first under the idea you need supernatural to support morality, logic, reason and the like (basically a giant arguement from ignorance). For an answer to that… well, that would take time. But just remember theism doesn’t answer it either. Saying “god did it” isn’t a real answer.
As for disproving it… the supernatural, by its very definition doesn’t exist. And since god is supernatural… Not to mention there is a bunch of other arguements against god. Why does the universe exist being my favorite one (gid did it is how, not why).
Sorry, Junior–you’re wrong. I’ll grant you, you’re wrong with all the arrogant assurance of a precocious, bratty twelve-year-old, but you’re still wrong–across the board, in fact. There is literally not a single true sentence in your last comment.
A pungent blast, but appropriate. To unpack:
Atheism isn’t a belief system. There is only one thing that atheism covers- a lack of belief.
Wrong. Lack of belief would be agnosticism. You believe firmly that there is no God.
Atheism doesn’t come with a value system- so atheist use other, secular value systems.
Umm, check your definitions. A “secular” value system is by definition an atheistic one. The point is, atheism provides no support for a value system which is actually capable of sustaining it over generations, despite all your shallow assertions.
As for “borrowing form Christianity”… you are an idiot. Wait!- I can support this! You see there are other religions.
In this society, you’re borrowing from the capital invested in this society, which is Christian. In a parallel universe where it was possible to be an atheist of your stripe in a nominally Muslim country, you’d be borrowing from Islam. The existence of other religions isn’t the point.
There is only one rational position in this arguement.
Wrong. That would only be true had you disproven God. You haven’t.
I’ll give you an example- there an infinite number of ways to be evil- there is only a few paths to be good.
The teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14; so Wanderer’s wrong, there’s actually one true statement here.
As for atheism taking faith… no it doesn’t.
Wrong. The non-existence of God is a postulate, a presupposition, for rational argument, not something which has been proven by it. Indeed, it cannot be, though it can be interrogated by reason on the grounds of internal and external consistency.
But just remember theism doesn’t answer it either. Saying “god did it” isn’t a real answer.
So? That does nothing to prove your case.
As for disproving it… the supernatural, by its very definition doesn’t exist.
Wrong. Definitionally, the supernatural does exist. What you have to do is prove that what it defines does not in fact exist in reality. You’re attempting something like the following syllogism:
Major premise: the natural is all that exists.
Minor premise: the supernatural by definition is not natural.
Conclusion: the supernatural by definition does not exist.
The problem is, you haven’t proven the major premise. In point of fact, you haven’t even tried. You’ve just asserted it. (For someone who claims to believe in evidence, you’re certainly fond of asserting things without any.) Therefore, you have no argument.
Not to mention there is a bunch of other arguements against god.
Then make one. Seriously, and in depth. Start a blog, post the link, and we can all come discuss how well you’ve done.
Why does the universe exist being my favorite one (gid did it is how, not why).
Wrong on both counts. First off, that isn’t an argument against the existence of God–it’s a problem of some sort for everyone. Second, “God did it” is in fact an answer for that specific question, but it’s an answer which only pushes the question back a step–why does God exist?–which is at least as unanswerable.
The lesson you should be drawing here is that reason has its limits–it can’t get us all the way to the finish line (or perhaps we should say, the start line). That’s why all of us believe and act on faith, atheist and theist alike. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you’ll learn some humility and grow up a little. You know a lot less than you think you do.
Oh, and before you go around embarrassing yourself any further by declaring your position the only rational one, go read Antony Flew on the subject. A British philosopher, one of the smartest and best-educated men in the world, perhaps the weightiest advocate for atheism in his time, he ultimately came to a different conclusion: There Is a God. I’ll guarantee you, he’s smarter than either of us (by a long shot), and he has a much better grasp on what’s a rational position and what isn’t.
Samuel Skinner
Wanderer, traditionally people say why you are wrong, not say you are a brat and refuse to continue.
Agnostic atheism. Agnostic is a descriptor about knowledge. Also known as weak atheism.
I am a strong atheism. However my reject that the supernatural and god exist dont come from atheism- they come from naturalism. Atheism is the conclusion, not the premise.
Secular simply means something concerned with this world. That is right- almost all value systems are secular. And all more systems are secular.
1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal,secular concerns
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
The existance of other religions means you are arguing that theism, generically is true. The problem is by doing so you are putting Christianity on the same plane as other faiths. Or, in short you are admitting it is false. After all, there are societies that have moral capital and patently false belief systems. The cargo cults are a good example.
No, there is only one rational position. You believe you have it and I believe I have it. The is not multiple correct positions- unless you are admitting that something can exist and not exist at the same time.
Actually I came upon that on my own- I haven’t read the New Testament. I was thinking about how Fantasy games always had the forces of good and evil against each other and I thought it was a little.. cartoonish. The forces of good get power from being good and the forces of evil get power from being evil- why would you be evil? That was of topic. Sorry. Any way I came up with this entirely on my own based on the fact that good and evil aren’t reflections of each other. They are totally different ways of dealing with the world based on having totally different objectives. Goods objective is always the same and hence there is only one route to go there. Evil on the other hand… its goal is whatever you want.
So to repeat myself, no I didn’t get it from the bible. For one I don’t think of it as two gates. I think of a slit that is eternal, goalposts that are always changing and everything else. The slit is good, the goal posts are what society says is good… which fortunately is near (but doesn’t always include) the slit. For example http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_8519916
That would be strong atheism. I don’t take it on faith. I believe there is no supernatural being because of the very meaning of the word.
It helps my case. There is no reason for an alll powerful, all knowing and all good creature to create our universe. Yet our universe exists. There for it wasn’t made by such a creature.
Natural is a word that includes everyting in reality.
12 a: having a physical or real existence…as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious
Yes, I am arguing from definition. Am, yes I am right. You might make the “god is spiritual” arguement. Unfortunately it breaks down into complete nonsense. So God is spiritual and spiritual is things relatiing to religious values and religious values are things relating to god… The fact of the matter is the term natural encompasses everything in the physical universe. The term supernatual was come up to explain why “my phenomena doesn’t have to obey the rules”. In short supernatural is a bunch of BS to disguise the fact that nothing supernatural has ever been proven and that by definition if we understand it it isn’t supernatural. Unfortunately religion claims to understand the supernatural.
I give an arguement that you do attempt to rebut. For the love of all that is holy, GOD DID IT IS A HOW ANSWER. WHY! Come on answer why? You can’t there is no reason for a god to create the universe. Out of the thousands of mythologies our world has, none have an answer. This suggests that there is no reason or purpose behind the universe- in short that it wasn’t created.
Reason has its limits? Well, that is why I use evidance. Unless you are suggesting an alternative system.
Rob, I happen not to be an idiot. I know the reasons he gave. They are natural laws, life and the existance of the universe. As you see I just showed the existance of the universe is evidence against theism. Heck, Rob you admit it proves nothing. As for life he needs to read up on evolution or chemistry. And for natural laws… what does he expect? A random universe isn’t stable (if the rules changge it can cause itself to collapse and restart). A universe with rules that change, following rules is possible, but there is no way to know it isn’t our own.
No, there is only one rational position. You believe you have it and I believe I have it. The is not multiple correct positions.
You’re conflating. You’re absolutely correct that in the end, one is right and the rest are wrong; that doesn’t make the incorrect ones irrational. One can, after all, arrive at a perfectly incorrect statement by perfectly rational means.
The fact of the matter is the term natural encompasses everything in the physical universe.
Which is not the same as proving that the physical universe is all there is.
Natural is a word that includes everyting in reality.
No, it’s a word for one aspect of reality.
In short supernatural is a bunch of BS to disguise the fact that nothing supernatural has ever been proven and that by definition if we understand it it isn’t supernatural.
Wrong.
The existance of other religions means you are arguing that theism, generically is true.
Wrong.
I am a strong atheism. However my reject that the supernatural and god exist dont come from atheism- they come from naturalism. Atheism is the conclusion, not the premise.
Wrong. And badly written.
Secular simply means something concerned with this world. That is right- almost all value systems are secular. And all more systems are secular.
Wrong.
It helps my case. There is no reason for an alll powerful, all knowing and all good creature to create our universe.
Wrong.
You can’t there is no reason for a god to create the universe. Out of the thousands of mythologies our world has, none have an answer.
Wrong.
For the love of all that is holy, GOD DID IT IS A HOW ANSWER. WHY!
Wrong. “The universe exists because God willed it” is, in your terms, precisely a “why answer.” It does indeed raise the question of why God willed it; but that’s another question. A full answer is another blog post. A telegraphically short answer: love.
Reason has its limits? Well, that is why I use evidance.
Evidence is the food of reason. You don’t get the concept.
As you see I just showed the existance of the universe is evidence against theism.
Wrong. And incredibly simplistic.
A universe with rules that change, following rules is possible, but there is no way to know it isn’t our own.
And rules imply a rulegiver. With God, it’s understandable why we have a stable universe. Without God, why should we?
And “I know the reasons he gave” is a dodge to avoid actually reading his work and confronting his thought. I call you on that.
Listen, Junior, when you come up against someone whose attitude is “I’m right and you’re stupid,” the only thing to do is call a brat a brat and move on. You’re not my kid, so I don’t have to waste my time trying to make you grow up; you need to grow up on your own time.
Samuel Skinner
Not always- for example in cosmology there is an infinite number of rational answers. However as data continues to trickle in alternatives are narrowed as the theories that were falsified get removed. That would be yours.
You call my assertion that “the physical universe is all that physically exists” wrong. Now, I know it sounds redundant and simplistic, but that is only because we are at the very bottom- the definition of the word. You fail to show how I am wrong aside from posting wrong.
Keep going down the list.. ah the existance argument… which you completely misunderstand. And you do answer it with a purpose. Unfortunately you have a problem- that answer makes no sense what so ever. Love? This reality is not designed for love. It was designed for the void, if it was designed at all. Look up into the sky- you see that blackness? That is nothingness. Oh, you can see galaxies with big enough telescopes- but only because the density is so low between you and those galaxies. For the most part the universe is empty space, on both the smallest and largest scales.
Evidence is the food of reason? Err.. what the heck do you use?
Are you referancing the transendant argument (justifying reason)? The faith card (faith can see what reason can’t)? The limits of science card? The science is heartless card? The unprovable/unfalsible ideas card? You need to be specific.
As for rules require a law giver… well you cover everything with that. So what about God? Does he need a rule giver to make him? And if every rule needs a rule maker, how would you know? Don’t you need a rule without a rule maker to compare it to?
I just showed why a universe has to be stable… don’t you read my post? Heck- I even said “I know the reasons he gave” and you claimed to catch me on that. So I went back and lo and behold, guess what I said immediately afterward?
“I know the reasons he gave. They are natural laws, life and the existance of the universe”
That is right Rob- not only does rational argument not your forte, but being able to actually read seems to be difficult to you. If you want a nice answer you should at least read my posts before dismissing them.
Still, Rob seems to be an intellectual giant compared to the wanderer. Lets see.. first there is the Junior and the assumption I am younger than him. Then there is the idea that if someone believes they are right and thinks what they are saying is obvious, the proper responce is to call them a brat. Then there is the fact he claims he doesn’t have time and he posts anyway. Listen up “dude”- the differance between the current generation and the previous generation is their extremely short attention span. And lets see whose posts are short snippets entirely without substance…
Well, I’m going to stop posting here. I have standards. I didn’t before I posted, but you people have dropped so low you helped me discover them. I’d thank you, but you’d take it as sarcasm.
I just showed why a universe has to be stable… don’t you read my post? Heck- I even said “I know the reasons he gave” and you claimed to catch me on that. So I went back and lo and behold, guess what I said immediately afterward?
“I know the reasons he gave. They are natural laws, life and the existance of the universe”
And it’s still a dodge to avoid actually reading the man. For the rest, you continue to travel on your merry way, assuming your conclusions, operating in ignorance of the positions which you claim to refute, thinking you’ve proven something you’ve actually only asserted, mistaking pseudo-clever rhetorical semi-gymnastics for actual argument, and so on–generally providing a wonderful illustration of exactly what I mean by “adolescent atheism.”
I’ve had some great conversations with serious atheists. Maybe if you ever reach that level, we can try this again sometime.