Re: I KNEW you' Merkans knew how to fix stuff:

On 4/23/2011 2:51 PM, David Paste wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:13 pm, Tim Daneliuk<tun...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/22/2011 6:12 PM, David Paste wrote:

On Apr 22, 10:59 pm, Tim Daneliuk<tun...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It is not the denial of anything. It is not accepting someone else's
word for something that THEY cannot prove. Different thing.

That is not atheism, that is "agnosticism".

No, you are wrong. Agnosticism is not knowing if something is knowable
or not - sitting on the fence type situation. Caution, if you like.

Atheism is not taking anyone's word on it. Essentially "prove it,
pal".

Nope, you've described skepticism, not atheism:

from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0989370#m_en_gb0989370

scepticism

Pronunciation:/ˈskɛptɪsɪz(ə)m/
(archaic& North American skepticism)
noun
[mass noun]

1 a sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something:these
claims were treated with scepticism
2 Philosophy the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.


So yes, I'm happy to accept that I beautifully described scepticism
(partly), of which atheism is related.

BUT. When you quote this:

Noun

S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

I suggest you get a new dictionary, as atheism IS NOT A BELIEF! It is
a lack of belief:

A "lack of belief in a Divine" is ... a form of *belief*.
<SNIP>



This, which you quote:

S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

is quite correct.


It is a system of belief,

No it isn't. It may be a framework of ethics and guiding principles,
but they generally consist of nothing unique to themselves.

built on an unprovable premise,

It is not for an atheist to prove a negative. The premise of atheism
is not unprovable, it doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies

The premises of all systems of epistemology are unprovable. Hence
the need to examine where they take you.

on theists. Make a claim, show your evidence.

...It is worst of all religions

It isn't a religion.

because its anthropology reduces mankind to mindless, soulless machines,

No it doesn't. Prove your claim!

Show me how you *consistently* maintain the absence of any transcendent
source for humanity AND at the same time imbue mankind with transcendent
value. Hint: You cannot. Absent a transcendent origin, mankind is nothing
more than a accidental machine and of value no greater or remarkable than
a stone.


it has no basis for ethics other than "what's good for me",

Lies! I suspect you are simply parroting something someone else has
told you, or gave you to read. I don't want to accept that you would
have such sloppy thought processes that you think this statement is
robust.

This statement is very well thought and and perfectly true. Atheists
have NO reason to treat others well other than:

1) Inconsistent romanticism, feel gooding,, and other forms
of existential bilge.

2) Utilitarian reasons - it may serve the atheist to treat others
well as a personal benefit.

But, at the end the of the day, there is absolutely no proscription
against mayhem and murder for the atheist because transcendent morality
does not exist. It is not an accident that the worst butchers in
history were NOT the various churches but *atheists* (Stalin),
occultists (Hitler), and mystics (Hirohito). Each of these schools
of thought essentially deny an overarching morality to which we all must
hew.


and is incapable of defining a coherent cosmology.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you please elucidate.


An atheist has no explanation for the source of the material world.
They may an explanation for some of the *processes*, but the question
of first cause is completely closed off to the atheist. Theists
may be wrong in their assertion about the source of the physical
world, of course, but their system at least permits them to inspect
the question. For a consistent atheist, the time-zero mass and
energy components contributing to the Big Bang are simply magical.


All systems of belief in anything (including science) start with one or
more unprovable premises.

What?! You clearly don't understand science.

I'm afraid it is you that does not understand science.
Here are just a few of its unprovable assumptions:

1) The physical world is real and can be observed.

2) That scientific 'laws' apply generally or not at all.

3) That we exist to observe the physical world.

Science is built on philosophical reductionism which -
like all philosophies - has to start somewhere with
basic ideas that are axioms and thus unprovable.



One of the only ways to compare them, therefore,
is examine: a) Where does a given system lead you? and b) What are the consequences of
adherence to such a system?

You aren't making much sense now.

All systems claiming knowledge start with unprovable premises.
Since you cannot prove the premise, you can only study the
consequences of the system. We thus compare systems by
looking at:

1) Their internal consistency
2) Where they lead us
3) Their correlation to our own life experience and observations


Atheism fails miserable on both counts.

Please explain.

Per the above:

1) Atheism as a movement is horribly inconsistent because it
denies a transcendent basis for morality and then tries
to gin up a moral code.

2) Consistent atheism leads to a reductionist version of
mankind wherein we are just accidental machines and
thus there's no need for any normative moral code.
(Thankfully, most atheists are not consistent.)

3) The idea that everything sprang magically into place
without any design or author is at odds with everything
most of us observe in the world.


A consistent atheist has no reason to live an ethical life,

BULLSHIT!

You don't. Beyond your personal utilitarian benefit for living
an ethical life, since there's no God, why bother? What's the
downside if you you're the strongest and can get away with
any manner of mayhem and murder? Ethics for an atheist is
the worst inconsistency of all. If there's not an overarching
moral code beyond our own perception then anything you
want to do/can get away with/benefits you is just fine.


no reason to to see any transcendent meaning for their own life,

What's that got to do with anything?!

The question of the meaning of our lives is the most fundamental
and longest lasting of all human questions. Atheists typically
simply avoid it because they know their system prevents them
from even inspecting the question.


and no basis on which to demand behavior norms from others.

BULLSHIT. You are clearly labouring under misinformation fed to you by
someone you trust, but who sadly has (hopefully unwittingly) lied to
you.

Nope. I know how to think. I know lots of atheists. Most of them
are (thankfully) inconsistent and DO want some kind of moral code.
But the burden lies with you here. You have NO reason to be
ethical and no basis to demand that others be so. Your doing so
is the height of intellectual inconsistency.


Like I said ... the worst possible religion.

Yeah, you keep saying it, but:

1. Atheism is not a religion, and;
2. Is your repetition to try to convince me of your claim, or reassure
yourself?

I am quite happy to admit I don't begin to know the answers to these
questions. But I am certain of one thing: The atheists are utterly wrong
and have robbed both philosophy and the human experience of all meaning.

Happy Easter,
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mens Hour Books
    ... as a religion is a desire to demonstrate that atheists are ... including atheism as a frame of reference, but any attempts I've made to ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Mens Hour Books
    ... as a religion is a desire to demonstrate that atheists are ... including atheism as a frame of reference, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Is there a god?
    ... |>| atheist" that atheists don't or cannot have a moral code. ... consider atheism to autmatically lead to a state closer to immorality than ... Nothing easier to explain, according to evolutionary psychologists! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Infant recruitment
    ... held by an atheist cannot come from atheism. ... neighbour" basis, what should he object to it - particularly as no ... A subjective moral code is something which is ... counter to my belief that Shirley is the most beautiful woman in the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Day 1: Stockwell Vanished. He apparently cant find quotes that I misunderstand science. So he
    ... You recently wrote (confusing, as usual, atheism with apaganism). ... "Furthermore atheists have not particularly denied global events in ... stratigraphy layers be correlated globally if they were not laid down ... That does not appear consistent with an understanding of stratigraphy. ...
    (talk.origins)