Objectivity and Atheism

[G-Roll]

The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

Okay, so they both think there are supernatural activities behind the natural ones, and that somtimes the supernatural answers their prayers on works with them on a personal basis (like the Secret). This is why I don't see one being any more rational/irrational than the other. I think they're both silly. But I didn't see his point as to why the magic believing atheist was any more silly than the magic believing believer. Am I making sense?

you make total since.
but do these magic atheists regect science or natural science all together?
i dont want to take this discussion in circles, but i believe everyone believes in natural science. weather it be how our bodies work ei-its our lungs that breath in air.

but prehaps that wasnt the orginal argument... so are you saying the root of this magic atheist belief is magic rather than natural science? although he/she would still belive or... (i cant think of the word its late) natural science.

[Whitney]

to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

[G-Roll]

I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

It would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions.  The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.

It would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions. The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.

I agree that most would be a much better word than all.  
I think im all out of ideas for this discussion... or sleep is calling me, one or the other. It was kinda fun to discus against atheists for once though. Haha you pesky atheists!!

[G-Roll]

to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

well i no longer care about what he was saying. he was mean to me after all  
no but in all seriousness i think there most likely is at least one atheist that fits the bill. and i know the original argument wasnt everyone in some way believes in natural science. thats my own... ninja reasoning....

[Sophus]

to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

well i no longer care about what he was saying. he was mean to me after all    (to jump back to my original point).

[G-Roll]

I think, in today's world, you are right (with maybe the exception of a few tribes?). As Whitney had said, a Naturalist would be someone who thinks everything has a natural cause. Both these sort of atheists and theists would not qualify as such because they both mix the two together. They're equally inconsistent  (to jump back to my original point).

To carry on the discussion with a fresh cup of coffee...
I believe the original argument stated an atheist need not be a naturalist, but rather natural science would be the root of atheism. As an atheist can believe whatever he or she chooses, but atheism requires the dismissal of god or gods. So in his argument a lack of supernatural or divine creation leaves only natural forces. I believe he separated the two (an atheist and atheism) and that made since to me.
I think Whitney said it best, most is a better word than all.  Yet i still cant find an atheistic religion that dismisses natural science. Animism is the closest so far and so far fits the bill. Ill have to do some more reading up on it though... if i feel like it  

[Whitney]

I don't even think natural science sparked atheism; it just gave us better footing by taking away a few more questions about how life on earth came to be what it is today.  There were atheists before we understood evolution.

I still don't see how it makes since to separate atheist and atheism as calling it an ism doesn't add any more requirements to the label.

The reason he was trying to shoehorn atheist/atheism into having to accept naturalism is that his ultimate goal was to prove that atheists must be nihilists and admit that truth cannot be known.  Then he was attempting to use this point to offer the counter position that the only way truth can be known is if there is a god; which is pretty sloppy reasoning for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

[G-Roll]

I don't even think natural science sparked atheism; it just gave us better footing by taking away a few more questions about how life on earth came to be what it is today. There were atheists before we understood evolution.

good point.

Code Select Expand

The reason he was trying to shoehorn atheist/atheism into having to accept naturalism is that his ultimate goal was to prove that atheists must be nihilists and admit that truth cannot be known. Then he was attempting to use this point to offer the counter position that the only way truth can be known is if there is a god; which is pretty sloppy reasoning for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread.Lol but for a believer according to this train of thought... wait... how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument? and how would that be any different towards his christian stance?

[elliebean]

It wouldn't matter; all he would do is insist that we don't understand it because we're not using the correct definitions of terms, which he alone is free to make up as needed to better serve his argument. Because, you know, he's so well versed in philosophy and we're not.  

[Whitney]

how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

[G-Roll]

how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

riiiiiiiight. and who would come to that conclusion??  
he had me with the naturalist.... then he goes and pulls some crap like that.
did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

[Whitney]

did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

I don't know if he stated it directly but when you say that you have to be a theist to have an objective source....

[elliebean]

did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

I don't know if he stated it directly but when you say that you have to be a theist to have an objective source....

Exactly, his argument had no where else to go, yet he wanted to pretend to have us cornered.

[Recusant]

did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

...because [according to the supposed 'atheist position,' as defined by objectivitees] there is no foundational axiom that stands as an objective standard, there can never be any certainty that any knowledge is real, denying one the ability to make a rational argument for truth according to the precepts of Logic. It is only when one assumes a standard exists, that one can make reasonable arguments. For Theists, the "standard" is god. [<~~This]

I find it amusing that objectivitees would like to equate atheism with solipsism.  If that line of thinking is valid, then theists are in the same boat.  As has been pointed out, objectivitees' assumption of an objective standard, in the form of a deity, is just as much of an unprovable axiom as the existence of reality itself.  Understanding the reason why asserting that a deity exists gives the theist a pass where the atheist gets none is beyond my powers of sophistry.

I regret not keeping up with this thread, it's been a very worthwhile one I think, and I actually enjoyed objectivitees' posts, despite the the subtle (and not so subtle) snarkiness and condescending tone.  Then again, they weren't directed at me, and no doubt I would feel differently were that the case.  

I guess I should go back to the last place in which I was active in this thread, where Dagda requested a definition of "fact" and "truth" from me.  This has been covered already.  Still, it can't hurt to reinforce the idea that "fact" pertains to reality as near to independent of the observer as is humanly possible.  Facts are verifiable by a variety of means. "Truth," on the other hand, is dependent upon the observer, in my opinion.  It's a judgment made by the observer, and it's existence, again, is dependent upon the observer.  Some truths can be verified by resort to observable facts, while others cannot, and I suppose one might try to build a hierarchy of truths, but I'm not sure how valuable that would be.  Now, if one wishes, it's easy to point out that no human can ever truly apprehend reality; we all are merely brains in a little box of bone, receiving data through our senses and reasoning on the basis of those data.  "Reality" and "facts" seem to exist independently of human observers, but it's remotely possible that is all an illusion. In fact there are whole philosophies and religions based on the concept that "all is illusion."  I was not aware that the atheist position required adoption of the "all is illusion" view, and I think that "proving" via logic that it does is a futile gesture.  Most people are aware that logic can be used to "prove" many things.  Whether those things have any relation to reality though, is dependent upon the position one adopts at the start of the path of logic.  G.I.G.O.  Then again, I freely admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.  If and when objectivitees returns, I have no doubt that I will be shown the error of my ways.

[Sophus]

how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

Not only does it not require that all atheists fit his misconception of Nihilists but it would in no way require atheists be actual Nihilists. Ayn Rand's absolute in Objectivism was reason, which is a lot more reasonable than a Being that decides upon what truth is by saying so, and whom you could have no way of knowing His existence or His thoughts. :hmm:  
"Nihilist und Christ - das reimt sich, aber das reimt sich nicht bloß." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche