Objectivity and Atheism

[Typist]

DAMN IT!! i thought i had something here.

Now you have something.  That was funny indeed, laughing out loud here.  

not to toot my own horn, but i know a unicorn believer when i see one.

You do indeed.   I'm indeed a unicorn believer, but not a unicorn evangelist.

[Typist]

Well...

Maybe just a little bit...  

[G-Roll]

I feel threatened by your belief.


Ok Lol… this has gone too far…. Its bed time here anyhow.

[objectivitees]

If one assumes truth does not exist objectively, then one cannot know anything. If one assumes truth exists objectively, then one can begin to use reason to elicit facts about the nature of reality, and build reasonable arguments to describe it.
                                                                                                              Or:
Any use of reason where the axiomatic belief is that truth is subjective inevitably leads to the destruction of the knowledge on which the assumption rests, or nihilism.

All knowledge rests on an assumption of either the subjective nature of truth, or the objective nature of truth. Since both are assumptions, then the only reasonable choice is the one where reason is possible, or the assumption truth is objective.

Since reason demands truth is objective, and objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions, all arguments for Atheism are necessarily subjective, and therefore not true.

[Whitney]

objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

^you have to support this for your argument to be valid

I fail to see how not having a belief in a god means that objective truth cannot exist.

[i_am_i]

objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

Explain, then, how objectivity can exist under Christian presuppositions.

[G-Roll]

objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

Explain, then, how objectivity can exist under Christian presuppositions.

All knowledge rests on an assumption of either the subjective nature of truth, or the objective nature of truth. Since both are assumptions, then the only reasonable choice is the one where reason is possible, or the assumption truth is objective.

Since reason demands truth is objective, and objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions, all arguments for Atheism are necessarily subjective, and therefore not true.

i agree with i am i. i don’t see how this logic doesn’t work both ways. both "truths."   or in any "truth" case. is a car truly a car?
it is an interesting argument though.... i haven’t heard this spin on truth till now, for the existence of god at least.

[objectivitees]

objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

^you have to support this for your argument to be valid

I assumed a general knowledge of the state of affairs in philosophy today, with regards to epistemology was understood by most at this forum, since it is apparently not, I will help you try to understand. If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because 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. For Atheists, there is no standard, everything rests on the belief something else is true, and that "truth" rests on something else and so on and so on. When knowledge is relative, one can always find a way to show a flaw in the Logic and reason used to argue a point, making the argument invalid, and therefore "untrue". Modernism asserts there must be a standard in existence, therefore is capable of making rational arguments, postmodernism asserts there is no standard, and therefore cannot. Atheism is stuck with the postmodern stance, as it asserts there is no purpose in the universe as one of it's axiomatic presuppositions. No purpose=no standard. no standard = no valid argument for the "truth" of the position.

[Sophus]

I don't know if AIP means the same thing as I do when I claim "there is no truth" or not, but basically all I am putting forth by that is: truth is something that does not exist because it cannot be known. In the fullest sense of the word, the mind is not capable of knowing anything. Not absolutely. As animals, we just perceive things, whether objectively or subjectively. All reality is an illusion produced thanks to the senses. So in many scientific and mathematical cases I suspect we have uncovered "the truth", or what reality is. But do we know it? No.

If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because 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.

How does atheism claim anything other than "I don't believe in any gods"? That's the only thing that defines atheism. I don't see how believing in a magic man in the sky has anything to do with one's views on truth. Does the muslim not believe in truth because he has the wrong imaginary authority on what it is? There are quite a number of atheists who believe in "truth". Look into Ayn Rand's Objectivism. She was an atheist who believed the authority on truth was reality itself, and logic was the only absolute; thus a clear thinking, logical mind would lead you to it.

[Whitney]

I assumed a general knowledge of the state of affairs in philosophy today, with regards to epistemology was understood by most at this forum, since it is apparently not, I will help you try to understand. If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because 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. For Atheists, there is no standard, everything rests on the belief something else is true, and that "truth" rests on something else and so on and so on. When knowledge is relative, one can always find a way to show a flaw in the Logic and reason used to argue a point, making the argument invalid, and therefore "untrue". Modernism asserts there must be a standard in existence, therefore is capable of making rational arguments, postmodernism asserts there is no standard, and therefore cannot. Atheism is stuck with the postmodern stance, as it asserts there is no purpose in the universe as one of it's axiomatic presuppositions. No purpose=no standard. no standard = no valid argument for the "truth" of the position.

So, basically you just said that by making up a god that objective values magically exist?  You don't see a problem with this way of thinking?

If theists can arbitrarily claim god as a standard for understanding objective truth then atheists can choose the scientific method...at least with the scientific method it has been reliable over time and doesn't require humans making guesses as to its results.

btw, try not to word your sentences as if you are having to talk down to me; it's just not a good way to treat your host.

[objectivitees]

How does atheism claim anything other than "I don't believe in any gods"?

Read up a bit on the philosophical presuppositions of Atheism,  (the practical application in real life of not believing in any gods) and you will find that every philosophy has presuppositions. One of Atheism's presuppositions is truth cannot be known absolutely. The colloquial ways to express this idea is that truth does not exist, or truth is relative, or truth is subjective.  They all mean pretty much the same thing when applied to reality. That is, if one assumes truth is subjective, one cannot know that one knows truth is subjective. It's self contradictory.

So, basically you just said that by making up a god that objective values magically exist?

No, I said that if one assumes truth is subjective, one cannot make objective rational arguments to describe reality, and therefore,  all arguments for the truth of Atheism are false because Atheism presupposes  (assumes) that truth is subjective.

... at least with the scientific method it has been reliable over time...

Relative to what exactly? Your own subjective beliefs?

btw...if you feel I have talked "down" to you, it's probably because you took it too personal. Try keeping the emphasis on the academic nature of the posts, rather than interpreting them to be disparaging of any shortcomings you may or may not have. I made my original post under the assumption certain basic knowledge of philosophy was present here, and the immediate responses demonstrated I was in error. If in explaining these basics, I somehow offended your knowledge base, then I apologize.

[Whitney]

I'm not even going to bother responding to you because you obviously think you know more than everyone else here and therefore there is nothing to discuss.

[objectivitees]

I'm not even going to bother responding to you because you obviously think you know more than everyone else here and therefore there is nothing to discuss.

No, you aren't going to respond because you already know you can't answer the question I gave you (relative to what exactly) in anything other than subjective terms. (Which btw was the reason I phrased it that way, to point out to you rhetorically, what you won't acknowledge directly.)

[elliebean]

"Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

[objectivitees]

"Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

You fail to distinguish between Atheism, and Atheists my dear, that's YOUR equivocation.