Objectivity and Atheism

[objectivitees]

Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

[Sophus]

Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Why can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

[G-Roll]

Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

LOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

[/quote]
as in a christian doesnt have to believe in the story of creation to be a christian?
i dont know if i fully agree that atheism requires naturalism, but i have a hard time imagining atheism without it or science.
i think sophus answer is great, but wouldnt that be basically worshipping nature?

[objectivitees]

Why can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

I never said that, I fail to see then how this applies to my argument.

[objectivitees]

LOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

My emphasis.

We aren't talking about a Christians belief in creation, we're talking about an Atheists belief in non-creation. Try to stay on topic, especially when utilizing derision.

[objectivitees]

i dont know if i fully agree that atheism requires naturalism, but i have a hard time imagining atheism without it or science.

If you don't "fully agree" then just try to describe the universe without it. that's the challenge I gave to whitney. In fact, ask one of the new age atheists, they won't be able to do it either, despite their claim naturalism is not "required". It is.

[Whitney]

How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

[Sophus]

Why can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

I never said that, I fail to see then how this applies to my argument.

All I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

[objectivitees]

How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

That is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it, because then you'd have to acknowledge my point is valid.

[objectivitees]

All I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

Again, I never said anything about magical beings or magical forces. I still don't see how your comments apply.

[G-Roll]

LOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

My emphasis.

We aren't talking about a Christians belief in creation, we're talking about an Atheists belief in non-creation. Try to stay on topic, especially when utilizing derision.

hence the LOL you emphasized.

The second part of my post is on topic and even utilized the xian creation that was once off topic to compare to your statement. Thus making it eventually on topic.

If you don't "fully agree" then just try to describe the universe without it. that's the challenge I gave to whitney. In fact, ask one of the new age atheists, they won't be able to do it either, despite their claim naturalism is not "required". It is.

My explanation would require naturalism. So I wouldn’t be able to answer your challenge.
My not sure if I 100% agree with you lays in with these “new age atheists” whatever they are and their beliefs. You gave an example (a very weak one) of unicorns creating the earth. I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways. Perhaps aliens made it… I dunno.

Hell I wouldn’t have thought that someone believed that everyone had an individual personal god until I read the posts of that mark Holland guy.

[Sophus]

All I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

Again, I never said anything about magical beings or magical forces. I still don't see how your comments apply.

You said Atheism requires naturalism.

That is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it.

Guess what? I don't! I'm a Nihilist.

[objectivitees]

I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

[Whitney]

How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

That is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it.

Why can't I just not know?  I'm not much for making stuff up.  This is the same response I give every time I am asked that question; you can look it up elsewhere on the forum instead of accusing me of lying. (I am assuming you mean everything when you say universe because otherwise my answer is the big bang which would also be my answer if I were still a Christian because I wasn't raised to be a fundamentalist)


Not to mention that I could still be an atheist and think that something supernatural caused everything to exist; I could even think that the universe itself is supernatural.  Not that I believe in any of that stuff but I could and still be an atheist and still fall under the "atheism" category.  You are simply incorrect in your understanding of the word atheism....sorry.

[Whitney]

I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

You are being extremely broad in your definition of god.