Objectivity and Atheism

[objectivitees]

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

let's try this another way...

I never said "not having a belief in a god means that objective truth cannot exist"

I said

You can't make a rational argument that objective truth exists given the assumptions of Atheism that does not end up in self contradiction or nihilism, because Atheism assumes at the outset that objective truth does not exist. I didn't say objective truth does not exist, I said you can't prove it exists according to the precepts of Logic. Every argument you make as an Atheist, will contain LOGICAL self contradictions in and of itself, or you will contradict other aspects of Atheism in your attempts to do so. Was that more clear?  

[pinkocommie]

Atheism assumes at the outset that objective truth does not exist.

Are you replacing god with objective truth?  Because the only thing atheism indicates is a lack of belief in god/s.  I don't think god/s and objective truth are interchangeable concepts so your logic seems faulty here - a tad bit strawman-ish.

[Whitney]

How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

[objectivitees]

How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

How about you acknowledge I don't have an attitude as evinced by the fact I apologized to you, even when my initial remarks were not directed at you?? Your threat only proves my point. So much for open honest communication with those who differ from you. If you ban me, you only prove you are unwilling to have the discussion.

Come on whitney... at least cite specifically what bothers you so much...was it my apology?

[Whitney]

How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

How about you acknowledge I don't have an attitude as evinced by the fact I apologized to you, even when my initial remarks were not directed at you?? Your threat only proves my point. So much for open honest communication with those who differ from you. If you ban me, you only prove you are unwilling to have the discussion.

Come on whitney... at least cite specifically what bothers you so much...was it my apology?

You have done nothing but been abrasive since you joined....other Christians and Theists are posting here without a problem because they are being respectful.  It's almost as if you joined with the intent of getting banned.

[elliebean]

"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.

I will say unequivocally that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[objectivitees]

You have done nothing but been abrasive since you joined....other Christians and Theists are posting here without a problem because they are being respectful. It's almost as if you joined with the intent of getting banned.

I've done no such thing. I've read back through each post in this thread and find no abrasiveness, instead, I found rhetoric which challenged you to respond, and I can only guess that you have taken it personally. Rhetoric is not attitude, it is method. Again, please cite what you find so offensive prior to your first ban threat. Heck, even after that. I've respectfully asked you twice now, and you have only repeated your bald assertions.

[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.

I will say unequivocally that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Without pointing to WHY you think what I have written is meaningless, your claim here is only your opinion, and has no relevance. Is it that you think a simple claim I don't know what I am talking about is sufficient to prove your assertion? If we are to have a meaningful conversation, you need to cite experts that deny my central claim, or an argument that logically shows it to be false.

The distinction between Atheism and any given individual Atheist's beliefs, are key to my assertion. My understanding of Atheism is not based on ignorance, despite your implication. Atheism requires naturalism as a foundational worldview. Naturalism requires relative acquisition of knowledge. All knowledge that is relative inevitably reduces to nihilism. Philosophy  has discounted the ability of obtaining absolute knowledge for several centuries now because of this. As such, Atheistic claims to truth must also be relative. Therefore all arguments for Atheism must also be relative, subjective, and uncertain. One cannot claim truth is subjective, except for the "objective" claim "truth is subjective"!  Since Atheism requires naturalistic means of obtaining knowledge and all knowledge is subjective, then all arguments for the "Truth" of Atheism must be subjective, and therefore not empirically true.

[Whitney]

What Is the Definition of Atheism?: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm

atheist and atheism have the same definition and one is only used over the other when it is appropriate for structuring a sentence.  Being an atheist does not require naturalism...for instance, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

So, when you are you going to support your claim to the contrary?

[objectivitees]

What Is the Definition of Atheism?: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm

atheist and atheism have the same definition and one is only used over the other when it is appropriate for structuring a sentence.  Being an atheist does not require naturalism...for instance, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

So, when you are you going to support your claim to the contrary?

I already did, you missed it. 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.

So better yet, let's use your definitions of Atheist.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830

Where you said amoung other things...

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods. Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.


What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence. A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

What is a gnostic (strong) atheist?

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

My emphasis.

[G-Roll]

The distinction between Atheism and any given individual Atheist's beliefs, are key to my assertion. My understanding of Atheism is not based on ignorance, despite your implication. Atheism requires naturalism as a foundational worldview. Naturalism requires relative acquisition of knowledge.

Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) which focuses on epistemology: This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[1] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Some philosophers extend this idea, to varying extents, to all of philosophy too. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view.
Metaphysical naturalism, (or ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism) which focuses on ontology: This stance is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does not exist? Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[2]

This makes since to me. One doesn’t need to understand evaporation to know that rain is natural. I can see the claim that all atheist would believe that “all there is, is nature.” What else would it be that made natural occurrences like rain?
 

Therefore all arguments for Atheism must also be relative, subjective, and uncertain. One cannot claim truth is subjective, except for the "objective" claim "truth is subjective"! Since Atheism requires naturalistic means of obtaining knowledge and all knowledge is subjective, then all arguments for the "Truth" of Atheism must be subjective, and therefore not empirically true.  

I like this statement. It points out that at least atheists try and find this “truth.” I dont believe these rules you have apply to theists. Not to make a sweeping generalization of any one with a deist belief but... people have been making up the “truth” and calling it religion for well... as long as religion has been around.
I would like to site “god did it” as evidence for this.

[Whitney]

I already did, you missed it. Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism.

No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

[objectivitees]

No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

Trust me, you have missed my point. You have to demonstrate that your use of Atheist and Atheism aren't just your equivocation. Equivocations are fallacies.

Practical application of the belief of you, an Atheist, who does not believe god or gods exist, (according to your definition) requires you to explain the universe in NATURAL terms, if you wish to be consistent. Notwithstanding, if you wish to be inconsistent, you may still claim to be Atheist, and simultaneously claim the universe was created by unicorns. my point is and always has been, which you have missed, is that Atheism presupposes naturalism. because it does, you have no rational argumentation that shows Atheism true. If you think not, I dare you to describe the inception of the universe in non-natural terms. go on, I dare you. I'm betting you will fail to answer this direct challenge the same way you have thus far ignored every other direct question I have asked you. Ready? Here's your direct question... How did the universe get here?

[Sophus]

No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

Trust me, you have missed my point. You have to demonstrate that your use of Atheist and Atheism aren't just your equivocation. Equivocations are fallacies.

Practical application of the belief of you, an Atheist, who does not believe god or gods exist, (according to your definition) requires you to explain the universe in NATURAL terms, if you wish to be consistent. Notwithstanding, if you wish to be inconsistent, you may still claim to be Atheist, and simultaneously claim the universe was created by unicorns. my point is and always has been, which you have missed, is that Atheism presupposes naturalism. because it does, you have no rational argumentation that shows Atheism true. If you think not, I dare you to describe the inception of the universe in non-natural terms. go on, I dare you. I'm betting you will fail to answer this direct challenge the same way you have thus far ignored every other direct question I have asked you. Ready? Here's your direct question... How did the universe get here?

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.

[objectivitees]

...irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views.

Methodological naturalism is not irrespective of one's metaphysical views.  It requires one to believe sensory data is accurately transferred from the environment through the observer's sensory apparatus, to be accurately interpreted by the observer, which is an unprovable metaphysical assumption. You use Methodological naturalism as an Axiom.  Axiomatic beliefs by definition are religious, therefore your statement is false.