Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by Dasa
There are 2 types of atheists.

1. the person who has no real day to day consciousness that he is an atheist because he is to preoccupied with his life.

2. the vocal atheist who is very conscious of his atheism and at every chance defends it.

The vocal atheist must live a life with untruthfulness at its foundation in order to defend that everything has no cause and is an accident......for no one can make such claims without be untruthful.

Your statement here hinges upon the poorly substantiated claim that your worldview is infallible. Moreover you base your statements on a poor understanding/formulation of the scientific principles you hope to undermine.

Originally posted by KellyJay
My intent wasn't to push or pull anyone into a religion, when Jesus spoke He
pointed out that the Kingdom of God was at hand. You can have relgion and miss
out on God, some people think about their church and their service to it as their
religion, Jesus spoke about a relationship where God enters our lives. The higher
standard isn't a 'set' set of rules ...[text shortened]... pirit is here
to lead and teach us which requires we are following and learning now.
Kelly

The higher standard isn't a 'set' set of rules, if it were the 10 Commandments and the law
would have been enough for us. In addition, if all you want and are striving for is
a good afterlife you are again missing out on God now, the Kingdom of God is not
for just the here after though it will be there, but it is here and now.
If I understand you well, you stress the importance to follow the 10 Commandments. Don't you think we can agree on most of them without (a believe in) God?

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not so sure "God" is the greatest conceivable being - I'm aware you define it to be such, but then I could just as easily define the flying spaghetti monster, or Hagak the *evil god* destroyer to be the greatest conceivable being.
Indeed many of the notions of god that float around these boards share nothing I would identify with greatness. Moreover, Wit ...[text shortened]... connection with their prior meaning when, at least in this discussion, you do this.

I'm not so sure "God" is the greatest conceivable being...

What would you call the greatest conceivable being (one that exists on all possible worlds, who is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, perfectly good, etc.), if not God?

I'm aware you define it to be such, but then I could just as easily define the flying spaghetti monster, or Hagak the *evil god* destroyer to be the greatest conceivable being.

It is not important what you call the greatest conceivable being, as long as the being you are referring to, by definition, actually possesses intrinsic maximal excellence.

...were it possible on my part to conceive of your god, I could quite easily conceive of something greater.

And vice versa... so what? This doesn't change the fact that a 'greatest conceivable being' is logically coherent, which is all that is important here.

Secondly your assertion "God ... defines "moral goodness"" is just another definition you provide which we are under no logical obligation to accept.

God, if defined as a maximally excellent being (i.e., self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, existing on all possible worlds, perfectly good, etc.), would by definition be the standard of goodness. If you want to posit a God who is not maximally excellent in this way, you are more than welcome to, but I am under no obligation to defend it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm not so sure "God" is the greatest conceivable being...

What would you call the greatest conceivable being (one that exists on all possible worlds, who is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, perfectly good, etc.), if not God?

I'm aware you define it to be such, but then I could just as easily define the flying spaghetti mons in this way, you are more than welcome to, but I am under no obligation to defend it.

I would not be so hasty to posit some notion of a greatest conceivable being - because I cannot be sure tommorow I won't conceive of something greater (and I'm not convinced maximal attributes = greatest attributes overall - i.e. the interaction between two maximal attributes may induce a combination which could be improved where one of those two attributes not maximal, say); but more importantly I need only focus on some part of the world/universe we exist in which could be improved, say, Hitler having been struck down by a mysterious bolt of lightning before bringing about the death and torture of millions of jews and many lives extinguished in a bid to stop his evil schemes; and claim (in lieu of a good defence) a being that did cast such a lightning bolt is superior to the god you believe exists.

I don't see it as necessary, or logically tenable that a god could have the properties you ascribe to it. Furthermore, with or without positing a god which was less than what you would regard as maximal; then depending upon how the chain of arguments evolved such that you made the response to LemonJello which was a response to FreakyKBH, and so on all the way back to your original claim that a consistent atheism is not possible - it may be reasonable for an atheist to throw out your arguments that hinge upon a god with maximal properties - apologies but it would be too a large job to invert the chain of responses so to arrive at a point where this particular argument was inspired in defence of your OP, hence the word "may" here.

Originally posted by Agerg
I would not be so hasty to posit some notion of a greatest conceivable being - because I cannot be sure tommorow I won't conceive of something greater (and I'm not convinced maximal attributes = greatest attributes overall - i.e. the interaction between two maximal attributes may induce a combination which could be improved where one of those two attributes no ...[text shortened]... ere this particular argument was inspired in defence of your OP, hence the word "may" here.

...but more importantly I need only focus on some part of the world/universe we exist in which could be improved, say, Hitler having been struck down by a mysterious bolt of lightning before bringing about the death and torture of millions of jews and many lives extinguished in a bid to stop his evil schemes; and claim (in lieu of a good defence) a being that did cast such a lightning bolt is superior to the god you believe exists.

However you may construe the problem of evil, evil in the world is not necessarily logically inconsistent with an omnibenevolent God. For instance, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.

...apologies but it would be too a large job to invert the chain of responses so to arrive at a point where this particular argument was inspired in defence of your OP, hence the word "may" here.

I apologize, too, because I have no idea what you're driving at here. Perhaps you can be clearer?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
...but more importantly I need only focus on some part of the world/universe we exist in which could be improved, say, Hitler having been struck down by a mysterious bolt of lightning before bringing about the death and torture of millions of jews and many lives extinguished in a bid to stop his evil schemes; and claim (in lieu of a good defence) a be logize, too, because I have no idea what you're driving at here. Perhaps you can be clearer?

Well what a god "desires" to do, and what it "ought" to do if it is to be consistent with omnibenevolent are two different things - perhaps "freewill" is not an optimal system. But returning to my question: would a god that allowed free-will (but stepped in if the freewill of a particular person (or collection of people) infringed upon the quality of lives of many (millions) of others) be an inferior god to one that lets millions of people be tortured?? If so, how do you defend such a position?

As for my latter point - I'm not so sure how this particular argument of yours (or FreakyKBH's) backs up the claim you made in the OP; and it would be a lengthy task trying to back track through this thread (noting that responses will have been made by others). If I'm correct however, that your arguments for the OP claim: "consistent atheism is not possible" hinge upon a god with maximal attributes; then an atheist need only posit a god (for arguments sake) that lacked maximal attributes and your argument would need to be adjusted.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well what a god "desires" to do, and what it "ought" to do if it is to be consistent with omnibenevolent are two different things.

As for my latter point - I'm not so sure how this particular argument backs up the claim you made in the OP; and it would be a lengthy task trying to back track through this thread (noting that responses will have been made by o ...[text shortened]... posit a god that lacked maximal attributes and your argument would need to be adjusted.

Well what a god "desires" to do, and what it "ought" to do if it is to be consistent with omnibenevolent are two different things.

Again, not necessarily.

I'm not so sure how this particular argument backs up the claim you made in the OP;...

It is in response to the Euthyphro dilemma which LJ raised.

If I'm correct however, that your arguments for the OP claim: "consistent atheism is not possible" hinge upon a god with maximal attributes; then an atheist need only posit a god that lacked maximal attributes and your argument would need to be adjusted.

Adjusted in what way?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Well what a god "desires" to do, and what it "ought" to do if it is to be consistent with omnibenevolent are two different things.

Again, not necessarily.

I'm not so sure how this particular argument backs up the claim you made in the OP;...

It is in response to the Euthyphro dilemma which LJ raised.

If I'm correct however, t mal attributes and your argument would need to be adjusted.

Adjusted in what way?[/b]

I may search backwards and find the starting point for this argument later; meanwhileReveal Hidden Content an addition to my first paragraph you quote was:

...perhaps "freewill" is not an optimal system. (i.e. perhaps a god that is omni-everything is inconsistent with freewill)

But returning to my question: would a god that allowed free-will (but stepped in if the freewill of a particular person (or collection of people) infringed upon the quality of lives of many (millions) of others) be an inferior god to one that lets millions of people be tortured?? If so, how do you defend such a position?

As for an adjustment suppose you make the argument
P1) God exists => consistent atheism is not possible

and then defend it with a chain such as

P2) God is maximally potent => some statement X
P3) God is maximally knowledgeable => some statement Y
P4) God is maximally good => some statement Z
P5) X and Y and Z true => consistent atheism is not possible

Then supposing we reject that God should necessarily have the properties in P2-4, then we are not forced to conclude consistent atheism is not possible since you haven't in this case established X,Y,Z are all true. (Of course, you might not reject them and would in this case believe your argument: "consistent atheism is not possible" follows easily - but if you seek to convince us atheists that it follows, then you might wish to acknowledge and deal with the rejection)

Originally posted by Agerg
Well what a god "desires" to do, and what it "ought" to do if it is to be consistent with omnibenevolent are two different things - perhaps "freewill" is not an optimal system. But returning to my question: would a god that allowed free-will (but stepped in if the freewill of a particular person (or collection of people) infringed upon the quality of lives of ...[text shortened]... nts sake) that lacked maximal attributes and your argument would need to be adjusted.

If I'm correct however, that your arguments for the OP claim: "consistent atheism is not possible" hinge upon a god with maximal attributes;...

For the sake of convenience, let me reiterate my basic argument as it has been fleshed out in this thread so far.

My basic contention is that the atheist world-view is at bottom nihilistic, precisely because it lacks a maximally excellent God as the ultimate standard of value. Indeed, the atheist is capable of creating meaning for herself, but the meaning she creates is at best a fabrication and has no objective basis. The best the atheist can do is appeal to a social contract, but a social contract, because it is a social convention, has no objective basis either. Therefore, an atheist can live happily, but not consistently. That is, since it is not possible to live a meaningless existence, she must create meaning, even if it contradicts what she believes is true about the world (e.g., that it comes from nothing, evolved to its present state by blind chance, is essentially purposeless, ends in nothing and is therefore ultimately futile). The Christian theist, on the other hand, can live happily and consistently, since the meaning she depends upon for happiness is consistent with what she believes about the world (e.g., that she and the world were created by God for a purpose, that life does not end at physical death (and therefore not ultimately futile), that God is the source of moral absolutes, and so on).

Originally posted by Agerg
I may search backwards and find the starting point for this argument later; meanwhile[hidden](I\'m notoriously bad at getting my posts correct when I first post them)[/hidden] an addition to my first paragraph you quote was:

...perhaps "freewill" is not an optimal system. (i.e. perhaps a god that is omni-everything is inconsistent with freewill)

[ atheists that it follows, then you might wish to acknowledge and deal with the rejection)

I don't think I need to establish X, Y and Z as all true, or define God at all. What is important is how we define an atheistic universe. If we define an atheistic universe, in the words of Richard Dawkins, as having "at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference," then it seems pretty obvious how in this instance meaning would need to be fabricated. Of course, anyone possessing the atheistic worldview is capable of living a meaningful life, perhaps through dedication to loved ones, the less fortunate, various causes, aesthetic appreciation, etc., but only at the expense of consistency, since ultimately the perception of meaning in a universe as defined by Dawkins, it must be admitted, is an illusion. This, I think, is easy to establish given the atheistic universe as defined and nothing more.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think I need to establish X, Y and Z as all true, or define God at all. What is important is how we define an atheistic universe. If we define an atheistic universe, in the words of Richard Dawkins, as having "at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference," then it seems pretty obvious how in this instance meaning would need to be fabricated.

I believe a theistic universe fares no better. Theists claim that God somehow provides the universe with universal properties of purpose, evil, good etc, but I believe that those properties hold no meaning or value unless said meaning is fabricated.

Of course, anyone possessing the atheistic worldview is capable of living a meaningful life, perhaps through dedication to loved ones, the less fortunate, various causes, aesthetic appreciation, etc., but only at the expense of consistency, since ultimately the perception of meaning in a universe as defined by Dawkins, it must be admitted, is an illusion.
And I disagree that fabricated meaning is an illusion. If you are aware that it is fabricated, it is not illusory. It is the theists who think their fabricated meaning is somehow based on a universal foundation that suffer from an illusion.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]The higher standard isn't a 'set' set of rules, if it were the 10 Commandments and the law
would have been enough for us. In addition, if all you want and are striving for is
a good afterlife you are again missing out on God now, the Kingdom of God is not
for just the here after though it will be there, but it is here and now.
If I understand yo ...[text shortened]... he 10 Commandments. Don't you think we can agree on most of them without (a believe in) God?[/b]

If that was what you got from what I said, you missed my point.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe a theistic universe fares no better. Theists claim that God somehow provides the universe with universal properties of purpose, evil, good etc, but I believe that those properties hold no meaning or value unless said meaning is fabricated.

Of course, anyone possessing the atheistic worldview is capable of living a meaningful life, perhaps heir fabricated meaning is somehow based on a universal foundation that suffer from an illusion.

If you are aware that it is fabricated, it is not illusory.

I would say that it is more likely that you cannot deny the meaning that you perceive, even if you were convinced, intellectually, that it is illusory. If I see my neighbor burning his cat alive, of course I will react violently in the cat's defense, due to the immediate perception that what he is doing is wrong. It is something I recognize as easily as I recognize two plus two equals four. Yet, if I am an atheist, how do I convince my neighbor that what he is doing is wrong? It's wrong to hurt sentient beings. Why? Because, it just is. But doesn't life at bottom have no good, no evil, and no purpose? Yes. OK, so how can you say that what I'm doing is wrong? I can't... but I will anyway, because I can't deny what I perceive. This strikes me as somewhat embarrassing for the atheist.

It is the theists who think their fabricated meaning is somehow based on a universal foundation that suffer from an illusion.

Assuming that atheistic naturalism is true...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would say that it is more likely that you cannot deny the meaning that you perceive, even if you were convinced, intellectually, that it is illusory. If I see my neighbor burning his cat alive, of course I will react violently in the cat's defense, due to the immediate perception that what he is doing is wrong. It is something I recognize as easily a ...[text shortened]... e I can't deny what I perceive. This strikes me as somewhat embarrassing for the atheist.

Now turn the question around and explain how you as a theist might explain to an atheist such as I, that burning the cat is wrong.
From my perspective it sounds even more embarrassing for you to say "God told me it was wrong", than my own explanation.
What is even more embarrassing is the fact that God probably has not told you it is wrong - if pressed you would probably admit that your explanation would be no different from mine.

Assuming that atheistic naturalism is true...
No. I made no such assumption. The meaning you perceive in your life is entirely fabricated by yourself. Whether or not some universal God created meaning exists will not change that fact.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]If I'm correct however, that your arguments for the OP claim: "consistent atheism is not possible" hinge upon a god with maximal attributes;...

For the sake of convenience, let me reiterate my basic argument as it has been fleshed out in this thread so far.

My basic contention is that the atheist world-view is at bottom nihilistic, precisely ...[text shortened]... (and therefore not ultimately futile), that God is the source of moral absolutes, and so on).[/b]

In what way does the maximality of all of some God's attributes establish the objective and ultimate standard of value you wish to impose. Why does this necessarily fail to be established with a god possessing attributes for which at least one is not perfect (for example, imperfect potency). Moreover, can we really say it is objective when it is pinned upon a conscious agent (your god)?? - From it's perspective, any standards of what are right and wrong are whatever it says they are, and in this setting would be subjective; moreover the morality of yours which you believe is inherited from this absolute standard is equally subjective since you have to have faith that the subjective morality of your god really is maximal (in virtue).

I argue that the meaning you invent for theists is no less synthesised than the meaning we atheists make. To continue further, assuming you don't believe in some higher god (God_2, say), that created your god (failing to be omni everything, and all other lower gods) then I could assert your theism is meaningless because you believe your purpose is to (pointlessly) worship some lesser god for whom you fail to acknowledge has the greater purpose of glorifying a higher deity. Indeed what exactly is the 'meaning' that lies behind subservience to some supernatural entity - what's the point??