What is wrong with being ATHIEST?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In short, I am not asserting anything about the existence/non-existence of Hell in my position - merely taking what ngg's question presupposes.

Bah, I say!

I've read her question and your reply a number of times, thank you.

You deny that your answer to her reflects your own belief in the existence of hell? You expect me to believe that?

Originally posted by eagles54
You deny that your answer to her reflects your own belief in the existence of hell? You expect me to believe that?

I deny that my answer presupposes anything more about the existence of Hell than that already presupposed by her question (assuming it is a meaningful question).

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.

Please re-read my post. Did I mention anything about humbug?

Perhaps I should have...

😉

Originally posted by yousers
I am not so sure that I am being impossible by requiring certainty in my definition of knowledge. You would like some reasons for requiring it. If you are an ethical atheist, do you base that system upon nothing more than justified belief? ...[text shortened]... I need religion and doctrine to put my faith in as certain truth.

Well, if you are "not so sure" that you are being impossible, then it follows that you are not certain you are not being impossible, and hence that you don't know you are not being impossible. So, why should I take any of what you have to say seriously. Since no belief is absolutely certain, for reasons I have pointed out previously, it follows from your criterion of knowledge that you don't know a damn thing. So, I guess I should stop wasting my time responding to your posts, right? I mean, if you don't know anything at all, then what's the point?

The three arguments I have given in my previous post are pretty decisive. You cannot be absolutely certain that you are not dreaming, or that you are not in the Matrix, or that you have two hands, or that your phone number hasn't just inexplicably changed. So, I guess that means if somebody asks you if you know your phone number, you'd have to say "no, I don't".

I am not absolutely certain that my ethical beliefs are true. Then again, I am not absolutely certain that my belief that 2+2=4 is true. I could be irremediably conceptually confused, or cognitively insane, and thus it could be the case that although it appears to me that 2+2=4 is necessarily true (it strikes me as clear and distinct, in the Cartesian sense), I actually radically misunderstand the concept '2' or the concept '+'. Of course, I take the odds of this sort of radical error to be vanishingly small, and my belief that 2+2=4 to be justified. I feel the same way about my ethical beliefs. Although I am not certain about them, I am as confident in most of them as I am in simple a priori truths of logic and mathematics. Since this is as good a level of justification as any of us can hope for, I am perfectly content with it.

I am not sure why you think that my ethical beliefs are verified by statistics. That is just a mistake on your part.

If you would like to discuss some other theory of knowledge, then please present one. So far, you've only given me one necessary condition for knowledge, and I've explained to you why it leads to global skepticism of a self-refuting sort. Your theory of knowledge (to the extent it is a theory, rather than merely a claim on your part) is flat-out stupid for the reasons presented above.

Atheism and/or theism has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and neither does faith. Nothing I have said so far presupposes anything about atheism or theism. Nothing I have said so far relies upon faith or invokes faith in any way. Your claims about atheism and faith in here are completely irrelevant to epistemology generally and to this discussion in particular.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, if you are "not so sure" that you are being impossible, then it follows that you are not certain you are not being impossible, and hence that you don't know you are not being impossible. So, why should I take any of what you have to say seriously. Since no belief is absolutely certain, for reasons I have pointed out previously, it follows fro ...[text shortened]... n here are completely irrelevant to epistemology generally and to this discussion in particular.

Bbarr, I'm trying to spell out my logic for you. I realize that there is not certain knowledge to be found anywhere. That is exactly the reason that your atheism is based on nothing. Atheism attempts to appeal to reason as an alternative to and a refutation of religion, does it not? I have followed this argument and discovered that all of our theories of knowledge (which are assumed superior to religious beliefs) have a certain degree of uncertainty, small as it may be. It follows that neither of us know anything with absolute certainty. In fact, you pointed out that there can be no certainty about anything we have discussed so far.
So how do we convince ourselves that we have knowledge without certainty? We believe that if we throw a ball up in the air 99 times, and it comes down all 99 times, then it will continue to do so - therefore we "know" that things going up must come down. I'm trying to compare this belief with faith. You must admit that there is an element of belief/faith in all forms of knowledge, or else we plunge blindly on without certainty about anything.

I am troubled by this lack of certainty. I hope you can see my viewpoint that philosophy, science, etc. cannot construct for us a purely reasonable atheism. In fact, it doesn't make any sense. Why not put your faith in something beyond your reasoning? Why reject religion as inferior to secular academia?

Originally posted by yousers
Bbarr, I'm trying to spell out my logic for you. I realize that there is not certain knowledge to be found anywhere. That is exactly the reason that your atheism is based on nothing. Atheism attempts to appeal to reason as an alternative to and a refutation of religion, does it not? I have followed this argument and discovered that all of our theories o ...[text shortened]... faith in something beyond your reasoning? Why reject religion as inferior to secular academia?

Excellent, now you claim that "there is not certain knowledge to be found anywhere". But before you were claiming that certainty was a criterion of knowledge. Which is it, yousers? Does knowledge require certainty or doesn't it? I've given you the reasons why your criterion is bunk. Why don't you just give up that criterion and admit that we can know any number of things without being absolutely, 100% certain of them?

Once more, this epistemological debate has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or theism or faith. My atheism is based on reasons, but these reasons are not sufficient to show with absolute certainty that God does not exist. It is logically possible that God exists, I have never denied that. I just happen to believe that the Problem of Evil, Euthyphro's dilemma, and other arguments show it very unlikely that God exists. I have presented these arguments elsewhere in these forums, and will not repeat them here.

Once more, I see no reason to be concerned about the fact that we don't know anything with absolute certainty. Beliefs may be overwhelmingly justified on the available evidence, and everybody should be satisfied with this; everybody should be satisfied with beliefs that are justified, even if certainty is impossible, because that is all they can hope for.

Of course I admit there is belief in propositional knowledge, because knowledge entails belief. I categorically deny that there is an element of faith in all sorts of knowledge. Faith is merely irrational belief, belief based on insufficient evidence, and beliefs based on insufficient evidence are not epistemically justified, hence they do not count as knowledge.

It is simply wrong for you to claim that this view entails that we "plunge blindly on without certainty of anything". Being less than absolutely certain about P does not entail that believing P is blind. If I believe P based on evidence sufficient to show P overwhelmingly likely, then my belief in P is not blind. Why don't you take your own metaphor seriously? If I have less than absolutely perfect eyesight, does that entail that when I walk I plunge blindly forward? Of course not, that would be absurd.

Originally posted by bbarr
Excellent, now you claim that "there is not certain knowledge to be found anywhere". But before you were claiming that certainty was a criterion of knowledge. Which is it, yousers? Does knowledge require certainty or doesn't it? I've given you the reasons why your criterion is bunk. Why don't you just give up that criterion and admit that we can know ...[text shortened]... oes that entail that when I walk I plunge blindly forward? Of course not, that would be absurd.

Ok, I agree that we have strayed from the topic a bit too far. Let me ask you this out of curiosity: As an atheist, what drives you - why are you here?

Originally posted by yousers
Ok, I agree that we have strayed from the topic a bit too far. Let me ask you this out of curiosity: As an atheist, what drives you - why are you here?

I am here because a young secretary named Kathleen found herself exceedingly attracted to her boss, a middle-aged lawyer named Charles Barr. 🙂

I am driven by my interests, and those interests are a result of my psychological constitution and the contingencies of my history. I am driven to be a good husband, a good friend, a good philosopher, and (in the future) a good father. I am driven to believe truths, and to attempt to educate people who believe falsehoods. I am driven to do what, by my lights, is the right thing in the circumstances within which I find myself. I am driven to cultivate within myself virtuous states of character. Ultimately, I am driven to have direct experiential knowledge of the ineffable, and to integrate this knowledge into my life.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am here because a young secretary named Kathleen found herself exceedingly attracted to her boss, a middle-aged lawyer named Charles Barr. 🙂

I am driven by my interests, and those interests are a result of my psychological constitution and the contingencies of my history. I am driven to be a good husband, a good friend, a good philosopher, and (in the ...[text shortened]... ve direct experiential knowledge of the ineffable, and to integrate this knowledge into my life.

Eloquently spoken.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am here because a young secretary named Kathleen found herself exceedingly attracted to her boss, a middle-aged lawyer named Charles Barr. 🙂

I am driven by my interests, and those interests are a result of my psychological constitution and the contingencies of my history. I am driven to be a good husband, a good friend, a good philosopher, and (in the ...[text shortened]... ve direct experiential knowledge of the ineffable, and to integrate this knowledge into my life.

That is a lot of goodness and virtue. I will echo vistesd in complimenting your statement. Now, please be so kind as to tell me why you feel the need to do all of these good things.
And, to kill two birds with one stone - what is left when you die and those that you have loved and done good to die? Surely you will agree that a man's lifetime is mereley a spec on the timeline of the universe.

I don't mean to make this an interrogation, but I am curious as to how a true atheist lives.

Originally posted by yousers
That is a lot of goodness and virtue. I will echo vistesd in complimenting your statement. Now, please be so kind as to tell me why you feel the need to do all of these good things.
And, to kill two birds with one stone - what is left wh ...[text shortened]... an interrogation, but I am curious as to how a true atheist lives.

I want to do these things because I take them as constituents of living a flourishing human life (a life that is, in an Aristotelian sense, eudaimon).

When I die I will return to that from whence I came. What I will leave behind, or be incorporated into, is all that is. I don't see any of this as a problem. I think the desire for immortality results from an infantile way of looking at the world. Why should I, this identity of mine, this groundless illusion, this temporary form manifested in the world, continue forever? I am a play of forms, but the ultimate foundation of me is everything that is. Don't ask me to explain any of this more fully. If you do, I'll start writing poetry.

Originally posted by bbarr
I want to do these things because I take them as constituents of living a flourishing human life (a life that is, in an Aristotelian sense, eudaimon).

When I die I will return to that from whence I came. What I will leave behind, or be incorporated into, is all that is. I don't see any of this as a problem. I think the desire for immortality resu ...[text shortened]... at is. Don't ask me to explain any of this more fully. If you do, I'll start writing poetry.

PLEASE DON'T ASK HIM!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by bbarr
I want to do these things because I take them as constituents of living a flourishing human life (a life that is, in an Aristotelian sense, eudaimon).

When I die I will return to that from whence I came. What I will leave behind, or be incorporated into, is all that is. I don't see any of this as a problem. I think the desire for immortality resu ...[text shortened]... at is. Don't ask me to explain any of this more fully. If you do, I'll start writing poetry.

Vogon poetry?
er ...
I think my mom's calling me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
PLEASE DON'T ASK HIM!!!!!!!!

There once was a fellow named barr
Who they tried to trap in a jar
He resorted to rhyme
and in a short time
They all got away very far

Originally posted by frogstomp
There once was a fellow named barr
Who they tried to trap in a jar
He resorted to rhyme
and in a short time
They all got away very far

your not human!