If you think you getting a couple pages of responses in a 24 hour periods is being ganged up on; then yes I think that is fair that you got “ganged up on”. I’m guessing you got exactly what you hoped to get. 
1 Like
I looked at material in the link you provided and was struck by the following from it:
“1. In everyday usage, a value system privileging wealth, possessions and/or bodily pleasures over ethical or philosophical values.”
Since, in your initial post, you likened atheism to materialism, do you think people who identify as atheist have value systems that embody what is said in that quote?
@CyberLN There’s no way you could really think that I’m saying atheists are described by definition #1 in the Oxford Reference. Really?!? I gave my own definition based on Oxford #2 and #5, and gave the link to support that I’m not making up straw men or defining another person’s view with bias.
“Gang up” was an unfortunate choice of words. Certainly, you are individuals responding. Agreed. I’m referring to the personal attacks (“hypocrite”, “you’re going to hell”, “your cartoon magic man”, etc.). Are these specific examples empathetic? Are they morally right or wrong? Would it be morally right for a group of individual Christians to attack you as a person in their forum? If not, what framework of understanding do you use to say so?
Empathy was the primary response in previous posts along with something along the lines of “evil is what harms others.” So were these specific examples empathetic? Evil? Just trying to get to a concrete example so we can take the discussion forward.
By the way, your “answer” to my questions was a side-step. You chose to portray me in a certain light based on my use of the words “gang up” but you didn’t speak to empathy, good/evil, or any sort of framework for understanding these terms. Want to have another go at it?
Please, please, please read the actual words I write. I never said I think you said anything. Instead, I asked a question to gain clarification! And why on earth would there be “no way” I could think a thing if you haven’t bothered to find out if it is/not the case?
Where, in the post with that reference material link, did you mention #s 2 and 5?
Your responses in this conversation seem to indicate that you are not paying full attention to what is actually being written. You said in your OP, that you wanted a respectful exchange. Do you agree that reading what is actually written is respectful?
@Nyarlathotep I agree that “ganged up on” was a poor choice of words. I was attempting to refer to personal attacks as a concrete example to discuss fairness, empathy, and good/evil. I’m trying to see what framework there is to support such terms in a materialist view of the world.
By the way… you have no idea what I hope for, what I look like, who I love, what makes me sad or happy. Unless you’re saying an immaterial being revealed it to you… ha!
I already described my opinion about “evil”. You’re welcome to re-read it.
Tit for tat…you never responded to my question concerning your ability to demonstrate your assertion that “immaterial, universal laws proceed from an immaterial, eternal Creator.”
This is really starting to tell a tale…did @Nyarlathotep ever, at any point, tell you they were a materialist?
1 Like
Why are you addressing this to atheists? Go find someone who has claimed to be a materialist, this false equivalence has already been explained?
It has also been explained that humans created the method of logic, so you would need to evidence that the method can exist independently of the human minds that created it, otherwise your claim is just an unevidenced subjective opinion.
I can definitively say that’s a false dichotomy fallacy. As I explained already logic is a method of reasoning created by humans that adheres to strict principles of validation, it was created to identify weak or poorly reasoned arguments. If you want to claim it can exist independently of the evolved human brains that created it, then you will need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support that claim.
FYI none of that remotely evidences any deity.
This is an atheist forum, not a materialist forum, and logic is immaterial in the same sense mathematics is, there is no reason to imagine it exists without an evolved brain to create those methods. However they are methods that though abstract, help us understand reality. Since none of that remotely evidences any deity, then it is demonstrably not a problem at all for atheism, again this has been explained already?
I don’t care, I am an atheist because no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence for any deity, including the Christian one. Evil is a subjective idea, for both atheists and theists, your notion of good and evil are not I take it the same as members of ISIS and the Taliban, yet you are all theists, again this was explained once already.
Why would any atheist here care? If you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for the deity you claim exists, then I would have no choice but to withhold belief from it. Materialism has no relevance to that at all.
- Logic does not need your religions or any other to provide any framework for it, I don’t even know what this means?
- Your posts have used several known logical fallacies, and these have been explained. I have yet to see a religious apologists whose arguments aren’t relentlessly irrational in just this fashion.
- I don’t think you understand logic at all, what it is, or what it does.
Who cares, again you’re falsely equating abstract ideas with the supernatural, and falsely equating atheism with materialism. These are ironically logical fallacies, called a false equivalence fallacy. The method of logic has been demonstrated to work, that is sufficient reason for me to use it.
Atheism is not a worldview, and it is not, nor does it necessarily involve materialism. Try say atheism if you mean atheism, if you want to discuss materialism then great, but don’t assume anyone here is a materialist. One can disbelieve that anything exists apart from the material, but this is not materialism, which is a claim or theory that only the material exists, they are two different positions, and neither of them is necessary for atheism, which is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
Materialism does not claim that abstract thoughts and ideas don’t exist, you keep making this error over and over again.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities, or that any deity is even possible? Start there…
Fairness is a subjective descriptor, as is morality, it is immaterial only in the sense it exists (as far as we can objectively evidence) within the imagination of evolved human brains.
You chose to argue theism in a public atheist debate forum, what do you suggest we do, draw lots and take turns? I can only suggest you read them all and reply to any you feel are apropos.
Your questions make no sense, since materialism is irrelevant to atheism, and materialism and atheism are irrelevant to the efficacy of logic, and the existence of abstract or immaterial ideas and methods like logic, in no way evidences any deity or anything supernatural, you are falsely equating immaterial with supernatural, and again it is something of an own goal to equate the concept of deity with abstract ideas, since I doubt anyone here would argue that humans have created deities, as abstract ideas only.
If you want us to believe your deity or any other exists in objective reality, or outside of the human imagination, then you will need to demonstrate objective evidence to support that.
That link defines materialism not atheism, I think this error has been explained enough times by now surely?
So, @christianapologist, what have you learned so far?
At a minimum, I would hope you’ve learned that atheism is neither a worldview nor is it a synonym for materialism.
2 Likes
Also that materialism doesn’t deny the existence of abstract thought, they just believe it is an emergent property of a physical (evolved) human brain.
Does an act have to be friendly to be empathetic or morally right? And to who? Am I empathetic or morally right if I punch a man hard in his face so he runs away? Maybe not empathetic to the person being punched, but if I punched this guy in the face to make him stop raping a woman, then I certainly show empathy towards the rape victim, and in my view did something morally right. Thus, acting with empathy and good morals can sometimes require hurting someone. So it’s not as simple as right vs. wrong, black and white, either/or, etc.
4 Likes
- Laws can be, and often are subjective.
- We have sufficient objective evidence that humans created logic, ipso facto it is a product of the evolved human brain.
- That is not a circular reasoning fallacy, no. Since it does not assume it’s conclusion in its initial premise, but demonstrates it with objective evidence.
No. The point is that you are displaying dishonesty. You are not arguing for the God you believe in. You are not arguing for the God of the Bible. This is dishonest.
1 Like
We threw out materialism. There is no materialism. Now demonstrate the existence of your god. You completely avoided the point once again. I said, You win. There is no materialism. It’s gone. Now demonstrate your God. Give me an argument or evidence that can not be applied to every god previously thought to exist. (You missed the point entirely. What system are you going to use to demonstrate your God?
Laws of logic, we threw them out. Now demonstrate your God. (same as above)
Please demonstrate the existence of your god without referencing materialism or the laws of logic. Do it in a way that your argument or demonstration can not be applied to every concept of god ever imagined.
I was extra careful to label what I wrote as a guess; specifically so I wouldn’t have to address this. But here we are anyway.
1 Like
yes, yes I did. You did not reply. Here it is again
2 Likes
Christian faith is not a thing. It is a blind assertion. It is no different than Muslim faith. Hindu faith. Buddhist faith, Zorastrian Faith. Faith in Astrology. Faith in Crystal Magic. Faith in Healing Hands, Faith in Miracles. Faith in Magic, THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN NOT BE BELIEVED BASED ON FAITH Faith is not a path to truth.
So eliminate materialism. Eliminate the laws of logic. And demonstrate your god thing. Faith will not get you there. Under “Faith” all claims are equal. You can claim your god did it because you have faith and I can claim the Blue Universe Creating Bunnies did it based on the very same faith. How will you determine which of us is right?*
If you are going to assert you can believe, have faith in whatever you want, and I can believe or have faith in whatever I want… You are unnecessary.
3 Likes
No. They are things humans do and we regard them as harmful. If you call them ‘Evil’ you must admit your God of the Bible is Evil. He does all these things.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”” Having trouble with this verse.
Is God Evil?
I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:6–7, KJV 1900).
If you are a Christian and believe the content of the Bible, as well as this thing you are calling evil. You must admit, according to your own book, it is an invention of God, he intended it, and as your god is all good and can do no evil, evil is good.