Weaknesses of atheism

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it was a troll post, like everything else he writes.

I disagree, Troll posts are generally abusive to others and their beliefs, and no everything first floor writes is not Trollish. The above post is on the edge without reason.

If he is an atheist, so What!?!?!?

[Jichard]

Wow, that's quite a barrage of many possible answers. Pick one.

I didn't give a barrage of possible answers. Just one as an example: Cornell Realism.

I had never stumbled over "Cornell Realism" until now.

OK.

It's gone over in most intro to contemporary meta-ethics courses, sort of like how utilitarianism would be gone over in most intro to moral philosophy courses.

I am puzzled. While trying to figure out that passage just above, I recalled Acts 10:9-17, which is a story about God telling Peter that food that was ceremonially unclean (unholy) can now be eaten (no longer sinful). Later verses show Peter telling others what God commanded. I wonder what your reaction would be.

First, I need to correct a mistake I made. I wrote this:

"And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism."

when I should have written this (bolding added):

"And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral subjectivism."

Second, what is it that you find confusing about it?

Third, I'm not sure what your passage is meant to show in relation to what I wrote. If the point is that our moral obligations are derived from God's commands, then I reject that as being a form of moral subjectivism, with the attendant problems that come with such subjectivism.

The main thing for Christians to keep in mind is that neither atheists nor agnostics are Christian. The difference between those camps isn't important.

Well, one can be an agnostic Christian: belief that the Christian God exists (and belief other tenets of the faith), without claiming to know.

Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???

Simultaneous causation is incoherent, especially when the cause (a temporal state) is causing something (time) that's a logically pre-requisite for the existence of the cause.

And no, quantum events wouldn't help you here, since those don't involve that. Now, you might have acausal simultaneous relationships, such as constitution relationships (ex: X is constituted by Y, or Y is a part of X), identity relationships (ex: X is identical to Y), relationships of logical necessity, some probabilistic/mathematical acausal relationship, etc. And that's how some scientists treat relationships among various quantum phenomena: as acausal, probabilistic relationships.

[Truthseeker]

I didn't give a barrage of possible answers. Just one as an example: Cornell Realism.

You did write this: "There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism."

Simultaneous causation is incoherent, especially when the cause (a temporal state) is causing something (time) that's a logically pre-requisite for the existence of the cause.

Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

[shunyadragon]

Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

No, the reason for the avalanche is the suitable natural conditions determined by Natural Law. There is not any evidence that Natural Law evolved.

[Jichard]

You did write this: "There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism."

And then I gave one example of an answer: Cornell Realism.

Assuming determinism, the reason an avalanche started is that the universe had evolved to a state that can cause the avalanche. So, both cause and effect in the same moment.

Not so. Assuming determinism, the reason as avalanche started was some aspect of the universe prior to the avalanche (for example: an earthquake occurring before the avalanche). So the cause temporally precedes the effect it produces.

[shunyadragon]

No, the reason for the avalanche is the suitable natural conditions determined by Natural Law. There is not any evidence that Natural Law evolved.

I for got one point here. The cause being the natural conditions determined by Natural Laws. The cause preceded the event. Jichard gave one example. and earthquake, but there can be a number of natural conditions as causes that precede the event.

[Truthseeker]

Not so. Assuming determinism, the reason as avalanche started was some aspect of the universe prior to the avalanche (for example: an earthquake occurring before the avalanche). So the cause temporally precedes the effect it produces.

What earthquake? The ground is always quaking. Teensy weensy movements and others up to magnitude 10. Minor point anyway, so that's my last reply.

[meshak]

Dear eschaton,

Thank you for sharing those resources on the weaknesses of atheism.

As far as the video playlist you shared, Dr. Craig really had the atheist Christopher Hitchens on the ropes in that Christianity vs. atheism debate and Hichen's phony excuse that his earphone was not working and he could not hear Craig's request to provide evidence for atheism was a classic debate moment (This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXDd...fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo ).

If you want to see a large number of the weaknesses of atheism, this article contains a great number of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

[shunyadragon]

Dear eschaton,

Thank you for sharing those resources on the weaknesses of atheism.

As far as the video playlist you shared, Dr. Craig really had the atheist Christopher Hitchens on the ropes in that Christianity vs. atheism debate and Hichen's phony excuse that his earphone was not working and he could not hear Craig's request to provide evidence for atheism was a classic debate moment (This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXDd...fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo ).

If you want to see a large number of the weaknesses of atheism, this article contains a great number of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

I reviewed the cite and found it to be a very poor source to understand atheism. First, a fundamentalist view, and opposed to the science of evolution and equating the belief in evolution with atheism. Second, many of the correlations with extreme negative human behavior like pedophilia and atheism is hocus bogus.

[Doug Shaver]

Well, if you want to know about atheism, who better to ask than people who hate it? After all, if you want to know what Christians believe, your best bet is to ask an atheist, right?

[shunyadragon]

What earthquake? The ground is always quaking. Teensy weensy movements and others up to magnitude 10. Minor point anyway, so that's my last reply.

Check the news we just had a major earthquake in Tibet, which caused large avalanches.