Morality and Agnostic Atheism

[Drew]

Can a moral atheist be justified in holding to a moral opinion when we consider what the atheist believes?

Yes. The justification lies in the fact (at least I believe it to be a fact) that moral "standards" are an emergent property of a system - a system made up of human beings and a limited set of of resources. Both atheists and believers are subject to the same moral standard - they live in the same "system". On this view, God is not so much the "source" of moral standard as He is the perfect example of one who adheres to a standard that is "outside" of God.

Can the moral atheist sustain consistency within their worldview?

Yes. For exactly the same reason that the Christian can.

Does the atheist borrow from the Christian world view to prop up their own sense of moral justice?

Yes and no. I believe that the Christian world view succeeds at capturing the content of the universal moral standard (which is a system property). The atheist can certainly "borrow" from this standard, but s/he could also "figure out" the content of the moral standard drawing on any of a number of sources (including his own experience). Of course, as a Christian, I believe that if the atheist pursues this moral standard without "borrowing" from Christian teaching on subjects of morality, he may either make some mistakes and / or take a lot longer to "get to the truth".

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: statistics

"Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less numerous in the prison population (0.21%)

I read this, and figured I can pretty safely ignore the rest of your cites. Any source that overestimates the prevalence of atheism by a factor of 5 in order to make its point is probably trying to sell something. It also, conveniently, underestimates the number of atheists in prison by about a factor of 5. Funny, that.

 

[gingercat]

Re: statistics

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8)

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

 

[JM]

Drew, I disagree with you in part, the atheist is inconsistent because he has to borrow from the Christian worldview...follow the debate on this link: http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

 

[Novum]

Drew, I disagree with you in part, the atheist is inconsistent because he has to borrow from the Christian worldview...follow the debate on this link: http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

You're now in the uncomfortable position of explaining how, exactly, the millions of atheists in non-Christian countries get by without "borrowing from the Christian worldview".

 

[Novum]

Can a moral atheist be justified in holding to a moral opinion when we consider what the atheist believes?

What are you claiming the atheist believes?

Can the moral atheist sustain consistency within their worldview?

I certainly believe I do. You'll need to be more specific.

Does the atheist borrow from the Christian world view to prop up their own sense of moral justice?

Hogwash. See my post above.

 

[Novum]

Re: statistics

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

There are no gods in Buddhism. It is very possible, and even likely, that most buddhists are atheists.

 

[JM]

I don't have time to explain it Nov, try these links here:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm
http://www.trippparker.net/html/debates ... Tabash.pdf [He killed Tabash, I own this one on DVD.]
http://www.reese.org/tapes/
http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=8
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/facult ... script.pdf


http://www.solagratia.org/Articles/Pres ... aiths.aspx
Look up debates done by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, you'll be impressed, he's a Christian power house at explosing the false logic of atheism and the faulty presuppositions. http://www.theopedia.com/Greg_Bahnsen

 

[Novum]

I don't have time to explain it Nov, try these links here:

Then I can wait until you do.

I am not interested in an argument from authority, especially from a "Christian power house" dedicated to "exposing the false logic of atheism". If you want to discuss this issue with me, then discuss with me. It's hard to have a discussion with a static web page that you point me to.

 

[JM]

Dear Christian,

Base your arguements on authority, not on the circular reasoning of atheistic logic. Bahnsen uses the word of God and his work is based upon the word of God as his final authority, the atheist does not have any authority from which to argue. Read the link provide by carm.org.

http://www.theopedia.com/Greg_Bahnsen
The late Dr. Greg Bahnsen was the scholar in residence at the Southern California Center for Christians studies where he taught Apologetics from a distinctly Reformed perspective. Dr. Bahnsen following the lead of his mentor Cornelius Van Til and reasoned that apart from the Christian faith the unbeliever can really know nothing at all. The apologetic used by Dr. Bahnsen forces the anti-theist to acknowledge the fact that he must consistently borrow capital from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of his life. Dr. Bahnsen cites David Hume's skepticism of traditional arguments for God's existence as the springboard by which the Transcendental Argument for God was born. Hume denied that inferences from induction could be rationally justified which in turn spurred another philosopher, Immanuel Kant to rebut Hume's skepticism. While not a Kantian, Dr. Bahnsen argues that the anti-theist must presuppose the Christian God in order to make sense of the principal of induction.

According to Dr. Bahnsen, many times the atheist will attempt to disprove Christianity by appealing to the laws of logic. Most philosophers will agree that the laws of logic are universal. This means that these laws apply to all people, regardless of socioeconomic or cultural considerations. The atheist has to presuppose the Christian worldview in order to make sense of his/her life. This means that for the atheist to appeal to logic to attempt to disprove Christianity he must appeal to a univeral immaterial law. Dr. Bahnsen argued that this only makes sense within the Christian worldview because the Christian begins with belief in a universal, immaterial spirit i.e. God.

The anti-theists will use logic to try and make a case to disprove the existence of God but must assume absolute laws of logic, which cannot be consistent with his world view...they're forced to borrow from the Christian worldview. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. carm.org


Peace,

jm

 

[Novum]

Base your arguements on authority, not on the circular reasoning of atheistic logic.

Please provide evidence for your claim that atheistic logic is circular.

Bahnsen uses the word of God and his work is based upon the word of God as his final authority, the atheist does not have any authority from which to argue.

Err, that's a good thing, JM. Argument from authority = logical fallacy = bad.

Dr. Bahnsen following the lead of his mentor Cornelius Van Til and reasoned that apart from the Christian faith the unbeliever can really know nothing at all. The apologetic used by Dr. Bahnsen forces the anti-theist to acknowledge the fact that he must consistently borrow capital from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of his life.

Hogwash. "Dr." Bahnsen has now joined JM in the uncomfortable task of explaining how atheists in non-Christian nations still "know things", plus the awkward task of explaining how atheists in general still "know things".

"Dr." Bahnsen, or your source, is also failing miserably to differentiate between atheists and anti-theists.

While not a Kantian, Dr. Bahnsen argues that the anti-theist must presuppose the Christian God in order to make sense of the principal of induction.

Your website really failed the dictionary test for 'atheism' and 'anti-theism'.

According to Dr. Bahnsen, many times the atheist will attempt to disprove Christianity by appealing to the laws of logic.

Back to "atheist" now. Flip-flopping is fun!

Most philosophers will agree that the laws of logic are universal. This means that these laws apply to all people, regardless of socioeconomic or cultural considerations. The atheist has to presuppose the Christian worldview in order to make sense of his/her life.

Non-sequitur. Does not follow, nor is any evidence supplied to support this claim.

This means that for the atheist to appeal to logic to attempt to disprove Christianity he must appeal to a univeral immaterial law. Dr. Bahnsen argued that this only makes sense within the Christian worldview because the Christian begins with belief in a universal, immaterial spirit i.e. God.

Bzzt! Wrong, sorry. Another non-sequitur, this time going from "universal immaterial law" (this site does not explain how logic is 'immaterial') to "universal immaterial spirit", nor does this site explain how these two concepts are at all similar.

The anti-theists will use logic to try and make a case to disprove the existence of God but must assume absolute laws of logic, which cannot be consistent with his world view...they're forced to borrow from the Christian worldview.

Back to anti-theist again. :roll: And the non-sequitur continues.

If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.

I can't say I've ever seen a "defense" of the laws of logic as argued from the scientific method. This website is really off its rocker.

If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

Go forth, yon non-sequitur, and make me proud. :D

 

[reznwerks]

statistics

I will try to save time by using one post to respond to several. Some of my statistics that I used were questioned as to their accuracy and one or two either doubted or wanted to know where they came from. If you go back to the post all the links are there and although you may find the cite itself not to your liking the stats came from reputable sources including ,if I remember correctly, Barna. Wikipedia is a recognized online Ency. I believe it was ARTGUY that made the statement of Atheism being overstated by a 5. Was that 5% of the population? If so I think you can argue that Atheism is probably closer to 13% and perhaps a lot higher.If Atheism was a religion it would be the largest single denomination in the US. Unfortunately atheism has a stigma attached and many who are atheists at heart simply won't admit the fact except to a very few including myself.All you have to do is look at how many churches are closing their doors and average weekly church attendance and that should give you a hint to the status of believers.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: statistics

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8)

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

As I understand Buddhism it does not proclaim Buddha as a "God". Buddhists don't believe Buddha will grant them wishes or offer them etenal life etc or alter the laws of nature to suit them or carry out Buddhas wishes. Buddists strive for a personal higher awareness but their is no central supernatural deity.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: statistics

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8)

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

As I understand Buddhism it does not proclaim Buddha as a "God". Buddhists don't believe Buddha will grant them wishes or offer them etenal life etc or alter the laws of nature to suit them or carry out Buddhas wishes. Buddists strive for a personal higher awareness but their is no central supernatural deity.

Out of interest, is Buddha worshipped?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: statistics

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8)

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

As I understand Buddhism it does not proclaim Buddha as a "God". Buddhists don't believe Buddha will grant them wishes or offer them etenal life etc or alter the laws of nature to suit them or carry out Buddhas wishes. Buddists strive for a personal higher awareness but their is no central supernatural deity.

Out of interest, is Buddha worshipped?

Not in the sense one worships Jesus or any other God. Buddha has reached perfection and all those that follow him are trying to do the same.So if Japan is mostly Buddhists and Buddha is not a God then by definition most of Japan can be considered Atheist.

 

[Novum]

Re: statistics

Out of interest, is Buddha worshipped?

Nope, as reznwerks pointed out. Buddha was a man who achieved perfection (nirvana), but he was merely the first man to do so. Buddhists since him have just been trying to follow in his footsteps. It would be a gross error to call the Buddha a god or deity.

 

[Novum]

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, there are many religions that do not have or require belief in any god:

Unitarian Universalism
Buddhism
Secular Humanism
Humanistic Judaism
Taoism
Confucianism
Scientific pantheism
some forms of non-LaVeyan Satanism
nontraditional Setianism
New Age spiritualism
lesser animism
basic spiritualism
"Spiritual" or "Energy" witchcraft
probably another two dozen or so occult religions

Technically, there is no shortage of religions out there that atheists may choose to identify with. While many (most?) atheists don't identify with any at all, that's not to say that some still do.

 

[JM]

Re: statistics

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8)

Where did you get this information? I am from Japan and most of them are buddhists. You can hardly find any atheists in Japan.

As I understand Buddhism it does not proclaim Buddha as a "God". Buddhists don't believe Buddha will grant them wishes or offer them etenal life etc or alter the laws of nature to suit them or carry out Buddhas wishes. Buddists strive for a personal higher awareness but their is no central supernatural deity.

Out of interest, is Buddha worshipped?

Not in the sense one worships Jesus or any other God. Buddha has reached perfection and all those that follow him are trying to do the same.So if Japan is mostly Buddhists and Buddha is not a God then by definition most of Japan can be considered Atheist.

Yes, he is.

The lay folk worship buddha but the monk and nun do not. With over 15 years in martial arts I've spoken with many buddhists about their beliefs as it relates to martial training. The Pureland schools do in fact worship buddha, it's been put forward that Christian missions to China by the Nestorians influanced buddhist belief, who knows. It should also be pointed out that buddhist in general mix beliefs, since Japan was mentioned, Shinto and buddhism are often mixed together. You get nature worship, nature diety and buddhist thinking in one pot.

OSU!

 

[JM]

Err, that's a good thing, JM. Argument from authority = logical fallacy = bad.

What is logic and how do you know it exists?

Bzzt! Wrong, sorry. Another non-sequitur, this time going from "universal immaterial law" (this site does not explain how logic is 'immaterial') to "universal immaterial spirit", nor does this site explain how these two concepts are at all similar.

Is logic material or immaterial?

Dear Christian,

You gotta listen to the Great Debate [ http://www.reese.org/tapes/ ] where Dr. Bahnsen takes apart a high profile atheist. One of the funnest comments made during the debate went something like this:

Atheist: Dr. Bahnsen, is God immaterial?
Bahnsen: Yes.
Atheist: Can you name something else that is immaterial?
Bahnsen: The laws of logic.

The atheist doesn't pursue this line of questioning because he's assuming logic, which is immaterial, is still a law and still real. To prove this he'd have to resort to the same thinking as Bahnsen and cannot prove it without borrowing from the Christian world view.

How does anyone know anything? "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them..."

 

[Novum]

JM -

You have ignored my challenge to your claim that "atheistic logic" (a term which you have not defined) is circular. Dodge noted.

You have also ignored my question about how the billions of people in non-Christian countries manage to get by. Dodge noted.

You have also ignored your source's and/or "Dr." Bahnsen's inability to distinguish beween atheism and antitheism. Heck, JM, I doubt you even know the difference yourself. Look it up and get back to us, mmkay?

What is logic and how do you know it exists?

Silly JM, asking questions you can easily answer yourself. From Wikipedia:

"Logic, from Classical Greek ????? (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments."

How do we know it exists? For the same reason that we know philosophy exists: it's been around for thousands of years, it's a critical part of rationality, and heck, you can even buy books about it.

Atheist: Dr. Bahnsen, is God immaterial?
Bahnsen: Yes.
Atheist: Can you name something else that is immaterial?
Bahnsen: The laws of logic.

The atheist doesn't pursue this line of questioning because he's assuming logic, which is immaterial, is still a law and still real. To prove this he'd have to resort to the same thinking as Bahnsen and cannot prove it without borrowing from the Christian world view.

More horsecrap. Please, JM, before you dig your hole any deeper, define what you mean by "Christian world view" and please explain how billions of people get by without it.