Monday, November 9, 2009

Self-Contradictory Atheism

We know from the laws of logic that self-contradictory statements cannot be true. A statement cannot be both true and not true.

Many atheists will tell you that all there is to atheism is a denial of Creator God’s existence. Few statements are as naive as that. No belief, philosophy or world-view exists in isolation to other beliefs, philosophies or world-views. No belief in or denial of Creator God exists without that belief in or denial of Creator God having an affect on other thoughts and behaviours in one’s life.

Having said that, one of the effects of atheism is to rule out or deny the existence of objective morals, values and duties. A belief in atheism also requires the denial of the existence of ultimate truth. On atheism, truth and error, right and wrong become relative to the situation and selective based on the desires and opinions of the individual and / or society. Yet,

. Atheists will tell you that Christianity is false.

. Atheists will tell you that Christian teaching is wrong.

. Atheists will tell you that what you’ve been taught about God loving you is not true.

. And atheists will tell you that atheism is true to the exclusion of other belief systems, particularly ones that involve religion.

But how can that be since atheists have also told us that there isn’t any such thing as truth or error, right or wrong - only opinions, desires, likes and dislikes? Even things that atheists accept today, they freely admit might be discovered to be wrong tomorrow. And this is what frustrates atheists to no end; to know that Christians do not live in a perpetual state of doubt as atheists must of necessity do themselves.

Atheists seem to want everyone, like they do, to first deny that ultimate truth exists and to then live out one's days as though truth is the creation of each individual. Sad, sad, sad. "Live as you like," I say. "But don't expect me to voluntarily go down the tubes with you." I won't do it.

20 comments:

Ginx said...

There most certainly is right and wrong from the stand point of true/false. We may rarely, if ever, possess absolute truth, but it exists. And one does not require the correct answer in order to recognize a wrong one.

In fact... it's a basic truth that it is much easier to point out someone is wrong than to actually be right.

Makarios said...

"one does not require the correct answer in order to recognize a wrong one."

Ya, I like that.
----------------

"We may rarely, if ever, possess absolute truth, but it exists.

I agree wih you, but how do you know that to be true? What allows you to make that statement?

Flute said...

We know from the laws of logic that self-contradictory statements cannot be true.

We _observe_ from our knowledge of logic that self-contradictory statements cannot be true.

A statement cannot be both true and not true.


Many atheists will tell you that all there is to atheism is a denial of Creator God’s existence.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. There's a difference.

Having said that, one of the effects of atheism is to rule out or deny the existence of objective morals, values and duties.

Let's look at the definition of "objective".
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
Now tell me, how can "morals, values and duties" be objective?

Atheists will tell you that Christianity is false.

They'll often just say that they have not seen proof of any religions validity.

Even things that atheists accept today, they freely admit might be discovered to be wrong tomorrow.

Are you saying you'll never change your mind if you are wrong?

Flute said...

A statement cannot be both true and not true.

Let's hope this doesn't turn into quantum mechanics lessons.

Tristan Vick said...

You classified Atheism as a "belief."

Need I say more?

Gandolf said...

Mak said.." A belief in atheism also requires the denial of the existence of ultimate truth. "

Who told you this Mak?.

As far as i know there is absolutely no need to not (still have some)pretty much ultimate truths we will ALL know,without needing any belief in some god/s or books on god/s.

For instance its still going to be pretty much thought a ultimate truth that at some stage after eating we will soon need to use a toilet.
Or its a ultimate truth that its really best not to go around killing people for no good reason at all,as its not going to be so good if it starts happening to you and your family and ALL others etc also around you.
Its pretty much still going to be thought a ultimate truth that eating to much will likely soon make you put on too much weight,no god belief needed there to tell us this is there?.

Just because we dont believe in god/s,doesnt change anything with us learning what seems to be ultimate truths.No not at all.

Because the bible was only ever written by mere man using thoughts of mere man thoughts anyway!!.

So nothing changes at all really.

We have always decided for OURSELVES as a group of humans, about what seemed to "us" to be "most likely" pretty much thought some ultimate truth/knowledge.

Makarios said...

Is Love a relatively good or objectively good value? Or is it based upon what Flute thinks upon this particular day?
==========

Are you saying you'll never change your mind if you are wrong?"

Wrong? :-)
===============

Let's hope this doesn't turn into quantum mechanics lessons."

You never know what might pop up. Ooo I'm on a roll now baby. Look out!
==============

Who told you this Mak?."

Logic. The rest of what you say is absent logic.

Flute said...

a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Now tell me, how can "morals, values and duties" be objective?

Is Love a relatively good or objectively good value? Or is it based upon what Flute thinks upon this particular day?

After reading the definition of the word "objective", tell me how love can be valued with minds to value it.

Makarios said...

Eternal Love, Ultimate Love, Objective Love has always existed. Love existed before any human minds existed.

Gorth Satana said...

Answer Flute's question.
How is a value objective?

Flute said...

before any human minds existed.

I said "minds".

Now I ask again:
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Now tell me, how can "morals, values and duties" be objective?

Makarios said...

Where did I say "value" was objective?

Makarios said...

Flute, I've explained it at least three times to you. I can't see how repeating a forth time would do any good.

Gorth Satana said...

Where did I say "value" was objective?

In your third paragraph.

"or deny the existence of objective morals, values and duties."

Morals -comma- values and duties.

And in your latter comment at 10:01:00 AM. "Is Love a relatively good or objectively good value?"

Flute, I've explained it at least three times to you. I can't see how repeating a forth time would do any good.

No, you haven't. I don't know whether you actually believe you answered the question or whether you just want the question to go away. You did imply to Flute that you'd never admit you were wrong.

Gandolf said...

Mak most everything we have knowledge of has been learned by "us humans".

There is no "god being" that decides what morals are for us, and then tells us about them.

All written in the bible is thoughts and knowledge of men thats been written down.

We do have knowledge we have learned though reasoning and trial and error or triump etc, that suggest to us with certain things that some are far more likely or "ultimate" than others.These are what some folks call the objectives.But they still all come from human thought.


Mak you had said.." A belief in atheism also requires the denial of the existence of ultimate truth. "


Gandy had asked.."Who told you this Mak?."

You replied.."Logic. The rest of what you say is absent logic."

Im not sure i understand what you mean...But im sure you dont really believe "non believers" cant know many truths we think are as close as possible to ultimate truths as we know it at the present time.

We sure know stoning folks to death is NOT the untimate way to go killing folks,there is far to much screaming and blood and suffering we didnt need any god to help us soon REALIZE that.It was simply common sense!.We could "see" its messy,We could "hear" the screams.By watching and hearing,we soon "understood" how long suffering it was.Some folk would have been wrongly convicted and after death have been later found to be innocent.Their family would have been highly unhappy.It simply was not moral.

It was "reason" and "logic" that gave us the "knowledge",that its best not to stone folks.

Do you really think we humans needed any god to teach us that?.Can you (honestly) say you doubt we could ever have soon enough reasoned to decide that ourselves?.

I think we could ...Infact im sure

But this doesnt mean every decision will always be black or white in our reasoning and decision making.

Makarios said...

“Mak most everything we have knowledge of has been learned by "us humans".”

You make it sound as though the only things that exist are the things we have knowledge of.
-----------------

“There is no "god being" that decides what morals are for us, and then tells us about them.”

I suggest that you’re wrong

Makarios said...

Oh crap! My answer to Gorth and Flute just disappeared. I'll do it again tomorrow.

Makarios said...

Last time Flute. If you can't get it this time, I'm done trying to explain it to you. So here goes.

I’m not saying that value itself is objective in nature. I’m saying that a value such as love is objective because it finds its origin in the character of an ultimate Being.

Why go all the way to God instead of some point (Dali Lama, you, me) short of that? Because chosing any source this side of God is arbitrary.

Eternal Love, Ultimate Love, Objective Love have always existed because the source of objective love has always existed.

Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character. They are not based on His mind or His thoughts or His opinions.

Therefore, God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature.

And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.

What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.

"Is Love a relative good or is it objectively good?"

Or does it, as it must in atheist world, depend on the desires and opinions of any given atheist?
=================

Gandolf:
“There is no "god being" that decides what morals are for us, and then tells us about them.”

Gandhi, when someone does something wrong to you, you know and you know absolutely that you’ve been wronged. You don’t need to check with community standards or the standards of Flute or Gorth. Objective right and wrong are written on our hearts and we know it in an instant when we’ve been subjected to wrong.

Gorth Satana said...

Thanks for your last comment.
I hate to point this out but for a proposition to be considered to be objectively true, its truth conditions must be "mind-independent".

I’m saying that a value such as love is objective because it finds its origin in the character of an ultimate Being.

Then it isn't objective.

Gandolf said...

Hi mak you said.."Gandhi, when someone does something wrong to you, you know and you know absolutely that you’ve been wronged. You don’t need to check with community standards or the standards of Flute or Gorth. Objective right and wrong are written on our hearts and we know it in an instant when we’ve been subjected to wrong."

But Mak our knowledge of knowing we have been wronged is all only relative to how we feel and what we decide and our culture etc.

I remember going to the dentist as a kid,it was painful at times and sure seemed pretty wrong to me.It absolutely seemed like it was wrong to me.

Even though it felt wrong to "me" personally,it was infact right that i went to the dentist!.That knowledge of it being known to be right to go to the dentist, was "relative" to my societys knowledge.


Mak moral taken from ideas of absolutes like gods etc,are no good because they box themselves in to much and just by being supposed as absolutes of gods-deitys (are much less able to make change when needed to change).

And we can see that morals do need to change.If it wasnt so, we would still stone folks to death even today.

Absolute morals dont really work Mak.They are to black and white,and dont allow for added modern knowledge to be used.

The truth is our morals have never been absolutes.

Yes we do have many morals thought to be pretty close to what we think we know might be thought a absolute,that yes are often even quite universal.

But thats still only relative to our collective knowledge learned over time.

Its still quite natural the very often humans mostly agree.They dont need to come from the same country to agree on certain matters.

Mak can you offer me one good reason i should have to think somebody somewhere in the world might differ in opinion and REALLY think getting murdered is a nice thing?.Its only natural it doesnt matter where some body be from,its almost a sure thing ! he most likely going to think being murdered isnt so nice...Simple maths!

Its a "relative" natural universal thing that most all humans on earth feel being murdered is immoral.