Answering anti-religious "intellectualism/superiority"?

[VeryBlessed]

We mock what we do not understand…

A little humility is a wonderful thing. To allow for the possibility that you do not know all, is often the first step towards greater and fuller understanding.

That cloak of intellectual superiority may be masking the real reason for their atheism, namely, they do not want to be responsible to a higher being for their behavior or choices.

 

[Barnesy]

That life really has meaning, value, and purpose.

Socrates would agree with you.

And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body? Not at all. It is much more valuable…? Much more.

I dont think any one thinks that justice is physical but its important to us all. And virtue and courage and honor and many things that make up the examined life. May be you know people who dont think that life has value. I dont think you do. But you always say that if you dont believe in the super natural then your life doesnt have value. You always say that your life is valuable but an atheists isnt. Saying well thats a fact doesnt mean it isnt intellectually superior.

Life will have the value that you give itand its crazy to think everyone only thinks about there own life and nothing matters after we die. I mean thats really crazy.

 

[Barnesy]

We mock what we do not understand…

A little humility is a wonderful thing. To allow for the possibility that you do not know all, is often the first step towards greater and fuller understanding.

That cloak of intellectual superiority may be masking the real reason for their atheism, namely, they do not want to be responsible to a higher being for their behavior or choices.

Thats like saying you dont believe in vishnu because you dont want to be responisble to him for your behaviour. How can you not believe in something because you dont want to be responsible to it. That makes no sense at all.

 

[IWantGod]

I dont think any one thinks that justice is physical but its important to us all. And virtue and courage and honor and many things that make up the examined life.

If you think metaphysical naturalism is true then it is the height of delusion to also believe in things like justice (that there is something to be righted) or virtue (that there is truly such a thing as good and a state of being that is virtuous) or that being courageous is meaningful (as if there is truly a physical state that is by definition cowardly) or that there is a physical state of being that is truly Honorable (as such that it can meaningfully be described as good), or that these concepts have any truth value whatsoever beyond the fantasy in your head. Nothing could possibly have true meaning beyond physical descriptions (because that’s all there is if metaphysical naturalism is true), and any metaphysical naturalist that thinks otherwise has not examined the logical consequences of their beliefs very well.

You cannot have it both ways.

But if you choose to believe that it is a natural end of blind physical processes and forces to want honour or have justice or seek virtue, then that is entirely your prerogative.

It’s simply my observation that this is obviously an absurd point of view, and certainly not one that makes me think that a lot of critical thinking went in to it.

 

[IWantGod]

I mean thats really crazy.

No what’s really crazy is that an atheist thinks he or she is right and at the same time thinks that their value statements about of things makes any difference to reality at all.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I dont think any one thinks that justice is physical but its important to us all. And virtue and courage and honor and many things that make up the examined life.

If you think metaphysical naturalism is true then it is the height of delusion to also believe in things like justice (that there is something to be righted) or virtue

If you think that metaphysical naturalim means there are no concepts or principles or ideas or virtues or thoughts or meaning then no wonder you think its a delusion. Its only a rejection of the super natural. But may be you think that courage or love or ideas or feelings are super natural. May be you think that if some thing is not physical then it must be super natural. Thats what you always argue so it must be what you think.

 

[IWantGod]

If you think that metaphysical naturalim

It necessarily negates anything that is non-physical. Metaphysical naturalism is by definition the idea that only physical reality actually exists. You simply take for granted that because you have all these other experiences that they are some how logically consistent with your preferred worldview.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

 

[IWantGod]

Its only a rejection of the super natural.

To reject the supernatural is to reject anything non-physical; that is the logical consequence of it. It is not just about rejecting ghosts, it is the rejection of any notion that there are realities or truths that are not physical in nature.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Its only a rejection of the super natural.

To reject the supernatural is to reject anything non-physical; that is the logical consequence of it.

So justice is super natural. A thought is super natural. Maths is super natural. Hate is super natural. A dream is super natural. Hunger is super natural. An idea is super natural. Virtue is super natural. A belief is super natural. There seems to be a lot of super natural things in your world. May be you need to think about your definition.

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be said carl sagan. I cant remember him saying that because of that justice doesnt exist or thoughts dont exist. May be he did but ive never seen it. I think he didnt say it because it was nonsense.

 

[IWantGod]

May be you need to think about your definition.

No. Maybe you need to understand what it is that is broadly meant by the word supernatural, at least as Christians understand it. It is simply more than natural, more than physical, that which transcends physics, a different order of reality to what is physical - non-physical reality. Maybe it’s the fact that it has “super” before the word natural, that is confusing you.

In any-case, the existence of non-physical things have no existence in a world where only physical things exist.

Here is the definition of metaphysical naturalism again.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

 

[IWantGod]

I think he didnt say it because it was nonsense.

To say that nothing but physical reality actually exists is certainly nonsense. And it is equally nonsense to say that because some particular famous atheist said this or that then therefore he has a rationally consistent belief about reality. Was it the fact that he was a scientist that convinced you?

 

[IWantGod]

May be you need to think about your definition.

Supernatural

of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

of a superlative degree; preternatural:

There are also other definitions but they are all besides the point. Anything that doesn’t operate according to the laws of physics, even if it is working in conjunction with physical operations, is in one sense or another supernatural in nature. The intellect/the soul is supernatural.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[ATraveller]

Let me know atheists who think genesis has to be read literally. I dont know of any. None at all.

So only your social circle counts? So only what you’ve seen counts?
And by the way, Genesis is only an example. There are other verses and passages where atheists do that too.

 

[IWantGod]

So only your social circle counts? So only what you’ve seen counts?
And by the way, Genesis is only an example. There are other verses and passages where atheists do that too.

You are correct. When most atheists pick up the bible, they judge it literally, simply because they don’t know any better. Rarely do they go to a professional and ask what is meant, unless they are studying it academically.

 

[VeryBlessed]

Thats like saying you dont believe in vishnu because you dont want to be responisble to him for your behaviour. How can you not believe in something because you dont want to be responsible to it. That makes no sense at all.

I think it makes perfect sense. Maybe you do not do this, but I have so VERY many ways of avoiding what I don’t want to face up to. One way to “not believe in something” is to never seriously consider it’s claims, because, if it turns out to be true, then I might just have to do something about what I found out.

Beware of the assumption that Christians believe mindlessly. Many of us agonized before we made the jump. Many years ago I made a conscious decision to give my life to Jesus, to make him the most important thing in my life. I agonized over that decision, because I feared the loss of control of my life. So I tried it, tentatively at first, and found it gloriously true. And obviously, at any point I can ditch it if it turns out not to be true. But it’s been decades, and instead of disillusionment I keep getting way more than I deserve.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Let me know atheists who think genesis has to be read literally. I dont know of any. None at all.

So only your social circle counts? So only what you’ve seen counts?

I read a lot and ive never seen an atheist that believes in genesis. As its the story of how god made the world and every thing in it it seems to me that as atheists dont believe in god then you wouldnt be an atheist if you believe it. Thats logical.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Thats like saying you dont believe in vishnu because you dont want to be responisble to him for your behaviour. How can you not believe in something because you dont want to be responsible to it. That makes no sense at all.

I think it makes perfect sense. Maybe you do not do this, but I have so VERY many ways of avoiding what I don’t want to face up to. One way to “not believe in something” is to never seriously consider it’s claims, because, if it turns out to be true, then I might just have to do something about what I found out.

If you dont consider any claims about some thing then you are simply avoiding it. An atheist isnt some one who avoids god. She is some one who has been given information about god or has looked at the information about god and has decided that the information isnt enough for them to believe in him. Thats not avoiding god its makinv a decision if he exists or not. People including you dont disbelieve in vishnu to avoid being responible to him. They just think theres not enough evidence to say he exists. And an atheist is the same as you only he doesnt believe in god either.

 

[Barnesy]

There are also other definitions but they are all besides the point. Anything that doesn’t operate according to the laws of physics, even if it is working in conjunction with physical operations, is in one sense or another supernatural in nature. The intellect/the soul is supernatural.

So courage is super natural is it? So justice is super natural? A thought is super natural? Maths is super natural? Hate is super natural? A dream is super natural? An idea is super natural? Virtue is super natural? A belief is super natural?

I dont know where your argument is. It seems you want to say that atheists must be metaphysical naturalits and so beliefs and justice dont exist for them. So if i have an idea then god must exist!! If i think about some thing then god must exist!! If i think that punishing someone for doing wrong is justice then god must exist!!

Thats a crazy argument so it cant be the one you wanted to end up with so what are you trying to say???

 

[IWantGod]

I dont know where your argument is.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

If i think that punishing someone for doing wrong is justice then god must exist!!

If there is objectively such a thing as what is right and that it is objectively true that a wrong ought to be righted, then it follows logically that there is a transcendent moral law that applies to personal beings and their activity. Otherwise it’s just a fantasy in your head, a purely emotional desire that doesn’t actually tell us if it is actually true that such is such or that such ought be done. You would be delusional especially if you want to convince others that what you think is objectively correct.

It seems you want to say that atheists must be metaphysical naturalits

I never said that. I said this.

At the end of the day, if you take metaphysical naturalism seriously ( which is the consequence of denying any form of super-naturalism ) the consequences of this is that our very experience of being a “person” ( making plans, having freewill, the making of culture, the experience of meaning, having hope, and even the capacity of having religious beliefs ) becomes absolutely unintelligible and impossible without giving way to brute facts. In other-words you would have to ignore a significant portion of the human experience in order to swallow the idea that physical activity is all that exists. And if one were to ask a metaphysical naturalist what was the point of creating and sustaining a civilisation beyond the first generation of rational individuals ( why create more people ), they would not be able to give you a rational reason other than the idea that they are just fulfilling the programming in their genes; they’re are just along for the ride.

Now, if you happen to be the type of atheist that doesn’t think that only physical things exist and that there is more than physical reality, a reality that is non-physical, we can discuss the logical and ontological consequences of there being such a thing as good and honour and virtue. But it is certainly going to make it very difficult for you to remain an atheist and you certainly cannot be a metaphysical naturalist and be taken seriously. And since you cannot say that non-physical things are made of physical objects, you cannot reduce non-physical reality to physics as an ultimate cause of their reality. But when all is said and done i’m not sure I’ve got the patients for somebody such as yourself.

But good discussion non-the-less. Peace and Godbless.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I dont know where your argument is.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

It seems you want to say that atheists must be metaphysical naturalits

I never said that. I said this.

At the end of the day, if you take metaphysical naturalism seriously ( which is the consequence of denying any form of super-naturalism ) the consequences of this is that our very experience of being a “person” ( making plans, having freewill, the making of culture, the experience of meaning, having hope, and even the capacity of having religious beliefs ) becomes absolutely unintelligible and impossible without giving way to brute facts. In other-words you would have to ignore a significant portion of the human experience in order to swallow the idea that physical activity is all that exists. And if one were to ask a metaphysical naturalist what was the point of creating and sustaining a civilisation beyond the first generation of rational individuals ( why create more people ), they would not be able to give you a rational reason other than the idea that they are just fulfilling the programming in their genes; they’re are just along for the ride.

Now, if you happen to be the type of atheist that doesn’t think that only physical things exist and that there is more than physical reality, a reality that is non-physical

You are determined to join metaphysical naturalism to atheim and then throw in all sorts of conclusions to suit whatever argument you think you are making. Atheism only means that you dont believe in gods. Thats all. There is nothing else. You cant imply any thing else from some one saying i am an atheist. They are only saying i dont believe in gods. Nothing more than that. They may believe in unicorns or aliens it doesnt matter.

There are more than five senses. Lots more. And nobody says that the sense of smell is not natural. And i dont know any one who thinks that a sense of humour or a sense of justice is not natural. These senses have emerged just as the sense of smell or a sense of fear has emerged. The sensations are the connections we make with the world and they are all natural and they are not physical in the sense that we can point to fear or measure some justice but it is crazy to say that they must be super natural. If some one says that he knows what justice is and that it exists then do you say well its not physical so you must believe in the super natural?? Do you say that if you have a sense of humor then god must exist?? Thats where your argument is going and its as silly as saying theres a justice fairy or a humor pixie becuase if they didnt exist then we wouldnt have justice and humor.