The atheists best argument?

[goout]

You *seriously *know atheists who have personally told you this?

I’m not sure how you are defining “evil” but most of the atheists I know work hard to create a peaceful, loving, fair world.

.

What’s the atheist’s objective standard for fair? (or just) Or loving for that matter.
Their is an atheist on another thread who believes the whole substance of love is individual emotion.

I spoken with atheists for a couple of decades and an answer to this question has never been offered.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you believe that Krishna was greater than Jesus? Why? Be specific.

I already gave you specific quotes from the BG and NT and contrasted them post 173. But if that was not enough and if you want to understand a little more as to why Hindus revere Krishna, you might want to read something such as:

The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa*
amazon.com/Mahabharata-Krishna-Dwaipayana-Vyasa/dp/1500530735/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471029168&sr=1-12&keywords=Mahabharata

The Upanishads
amazon.com/Upanishads-Classic-Indian-Spirituality/dp/1586380214/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=39AFMC7WCN7K5QP89DJJ

The Bhagavad Gita*
amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Classics-Indian-Spirituality/dp/1586380192/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471028856&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=bhagavavad+gita

The Dhammapada
amazon.com/Dhammapada-Classics-Indian-Spirituality/dp/1586380206/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=39AFMC7WCN7K5QP89DJJ

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… most accounts of God would require him to care about us and want us to do and know certain things. God’s absence constitutes a violation of that expectation, and therefore is evidence against God.

It’s clear you are discounting as non-existent that prophets have told us God cares, that Jesus himself cared enough to die for our sins.

That God is not physically present to you is not evidence that he is “absent” unless you are convinced that the only possible proof of God is that he shows himself to you in person.

Nobody I know believes that God the Father has ever appeared to people until they are judged worthy to be in his presence. He will be the one to judge whether others are absent from his presence at the end of time.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s clear you are discounting as non-existent that prophets have told us God cares, that Jesus himself cared enough to die for our sins.

That God is not physically present to you is not evidence that he is “absent” unless you are convinced that the only possible proof of God is that he shows himself to you in person.

Nobody I know believes that God the Father has ever appeared to people until they are judged worthy to be in his presence. He will be the one to judge whether others are absent from his presence at the end of time.

This kind of thinking seems to me to indicate a lack of imagination. Of course there are ways God could reveal himself to humanity without revealing himself to me personally. The issue is that there are a large number of alleged and contradictory revelations, with no reliable means for distinguishing between them. A revelation that would vanquish the “absence” argument would need to (at the very least) be trivially distinguishable from all the other ancient mythologizing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The issue is that there are a large number of alleged and contradictory revelations, with no reliable means for distinguishing between them.

Huh?

How would you possibly know that the revelations are “contradictory” if you have “no reliable means for distinguishing between them?”

Clearly, if you can reliably recognize that they are, in fact, contradictory then logically speaking you MUST BE “distinguishing” between them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Surely.
And the values and principles also tell us nothing about Gods.
.

Actually they tell me plenty about God.

You may dismiss what values and principles tell you about God, but if the values and principles are in any way foundational in the sense of inherent in the nature of being itself – specifically the nature of moral agency – then the value and significance of morality itself depends entirely upon and is defined by what it tells us about why things are and why they came to be.

Values, and the principles by which values are determined, can only be substantive if they derive from the nature of being itself, not from the imagination or whimsy of transient dreamers and fools enamoured and beguiled by feelings of self-importance projected to the heavens.

Values and principles, if they tell us anything at all, have to tell us something about God because they certainly don’t tell us anything about chemistry, physics or cosmology. And they certainly aren’t derived from any of those physical sciences or STEM.

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually they tell me plenty about God. …
Values, and the principles by which values are determined, can only be substantive if they derive from the nature of being itself, not from the imagination or whimsy of transient dreamers and fools enamoured and beguiled by feelings of self-importance projected to the heavens.

Burning at the stake was valued for several hundred years. Did this value derive “from the nature of being itself”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

But that’s irrelevant, isn’t it? Even if you CAN get more in the effect, morality could still “exist in source form in Existence Itself.” That is, denying the theistic view does not make that view of morality unavailable to an atheist.

So you have kicked the can a little further down the road. Congratulations!

You haven’t, however, actually succeeded in answering the question of how – if existence is blind, unguided and materialistic in nature – morality could possibly be sourced in existence itself.

Your problem, it seems to me, is that as soon as you begin sourcing morality in existence you have to be imputing existence with God-like qualities, albeit with the essentially meaningless proviso that existence itself just shouldn’t be referred to as “God,” even though it remarkably shoulders all of God’s classic traits.

You still haven’t shown how morality can be derived from an “existence itself” which is fundamentally causal, unguided and material with no intentionality, no foresight nor any concern for those particular things which are instantiated as individual existents.

As soon as you begin endowing “existence itself” with intentionality, foresight, concern, purpose and interest in those things which do exists – and thereby make existence itself morally available to an atheist, it is at that point that you begin bringing God into your narrative, but merely deny that you are endorsing the use of the word “God.” Sounds like a distinction without a difference or you suffering from the problem of “having no reliable means of distinguishing between” God and existence itself (in a form which is morally available to an atheist.)

Well, okay, but your objections to theism have simply evaporated like so much morning dew.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A revelation that would vanquish the “absence” argument would need to (at the very least) be trivially distinguishable from all the other ancient mythologizing.

One such revelation in the Abrahamic religions would be the claim that there is but one God. This distinguishes the religion of Abraham from all other religions who have multiple gods. Virtually all the other ancient religions had multiple gods with different ranks, gods who loved and fought each other as men do, who can hardly be called supreme and for that reason were abandoned by their followers as soon as a more reasonable revelation presented itself. Only the God of Abraham presents himself as the Creator of everything that is. This is a revelation of the greatest magnitude. Even Einstein could detect the presence of a God who is behind all creation, who orders everything according to his laws.

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” Albert Einstein

 

[Tomdstone]

So you have kicked the can a little further down the road. Congratulations!

You haven’t, however, actually succeeded in answering the question of how – if existence is blind, unguided and materialistic in nature – morality could possibly be sourced in existence itself.

Your problem, it seems to me, is that as soon as you begin sourcing morality in existence you have to be imputing existence with God-like qualities, albeit with the essentially meaningless proviso that existence itself just shouldn’t be referred to as “God,” even though it remarkably shoulders all of God’s classic traits.

You still haven’t shown how morality can be derived from an “existence itself” which is fundamentally causal, unguided and material with no intentionality, no foresight nor any concern for those particular things which are instantiated as individual existents.

As soon as you begin endowing “existence itself” with intentionality, foresight, concern, purpose and interest in those things which do exists – and thereby make existence itself morally available to an atheist, it is at that point that you begin bringing God into your narrative, but merely deny that you are endorsing the use of the word “God.” Sounds like a distinction without a difference or you suffering from the problem of “having no reliable means of distinguishing between” God and existence itself (in a form which is morally available to an atheist.)

Well, okay, but your objections to theism have simply evaporated like so much morning dew.

There is a difference between deism and theism and also between pantheism and theism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Burning at the stake was valued for several hundred years.

It certainly wasn’t valued by those who were burned.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As soon as you begin endowing “existence itself” with intentionality, foresight, concern, purpose and interest in those things which do exists – and thereby make existence itself morally available to an atheist, it is at that point that you begin bringing God into your narrative, but merely deny that you are endorsing the use of the word “God.” Sounds like a distinction without a difference or you suffering from the problem of “having no reliable means of distinguishing between” God and existence itself (in a form which is morally available to an atheist.)

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who exercise intentionality and purpose every day in their work and in their relationships cannot fathom why it should be possible that the universe itself is an object of intention and purpose.

Did the universe just come into existence by chance and without a purpose?

Prove it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Burning at the stake was valued for several hundred years. Did this value derive “from the nature of being itself”?

Male lions eating their young has occurred for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Did this behaviour derive from the nature of being itself?

I would suppose it did.

Now you are left with a quandary: if every distasteful event in the history of the world is evidence, for you, that value, meaning or significance do not derive from being itself, then from where do these come?

Where do values, meaning and significance come from, if not from God (AKA Being Itself?)

If you follow the train of thought, your position is far more disturbing, in the ultimate sense, than mine because all you are left with is your feelings of distaste blocking your way and impeding your understanding.

I can continue to try to make sense of all the disturbing events in the world. You, on the other hand, are left holding a Pandora’s box of disturbing feelings and nothing by which to make any real sense of them because you have made your feelings the final arbiters of all reality.

Good luck with that!

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is a difference between deism and theism and also between pantheism and theism.

Sure, but deism and pantheism don’t ground morality in the same way that theism does.

Deism proposes a deity who doesn’t care – a deadbeat dad, of sorts.

Pantheism proposes that the deity is nothing but the machinations of nature without any special concern for the distinctive nature of human moral agency.

Panentheism comes closer, but depending upon the version and who is explicating it, it often becomes virtually indistinguishable from theism proper.

 

[Bradski]

You still haven’t shown how morality can be derived from an “existence itself” which is fundamentally causal, unguided and material with no intentionality, no foresight nor any concern for those particular things which are instantiated as individual existents.

It’s one small step from self preservation to the emegence of societies. Which cannot survive without a sense of what we would describe as morality. They evolve together.

It’s no wondwr that evolution is a banned topic. The more you read, the more you learn, the more frequent those little ‘aha’ moments. The more times you stop, put down the book or the iPad and think: ‘So that’s why we do that…so that’s why this always happens…so that’s why we believe this or that…’.

A reasonable study of the Subject That Can’t Be Discussed and you wouldn’t need to ask such questions again.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

One such revelation in the Abrahamic religions would be the claim that there is but one God. This distinguishes the religion of Abraham from all other religions who have multiple gods. Virtually all the other ancient religions had multiple gods with different ranks, gods who loved and fought each other as men do, who can hardly be called supreme and for that reason were abandoned by their followers as soon as a more reasonable revelation presented itself. Only the God of Abraham presents himself as the Creator of everything that is. This is a revelation of the greatest magnitude. Even Einstein could detect the presence of a God who is behind all creation, who orders everything according to his laws.

But it is only a small step natural progression. Before Christianity, Zoroastrianism had already created a monotheism with analogous conceptions of God. It is difficult to see Christian theology as a major departure from those ideas.

 

[Bradski]

Male lions eating their young has occurred for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Did this behaviour derive from the nature of being itself?

I would suppose it did.

Where do values, meaning and significance come from, if not from God (AKA Being Itself?)

See above.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Huh?

How would you possibly know that the revelations are “contradictory” if you have “no reliable means for distinguishing between them?”

Clearly, if you can reliably recognize that they are, in fact, contradictory then logically speaking you MUST BE “distinguishing” between them.

You’re right, I meant distinguishing which of them is valid. That we don’t have a good epistemic method for choosing one revelation over another.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So you have kicked the can a little further down the road. Congratulations!

You haven’t, however, actually succeeded in answering the question of how – if existence is blind, unguided and materialistic in nature – morality could possibly be sourced in existence itself.

Your problem, it seems to me, is that as soon as you begin sourcing morality in existence you have to be imputing existence with God-like qualities, albeit with the essentially meaningless proviso that existence itself just shouldn’t be referred to as “God,” even though it remarkably shoulders all of God’s classic traits.

But earlier, you said that God WAS existence itself. So aren’t you the one who is simply tacking on Godlike properties to a non-divine thing (i.e. existence)?

You still haven’t shown how morality can be derived from an “existence itself” which is fundamentally causal, unguided and material with no intentionality, no foresight nor any concern for those particular things which are instantiated as individual existents.

As soon as you begin endowing “existence itself” with intentionality, foresight, concern, purpose and interest in those things which do exists – and thereby make existence itself morally available to an atheist, it is at that point that you begin bringing God into your narrative, but merely deny that you are endorsing the use of the word “God.” Sounds like a distinction without a difference or you suffering from the problem of “having no reliable means of distinguishing between” God and existence itself (in a form which is morally available to an atheist.)

Well, okay, but your objections to theism have simply evaporated like so much morning dew.

But I thought the case we were discussing was that morality isn’t derived from some features of existence, it is inherent to existence. Therefore, I don’t understand your demand that I “show how it is derived.”

Also, now you are bringing up “intentionality[sic]” and “concern” which sound an awful lot like features of an individual. Since you did not address my earlier point about what disqualifies God from being an individual:

When we were talking about individuals earlier, I understood it to mean “a rational, conscious, entity, acting independently from a group.” The fact that God is other things aside from that is irrelevant. Are you denying that God is rational or conscious? Or are you denying that it is possible for God to act independently of his creation?

I’m going to have to conclude that God IS an individual, and that your objections to my attempts to “ground value or significance in existence itself” have so far consisted of demands that I answer “who is the individual who is bestowing this value?”
Therefore, your original point:

The difference is where the value or significance is grounded – in existence itself or in the individual bestowing value or significance.

failed to correctly characterize your position. Because your demands have all centered around demanding a “bestower” for the value I claimed was inherent in existence, the distinction you should have made was not “where value was grounded” but “who is doing the bestowing.”

 

[Tomdstone]

One such revelation in the Abrahamic religions would be the claim that there is but one God. This distinguishes the religion of Abraham from all other religions who have multiple gods.

The Dvaita Vedanta school of hinduism is monotheistic.