Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_JAK]

Tommy:
My dear brother JAK,

Clearly you have not repented since the last time we crossed paths. The door to my office is always open if you would like to talk.

JAK:
Duplicity is always the hobgoblin of religious rhetoric.

You write, "You simply claim God, clarify that your God is male, and further claim sound as in “listen to him.”"

We know by divine revelation that God is male. And a recent defender of our faith, Kerry Shirts, has clearified just how literal God's maleness is.

JAK:
“Divine revelation” a mere fiction of a particular religious myth. Evidence is absent for the claim.

But we need not invoke such deep doctrine to understand what "A Light" is telling us.

JAK:
The handle is a fraud. ALITD is merely a handle for an author.

Have you ever heard of a metaphor, JAK? When someone says to "listen to God", it could mean a number of different things, least of which would be tied to a thoroughgoing anthropomorphism.

JAK:
Ambiguity is the ever-present escape for religious pundits.

JAK previously:
Then you admit that you’re entirely subjective as you make further claims regarding your “personal revelation, and my (your) knowledge...”

How does claiming personal revelation and also claiming (his) knowledge make him "entirely subjective?"

JAK:
Elementary. A claim requires transparent, objective evidence for support. Otherwise, it’s meaningless. It’s subjective in that there is no objective, skeptical review of the claim. Hence, anyone can claim anything -- subjective and mere assertion.

If I claim to have a blue marble and a brown one, does that mean all my marbles are either blue or brown?

JAK:
Irrelevant analogy and non sequitur to the discussion of the claim at hand.

And how objective or subjective are you JAK? For instance, is the statement "Then on page 8, you reveal your simplistic mentality well indoctrinated by religion." 100% objective? 90% objective? 50% objective?

JAK:
Irrelevant analogy and non sequitur to the discussion of the claim at hand.

JAK:
No evidence is submitted for the claim(s).
ALITD claims“God...” No evidence has been presented for the claim.

ALITD claims“God is available...” No evidence has been presented for the claim.

ALITD claims“ God is available to those who will listen to him. Now please stop derailing my thread.”

No evidence has been presented for the additional claims in the statements.

Can you prove that "A Light" is indoctrinated by religion any better than "A Light" can prove their is a God?

JAK:
It is ALITD who is making the claims, not I. But his claims are challenged for evidence which is transparent and open to skeptical review. He who asserts has the burden of proof. It is ALITD who has made the assertions absent evidence.

And let me take the following opportunity to teach, you wrote,

You are not a light in the darkness, you are darkness.

Only a few lines after,

"and further claim sound as in “listen to him.”

Has "A light" established the literal "sound" of God's literal voice any less than you have established an identity relation between the poster known as "A light" and literal darkness?[/quote]

JAK:
ALITD has merely made claims absent evidence. ALITD has established nothing to support his claims.

It is not I who have made claims regarding religious dogma, it is ALITD. His challenge is for evidence of support.

Muslims make religious claims. Those claims are different from that of ALITD and are sustained by no better support than those of ALITD. Religious dogmas are unreliable in that they disagree with one another. In addition, they are self-contradictory. We can cite multiple evidences for both.

JAK

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Smoke what? Seriously, did you learn about logic off the back of a cerial box or something?

Without defining all entities involved it is impossible to have a logical discussion on anything. Without those definitions the terms used are essentially meaningless.

I wasn't talking about definitions. I was talking about following the logical consequences of an object's properties if it were true that object existed. One doesn't need to demonstrate an object exists to do that. In fact, that's putting the horse before the cart. In order to provide evidence, one must first have developed expectations for what the world would be like if it were the case something existed, then see if their experience of the world conforms to that understanding. Honestly, for a person who is so blatantly poor at reading and reasoning, you spend a lot of time lobbing intelligence related insults.


You don't have to establish that there is a God to know what the world would be like - roughly speaking - if God existed anymore than you need to establish that the lochness monster exists to think about what would be and would not be the case f it did. This is thinking 101. I was talking about how God's properties, specifically the capacity to exist outside of spatiotemporal reality, has certain logical consquences. Guy, ever the brilliant professor, asked me for empirical evidence of God. But one can easily braket the truth of God's existence and simply discuss if a being with God's properties, as outlined here, would be consistent or inconsistent with an argument someone made.

Seriously, did you learn about logic off the back of a cerial box or something?

Apparently, that would be more effort than you put into the matter.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I wasn't talking about definitions. I was talking about following the logical consequences of an object's properties if it were true that object existed. One doesn't need to demonstrate an object exists to do that.

Wow, so besides failing at logic you also failed at reading comprehension...

Or did you miss the last two times where I said that you don't have to prove that an object exists physically, but that you do have to define it's properties in order to understand the logical consequences of it.

Boy, you really need to just shut up and lurk.

In order to provide evidence, one must first have developed expectations for what the world would be like if it were the case something existed, then see if their experience of the world conforms to that understanding.

And unless you define what it is you are looking for then you have no clue what it is. Gee, thanks for proving my point!

You don't have to establish that there is a God to know what the world would be like - roughly speaking - if God existed anymore than you need to establish that the lochness monster exists to think about what would be and would not be the case f it did.

First... What the f*** does the lochness monster have to do with this?

Second... You have to establish that there is a god, as in define the term/s, in order to discuss the implications, dumbass.

This is thinking 101. I was talking about how God's properties, specifically the capacity to exist outside of spatiotemporal reality, has certain logical consquences. Guy, ever the brilliant professor, asked me for empirical evidence of God. But one can easily braket the truth of God's existence and simply discuss if a being with God's properties, as outlined here, would be consistent or inconsistent with an argument someone made.

So what you are saying is that instead of answering his question you sidestepped it and started whining about not needing to either define the terms used in your argument or provide evidence to support it?

Thinking 101 my ass... More like "Failed Philosophy 101".


Get thee back to MAD where the bushleaguers belong, Sparky.

[_JAK]

ALITD,

Mr. Coffee (Sat May 05, 2007 9:28 pm) has done a fine analysis of your writing.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
I wasn't talking about definitions. I was talking about following the logical consequences of an object's properties if it were true that object existed. One doesn't need to demonstrate an object exists to do that

JAK:
An absurd position when one intends to argue that it is true. Precisely, one needs to provide compelling evidence for any claim if one wishes it to be taken seriously.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
In order to provide evidence, one must first have developed expectations for what the world would be like if it were the case something existed, then see if their experience of the world conforms to that understanding.

JAK:
Wrong. One looks. There is not the slightest requirement for prejudice expectations of anything in the search for evidence.

Subjective drivel regarding “if their experience of the world...”

That personal, subjective “experience” is irrelevant if one is genuinely searching for evidence. What is relevant is What is found, Objective peer review of what is found, and Testing of the evidence which one presents for all to see with transparency is critical and essential.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
You don't have to establish that there is a God to know what the world would be like - roughly speaking - if God existed anymore than you need to establish that the lochness monster exists to think about what would be and would not be the case f it did.

Assertions and claims are established only as the ones making those assertions and claims present compelling evidence which stands the tests of scrutiny. As for God claims, such claims are not established. Assertions fail to establish. “Lochness monster” is irrelevant, failed analogy to your implied or stated claims.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
This is thinking 101. I was talking about how God's properties, specifically the capacity to exist outside of spatiotemporal reality, has certain logical consquences. Guy, ever the brilliant professor, asked me for empirical evidence of God. But one can easily braket the truth of God's existence and simply discuss if a being with God's properties, as outlined here, would be consistent or inconsistent with an argument someone made.

Mr. Coffee is correct that you are required to establish your claims.

Mr. Coffee stated: “You have to establish that there is a god, as in define the term/s, in order to discuss the implications...”

Failure to establish claims leaves you with only your assertions. They are on a par with any other assertions for which no evidence is submitted for skeptical review and testing. Your previous argument in another post attempted to argue that if many people thing the same way, that thinking must be correct. It’s a false conclusion. As I pointed out then: For centuries the evolving human species regarded the earth as flat and at the center of the universe. That conclusion was wrong then as it is wrong now. The difference is that we now have evidence regarding the place of the earth in not just our solar system, but we have evidence about the existence of billions and billions of suns -- some of which have planets with environments similar to parts of our earth.

We have established the suns by objective observation. God has not been established. In fact, the only references which make the claims for gods and later for God rely on ancient writings which were hardly constructed by informed observers in the context of modern informed observers today.

“God’s properties” (your phrase) are not established. An “argument” is no better than its accurate, correct input of evidence. An “argument” may follow deductive form and be fatally flawed.

Example:

All dogs are cats.
Fido is a dog.
Therefore, Fido is a cat.

Of course the fundamental error begins in the first statement. It’s false. Given that, the remainder of the argument is irrelevant and the conclusion is unreliable.

For an “argument” to be sustained, evidence for the major premise must have been previously established beyond a reasonable doubt, be transparent, and be tested by all means possible.

We can test the major premise: “All dogs are cats” in a variety of ways, and it fails the test as a major premise. Hence, the conclusion coming from the major premise is unreliable.

You confuse subjective assertion for academic objectivity and analysis. In short, you make up assertions which you fail to establish then claim “consistent argument.” The latter claim is irrelevant, given the flaw in the claims and the failure to establish the claims you have made.

JAK

[_A Light in the Darkness]

JAK:
An absurd position when one intends to argue that it is true. Precisely, one needs to provide compelling evidence for any claim if one wishes it to be taken seriously.

I wasn't intending to argue that God exists in this thread. My comments don't require it. This can be figured out through such esoteric methods as reading the thread and noting where I said as much. That you need to ejaculate "prove God!" everytime anytime the subject of religious belief comes up is a personal fault of yours. It is as lame as me asking you to prove your senses (i.e. observational experiences) can provide truth everytime you assert anything allegedly supported by empirical evidence. You are just asking those you wish to attack to engage in a task you hope to be prohibitively difficult in this format in order to shut down conversation. Well, it isn't going to work. If you are honest and seek reason to believe God with an honest heart, then you need to work on opening your spiritual eyes. This, however, isn't the topic of this thread, nor relevant to my arguments here.

[_CaliforniaKid]

AliD,

My post, which was relevant to your arguments here, has been completely ignored. Meanwhile, you answer people who seem interested in engaging in a battle of wits. In other words, you are ignoring on-topic behavior and rewarding off-topic behavior. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out which kind of behavior is going to prevail in the thread. Cheers,

-CK

[_beastie]

What is the purpose of this thread, anyway, ALITD?

Right now I don't see much purpose or meaning, just your attempts to insist that all atheists must accept this reasoning, while ignoring the fact that there are many assertions embedded in the argument that do not demand universal acceptance among atheists. But this has already been pointed out.

So is there a point to all this?

[_JAK]

JAK:
An absurd position when one intends to argue that it is true. Precisely, one needs to provide compelling evidence for any claim if one wishes it to be taken seriously.

I wasn't intending to argue that God exists in this thread. My comments don't require it. This can be figured out through such esoteric methods as reading the thread and noting where I said as much. That you need to ejaculate "prove God!" everytime anytime the subject of religious belief comes up is a personal fault of yours. It is as lame as me asking you to prove your senses (I.e. observational experiences) can provide truth everytime you assert anything allegedly supported by empirical evidence. You are just asking those you wish to attack to engage in a task you hope to be prohibitively difficult in this format in order to shut down conversation. Well, it isn't going to work. If you are honest and seek reason to believe God with an honest heart, then you need to work on opening your spiritual eyes. This, however, isn't the topic of this thread, nor relevant to my arguments here.

ALITD,

Disingenuous response to the full text of my comments: May 06, 2007 5:50 am (I should like to be able to provide direct link to the full text.)

ALITD stated: (Sun May 06, 2007 6:02 am)

I wasn't intending to argue that God exists in this thread. My comments don't require it. This can be figured out through such esoteric methods as reading the thread and noting where I said as much. That you need to ejaculate "prove God!" everytime anytime the subject of religious belief comes up is a personal fault of yours. It is as lame as me asking you to prove your senses (I.e. observational experiences) can provide truth everytime you assert anything allegedly supported by empirical evidence. You are just asking those you wish to attack to engage in a task you hope to be prohibitively difficult in this format in order to shut down conversation. Well, it isn't going to work. If you are honest and seek reason to believe God with an honest heart, then you need to work on opening your spiritual eyes. This, however, isn't the topic of this thread, nor relevant to my arguments here.

JAK:
You are arguing God by fiat every time you use the term “God” and continue as if you had established such an entity. Your first sentence above if false. You do intend “to argue that God exists...” by assertion.

I pointed out that such claim fails. Ad hominem give you no benefit. Your failure to establish your implied and stated claim for God renders all comments which depend, depend on the reliability of that claim without merit.

Your attempt to shift the subject here in no way benefits your implied and stated God claims.

You assert God. That assertion requires transparent, testable evidence for whatever claims you are making regarding your invented God notion.

You continue assertions in “spiritual eyes.” You have not established any such thing. What’s that -- “spiritual eyes”?

Each time you make additional claims which have not been established, you are subject to interrogation.

You began the thread many pages ago with an attempt at truth by assertion in “Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.”

Never having established that claim, by use of borrowed material, you just make one claim on top of another claim -- never establishing any of your claims.

It fails.

Attempts to equate analogies with any views you may hold also fail to benefit your case.

Keep in mind that it’s typical of religious pundits (such as yourself) to use ambiguous language rather than specific, detailed, and transparent wording. You are challenged to use the latter.

Your failure to respond to specific challenge on your own words is evidence of the duplicity which I previously observed in your posts.

JAK

[_JAK]

ALITD,

Let’s address your original title to these pages.

You state: “Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists”

A false conclusion that such atheists “must be nihilists.”

First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

Second, be sure you understand the meaning of “nihilist.”

nihilist

nihilist

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions

all the definitions from the link above should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Your statement of title is incorrect. You recognize that atheists believe
in “moral truth.” Not only are ideas of morality relative, but ideas of truth are also relative -- relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc.

Now let’s consider moral

moral

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

All the definitions from the link on “moral” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

truth

truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

All the definitions from the link on “truth” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Given these understandings of terms in your title, it’s clear that you have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

JAK

[_harmony]

ALITD,

Let’s address your original title to these pages.

You state: “Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists”

A false conclusion that such atheists “must be nihilists.”

First, the concept of “moral truth” is relative. It’s relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc. That which is “moral” in one culture may not be in another culture. Hence “moral truth” is relative to those factors listed.

Second, be sure you understand the meaning of “nihilist.”

nihilist

nihilist

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions

all the definitions from the link above should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Your statement of title is incorrect. You recognize that atheists believe
in “moral truth.” Not only are ideas of morality relative, but ideas of truth are also relative -- relative to time, place, culture, civilization, etc.

Now let’s consider moral

moral

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

All the definitions from the link on “moral” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

truth

truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

All the definitions from the link on “truth” should be kept in mind in the context of your title.

Given these understandings of terms in your title, it’s clear that you have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

JAK

JAK, Light doesn't have much use for dictionaries or definitions. Light prefers to make definitions up as he/she goes along.