Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_beastie]

I'm being called dishonest merely for not answering a battery of questions about my posting history on the internet. If that is not evidence of bigotry, then what is? The quicksilver leap to dishonesty simply because I am associated with the LDS faith and mentioned MAD once is about as clear of an example of obstinate prejudice as one can expect to have. It's so easy to ignore the faults of one's own tribe, isn't it Beastie?

I missed this. The poster is obviously very familiar with my thoughts regarding tribal influences on modern behavior. Pahoran is not a bad guess, in my opinion, but I never had the impression he paid that much attention to my specific thoughts. Cdowis would definitely not remember that level of detail, he has an amazing capacity to be impervious to new information. Perhaps Ray is gracing us with his presence again. And since Ray confessed to holding Pahoran as his new model, it would make sense the style is reminiscent of Pahoran's.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

"The properties of God". Yes, no doubt that finite, mortal human beings are fully able to expound upon the "properties of God". And then insist this be regarded as some sort of quasi scientific evidence...

.

Finite, mortal human beings are able to imagine what properties an object can have and what consequences that will entail. That's how evidence and inference work. Your a priori dismissal shows that you will not even allow your atheism to be questioned. It is true a priori.

Well, by all means, proceed to show nihilism is false.

I never said I could or would. You seem to take refuge in the fact that showing your worldview bleak doesn't show it wrong. But I never said it did. I'm interested in rebutting a common secularist refrain that it doesn't entail what Smith shows it does. Smith may argue this is true of everyone, but I feel he is mistaken due a misunderstanding of God's nature. Unless you can show where he goes wrong in a godless universe, that shows that at least in a godless universe, what he says holds true.

[_cksalmon]

I don't think you read the paper carefully. Moral realism is defined therein as, "Moral realism is true if and only if particulars possess value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value...

That's another way of saying true moral statements exist. In other words, that there is moral truth.

For what it's worth, it seems a rather sloppy way, Smith's atheistic eminence notwithstanding.

As a moral realist, I'd be much inclined to accept the definition:

(1) Moral realism is true iff moral truth claims possess positive truth-value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they are truth-evaluable.

That makes more sense and allows the cognitivists onto the playground.

Best.

CKS

[_guy sajer]

"The properties of God". Yes, no doubt that finite, mortal human beings are fully able to expound upon the "properties of God". And then insist this be regarded as some sort of quasi scientific evidence...

.

Finite, mortal human beings are able to imagine what properties an object can have and what consequences that will entail. That's how evidence and inference work. Your a priori dismissal shows that you will not even allow your atheism to be questioned. It is true a priori.

Well, by all means, proceed to show nihilism is false.

I never said I could or would. You seem to take refuge in the fact that showing your worldview bleak doesn't show it wrong. But I never said it did. I'm interested in rebutting a common secularist refrain that it doesn't entail what Smith shows it does. Smith may argue this is true of everyone, but I feel he is mistaken due a misunderstanding of God's nature. Unless you can show where he goes wrong in a godless universe, that shows that at least in a godless universe, what he says holds true.

And, pray tell, what specifically is God's nature?

And, more, what empirical evidence can you offer to account for it?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi ALiD,

In addition to the points I made above, I'd like to add one more. According to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, nihilism is "An approach to philosophy that holds that human life is meaningless and that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are thoroughly empty and false. The term is from the Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing.'" Nobody here, of course, holds that human life is meaningless. You may argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism, or that atheism is inconsistent with the idea of a meaningful life. But even if you're right, that does not make the atheists here nihilists.

As a simple example, let's consider the common evangelical beliefs that 1) all young children go to heaven, 2) God wants everyone to go to heaven, 3) killing children is morally wrong and gets one sent to hell, and 4) self-sacrifice for the sake of others is the ultimate ideal. We might conclude that these beliefs lead to a single unmistakeable conclusion: we all ought to sacrifice our own salvation and do babies the favor of killing them before they grow up so they'll go to heaven. And yet, even if this is the logical conclusion we draw from the four beliefs I mentioned above, absolutely no evangelical affirms it. To call evangelicals baby-killers just because that's the logical outcome of their beliefs is a misrepresentation until they actually arrive at and affirm that conclusion themselves. Similarly, to call some atheists nihilists just because that's the logical outcome of their beliefs is a misrepresentation until they actually affirm nihilism themselves. A nihilist, by definition, is someone who affirms nihilism.

Please also consider the fact that the definition of nihilism I cited in my first paragraph does not specify what "meaning" entails. You are using a highly specific definition of meaning: namely, that it exists as actual units of value with respect to the universe. Most people would reject your definition of meaning. Atheists tend to define meaning in more immediate and relative terms. To make your personal definition of "meaning" (and thus your personal definition of "nihilism") part of the premise of your argument is what we call the fallacy of arbitrary redefinition.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html

-CK

[_Tommy]

Brother Guy,

And, pray tell, what specifically is God's nature?

An excellent question! Guy, we believe that God created the world. That he is all powerful, good, and that he has a plan whereby every one of us may return home to him.

I am a child of God.
And He has sent me here.
Has given me,
..an earthly home.
With parents kind, and dear.
Lead me,
Guide me,
..Walk..beside me,
Help me find the way.
Teach me all that I must do,
To live with him someday.

Now look into your heart Guy, how do you feel, as I've recited those words? Those good feelings, Guy are the Holy Spirit witnessing that what I've taught you today is true.

And, more, what empirical evidence can you offer to account for it?

Many years ago in America, there was a great religious upheaval. People were confused, not knowing where to find God. A young man, named Joseph Smith was confused. The Bible told him to ask God, and he did just that. He went into a grove of trees and prayed. He recounts what happened,

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

In response to Joseph's humble prayer, Joseph Smith was visited by God the father and his Son, Jesus Christ.

No greater "empirical proof" could you have that God lives than a testimony of his chosen prophet.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

And, pray tell, what specifically is God's nature?

And, more, what empirical evidence can you offer to account for it?

We don't actually need to establish something is the case to discuss the logical consequences if something was the case. We don't need to show God exists to demonstrate that a world in which God exists would not have the same consequences as one in which God does not.

I am not a logical positivist. Perhaps you are, but I do not think the only way to legitimately come to knowledge of something is through empirical evidence. Since you do, might I ask you to prove that your senses are a reliable way to know truth without begging the question and using empirical evidence? My understanding of God's nature derives from personal revelation, and my knowledge of it is as basic as my knowledge that my senses are an avenue to truth.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Guess Tommyboy must've missed the second question you asked there, Guy.

[_beastie]

Once again, I reject the argument for the reason I have repeatedly stated - there is no logical reason for requiring human actions to be measured against "infinity". I believe human actions matter quite a bit, when measured within the realm in which we live - our planet and our human history.

I get really tired of theists who can't imagine a universe that does not revolve around human beings projecting their lack of ability to find worth and purpose without this egocentric notion. It's silly, and nothing in the world around us and how human beings behave supports it. Every time one more facet of this egocentric idea gets debunked (see: evolution, the earth's movement around the sun) somehow humans continue as before.

It reminds me of theists who insist that if we admit that there are biological origins in realities like "love", then we no longer can really experience "love". To understand a thing is to be able to more fully love and appreciate a thing.

[_Mr. Coffee]

We don't actually need to establish something is the case to discuss the logical consequences if something was the case.

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.

We don't need to show God exists to demonstrate that a world in which God exists would not have the same consequences as one in which God does not.

Yeah, actually you do. First you have to establish that A. there is a "God", B. the powers and scope of action of that "God", and C. the general morals and ethics that "God" operates by at the very least. Otherwise your comparision of Dietic universe verus a a purely physical universe without any supernatural influence is less than meaningless.

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