Odemus

That would sum up my position.

Philosoft

The problem is, "argument from direct personal experience" is incomplete and, therefore meaningless for anyone else. If it was, "argument from something I can experience which I can show others how to experience," it might mean something. But, "I experienced 'x' therefore you should believe 'y'" is a non-argument.

rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by seebs:
[QB]

Presumably, if you're an atheist, and your belief system is reasonably well explored, you don't accept any premises which logically lead to theism. So, even if such arguments exist, *you* won't consider them sound.

Soundness itself is unprovable, because it depends on proving premises, and I am not currently aware of a single premise that I can prove to be true.

rw: I am:

(1.) Automobiles that function properly perform specific tasks consistent to automobiles.

(2.) I have an automobile that performs a specific task consistent to automobiles.

(3.) My automobile is functioning properly.


I can conclusively prove the truth value of both my premises and the conclusion. It is a sound argument and demonstrates that soundness is provable.

Odemus

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I gathered that all assessments of the value of meaning and purpose are entirely derived from subjective experience in athiest philosophy.Is there any other possible conclusion?

Based on that premise isn't everyone entitled to seek and substantiate what is meaningful?

Jobar

Koy, et al.- I know that proving a negative is at minimum very difficult- but is anyone aware of a sound *atheist* argument? It seems to me there should be such a thing, particularly for weak atheism. I'd like to see some really concise ones.

Denshuu

Jobar - What atheist argument? Atheists aren't making positive claims. Unless, of course, you're talking about that small percentage of atheists who happen to be militant in some belief that a god doesn't exist - but that really isn't what atheism is.

Odemus

I just made a positive claim, let's see that disproved.

Vorkosigan

Is "concise" the same as "sound?" In any case, most of the atheists -- let's assume for the moment that atheism means "metaphysical naturalism" -- whose work I read depend on the weight of evidence against the supernatural, not a set of concise arguments. I don't think you can really demonstrate anything with philosophy; you eventually have to go out into the world, and that requires complex arguments whose soundness is the result of their tremendous reach.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

Vorkosigan,

Where does philosophy happen, if not in "the world"?

If (as it appears) you mean to say that one cannot ignore empirical data and still reason well, you are no doubt correct. But it's hard to think of any recent or contemporary influential philosophers who deny this, though of course they themselves are not usually data collectors. Just as the dual point is correct: that one cannot ignore conceptual, methodological or "big-picture" reasoning either -- and most scientists recognize this, too, while yet focussing more on data. There is just a continuum here between more conceptually inflected and more empirically inflected pursuits of knowledge.

WJ

Koy!


I don't even understand the essence of what comprises an appropriate/'sound' argument? I think if I was logical, I'd surely be an atheist!


So please Mr. logician, tell me more. Please tell me how I should think like an atheist and become perfectly logical, rational, and all the rest. Tell me what to believe or how to think better, thru this logic of yours. Help me break free from the bondage of Christianity.


<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />