daemon

Heh, no problem. I understand how it can be easy to get riled up--I often have to restrain myself from sniping mercilessly, heh.

The term I've seen used for this is "intersubjective." To take the example of language, people tend to use language as a means of communication--words without an intersubjective meaning are useless in such a situation.

Similarly, we also have intersubjective values--we have our basic animal drives, our societal agreements, and the ability to communicate our values to others. All these things can dictate or influence our values to some degree or another. They differ in that a purely subjective meaning isn't inherently useless, however, though values too much at odds with others' within our society tend to result in some form of punishment.

Much in the same way square circles are meaningless--they can't exist, by definition.

Certainly, though it might be more appropriate to move the discussion to another thread--this one still seems to be moving in its "mock the Christians" direction.

One of the last sane

Christian Mythology.

Not Prince Hamlet

Kingjames,

An existance proof to demonstrate that atheism is not the same thing as belief in futility and pointlessness.

Let's look at a belief system that is atheistic and yet not futile.

Note: this is not my belief system, just a belief system that demonstrates that one can be an atheist and still not be an existentialist.

In the beginning... nobody knows what was there. Nobody knew how old the universe was, or where people came from. But people did eventually arrive.

As people evolved, they began to develop an unknown psychic force, not measurable by any instrument, yet not divine in nature either. This psychic force served, among other things, as a "permanent backup" of the mind and personality. When the human died, the psychic force remained.

Psychic forces know greater happiness, and can selectively merge with other psychic forces to double the joy while retaining all understanding of self. Thus, as the mortal form of men die, so the joy of the universe actually increases as men's psychic forms become free to join with one another and share all that was learned.

Combined psychic forces can create "virtual reality" worlds to inhabit. These are not physical worlds, but they seem physical to the psychic forces. Thus, any two psychic forces can team up together and make a "heaven" of sorts, though of course, without any form of divine aspect to it.


A silly belief system? Perhaps. But one that is both atheistic and with no more futility in it than that inherent in the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Jeff

kingjames1

Thank you, goliath, for your thoughts...
However, i have to disagree with them. You say atheism is a 'lack of belief' in god(s).
What is a god? (e.g. metaphorical, impersonal forces, personal but finite, personal and infinite, etc.) What kind of 'gods' do you deny the existence of? Following from the denial of the belief in a god leads to inevitable conclusions: e.g. a god did not create the universe (if there is no god, he/she/it could not create anything!) This is certainly something, and has obvious bearing on the questions of origin.

You say you believe "nothing" regarding the supernatural. But again you hold SOMETHING - either that there are supernatural phenonemona or that there are not, and if you are agnostic about the issue, that means you hold that they could possibly happen - maybe, maybe not. That's still something, and has definite bearing on your worldview, whether the universe was supernaturally created or naturally evolved, or 'who knows', could go either way.
Ideas have consequences...and atheism is a big idea, just as big as theism.

J.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Jeff, thanks for the repsonse...

I do not hold that atheism = naturalism. I am assuming that most here are naturalists, however. But perhaps there are a couple of new age type folks here, or some who believe in 'eternal' aliens from some 'mother universe' who can monkey with laws of physics (though perhaps this is a sort of theism, a 'little green-men' theology).

However, your example is actually not convincing regarding futility. Maximizing pleasure or joy in virtual realms via combinations of mysterious psychic forces is not sufficient ground for ethics or meaning - it is essentially no different than the 'ethical' arguments of 'weak' hedonists. See Hume's argument concerning the insufficiency of mere fact (whether pleasure or functionality) to ground moral obligations.

J.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

For Daemon, hobbs, and babelfish...

In response to this and to babelfish's suggestion, I would like to move our discussion to the "Can Athiests have morals" thread...I hope to chat you guys there.

Thanks.

J.

daemon

I am assuming kj is referring to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000328" target="_blank">this thread</a>, correct?

babelfish

Yeah, I think that's the one.

See you guys there!

Goliath

kingjames1,

No problem. Thank you for your response. It pleases me to see that you are not chicken enough not to respond to my responses (unlike some other theist members of this board).

Almost correct. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any god whatsoever. I don't know what you mean by "I don't believe in god X." After all, it could mean "I don't believe that god X exists," or "I don't believe that god X likes peanut butter sandwiches," or "I don't believe that god X lives with the Smurfs in a mushroom house." Saying that "I don't believe in god X" isn't very specific. Of course, when most people say "I don't believe in god X," they usually mean "I don't believe that god X exists."

All of these and more. A god is definitely a supernatural entity. For the purposes of our discussion, you can replace "god" with "supernatural entity," if you'd like.

None. I do not deny the existence of any god. However, I do not believe that any god exists. There is an unbelievably important difference between the two.

Correct.

I do not.

This (as quoted) is true. However, that does not mean that I need hold a belief regarding such matters.

I do not maintain that it is impossible to know whether or not anything supernatural exists. Therefore I am in no way, shape, or form an agnostic when it comes to the supernatural.

I guess a lack of belief could be construed as an idea. However, if you claim that nihilism is a logical consequence of atheism, then the burden falls squarely upon your shoulders to prove your claim.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Not Prince Hamlet

This may be a true statement (though how you can measure the relative "bigness" of ideas is beyond me), but it adds no value.

What KJ wants to show is that theism is just as valid as atheism. His first step is to try to show, "See, they're both ideas. And my idea is just as much an valid as yours."

By saying "is as much an ideas as yours", he's attempting to say the same thing...

But the important part is that he's not saying this. He has not demonstrated that his idea is as valid or as likely as atheism. (Mind you, he hasn't demonstrated that it's less valid or likely either. He just hasn't proven anything.)

Jeff