AnthonyAdams45

The OP asked whether atheism explained anything, as loaded a question as any, as atheism does not purport to explain anything. One might ask why the NT has nothing to say on the infield fly rule, since it does purport to explain something. At least it would be nice if it explained something useful.

Then it is suggested that we should listen to the Bible's account of the divine. Even if it were unambiguous, which ambiguity is celebrated in the Talmud, not denied, we still haven't been provided with grounds for listening to the Bible rather than the Elder Edda or the Analects, either of which are far less internally contradictory, and much more easily interpreted. I know of no holy wars among the Norse or the Confucians, but ask the many heretics of Europe about one group of Xians killing another over the ambiguities of the NT.

Foo. Yes, I say foo! Keith laces his arguements with unsubstantiated claims which the gracious locals accept for discussion's sake, then the GLs are charged with prejudice when they are ultmately forced to ask for substantiation.

Example? Seems to me I care a lot about my bank balance, the nutritional value of food, the safety of my automobile, and whether I need an umbrella this evening, as do many others, and on all of these things, a moreor less objective position can be derived.

What does this mean? That without an ultimate purposer, there is no ultimate purpose? Okay. So? I, for one, am not interested in an ultimate purpose. My purpose, oddly enough atheists have intentions, my neighbor's purpose, the purpose of the people whose lives intersect in some way with mine, those are the only purposes that interest me. They all exist, all have meaning, whether God exists or not.

Foo!

Philosoft

Your objections indict the whole of human judgement - secular, theistic, whatever. You have yet to even hint at ways to get at this "objective" Truth that purportedly exists and ways to tell when we are being objective. All these appeals to God require God to be the direct source of the information to each individual. As soon as I have to rely on a book or on you or on Jerry Falwell to tell me the information God allegedly wants me to have, your argument renders objectivity highly implausible.

Philosoft

Keith's what? As yet, he has only asserted that my atheism leaves me in the midst of objective uncertainty. But, as my penultimate post indicates, he necessarily indicts theistic means of objective knowing in the process unless the singular source of the information is God hisownself.

Thus, if Keith is right about human interpretation's inherent subjectivity, I am unable to verify anything Keith says, or anything within the Bible as objectively true. He's not providing a solution - he's saying the problem is nearly unavoidable.

7thangel

It's my fault, I have not read both all your posts altogether in this thread.

Sue Sponte

Again, as I've noted many times herein, the correlation you assume exists between theologic beliefs and reality are illogical. You concede that it is reasonable to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has in the past, but then conclude that an atheist has no basis to understand this. Frankly, I can't understand this point you are making, as the two are wholly unrelated.

I could rephrase the issue any number of ways, substituting other unrelated things for atheism. For example, it may be reasonable to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow because it does so regularly, but how could you as someone who had oatmeal for breakfast explain that? The last half of the sentence, like your references to atheism, is meaningless. I know the sun will rise because the sun rises. Whatever you assume as to my theologic beliefs, they have no relevance to that conclusion.

You are fond of answering questions with questions, so I put to you an unanswered question I asked you several posts ago. What about being believing the bible makes one better capable of judging whether the sun will rise tomorrow, or whether an apple will fall to the ground if I let go of it? Perhaps your answer to this question will help me to understand your reasoning, as thus far, I am at a loss to understand why religious beliefs have anything to do with conclusions regarding certain aspects of repeated natural occurrences.

7thangel

From what I understand, in parallel sense, the question asks meaning of the purpose of a car, not your meaning of your purpose as the wheel, or the seat, of the car. In this sense, if such existence of humans are without objective reasons, your purpose will altogether fall to senselessness.

One of Keith's argument, from what I understand, is that we cannot make sense from evolution which dictates an uncertainty, or chances, just like viewing determinism to make no sense.

But I might be wrong of my observations.

Sue Sponte

Chance, probability, uncertainty, these things all exist in many ways in nature. Because not all things are certain does not mean they make no sense. It simply means there are variables that cannot be predicted with certainty. Or this can semantically be altered to state that there is certainly in variation. So what? How does any of this relate to theologic beliefs, other than ascribing each condition to the will of god, a self-proving conclusion?

AnthonyAdams45

I cannot overempasize the significance of this quote. Herein lies the heart of the discussion. That this is a disanalogy is obvious to me, but not to the theist. Reality is not a car. People are not wheels. Wheels have no intentions of their own. No goals. No plans. Wheels are component of a greater thing, indeed, to be a wheel is to imply component-hood, as a round disc which cannot be affixed to an axle nor used as locomotion for a vehicle is no wheel.

People are not wheels. They make their own purposes, project their own intentions, shape their own meaning. We have our own goals and plans that need never reference some master plan of reality, nor nature, nor God. People are not components, but are free standing individuals, capable of self-direction and self-determination, as no wheel can be.

This is where the difference is most intense between the theist and the atheist. The theist says I have no meaning without reference to God, that my life has no meaning without reference to God, that humanity has no meaning without reference to God. Yet, I see meaning for all these things, without ever once saying God. I make these meanings, working in concert with my fellow human beings. What could God add to this meaning?

wordfailure

At the heart of this discussion, seems to me, and maybe at the heart of all such discussions between atheist and theist is a fundamental difference in thinking about reality. Implicit, at least to the atheist, in theist arguments such as those in this thread that without God there is no meaning, purpose, or objective authoritative standard is an assumption that we are justifiably free to select beliefs on the basis of which one is better or has more features. The theist seems to be thinking "Why can't they see that this belief is better?" while the atheist is thinking, for example, "Either there is purpose or there isn't. Why do they think their preference for it can decide this?'


BTW, I appreciate the openness of you theist posters even when unflattering. I see it as a courtesy not without cost to you.

Keith

Truth is that which accords with objective fact or reality.

Keith