Re: OT-LIBERTARIAN - atheists and epistemology

[Guest guest]

There are plenty of " epistemologically aware " atheists (I'm not one) who

believe in certain values and critique the consistency of Christian or other

religious philosophy. So I don't see the point of arguing who can and can't be

moral.

Anyway, this, Lincoln, libertarianism, etc, can all just get moved to the

nt-politics list if people really want to talk about it. I won't be continuing

the discussion on Lincoln too long, because I don't have much to say about it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:28:10 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>Are you seriously suggesting that atheism can only philosophically support

>evil, and that the degree to which atheists don't act evil is strictly the

>degree to which they don't act in accordance with their atheism?

Hi ,

What I am saying is that atheism has no epistemological *justification*

for making a distinction between good and evil, although atheists do so

all of the time. But that just makes them happily inconsistent, not

philosophically justified. In order to even make the critique they have

to borrow from a worldview not of their own making.

I don't know how far you have got in your reading of the old posts, but

we agreed to keep this thread off list. If you want you are welcome to

interact with me directly although I might be somewhat slow to respond.

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

Quoting slethnobotanist@...:

> I don't know how far you have got in your reading of the old posts, but

> we agreed to keep this thread off list. If you want you are welcome to

> interact with me directly although I might be somewhat slow to respond.

Just the atheism thread, or the political thread? I fell behind a week or

two ago, and I've been dreading coming back to (and, moreso, responding to)

the mountain of e-mail that no doubt awaits me.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:45:17 -0700

Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

>Quoting slethnobotanist@...:

>> I don't know how far you have got in your reading of the old posts, but

>> we agreed to keep this thread off list. If you want you are welcome to

>> interact with me directly although I might be somewhat slow to respond.

>

>Just the atheism thread, or the political thread? I fell behind a week or

>two ago, and I've been dreading coming back to (and, moreso, responding to)

>the mountain of e-mail that no doubt awaits me.

>

>--

> Berg

>bberg@...

I wondered what happened to you. You missed all the fun.

It was actually a civil and enjoyable debate even though some folks

complained. The threads all came under the rubric of libertarianism, so

I would guess that includes both atheism and politics. I deliberately

changed the topic name in the recent Lincoln thread so as to head off

any complaints, but I imagine if it gets long enough we may have to move

that thread as well.

Of course anyone can post what they want, but I personally won't be

interacting with any of that thread on this list, but I can only speak

for myself.

Heidi actually started a NT Politics list you might want to check into.

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:24:14 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>There are plenty of " epistemologically aware " atheists (I'm not one) who

>believe in certain values and critique the consistency of Christian or other

>religious philosophy. So I don't see the point of arguing who can and can't be

>moral.

I don't either, since that isn't what I was arguing, that is why I put

stars around the word *justification* in my previous post.

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/19/03 6:00:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> I don't either, since that isn't what I was arguing, that is why I put

> stars around the word *justification* in my previous post.

I know, I worded my statement poorly. Philosophy in my opinion, is wholly

subjective, and I don't think there is any such thing as Christian philosophy,

nor objective philosophy. While I do believe there is such thing as objective

truth, I think most philosophizing is convoluted and intellectual

masturbation-- certainly fun to engage in, but not a whole lot more than that.

I think, while many great Christians have engaged in philosophizing, it has

never been ordained by the church and has almost always gotten folks into more

harm than trouble, and the only significant advance it ever made was to win

intellectuals over to the church, the merits of which are debatable.

It got Origin into trouble, and his condemnation shows it-- others who were

more fortunate to escape official condemantion like St. Clement of andria

still ran into a laundry list of " heresies " (I think St. Photius attributed

about 30 to him).

But most of all is St. Augustine. His theology is based on Greek philosophy

and is almost thoroughly counter to the theology of the church. Some would

make the case that the eventual domination of the west by Augustinian theology

is what led to atheism, secularism, etc.

So the moral of the whole thing is that I don't see any reason to favor your

philosophy about why atheist philosophy is inherently self-contradicting, over

the atheist philosophy that says Christian philosophy is inherently

self-contradicting.

But I don't want to get into it on this list, so I'm not going to say

anything more. Have the last word on the list, email me privately, or transfer

it to

nt-politics or whathaveyou, if you'd like to discuss it further.

Chris

[Guest guest]

unsuscribe OT-LIBERTARIAN

Re: OT-LIBERTARIAN - atheists and epistemology

In a message dated 9/19/03 6:00:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> I don't either, since that isn't what I was arguing, that is why I put

> stars around the word *justification* in my previous post.

I know, I worded my statement poorly. Philosophy in my opinion, is wholly

subjective, and I don't think there is any such thing as Christian philosophy,

nor objective philosophy. While I do believe there is such thing as objective

truth, I think most philosophizing is convoluted and intellectual

masturbation-- certainly fun to engage in, but not a whole lot more than that.

I think, while many great Christians have engaged in philosophizing, it has

never been ordained by the church and has almost always gotten folks into more

harm than trouble, and the only significant advance it ever made was to win

intellectuals over to the church, the merits of which are debatable.

It got Origin into trouble, and his condemnation shows it-- others who were

more fortunate to escape official condemantion like St. Clement of andria

still ran into a laundry list of " heresies " (I think St. Photius attributed

about 30 to him).

But most of all is St. Augustine. His theology is based on Greek philosophy

and is almost thoroughly counter to the theology of the church. Some would

make the case that the eventual domination of the west by Augustinian theology

is what led to atheism, secularism, etc.

So the moral of the whole thing is that I don't see any reason to favor your

philosophy about why atheist philosophy is inherently self-contradicting, over

the atheist philosophy that says Christian philosophy is inherently

self-contradicting.

But I don't want to get into it on this list, so I'm not going to say

anything more. Have the last word on the list, email me privately, or

transfer it to

nt-politics or whathaveyou, if you'd like to discuss it further.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>unsuscribe OT-LIBERTARIAN

---->ROFL! bob's had enough!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hey the great " L " and " Atlas Shrugged " was a great all-nighter discussion back

in the days of the college dorm... but it never gets anywhere so why continue?

" You might find two Libertarians who agree, but I'm not one of them. "

" getting libertarians to agree is like trying to herd cats... "

you know how to drive an " L " crazy? Stop talking to them. They won't know if

they won or lost their argument...

You want to put an " L " into and endless loop? Ask them the exact meaning of

Libertarianism.

How mant libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?

None...market forces will prevail and meet the need.

There's a zillion libertarian sites where this stuff is re-hashed ad

nauseum, and have been since the days of DOS and UNIX and only people

with half a brain could even FIND the internet...

Here's 681 that LOVE that stuff.

search?query=Libertarian

GOOGLE reveals another 1,010,000:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=UTF-8 & oe=UTF-8 & q=Libertarian

What does ANY of it have to do with ?

How many people on this list even know

or give a shiny new penny who Ludwig von Mises or Lysander Spooner were.

RE: OT-LIBERTARIAN - atheists and epistemology

>>>unsuscribe OT-LIBERTARIAN

---->ROFL! bob's had enough!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:10:49 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 9/19/03 6:00:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

>> I don't either, since that isn't what I was arguing, that is why I put

>> stars around the word *justification* in my previous post.

>

>I know, I worded my statement poorly. Philosophy in my opinion, is wholly

>subjective, and I don't think there is any such thing as Christian philosophy,

>nor objective philosophy. While I do believe there is such thing as objective

>truth, I think most philosophizing is convoluted and intellectual

>masturbation-- certainly fun to engage in, but not a whole lot more than that.

Well that is an interesting philosophy, LOL!

FWIW I don't believe there is such a thing as a " Christian " anything, in

the sense that a " Christian " something is one item among a large

smorgasbord of " other " somethings. From a " Christian " perspective <g>,

since this is God's world, either a discipline reflects accurately God's

truth or it does not.

Granted that is not an absolute statement as various aspects of any

discipline can more or less reflect real truth, but to the extent that

it does only to that extent is it accurate, no matter the label. Or as some

of my Protestant friends like to say, all truth is God's

truth, but not everything we say is God's truth is God's truth.

But I do know what you mean and I use the labels myself in discussions

when it would help to make the discourse easier.

>

>I think, while many great Christians have engaged in philosophizing, it has

>never been ordained by the church and has almost always gotten folks into more

>harm than trouble, and the only significant advance it ever made was to win

>intellectuals over to the church, the merits of which are debatable.

>

>It got Origin into trouble, and his condemnation shows it-- others who were

>more fortunate to escape official condemantion like St. Clement of andria

>still ran into a laundry list of " heresies " (I think St. Photius attributed

>about 30 to him).

It is beyond the scope of this list, but I would agree with you that

philosophy as traditionally understood can lead one far astray, but we

might find much to disagree about concerning some of the statements of

St. and their bearing on the nature of truth, what we know and how

we can know it (epistemology), the defense of the faith, the relation of

the unbeliever to wisdom and knowledge and so on.

But you are right, I think we need to tread very carefully in this area,

especially those of us who have a western mindset.

>

>But most of all is St. Augustine. His theology is based on Greek philosophy

>and is almost thoroughly counter to the theology of the church. Some would

>make the case that the eventual domination of the west by Augustinian theology

>is what led to atheism, secularism, etc.

Hey, aren't you being anti multi-cultural by dismissing the contributions

of this North African saint, LOL!! Forgive me Suze if you are reading

this - I'm just having some fun.

Yes some would make that case. Even though I am not an Augustinian, I

tend to stay away from discussions about St. Augustine. While he

certainly made a huge soteriological error (among other things) that has

plagued the west ever since, I think one needs to make a sharp

distinction between Augustine and those who came in his wake, advanced

Augustinians I like to call them.

From my own research, his image could use some rehabilitation, given

that he seemed very open to correction and direction from the Church.

Given that, I will just appreciate his life, and accord him the place of

honor that the Church gives him as a Father of the Church, while

avoiding most of his theology, and definitely avoiding the intense

debate his name seems to engender in Orthodox circles.

>

>So the moral of the whole thing is that I don't see any reason to favor your

>philosophy about why atheist philosophy is inherently self-contradicting, over

>the atheist philosophy that says Christian philosophy is inherently

>self-contradicting.

Okay, but that is my theology I was expressing, not my philosophy, but

given the constraints of this board I expressed myself in philosophical

terms. It wouldn't make sense, even in an off-topic post, to write in

explicit theological terms about the theological nature of the

deficiencies of the worldview of one who proclaims there is no God.

The Scripture has a word for that kind of thinking which I won't invoke

here lest I offend anyone, but I think it is a mistake to believe that

such thinking, from a " Christian " perspective, LOL!, does not affect

the most profound areas of thought.

>

>But I don't want to get into it on this list, so I'm not going to say

>anything more. Have the last word on the list, email me privately, or transfer

it to

>nt-politics or whathaveyou, if you'd like to discuss it further.

Nope, I'm done. We still have that other thread that you me and Suze

never finished, LOL!

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:21:37 -0400

" panamabob " <panamabob@...> wrote:

>Hey the great " L " and " Atlas Shrugged " was a great all-nighter discussion back

in the days of the college dorm... but it never gets anywhere so why

continue?

>

> " You might find two Libertarians who agree, but I'm not one of them. "

>

> " getting libertarians to agree is like trying to herd cats... "

>

>you know how to drive an " L " crazy? Stop talking to them. They won't know

if they won or lost their argument...

#####Hi Bob,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I don't know if you missed the thread but libertarians weren't

disagreeing on anything. It was a discussion between those who are

generally libertarian and those who generally are not. While there might

be some variation on that theme, I think such would be an adequate

description of what was going on. Someone please correct me if I am

wrong.

<snip>

>What does ANY of it have to do with ?

Quite a bit actually, as so eloquently pointed out in one of his

posts. Heidi spoke of it as well, there is just no way to get around the

politics involved with food. And if someone wants a completely " off

topic " free list, then NN is probably not the best place.

>

>How many people on this list even know

>or give a shiny new penny who Ludwig von Mises or Lysander Spooner were.

Probably more after our last thread than before.

It Really Was The People's Car

http://tinyurl.com/mwbv

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/03 12:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> FWIW I don't believe there is such a thing as a " Christian " anything, in

> the sense that a " Christian " something is one item among a large

> smorgasbord of " other " somethings. From a " Christian " perspective <g>,

> since this is God's world, either a discipline reflects accurately God's

> truth or it does not.

Yes, but what is God's truth about the hypothetics of if there were no God?

And if God created man, if there were no God, how could man act evil if there

were no God?

So if God created man, then the hypothetical of atheism is false from the

first " if there is no god... " and therefore one can't reason that humans only

have a justification for acting good if there is a god because by the same set

of

presumptions the statement rests on, humans can't act in any way or exist if

there is no god.

> Hey, aren't you being anti multi-cultural by dismissing the contributions

> of this North African saint, LOL!! Forgive me Suze if you are reading

> this - I'm just having some fun.

Wasn't he one of the Roman-bred folks who were colonizing Carthage anyway?

>

> Yes some would make that case. Even though I am not an Augustinian, I

> tend to stay away from discussions about St. Augustine. While he

> certainly made a huge soteriological error (among other things) that has

> plagued the west ever since, I think one needs to make a sharp

> distinction between Augustine and those who came in his wake, advanced

> Augustinians I like to call them.

>

> From my own research, his image could use some rehabilitation, given

> that he seemed very open to correction and direction from the Church.

> Given that, I will just appreciate his life, and accord him the place of

> honor that the Church gives him as a Father of the Church, while

> avoiding most of his theology, and definitely avoiding the intense

> debate his name seems to engender in Orthodox circles.

Yes, yes, and yes, I was just pointing out the pitfalls of philosophy.

> Nope, I'm done. We still have that other thread that you me and Suze

> never finished, LOL!

>

You'll have to forgive me for going back on my word but I couldn't resist the

urge to make up some convoluted philosophical arguments for the sake of

having some fun.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>So if God created man, then the hypothetical of atheism is false from the

>first " if there is no god... " and therefore one can't reason that humans only

>have a justification for acting good if there is a god because by the same set

of

>presumptions the statement rests on, humans can't act in any way or exist if

>there is no god.

Neither of you guys takes psychology into account. The average person,

all over the world, in any culture, is highly motivated to do whatever

brings them social status in their culture. Shoot, this is

even true for dogs and peacocks, neither of which,

as far as I know, has a philosophy. The way you brainwash

someone is to give them a " social group " that gives

them lots of kudos for doing the " right " thing as defined

by that social group. Worked for Patty Hearst! Works

for terrorist groups all over the world. Works for Boeing

too, and for your average American family, or your average

Buddhist Japanese family. Works with or without

theology. MOST people do not " justify " their actions,

they do " what is right " which in practice means,

" what most people around me think is right " .

Killing people and being mean are generally regarded

as bad things by most social groups (unless you are

killing people in a DIFFERENT social group, in which

case it might be patriotic).

There are rare people who go COUNTER to their social

group, who are either saints or sociopaths or geniuses.

Again, going counter to the social group doesn't

seem to be related to the person's theology or lack

thereof.

And all of this I've said has been studied and scientifically

demonstrated. No epistemology required.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/03 2:13:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> And all of this I've said has been studied and scientifically

> demonstrated. No epistemology required.

>

Right... but 's point was specifically about the philosophy. He was

*not* arguing that people can't act moral if their philosophy doesn't support

moral actions, but rather the opposite: that people do act moral, despite it

being against the dictates of the philosophy they follow. Hence my response was

philosophical, and not scientific.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

And as such, his argument was a crock of crap (and I hope will

pardon my bluntness) because there's nothing in atheism that dictates

immorality.

>but rather the opposite: that people do act moral, despite it

>being against the dictates of the philosophy they follow.

-

[Guest guest]

>> And all of this I've said has been studied and scientifically

>> demonstrated. No epistemology required.

>>

>

>Right... but 's point was specifically about the philosophy. He was

>*not* arguing that people can't act moral if their philosophy doesn't support

>moral actions, but rather the opposite: that people do act moral, despite it

>being against the dictates of the philosophy they follow. Hence my response

was

>philosophical, and not scientific.

>

>Chris

Fair enough, but in that case I'd argue it's a case of apples and oranges, or

at least the battlefield is tilted. That is, a lot of the people who actually

claim to be athiests are also scientifically minded, and part of the " philosophy

they

follow " is that humans act like humans, and that this can be measured,

and furthermore, that most human action is NOT due to the left-brain

philosophizing. So a scientific atheist, at any rate, is not being

inconsistant at all in being moral -- their claim would simply be

that they were acting consistently with their human self, and

humans have a large social streak. In fact, most scientists I've

read would claim that most humans do NOT act consistently

with their philosophies. That is, many people believe, for instance,

that smoking is bad for them, but smoke anyway, or that if they

ate less they would be skinny, but eat a lot anyway.

All of which isn't arguing anything, I guess ... both sides

agree ... people aren't consistent ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> Fair enough, but in that case I'd argue it's a case of apples and

oranges, or

> at least the battlefield is tilted. That is, a lot of the people who

actually

> claim to be athiests are also scientifically minded,

Well, I don't think atheism is scientific at all. Both atheism and

theism are non-scientific, and the truly scientific response to

theology is agnosticism, not atheism.

Relgious people could theoretically claim to be both scientific and

theists by relegating theology to a field outside of science (which it

is, since it is unfalsifiable and untestable)and applying the

scientific method to the realm of science, and applying other forms of

epistemology (isn't science a form of epistemology by the way?) to the

realm outside of science.

On the other hand, philosophical materialists maintain that there

basically is no knowledge that can be had outside of the scientific

realm (which is no more or less scientific; this would be a case of

" scientism " rather than science), and they therefore have no method of

acquiring knowledge about the presence or abscense of (a) god/s.

Therefore, the only scientific response to theology that can be

maintained while also maintaining philosophical materialism is

agnoscticism, to the exclusion of atheism.

and part of the

" philosophy they

> follow " is that humans act like humans, and that this can be

measured,

> and furthermore, that most human action is NOT due to the left-brain

> philosophizing.

But it doesn't matter. Again, wasn't making the point about

why people act moral. In fact, your point supports 's and vice

versa, since was making the point that atheists act moral

despite the philosophical presumptions inherent in their atheism.

So your point is completely valid, but irrelevant, to the discussion.

So a scientific atheist, at any rate, is not being

> inconsistant at all in being moral -- their claim would simply be

> that they were acting consistently with their human self, and

> humans have a large social streak.

It really depends on how you define " justification, " which is, once

again, a philosophical question.

In fact, most scientists I've

> read would claim that most humans do NOT act consistently

> with their philosophies.

Which was 's point.

That is, many people believe, for instance,

> that smoking is bad for them, but smoke anyway, or that if they

> ate less they would be skinny, but eat a lot anyway.

>

> All of which isn't arguing anything, I guess ... both sides

> agree ... people aren't consistent ...

Right, there really is no disagreement between what you are saying and

what was saying. The confusion seems to arising from the fact

that we're talking about two completely different things.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Not really. A scientific response to certain elements of theism would be

agnosticism, but religions make many, many falsifiable claims, and even

some of their historical claims, while not scientifically falsifiable, can

nonetheless be reasonably dismissed.

The basic question of morality, though, comes down to semantics. The

religious can truthfully claim to have a monopoly on morality only be

defining morality in explicitly religious terms. I understand where

they're coming from, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

>the truly scientific response to

>theology is agnosticism, not atheism.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/03 1:19:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Not really. A scientific response to certain elements of theism would be

> agnosticism, but religions make many, many falsifiable claims, and even

> some of their historical claims, while not scientifically falsifiable, can

> nonetheless be reasonably dismissed.

,

This is completely irrelevant from the question. At most this argues that

specific religions are falsifiable, although really falls short of that in that

falsification of phenomena requires gross, usually deliberate,

misunderstandings of the claims, and the historical events (which most religions

aren't

fundamentally based on except one particular one we all know of) are usually,

especially in the case of Christianity, incredibly obscure regarding evidence

for

and against, and impossible to prove or disprove using standard

historiographical methods that parallel the scientific method in the natural

sciences.

But all of this has no bearing on anything, because disproving specific

religions does not disprove theism in any way shape or form.

> The basic question of morality, though, comes down to semantics. The

> religious can truthfully claim to have a monopoly on morality only be

> defining morality in explicitly religious terms. I understand where

> they're coming from, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

I didn't agree with 's point about this, so I don't necessarily side

with that philosophical position. It is still a philosophical question though,

which is what I was pointing out to Heidi.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/24/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> Ah....ahem...I didn't say anything about it being against the *dictates*

> of their philosophy. A general atheists philosophy doesn't *dictate*

> anything, good or bad, which was my original point.

I used the wrong word.

>

> In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

> to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

> its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

> acting against their basic foundation.

I think I meant to say " implication. "

> I'm saying that given an atheists presuppositions about life, time, man

> God, etc such distinctions cannot logically be drawn, and when they are,

> it is because they are borrowing from a worldview not of their own

> making.

That's what I meant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/24/03 8:03:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> You were responding to Chris' assessment of what I said, not to what I

> said. I will leave it at that.

No, my poor formulation of my assessment of what you said ;-) I'm quite sure

I understood you properly, I just used poor wording in expressing it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:26:04 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 9/21/03 12:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

>slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

>> FWIW I don't believe there is such a thing as a " Christian " anything, in

>> the sense that a " Christian " something is one item among a large

>> smorgasbord of " other " somethings. From a " Christian " perspective <g>,

>> since this is God's world, either a discipline reflects accurately God's

>> truth or it does not.

>

>Yes, but what is God's truth about the hypothetics of if there were no God?

>And if God created man, if there were no God, how could man act evil if there

>were no God?

Indeed how could he? Since evil is defined in relation to the character

of the Christian God, the justification of such a concept would be

non-existent if that were the actual state of affairs (which of course

it isn't) unless of course someone wants to argue that evil is relative.

Evil as a concept only makes sense within the Christian worldview.

I will say it again, and you can take it for what its worth, but I don't

really want to go into depth on this topic on this list. I will answer

the other posts I see hitting touching on this topic, but every answer

opens the door to thousand of other posts, comments, suggestions, flames

what have you.

There is just too much here to adequately deal with. I think DMM made

that point about why he wasn't going to answer Irene indepth on some

questions about the police, fire, and the army if IIRC relating to

libertarianism.

The libertarian thread does have some relation to NT, but unless we

start talking about the traditional diet of the OT Hebrews, I can't

really see how this relates.

So if you really want to go in depth on this topic, please email me

privately and we can meet over at NT_Politics.

>

>So if God created man, then the hypothetical of atheism is false from the

>first " if there is no god... " and therefore one can't reason that humans only

>have a justification for acting good if there is a god because by the same set

of

>presumptions the statement rests on, humans can't act in any way or exist if

>there is no god.

Precisely. Such is only a problem (convoluted) if you are assuming the

latter is false.

People in fact exist and do act which renders the hypothetical of

atheism false. My presumption of the Christian God makes life,

intentionality, intelligibility, etc all possible. A presumption that

the Christian God does not exist makes the reasoning for all such things

impossible. It doesn't make such things impossible, as you seem to be

arguing above, but it does make the rationale for such things impossible.

The *Christian* God exists (as opposed to a god of general theism or say

the God of Islam - and there is a huge difference) because of the

impossibility of the contrary, which you so ably pointed out above,

although I know you were not intending to do so.

On such presuppositions, I can make all kinds of moral statements which

are consistent with my foundational beliefs, whether or not someone

agrees with that foundation. Nonetheless, it is consistent.

On atheistic presuppositions, I have no basis on which to draw such

distinctions. That doesn't mean that I don't, but when I do as an

atheist, it is not based on my foundational principles, from which no

such distinctions can be drawn. Such conclusions are inconsistent.

And when atheists do act morally, as most do, they are only

illustrating what St. said about every man knowing in his heart of

hearts that God exists.

To put it another way, atheists can count, and often count quite well,

better than many people who profess to be Christian. They just can't

account for why they can count.

If the world was really as they say it is, the world would be total

chaos.

>

>> Hey, aren't you being anti multi-cultural by dismissing the contributions

>> of this North African saint, LOL!! Forgive me Suze if you are reading

>> this - I'm just having some fun.

>

>Wasn't he one of the Roman-bred folks who were colonizing Carthage anyway?

Yes he was Roman bred and he was most definitely western, which is not

something that is just " euro-centric, " but I was having a little fun

with Suze in bringing up his geographical location.

>

>You'll have to forgive me for going back on my word but I couldn't resist the

>urge to make up some convoluted philosophical arguments for the sake of

>having some fun.

Hey no problem. I was having a little fun myself. But your point is

clear; you consider such stuff speculative, nonsensical, dangerous and

not worth taking up any time. Point taken.

I might add though that St. *warns* against a *particular* kind of

philosophy in the letter to the Colossians, a kind " after this world "

and " not according to Christ, " which prima facie suggests there is a

legitimate approach to the subject.

Often parents will warn their teenagers about the dangers of driving,

without prohibiting them from use of the car. Philosophy, like cars,

sex, food, etc. can be used in a constructive or in a destructive manner.

St. warns against the destructive potential of philosophy. I don't

see any prohibition involved which may explain why the Eastern Church

has never flat out condemned it.

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:06:31 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 9/21/03 2:13:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>heidis@... writes:

>

>> And all of this I've said has been studied and scientifically

>> demonstrated. No epistemology required.

>>

>

>Right... but 's point was specifically about the philosophy. He was

>*not* arguing that people can't act moral if their philosophy doesn't support

>moral actions, but rather the opposite: that people do act moral, despite it

>being against the dictates of the philosophy they follow. Hence my response

was

>philosophical, and not scientific.

Ah....ahem...I didn't say anything about it being against the *dictates*

of their philosophy. A general atheists philosophy doesn't *dictate*

anything, good or bad, which was my original point.

In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

acting against their basic foundation.

I'm saying that given an atheists presuppositions about life, time, man

God, etc such distinctions cannot logically be drawn, and when they are,

it is because they are borrowing from a worldview not of their own

making.

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:13:06 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>Chris-

>

>And as such, his argument was a crock of crap (and I hope will

>pardon my bluntness) because there's nothing in atheism that dictates

>immorality.

>

>>but rather the opposite: that people do act moral, despite it

>>being against the dictates of the philosophy they follow.

,

Your bluntness is pardoned, LOL!!

You were responding to Chris' assessment of what I said, not to what I

said. I will leave it at that.

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

Quoting slethnobotanist@...:

> Ah....ahem...I didn't say anything about it being against the *dictates*

> of their philosophy. A general atheists philosophy doesn't *dictate*

> anything, good or bad, which was my original point.

>

> In other words there is no *rational* compelling *foundational* reason

> to be moral as an atheist, not that the philosophy per se *dictates* at

> its foundation that one should be immoral, and thus moral atheists are

> acting against their basic foundation.

What you seem to be saying here is that since atheism does not, in and of

itself, provide a basis for a system of ethics, an atheist therefore cannot

have *any* basis for a system of ethics. That is, you seem to expect the

belief or disbelief in one or more gods to be the sole fountainhead from

which all other philosophical principles must flow. Is this correct, or am

I misunderstanding?

--

Berg

bberg@...