Posted: Mar 28, 2012 2:55 am
Personally, I don't see any reason to believe in free will, or moral objectivity (as Xeno says above, that doesn't mean we can't have a sensible basis for morals at all). Love is different, it's just a description of the feelings created by various biological processes, so that does exist. My position on these things is not a result of atheism, however. I don't even see the question of whether there is a god to be particularly relevant given that I can't see how asserting one would in any way 'solve' these issues at all, and in addition it brings up another set of issues as others have said (e.g. free will and omnipotence being paradoxical).
I don't 'believe' in my positions on these things really either, they just seem like the most logical positions to hold (given my, obviously limited, understanding of reality) and I am open to the idea that I might be wrong.
I must also agree with Bribase, and your response to him does nothing to counter his point (it's just a claim that he's wrong, then saying that you think a lot of atheists are hypocrites because they behave counter to your understanding of how atheists should see the world - as if that is relevant). Your whole argument is an appeal to consequences that is fairly badly thought through given that your new position is full of holes with regards to the philosophical 'dilemmas' you say it resolves. You have also given absolutely no explanation for why christianity is the best solution rather than the thousands of other 'options' out there, it reeks of intellectual laziness and just 'falling in with the crowd'.
This should be a really obvious question to ask yourself but it seems likely that you haven't - if you had been born or raised in another culture where christianity was not the norm (imagine you somehow developed in generally the same way), and you went through the same thought process regarding free will etc. you have described, do you honestly think you would have reached the conclusion that christianity is the best answer to your issues (if you say 'yes' I suspect you are deluding yourself, but in this case imagine that you were having this thought process in what we now call Norway 2,500 years ago)? What does this tell you about your 'truth'?
Hope none of the above counts as derision, I wouldn't want to upset amkerman's delicate sensibilities.
I don't 'believe' in my positions on these things really either, they just seem like the most logical positions to hold (given my, obviously limited, understanding of reality) and I am open to the idea that I might be wrong.
I must also agree with Bribase, and your response to him does nothing to counter his point (it's just a claim that he's wrong, then saying that you think a lot of atheists are hypocrites because they behave counter to your understanding of how atheists should see the world - as if that is relevant). Your whole argument is an appeal to consequences that is fairly badly thought through given that your new position is full of holes with regards to the philosophical 'dilemmas' you say it resolves. You have also given absolutely no explanation for why christianity is the best solution rather than the thousands of other 'options' out there, it reeks of intellectual laziness and just 'falling in with the crowd'.
This should be a really obvious question to ask yourself but it seems likely that you haven't - if you had been born or raised in another culture where christianity was not the norm (imagine you somehow developed in generally the same way), and you went through the same thought process regarding free will etc. you have described, do you honestly think you would have reached the conclusion that christianity is the best answer to your issues (if you say 'yes' I suspect you are deluding yourself, but in this case imagine that you were having this thought process in what we now call Norway 2,500 years ago)? What does this tell you about your 'truth'?
Hope none of the above counts as derision, I wouldn't want to upset amkerman's delicate sensibilities.