By the way, it’s hug an Atheist day today, hug yourself or hug another atheist{or “atheos”/ non-theist}.
: )

In Reason:
Bill Baker

I’m sorry if you feel that being rational in a positive honest determined direct and non-apologetic way makes me pompous and dogmatic. I think that is probably because you’re used to half-baked wishy-washy politically-correct subjective vacillating between opinions.

I think if you re-read what I’ve written you’ll see that you’re mistaking “speaking your mind” and having confidence in doing so, for “dogma”.

If all I was offering were my own subjective opinions without reference to reality it would be very dull indeed, and hardly worthy of a discussion forum. Likewise, if all you’re offering is your personal opinion without any claim to truth, I don’t care. So this whole “it’s just YOUR opinion” – well, speak for yourself! If you’re just talking about your random thoughts fine, but I’m not. I’m making definite positive claims with reference to reality and am not afraid of to be right or wrong. That is why I keep talking about objectivity. If you just want to exchange subjective opinions, there is no point having a discussion, as there is nothing to win or prove to you.

Getting back to some of this at last.

I DO use “monotheism” interchangeably with “religion” – I think that much is easy to figure out. This can be seen from my use of the term “theist” – which obviously implies monotheism.

If indeed you are using words this way, then communication is no possible. “Religion” is a much larger term than “monotheism”. To use them as synonyms destroys meaning and communication.

Likewise “theist” does not imply “monotheism”. “Theist” is the larger term.

Both of these fall under the heading of “fallacy of parts”. To try to construct an argument, or defend a position, when you are constantly conflating parts is pointless.

If there is to be any communication, you’ll have to adopt delineated definitions for these terms.

there is nothing true or meaningful that religion has to say that cannot be discovered without it.

I hope you realize that it is impossible to prove this. And almost impossible to disprove it. I mean you’d have to find a world without religion, then check every truth in that world against every truth in a world with religion.

So this is really a non-verifiable and non-falsifiable assertion.

Me: How would you know what the world would be like if there was a god?
You: Are you for real? Let’s look at the god of the bible, or Koran.

You must also look at all the other gods. Hindu, Shinto, Shamanist, Greek, etc. And then there are all the possible, individual ideas about God. In short, you can’t say what a world with a deity would be like. Even in the case of the Bible or Koran, you don’t have one God. You have oodles of interpretations of God from those books. Some of those interpretations of God are actually rather nice deities. A world run by one of those might be quite pleasant.

Are you trying to suggest that respect for freedom and individual rights are NOT the most noblest acts??
What exactly would YOU suggest is more noble?

Me suggest? Why bother? It would only be my opinion. Just as what you set forth was your opinion. Both may be wrong. I can assure you that many members of PETA would say that the noblest ideas are animal rights. I think they are absurd, and you probably do to. But they would be quite vehement in saying you and I are absurd.

What I said wasn’t based on my opinion, it was based on objective morality.

Sorry, but it was your opinion. It may be right or not. None the less it remains simply your opinion.

Here I have clearly proved my points and dismissed yours.

Nothing of the sort. By and large you didn’t address my points.

I hope you find this civil. ‘Tis my intention.

“Evil and immorality”? These are the kinds of words I might expect from certain fundamentalist Christians. If you are such an atheist, then pray tell, where do you get your ideas about evil and immorality? There is no atheist Bible that would recommend such concepts to the enlightened.’

With a bigger smile and a more polite tone than Asymptosis used, I would have to agree with his assertion. I don’t think accepting this position leads to an automatic rejection of objective reality; rather, I think this is a great leap in accepting only the world that we perceive physically. Just my two cents, cause that’s all it’s worth .

I will defend a position that I make in articles I write, but generally I find blog-debating to be tedious. Just do what I do – stop reading dopey arguments and flame-wars and do something better with your time Not participating is politely declining if you ask me.

There you go, being lazy again.

“His rejection of objective reality is silly and self-contradictory.”

That must explain why you’re attempts to refute my ideas are filled with contradictions and baseless assertions.

“If you reject objectivity you have NO basis on which to make any claim or position at all. Why does Asymptosis even comment – I assume he thinks he’s right and I’m wrong – but how can he even imagine this can be so when in order to differentiate between right and wrong there must be a standard of fact independent of the issue to arbitrate between the competing matters! In other words: objective reality.”

I have responded to this argument several times already. If you haven’t read what I wrote, it just goes to show how lazy you’ve been.

“Everyone must assume sensory validity and external reality in each and every conversation”

Nice baseless assertion.
In any case, what does sensory experience or external reality have to do with “objective morality.”

“They are AXIOMS.”

Nice baseless assertion.

“As soon as Asymptosis even starts a debate, he assumes what he tries to deny – that we cannot know reality. He tries to WIN a debate – assuming that there is such a thing are correct and incorrect, which ASSUMES there exists objective facts independent of his brain. So just by arguing with me, he makes my case for me.”

What do so-called “objective facts” (as if such things exist) have to do with the prospect of an objective morality?

For someone who obviously prides themselves on philosophical prowess, you would fail to pass muster in a freshman philosophy class. I have taken first-year philosophy, and my instructors were very quick to jump on contradictory statements and baseless assertions. They expected that strong claims would be backed up by strong evidence and consistent logic.

Please try harder in future.

Thanks for your input. I agree.

evanescent,

“Personally, it doesn’t really bother me if I offend anyone or not – if you go through life trying not to offend people you might as well stay at home in bed and not step on ants. Offending someone isn’t a crime. Not standing up for what you believe is right IS a crime – a moral crime.”

*sigh* Thanks for proving my point. The sad part is that I’ve heard this same thing from loony fundie Christians and I’ve been just as amazed at how little reason they actually had. I have yet to hear a “rational” argument, as opposed to a generalized rant with unsupported accusations.

Just because I know discussion on this thread became somewhat heated before, I want to make sure you know that if and when I disagree with you, I am not attacking you. Just to get that out of the way.

That said…

“Yes, but I didn’t say I offend people “for the sake of offending” though did I??”

From where I am sitting, it seems like that is what this post has accomplished, though. As I read through the comments, it would seem that your post riled up those nontheists who agree with you, pissed of those nontheists who disagreed with you, and alienated the theists who read it. Content aside, that to me seems to be at the least bad marketing.

“CtT, just because people spent thousands of years debating whether a certain dance would bring rain, or whether the earth was formed from ant excrement, doesn’t mean those debates were valid.”

For the record, I was more or less referencing your claims about ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. There are some debates that are dead. Gravity exists, the world is not flat. But to dismiss someone who subscribes to subjectivist ethical schemas is a little short sighted.

“I am dogmatic about one thing: the truth. And it is the only thing that one SHOULD be dogmatic about. ”

Okay, what does this mean? You are dogmatic about the existence of truth? The ability to know truth? Your monopoly on truth? I’ve read you make several blanket statements about understanding the truth here, but I haven’t seen you adequately substantiate your claims.

The problem I’ve always had in theology and philosophy courses at my evangelical school is that people talk about absolute truth as if its existence necessitates that they certainly know it. Even if there is some kind of absolute truth, it does not logically follow that an individual necessarily understands that truth.

“That is why the facts should be our concern, and not “how we feel” – I find it hard to believe anyone would condemn me for that attitude!”

I agree with your underlying premise here. We should concern ourselves with reason and not emotion. But I do not believe you have demonstrated that your argument is one from reason and not from emotion. It seems (this is not an indictment, only a description of perception) that you have taken a pseudo-rational stance and packaged it in a few big words you might learn in an Intro to Philosophy course and expect people to be impressed.

CTC