I kept track of this discussion by posting it to a Word doc as it went along but it appears that I failed to note where it took place.
In any case, it pertained to that a certain, “Born On Thursday” noted
Also, in terms of worldviews, I’ve seen it also described as a “model” which seeks to create a viable worldview that can account for each phenomenon we experience.
Ken Ammi
You better hope that there are universal imperatives in some worldview or it won’t be incumbent upon anyone to answer you ;o)
Indeed, since worldview is “also described as a ‘model’ which seeks to create a viable worldview that can account for each phenomenon we experience” ergo, Atheism is a worldview.
Indeed, Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories but what of it?
Born On Thursday
Is it incumbent in your worldview that anyone answer you? If you believe in God, does God need to give/provide you with answers?
Ken Ammi
The question was “Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories but what of it?”
Born On Thursday
I’d assume people who’d care to label themselves athiest (instead of non-religious or not at all) might also care about finding reliable methods to understand their lives; I can’t explain why any specific individual might care, I imagine everyone’s got their reasons.
Ken Ammi
You’re moving the goalpost (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) since the statement was that “The question was ‘Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories but what of it?’”
Indeed, Atheists “might also care about” such things but for them it’d be a mere subjective personal preference du jour—as you said, “any specific individual…everyone’s got their reasons” and what Atheists lack are any universal imperatives.
Born On Thursday
I’m sorry, I somehow missed the question at the end of original reply (which why the goalpost was moved, my apologies).
It makes sense that is there is no universal imperative, nobody would have to answer me ( though that seems to track with my experience so far ).
If athiesm is a worldview, it hasn’t answered all the questions posed to it ( or maybe it can’t? Idk ).
If the question is/was, “Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories, but what of it(?),” then I don’t think I understand the question.
I was trying to sound scientific, but all I really meant was, I think people don’t want to be accused of having contradictory beliefs (what I called a model_). I’m not saying that matters _On Athiesm, at least idk, but for people in general.
Ken Ammi
That Atheists “might also”—note the implied qualifying term of a subjective personal preference to—“care about finding reliable methods to understand their lives” is not the issues: anyone can like whatever they like.
We’re back to the issues of that since Atheism provides no universal imperative which is what turn “finding reliable methods to understand their lives” a subjective personal preference based exercise in the first place.
Atheism is a worldview and, indeed, it hasn’t answered anything, actually.
I didn’t think that “Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories, but what of it(?)” would just be a brute fact statement so I assumed it led somewhere.
Indeed, “people don’t want to be accused of having contradictory beliefs” because that there’s a God created reality that would violate is something that’s frontloaded into us. Yet, on Atheism, one may—note the implied qualifying term, again, of having a subjective personal preference to—“not be accused of having contradictory beliefs” but it’d matter not since to Atheists reality is accidental and so logic is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to either.
Born On Thursday
I agree, anyone can like whatever they like, seemingly.
We’re back to the issues of that since Atheism provides no universal imperative which is what turn “finding reliable methods to understand their lives” a subjective personal preference based exercise in the first place.
I would agree that, under atheism, there is no universal imperative to create standards unless one (accidentally) wants to.
Atheism is a worldview and, indeed, it hasn’t answered anything, actually.
I would say athiesm only answers a question about personal perspective, just as theism does; it is what follows that defines why the answered that way, or what that means to them.
I didn’t think that “Atheists talk about a lot of scientific theories, but what of it(?)” would just be a brute fact statement so I assumed it led somewhere.
That would just be an observation.
Indeed, “people don’t want to be accused of having contradictory beliefs” because that there’s a God created reality that would violate is something that’s frontloaded into us.
That could be one explanation why.
Yet, on Atheism, one may-note the implied qualifying term, again, of having a subjective personal preference to —“not be accused of having contradictory beliefs” but it’d matter not since to Atheists reality is accidental and so logic is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to either.
Well, under athiesm, it would “appear” everyone cares, to a degree, including the accidental theists (this isn’t to say that theist believe they’re accidental, but that if there’s no God or gods, and the universe is an “accident”, then theists would have become theists on accident too).
Ken Ammi
Indeed, on Atheism it’s all about subjective personal preferences du jour so that disqualifies Atheists from ever condemning anything, absolutely, including logical fallacies.
If “athiesm only answers a question about personal perspective” then in what area of their thinking about anything and everything at all do Atheists believe in God?
“just as theism does” (although I will not speak for generic “theism” but only for biblical theism) is interesting since both would be premises form which everything else, “what follows,” so it’s not really just about “only answers a question about” but rather, about turns the answers into a foundation.
Indeed, if Atheism is accurate then the universe and all it contains would be accidental and there’d be no universal imperative to believe that Atheism is accurate and the universe and all it contains would be accidental which is utterly self-defeating.
Born On Thursday
You said, “Indeed, on Atheism it’s all about subjective personal preferences du jour so that disqualifies Atheists from ever condemning anything, absolutely, including logical fallacies.”
> It might help if I knew what you meant by “On Atheism” in this instance as you could mean without a belief in god(s) or in a world without god(s).
> (In the mean time) Would the inverse mean “On Theism” it’s all about objective impersonal compulsions that never change making free will impossible, including the choice to believe or disbelieve in god(s)?
You said, “If athiesm only answers a question about personal perspective, then in what area of their thinking about anything and everything (at all) do Atheists believe in God?”
> (Before I reply) It seems there was a misunderstanding, or you’re being pedant, and in turn, I will be more careful and precise with my words and phrasing.
> (The response) This question is incoherent based on how it is currently written.
You took part of what I said,” …, just as theism does…”, and added, “…(although I will not speak for generic “theism”, but only for biblical “theism”) is interesting since both would be premises from which everything else ‘what follows’, so, it’s not really just about ‘only answers a question about’ but rather about, ‘turns the answers into a foundation’.”
> (I’d just like to note) You mention generic theism (A belief in one god or many gods) and biblical theism (The belief in the Judeo-Christian God, i.e., the God presented in the Bible), though I’d say biblical theism falls under the umbrella of theism, and is subcategory with other beliefs/specifics included as in a more narrow view of theism.
> (The response) It seems you’re confusing an argument, or premise, that “There is no god or gods” with the position/belief “I do not believe in (or, I am not convinced of) god(s)”; Atheists can/have constructed arguments, but those arguments are not atheism. So, when discussing current o past beliefs, neither atheism nor theism are premises, but instead a position (A person’s point of view or attitude toward something).
You said, “Indeed, if Atheism is accurate, then the universe, and all it contains, would be accidental, and there’d be no universal imperative to believe that Atheism is accurate, and the universe, and all it contains, would be accidental, which is utterly self-defeating.”
> (Before I reply) I think I’m seeing a pattern, but it would be easier if you confirm: Above you say, “…if Atheism is accurate…”, which leads me to believe that you are looking at atheism as the premise “There is no god or gods” instead of the position “I don’t not believe in, or I am not convinced of, god(s)”.
> (A request) I would like to modify your (What if?) argument: (Modified Argument) “If there is no mind behind the force(s) pushing and pulling everything, then the outcome(s) are not planned and instead just are, therefore our past, present, and future is (basically just) one big chain reaction, and we (the ego) don’t “exist” as some think, and instead “exist” are “part” of the whole.
> (The follow up) I don’t think anyone currently knows, no matter what they research or study, but it seems like different “people” (category) prefer (whether by “choice” or something else) different models, and some functionally map large portions of “reality”, allowing for fairly accurate future predictions on outcomes of certain interactions/tests (this would be more scientific models created through the scientific method) while others only appear to cover small portions of “reality” and don’t appear to function as consistently (which often include factors that are non-demonstrable or unable to be tested, or factors that are unfounded by the scientific method).
Ken Ammi
“On Atheism” as in: as per your worldview.
Are you asserting that free will is impossible?
The question was, “in what area of their thinking about anything and everything (at all) do Atheists believe in God?”
One Atheist denomination asserts “There is no god or gods” but when called to prove their positive affirmation, some Atheists formed the denomination that took a watered down fallback position of “I don’t not believe in, or I am not convinced of, god(s).”
“fairly accurate future predictions on outcomes” is a sidetrack to that on Atheism reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it.
Well, that ended it as no more replies where forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.