Strong Atheism

[Asimov]

yea, I noticed he mentioned you in his blog.

 

I can't read Pauls blogs though, or else my eyes melt out of my head from the incomprehensibility of it all.

[Francois Tremblay]

No prob. I'm glad I at least cleared that up.

 

Presups try to equate "objective" and "subjective" with a lot of things (such as changing/unchanging, absolute/contextual), but the fact is, the sole criteria is whether something is based on reality or not. Pretty simple. And nothing in Christianity can be objective since it has its source in a creation of pure will (God), not any real standard.

[Asimov]

No prob. I'm glad I at least cleared that up.

 

Presups try to equate "objective" and "subjective" with a lot of things (such as changing/unchanging, absolute/contextual), but the fact is, the sole criteria is whether something is based on reality or not. Pretty simple. And nothing in Christianity can be objective since it has its source in a creation of pure will (God), not any real standard.

 

 

Cool, I like it, and I agree.

 

I'd like to see you and Pauly go at it here. He stated today that he was, and I quote:

 

"You guys are seriously silly. Fine you get your way, I'm done here. if you guys want to act like idiots then have fun."

 

So he may or may not be back.

[Francois Tremblay]

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't debate Manata. I would hope for someone more intelligent. But if I had no other choice, I suppose I would.

 

PS I am not actually an ex-christian. Is there a way to change that red ribbon thing below my avatar ? Is there a strong atheist one ?

[Asimov]

haha...yea, but I'd still like to see it happen...it's fun like listening to Kent Hovind debate.

 

I'm not an ex-Christian either...I just accept what they give me.

[- AUB -]

Me to, (though i was a choir boy)

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, I'd be ready to debate any single one of them, provided that they are intelligent enough to understand multi-syllabic words like "induction", "objectivity" and "morality". If Gastrich can do it, I'm sure they can.

[- AUB -]

You're better at logic than me Trembley. Ive a rant that takes a tentative step in logic, its a rough sketch of my current thoughts, any good? Its on

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=56

[Francois Tremblay]

You might be interested in an ideological system I've been working on that I've called "emergentism". Basically, its foundation is that order emerges from the interaction of freely-acting parts - as philosophy, science and civilization have proven - which I call third-level order.

 

Other worldviews are in two categories - Christians believe that order comes from a transcendent Creator, which I call first-level order - and nihilists and post-modernists believe that order comes from the individual structuring of an essentially chaotic world, which I call second-level order.

 

And uh, now that I have my own pet Theory of Everything, my detractors can now truthfully call me a "crack-pot".

[Mr. Neil]

PS I am not actually an ex-christian. Is there a way to change that red ribbon thing below my avatar ? Is there a strong atheist one ?

You know, I never actually thought about that. I was never a Christian either. Hey Dave. Can we put the EAC logo in there or something for us never-weres?

[Francois Tremblay]

Hmmm. I didn't think about what icon I'd use. I want to make my own Emergentist icon and try to recruit other people here to my new ideology. (^_______^) Barring that possibility, a materialist or strong atheistic icon would be fine.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Man, I want the dancing Christ instead of a ribbon. It just looks hilarious; Jesus getting funky with his bad self, instead of standing around being penitent like everyone says he did. Or, barring that, a "Drug Free-God Free-Mentally Clean" ribbon. I can make it meself.

 

 

Hey, Franc; can you explain your emergentism a bit clearer? Does it mean that your system changes itself over time to fit the society?

[Francois Tremblay]

Hey, Franc; can you explain your emergentism a bit clearer? Does it mean that your system changes itself over time to fit the society?

 

It's not "my system". I am proposing emergentism as the best way to modelize the dynamics of material systems. I am also proposing the three levels of order as the best way to modelize how much people are capable of understanding those systems.

 

People who are most likely to be emergentists are pro-science (obviously), individualists, libertarians or capitalists (or any other individualist political ideology), materialists (in the philosophical sense), and moral objectivists. If you correspond to most of these, join the burgeoning Emergentist movement ! (^_______^)

 

For more information see my article on the three levels of order at http://www.strongatheism.net/philosophy/order.html

[Sokudo Ningyou]

....that is truly keen.

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, it's not actually a movement, it's just me. So, are you joining or not ? (^_______^)

[Asimov]

I'm already a member, AND a fellow article writer...

[Francois Tremblay]

Huh ? Who are you ?

[NorthenSun]

Your question is reversed. You should first ask "is there moral objectivity with God" ? The answer is no. In the Christian worldview, every material fact comes from God's will, therefore they are all subjective, including morality.

 

Not sure what your question "so how is that objective morality then?" refers to. Something is objective if it is based on the facts of reality. Values are based on facts of reality, thus they are objective. I trust you follow the logic ? 

 

Asimov,

I think you let Francois off the hook too easily. He has argued himself around in a circle. By the above logic, if God exists then God is a fact of reality and God's will (values, morality) is a fact of reality. Since he says that any values based on facts of reality are objective, then God's morality (the Christian worldview) is also objective, not subjective.

 

I know this is not what Francois means, but it is what he wrote. This can happen in discussions when people don't have time to fully clarify their thoughts. ( I used to read a magazine called Harpers, but stopped after I saw that many of their articles were records of the discussion of a group a people sitting around a table for a few hours. Often these people would say thing they would never write in article submitted after careful reflection.) Of course internet debating can still be fun, even if flawed.

 

I don't believe there is any moral system that can be completely objective. Morality is based on the subjective and selective interperetation of facts (reality), and thus is always in part subjective.

[Francois Tremblay]

Asimov,

I think you let Francois off the hook too easily. He has argued himself around in a circle. By the above logic, if God exists then God is a fact of reality and God's will (values, morality) is a fact of reality.

 

I'm afraid you're confusing propositions with their referents. Our minds are also facts of reality, but if we says a proposition is true without basing it on objective (non-willed) facts, we are being subjective. Anything that comes from a will alone is subjective. God's will is not based on any objective fact, since everything outside of it was created by it, therefore it is necessarily subjective. The Bible, source of Christian "values", is subjective as a construct of propositions since it is not based on objective facts.

 

 

I don't believe there is any moral system that can be completely objective. Morality is based on the subjective and selective interperetation of facts (reality), and thus is always in part subjective.

 

Subjective simply means : product of one's will (emotions, imagination, desires, etc), not based on facts of reality. The interpretation of facts is based on facts of reality, therefore it is not subjective.

[Francois Tremblay]

I just realized there is an even shorter way to explain your error. When you say "GOD EXISTS", you are assuming the primacy of existence. But the concept of God itself assumes the primacy of consciousness. Therefore "GOD EXISTS" is an equivocation and cannot be used to deduce that "God's will is a fact of reality".

 

But even if it was true, as I pointed out, it would be irrelevant since we are discussing whether the PROPOSITIONS are objective or subjective, and that depends on their support. The Bible is a set of propositions supposed to be originated from God, but God has no objective facts to refer to, therefore the Bible is necessarily subjective.

[NorthenSun]

Subjective simply means : product of one's will (emotions, imagination, desires, etc), not based on facts of reality. The interpretation of facts is based on facts of reality, therefore it is not subjective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this is just a difference in semantics. In my definition, "interpretation of fact" is a subjective act of deciding what input is a fact. I guess in yours its using only established facts to make an objective decision.

 

I offer this example: 1) A film maker shot a movie of something moving off into the wilds which he claimed was a real creature that he called Bigfoot. 2) Later, shortly before he died, he claimed that the film was staged using a man in a costume. So, does Bigfoot exist based on these two "facts of reality"? I can give you my answer, but it is a subjective one based on use of my logic, emotions, imagination, desires, etc. Of course my problem is that the man is liar, and I must decide in which case he is lying, or more specifically in which case is his claim a TRUE fact and in which it is a FALSE fact (a fiction). It would be nice if I only received TRUE "facts of reality", then I would have only had one case to interpret, and indeed I would agree with you that my decision could be objective. In "real life" however, I get lots of input, and I must first subjectively decide which of it is TRUE (a fact) and FALSE (a fiction), and then I must subjectively weigh the TRUE facts to make my decisions, moral judgements, etc. Thats why I define morality as a subjective act.

[Asimov]

Huh ? Who are you ?

 

 

Josh Martin, I wrote one of the creation and evolution articles, about species.

[Asimov]

I think this is just a difference in semantics. In my definition, "interpretation of fact" is a subjective act of deciding what input is a fact. I guess in yours its using only established facts to make an objective decision.

 

I offer this example: 1) A film maker shot a movie of something moving off into the wilds which he claimed was a real creature that he called Bigfoot. 2) Later, shortly before he died, he claimed that the film was staged using a man in a costume. So, does Bigfoot exist based on these two "facts of reality"? I can give you my answer,  but it is a subjective one based on use of my logic, emotions, imagination, desires, etc. Of course my problem is that the man is liar, and I must decide in which case he is lying, or more specifically in which case is his claim a TRUE fact and in which it is a FALSE fact (a fiction).  It would be nice if I only received TRUE "facts of reality", then I would have only had one case to interpret, and indeed  I would agree with you that my decision could be objective.  In "real life" however, I get lots of input, and I must first subjectively decide which of it is TRUE (a fact) and FALSE (a fiction), and then I must subjectively weigh the TRUE facts to make my decisions, moral judgements, etc. Thats why I define morality as a subjective act.

 

Fortunately, morality isn't based on an individual, but individuals in a society.

[Francois Tremblay]

I think this is just a difference in semantics. In my definition, "interpretation of fact" is a subjective act of deciding what input is a fact.

 

But it's not - by any philosophical definition.

 

 

I can give you my answer,  but it is a subjective one based on use of my logic, emotions, imagination, desires, etc.

 

If it is based on your emotions, imagination and desires, then yes it is subjective. But it's not interpretation either. It's make-believe. If you're talking about interpretation, you have to *interpret*, not impose your own prejudices (will-driven) on reality.

[Francois Tremblay]

Fortunately, morality isn't based on an individual, but individuals in a society.

 

Wrong. In fact, morality is MOST important when the individual is disconnected from society. On a desert island, the requirements of survival are of vital importance. In society, we cooperate : that's how we make our lives better. Other people help us fulfill the material requirements of our lives.