Objectivism and Atheism

Merlin wrote:

Wrong. I am an atheist and do not deny the existence of free thinking, nor that conceptual beings can think straight. I'm confident there are plenty of others on this forum who would say the same. So please stop making stuff up.

This is what I call atheism's blatant contradiction. Yes, I believe you are an atheist. Yes, I believe you affirm free thought and that conceptual beings can think straight. However, there is no atheist cosmology that allows for such things. Your position contradicts any and all atheistic cosmologies.

So, you are left in the difficult position of either giving up atheism, giving up free thought or giving up logic! I find that most atheists at this point tend to give up logic.

You may have missed my short essays explaining this position. Here are the links:

post 0 and post 0

Regards,

G, Brady Lenardos

Post 121

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 1:33am

Brady (or "Zorro", if you will),

Yes, I believe you affirm free thought and that conceptual beings can think straight. However, there is no atheist cosmology that allows for such things. Your position contradicts any and all atheistic cosmologies.

It's time that you make a damn syllogism, now. In fact, it would be intellectually insulting for you to not to do this at this time (considering your bold claims). You are insulting the intelligence of every reader on this board -- when you don't make yourself as plain and clear as day (as you make the kinds of claims that you do). Every post that you post -- without the required syllogisms -- is an insult to the intelligence of readers worldwide, a monumental inconsideration that borders on an unbridled narcissism and self-righteous rancor.

In this forum, too much politeness has been extended to you -- and it's now time that you pay your dues. Here's an example of the kind of thing that you could do in order to argue -- from now on, at least -- in an intellectually-honest fashion (if that is something that you're even concerned about) ...

Free beings couldn't exist without an intellectual designer.
Free beings exist.
======================
Therefore, there must be an intellectual designer (somewhere in the cosmos).

... or ...

Atheist cosmologies rely on chance, not cause.
There is no such thing as a causeless event.
==========================
Therefore, atheist cosmologies must be false.

Pick one of these 2 syllogisms or add your own, but for God sakes -- say something that is falsifiable (it's only out of respect for the intellectual barometer of the totality of the patrons of this web-site, to be so honestly straightforward about what it is that you are saying).

Have more respect for us (and provide the appropriate argumentation) -- or otherwise, just shut your friggen' trap and learn your proper place in the world of objective value. There is a price to the rational argumentation with others. Either pay it, or expect the publically-embarrassing consequences (i.e., the shame) of evading it.

You've been warned more than once now. Take heed and tread carefully. Your reputation among rational thinkers is on the line. I say this in order to be of some help (and not just to be intimidating to you).

Ed

Post 122

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 6:10am

Zorro wrote:

So, you are left in the difficult position of either giving up atheism, giving up free thought or giving up logic! I find that most atheists at this point tend to give up logic.

Look in the mirror. It is you who sacrificed logic and evidence to arrive at your position.

You may have missed my short essays explaining this position. Here are the links: post 0 and post 0

It's appropriate that both numbers are zero. They'd be worth as much if they came from the back end of your horse.

Ed wrote:

I agree with that 'bird of prey' (hawk?, falcon?) who goes by the name of a popular magician in folk tales.

It is a bird of prey, a falcon, and a merlin (falco columbarius). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28bird%29
The merlin was the favored bird with the ladies of the courts in midievel times, and continues so with ladies today, because it is much smaller than other species commonly used for falconry.

While on the topic of species, here are two more.
gadfly -- a persistent irritating critic; a nuisance; one that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
godfly - a gadfly whose tool is God. Example: G. Brady Lenardos

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 4/10, 7:52am)

Post 123

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:52am

Ah yes, THE GOAD - a good title for a book.;-)

Post 124

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:07pm

Ed wrote:

It's time that you make a damn syllogism, now.

The question is how many damn times on this forum do I have to type them?

Have more respect for us (and provide the appropriate argumentation) -- or otherwise, just shut your friggen' trap and learn your proper place in the world of objective value. There is a price to the rational argumentation with others. Either pay it, or expect the publically-embarrassing consequences (i.e., the shame) of evading it.

You've been warned more than once now. Take heed and tread carefully. Your reputation among rational thinkers is on the line. I say this in order to be of some help (and not just to be intimidating to you).

Ed, I tried to make them easy for you to find by making my syllogisms into the titles of threads and then fleshing out the titles in the opening essays.

Free beings couldn't exist without an intellectual designer.
Free beings exist.
======================
Therefore, there must be an intellectual designer (somewhere in the cosmos).

... or ...

Atheist cosmologies rely on chance, not cause.
There is no such thing as a causeless event.
==========================
Therefore, atheist cosmologies must be false.

You demand that I show respect, something you have not done. I have never written anything close to the above, either in my initial thread essays or in my responses to others. So, either you have not shown respect by not reading the essays in question or you have not shown respect by intentionally misrepresenting my position. Out of courtesy, I will assume you are just ignorant of my position because you didn't read the essays.

The fact is, you owe me an apology for all the above threats, insults and unfounded accusations.

And now, one more time, the syllogisms:

The elements of all atheistic cosmologies deny knowledge. Therefore, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no knowledge.

Knowledge necessarily exists.

Therefore, no atheistic cosmology is true.

On this forum, and in this very thread, it has been affirm that if Objectivism is true, then atheism must be true.

It is not the case that atheism is true,.

Therefore, it is not the case that Objectivism is true.

It is the case that either some form of atheism is true or some form of theism is true.

It is not the case that some form of atheism is true,

Therefore, some form of theism is true.

Before you attempt to answer, please read the essays, or better yet, read the paper from which they were redacted: Atheism�s Blatant Contradiction

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 125

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:17pm

Merlin Jetton wrote:

So, you are left in the difficult position of either giving up atheism, giving up free thought or giving up logic! I find that most atheists at this point tend to give up logic.
Look in the mirror. It is you who sacrificed logic and evidence to arrive at your position.

You may have missed my short essays explaining this position. Here are the links: post 0 and post 0
It's appropriate that both numbers are zero. They'd be worth as much if they came from the back end of your horse.

You have nowhere answered my argument. Do you have a counter argument? Can you show the form of my argument invalid. Can you show the premises false? These are the means that rational people use to attempt a refutation. You offer none of it, but instead talk about horses and zeros.

So, if you have a rational response please present it. I would like to see it.

'nough said?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 126

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 2:15pm

Ed: �The truth (i.e., the correspondance to reality) of axioms, however, is something that can be perceived��

Perception involves sensible qualities such as colour, texture, shape etc. Which sensible qualities are involved in the perception of the truth of the axioms?

�We are merely required to think straight about our perceptions -- in order to gain the employment of axiomatic concepts.�

And what do we perceive? If perception involves the �awareness of specific, particular things which can be recognised and distinguished from the rest of the perceptual field�, then perception is logically dependent on the axiomatic concept identity.

But in that case, the axiomatic concept identity cannot be dependent on perception, but rather independent of perception. In other words, the axioms are a priori.

Brendan

Post 127

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:46pm

GBL, I'll probably answer you later.

Brendan, let's take the axiom that "consciousness is identification" (of various existences within reality).

How do we come to know the truth of that? By thinking about our perceptions. When we differentiate a perceived object, such as a table or chair, from the rest of our perceptual field -- we've not only become aware that it exists, we've identified the type of thing that it is. That we can make error in this doesn't matter, we are the very ones who find and fix our errors (every past error is proof that we have the power to know things better).

Also (and it's going to be difficult to be clear here), I'm leary of the term 'perceptual judgment' -- at least in regard to the conceptual identification of a thing. In the identification of things (even the identification of axioms), we use concepts -- so the whole process of gaining the mental employment of axiomatic concepts isn't a perception-only phenomenon (and I'm sorry if I made it sound so).

... the axioms are a priori.

All known truths are a priori (to the rational agent who, in discovering the truth of something, had made themselves aware of part of reality). Known truths don't require further empirical evidence in order to remain known (or remain true).

For the guy who first discovered that the Morning- and Evening Star are both instances of the planet Venus, it was discovered a posteriori (after experiencing empirical data). And though I could validate the truth of this matter a posteriori (with telescopes and whatnot), that's not a requirement for gaining the knowledge of it. There are now enough found facts to merely ruminate on still be able to get to the right answer.

Ed

Post 128

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 9:24pm

Brady, you wrote,

The elements of all atheistic cosmologies deny knowledge. Therefore, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no knowledge.

Knowledge necessarily exists.

Therefore, no atheistic cosmology is true.

On another thread, in another forum, far, far way, I wrote: "Naturalistic cosmology doesn't require a denial of human consciousness, which enables us to achieve knowledge. Consciousness is a fact of reality; it is part of nature, so how is it inconsistent with naturalistic cosmology?"

You replied,

Let me ask you something Bill. Does what you call "consciousness" have an element of independence from deterministic necessity?

According to Objectivism, it does, because free will is part of man's nature. What's interesting is that the argument that you appear to be making is the same one that Objectivism makes against determinism -- namely, that determinism is incompatible with knowledge. The point I'm not getting is how free will presupposes the existence of God. That's the part Objectivism would deny, even though it would agree with your argument that determinism is incompatible with knowledge. If you could expand on the idea that free will presupposes the existence of God, it would help, because it's that part of the argument that I'm not getting. I do understand your argument that determinism is incompatible with knowledge. I disagree with it, but I understand it, because it's the same argument that Objectivism makes on behalf of free will. What I don't understand is how God is required for free will and therefore for knowledge.

Thanks.

- Bill

Post 129

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:51pm

What I don't understand is how God is required for free will and therefore for knowledge.

Me neither.

Post 130

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:13am

Bill wrote:

Brady, you wrote,
The elements of all atheistic cosmologies deny knowledge. Therefore, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no knowledge.

Knowledge necessarily exists.

Therefore, no atheistic cosmology is true.
On another thread, in another forum, far, far way, I wrote: "Naturalistic cosmology doesn't require a denial of human consciousness, which enables us to achieve knowledge. Consciousness is a fact of reality; it is part of nature, so how is it inconsistent with naturalistic cosmology?"

Bill, it is one thing to say that "Naturalistic cosmology doesn't require a denial of human consciousness, which enables us to achieve knowledge," it is another thing to show how you get from the elements of the naturalistic cosmology to your above conclusion.

Remember, the elements of the naturalistic cosmology are: All that exists is nature, i.e. matter in motion acting according to the laws of nature. Please show how you get from this to knowledge? If all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion. How do you derive from that knowledge that is independent of necessary determinism?

Believe me Bill, I have look at this from all angles, if there is something I missed, I do want to know. Your input would be welcome.

If you could expand on the idea that free will presupposes the existence of God, it would help, because it's that part of the argument that I'm not getting.

That is because I never made that particular argument. You know, you shouldn't try to put words in my mouth, its's unsanitary. You can see my arguments outlined for Ed in post 124 of this thread. I am not making any other arguments than those in the outline. Those arguments are fleshed out in my article: Atheism�s Blatant Contradiction. All of my points are discussed in detail there.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 131

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 5:58am

Brady ("Zorro") wrote:

The elements of all atheistic cosmologies deny knowledge. Therefore, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no
knowledge. Knowledge necessarily exists. Therefore, no atheistic cosmology is true.

Remember, the elements of the naturalistic cosmology are: All that exists is nature, i.e. matter in motion acting according to the laws of nature. Please show how you get from this to knowledge? If all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion.

Folks, these are like mantras. It hardly matters what you say against them. Zorro will simply repeat them over and over.
According to Zorro an atheist must uphold either "naturalism" (which he also calls "naturism") or "negationism." Of course,
he prescribes what these terms mean.

When I said I was an atheist who did not deny knowledge, Zorro ignored it and repeated his mantra. My version of atheism is
neither "naturism" nor "negationism", so his "Atheism�s Blatant Contradiction" fails. But that didn't matter to him. Maybe he
has yet to grasp a simple rule of logic. One X being non-Y refutes the claim 'all X are Y'.

When I asked how as a child before becoming a theist and with no knowledge he came to be a theist, he simply repeated his
mantra. The pattern is clear. He ignores opposition and repeats his mantras. I'll try again.

I am atheist and do not deny knowledge. In addition to matter in motion, there is such a thing as meaning. It's not matter
nor motion, although it is supported by matter in motion. Here is a simple example. Suppose it's almost time for X to go bowl
in his weekly league. X grabs his bowling bag (ball and shoes inside) from the closet, puts the bag in his car, and drives
off. Along with all this matter in motion there is also the meaning to me that X intends to go bowling and he will be bowling soon at some particular place. Zorro's mantra is in serious difficulty again. Let's see what happens. Will he try to make me into a theist?

Post 132

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 8:56am

Merlin Jetton wrote:

Brady ("Zorro") wrote:

The elements of all atheistic cosmologies deny knowledge. Therefore, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no
knowledge. Knowledge necessarily exists. Therefore, no atheistic cosmology is true.
Remember, the elements of the naturalistic cosmology are: All that exists is nature, i.e. matter in motion acting according to the laws of nature. Please show how you get from this to knowledge? If all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion.
Folks, these are like mantras.

Well, the top quote of mine is called a conditional syllogism. The conclusion is derived necessarily from the premises using Modus Tollens. The second one is merely a restatement of what has been recognized as the western atheist position for some 2500 years. I got this definition the same way most other people do, from their entry level philosophy class in college.

It hardly matters what you say against them. Zorro will simply repeat them over and over.

Yes, of course, this is exactly right! Deductive arguments and tautologies yield necessary conclusions. In this case they yield conclusions that are the basis of my position. To prove my point, I will always point to these deductively certain arguments. I bet you wish you had this kind of argument behind your position. But, unfortunately you don't. So, you try to use pejoratives and trivialize the force of my deductive arguments, as in your above quotes. Remember, in post 120, I said that "I find that most atheists at this point tend to give up logic." The fact that you are trying to minimize deductive arguments instead of answering them shows that you are well on your way down that road.

According to Zorro an atheist must uphold either "naturalism" (which he also calls "naturism") or "negationism." Of course,
he prescribes what these terms mean.

Oh, please, you give me too much credit. I have only been around a little over 50 years, these cosmologies have been around for over 2500 years. Simply because you are ignorant of their historical background, doesn't mean that I prescribe what they mean. These cosmologies are the way that atheists have been describing their own positions for over two and a half millennia.

My version of atheism is neither "naturism" nor "negationism", so his "Atheism�s Blatant Contradiction" fails. But that didn't matter to him. Maybe he
has yet to grasp a simple rule of logic. One X being non-Y refutes the claim 'all X are Y'.

Please present your cosmology, I would enjoy seeing it. There are only so many elements that make up a cosmology. Let's review what we have so far:

Negationism: God does not exist. Nature does not exist. All is illusion. Nothing is what it is intentionally.

Naturalism (or naturism): God does not exist. Nature does exist. Nothing is what it is intentionally.

When I asked how as a child before becoming a theist and with no knowledge he came to be a theist, he simply repeated his
mantra. The pattern is clear. He ignores opposition and repeats his mantras. I'll try again.

The problem is that your question misses the point. The point is simple: there is a blatant contradiction between all atheistic cosmologies and our ability to know.

I am not denying your ability to know or the child's ability to know. In fact, I heartily affirm it. It is that ability to know that proves atheism false. You are the one who has the problem of showing that there is no contradiction. At best, your question serves as nothing more than a red herring.

I am atheist and do not deny knowledge. In addition to matter in motion, there is such a thing as meaning.

Now we are getting somewhere! This thing you call "meaning," it is either made of matter in motion or it is not. If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists? And nw that we have added "meaning", Ad Hoc, to our cosmology, what prevents us from adding other things, Ad Hoc, that are other than matter in motion to our cosmology... let's say God, maybe?

Looking forward to your answers.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 133

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 6:56pm

If all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion.

... and some of that matter -- i.e., "us" -- intends (thinks, means, and does things willfully -- because of keeping focus on a mentally-held, end-goal in our minds).

So, ironically, your "matter in motion" statements mean both nothing and everything at the same time -- but in a different respect. As an explanation for thought or knowledge -- it must first be acknowledged that some of the moved matter that exists was actually moved intentionally. We're intentional beings, it's really expedient to retain integration of that fact. It prevents epistemological dead-ends -- like this one that you've parked in.

Naturalism (or naturism): God does not exist. Nature does exist. Nothing is what it is intentionally.

This description is incorrect (see above).

This thing you call "meaning," ... What scientific test do you use to determine it exists?

Noncontradictory introspection. Thinking whether things have meaning to you, and whether you mean to mean things (and then whether these things, and you, necessarily do so -- or merely do so by some kind of arbitrary happenstance). That's all the proof needed in order to be in correct employment of the concept of the intentional agency of man.

Ed

Post 134

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 10:27pm

... and some of that matter -- i.e., "us" -- intends (thinks, means, and does things willfully -- because of keeping focus on a mentally-held, end-goal in our minds).

So, ironically, your "matter in motion" statements mean both nothing and everything at the same time -- but in a different respect. As an explanation for thought or knowledge -- it must first be acknowledged that some of the moved matter that exists was actually moved intentionally. We're intentional beings, it's really expedient to retain integration of that fact. It prevents epistemological dead-ends -- like this one that you've parked in.

You say that some of the matter was "actually moved intentionally"--moved, no doubt, by conscious beings such as ourselves. But I'm not sure how consideration of human intentionality "prevents epistemological dead-ends". On the contrary, it seems to create such dead-ends, since the following questions naturally arise: What was it that intentionally moved matter? Was it some kind of (moving) matter itself? If so, can a tenable account be provided as to how this kind of matter was able to exercise intentionality?

If you believe you can provide a materialistic account of intentionality, please explain how this might be done. If you don't believe you can offer such an account, please admit that you have, in fact, reached an epistemological dead-end.

(Note: Several philosophers of mind have succeeded (in my estimation) in offering plausible, putatively 'materialistic' accounts of mental phenomena. However, none of these accounts--given that they invoke mental (i.e. immaterial) properties of the brain--seem to me legitimately materialistic.)

Noncontradictory introspection. Thinking whether things have meaning to you, and whether you mean to mean things (and then whether these things, and you, necessarily do so -- or merely do so by some kind of arbitrary happenstance). That's all the proof needed in order to be in correct employment of the concept of the intentional agency of man.

Brady specifically asked that you suggest a scientific test that could be used to determine the existence of meaning. "Introspection" is not a scientific test.

Moreover, even if introspection does provide us with proof of the intentional agency of man, the issue at hand is not whether man is an intentional agent. The issue is whether it is possible to give a materialistic account of intentionality--because the larger issue is whether knowledge, which involves intentionality, is possible within a materialistic universe.

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 4/11, 10:33pm)

Post 135

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 5:45am

Brady ("Zorro") wrote:

The fact that you are trying to minimize deductive arguments instead of answering them shows that you are well on your way down that road.

Not at all. Your deductive argument has a false premise, as I have proven.

In post #131 I used meaning as something other than simply matter in motion and ended with "Will he try to make me into a theist?" Zorro replies:

Now we are getting somewhere! This thing you call "meaning," it is either made of matter in motion or it is not. If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists? And nw that we have added "meaning", Ad Hoc, to our cosmology, what prevents us from adding other things, Ad Hoc, that are other than matter in motion to our cosmology... let's say God, maybe?

Close! Give a theist an inch and he'll take a million kilometers. And what is Zorro's "scientific test" for God? Maybe Herr Leibniz can help him.

Post 136

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:02pm

Merlin wrote:

Brady ("Zorro") wrote:

The fact that you are trying to minimize deductive arguments instead of answering them shows that you are well on your way down that road.
Not at all. Your deductive argument has a false premise, as I have proven.

In post #131 I used meaning as something other than simply matter in motion and ended with "Will he try to make me into a theist?"

Actually, you did not show a false premise. That was the point of my last post. You do understand the meaning of "Ad Hoc," don't you? And why did you not answer my questions concerning the nature of "meaning?" Let me repeat them: This thing you call "meaning," it is either made of matter in motion or it is not. If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists?

Your insertion of "meaning" doesn't help you. One must only ask, if "meaning" (whatever that is) existed prior to the first sentient being? If the answer is no, then you still must account for it given the cosmological elements we started with in my original cosmological statement about naturalism. If the answer is yes, then you have a dualism and your atheism will soon fall apart, just ask Plato where that all leads.

Now we are getting somewhere! This thing you call "meaning," it is either made of matter in motion or it is not. If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists? And nw that we have added "meaning", Ad Hoc, to our cosmology, what prevents us from adding other things, Ad Hoc, that are other than matter in motion to our cosmology... let's say God, maybe?
Close! Give a theist an inch and he'll take a million kilometers. And what is Zorro's "scientific test" for God? Maybe Herr Leibniz can help him.

This is what makes me think that you don't know what "Ad Hoc" means. My insertion of God was not meant to be taken serious. It was meant to demonstrate that if you could throw in elements willy-nilly into any cosmology, why couldn't you throw God into an atheistic cosmology? This is what is known as a "Reductio ad Absurdum." Sorry you missed it.

Here is something that you and I do agree on: the atheist position of the last 2500 years, and as held by such as Anthony Flew and Bertrand Russell is false. You see, all the top atheists in western society, beginning with certain presocratics, all agree with the definition of naturalism that I gave, none assert your definition. So, in your effort to save atheism (something you really haven't done), you must reject all prior atheists including Flew, Russell, Ingersol and the like. I am glad that we can agree that they were all wrong.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 137

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:13pm

If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists?

your error is presuming the 'laws of nature' are all known and all answers are readily available - the same flaw involved in so-called 'intelligent design', as if it wasn't by purpose, then was by accident, the false alternatives, instead of recognising it may also be by the nature of what exists [that to exist IS to have identity]

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/12, 1:14pm)

Post 138

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 2:13pm

Robert Malcom wrote:

If it is not matter in motion, what is it made of? Does it have to follow the laws of nature? What scientific test do you use to determine it exists?

your error is presuming the 'laws of nature' are all known and all answers are readily available - the same flaw involved in so-called 'intelligent design', as if it wasn't by purpose, then was by accident, the false alternatives, instead of recognising it may also be by the nature of what exists [that to exist IS to have identity]

The problem is what you have written above is a denial of identity! This is because it is a denial of the law of non-contradiction. What is not intended (purposed) is necessarily unintended (accident), and vice versa. This is an excluded middle. The thing is, you understood the contradiction intuitively and tried to find a way out of it. The problem is, there is no way out. But, I guess it is only a problem for those who want to try to maintain the contradiction. What about you Robert? Do you want to continue maintaining the contradiction?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 139

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 2:40pm