[Hank Kerchief]

Mr. Lucky Dog,

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

Now this is very interesting:

"You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all.

"You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do. Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything.

Now I have no idea where any of this comes from. I never wrote them, and certainly do not accept any of it. It's all physicalist evolutionary garbage I've never held:

"We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.
 We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.
 ... How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there.
"

"Your assertion demands an origin for life"

What assertion would that be. I do not know that life had a beginning. Neither do you, nor anyone else, but most people just assume it did.

You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

"According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

"The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what? I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?" Is English your first language? Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?" You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

"There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

"We evolved as social and tribal animals."

Really!? And you know this how? Believe it if you like, but I know it's bunk.

I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

Hank

[Lucky Dog]

Hank,

Sorry for any confusion on my last post to you. I was addressing both you and Jormungandr in the same post. While I tried to separate all of our comments with different colors to reduce confusion, the effort was obviously not completely successful. Your comments were in blue, Jormungandr was in green and mine were red for the previous post and in black for the current (at that time) post.

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

My purpose was to engage you and Jormungandr in a friendly debate on the topic. The questions I posed were structured in an attempt to elicit logic supporting replies.

Now this is very interesting:

"You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all. [emphasis added]

Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

a·the·ist   [ ey-thee-ist]

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

I submit that your statement (emphasized above) very nearly, exactly fits the definition quoted above. It is, in fact, the statement you… do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it… that makes you an atheist. However, your other statements are in previous posts are not congruent or consistent… in other words, your words are logically contradictory.

"You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do….

The “must do” cited above was not intended as a “command.” Rather, it was an admonition that for your statements (in previous posts) to be logically consistent, certain actions are required to resolve obvious incongruencies in reasoning. I hope this explanation clarified the intent of my comments concerning “must do.”

… Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything. [emphasis added]

Your assertion is incorrect. The “Big Bang” is, in fact, a fully developed, and widely accepted scientific theory. Perhaps, again, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

Recall that my challenge was not to define existence. Rather, the challenge was to explain existence. Sorry, that challenge was a bit of red hearing in the sense that there already are several well developed branches of philosophy such as existentialism, rationalism, and empiricism that attempt to address this challenge. My purpose was literally to force an admission that existence must be acknowledged thus avoiding Platoic “forms” arguments, etc.

"According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

Please note that I used the words logically implies. This marks a statement, not of a belief, rather, it is a statement of inference based upon premises and the precepts of logic. Consequently, it is irrelevant if you don’t believe . Your belief, or lack thereof, does not invalidate the logic. Your failure to address a logical argument simply means that you refuse to use reason.

"The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what?

The point (expanded) is that it is impossible to prove the assertion that God exists. Therefore, asserting that He does exist is a matter of faith. Similarly, (expanded) it is impossible to prove the assertion that God does not, exist. As a result, asserting that He does not exist is, also, a matter of faith. Consequently, atheism, just like, theism and deism, is a faith.

I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?"

It is in fact faith. However, if you don't mind, I'll skip addressing this one in detail. It is subsumed in the other arguments presented.

Is English your first language?

Yes.

Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?"

I have been there many times. Therefore, it is not a matter of faith, but one of knowledge.

You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

There is a Phoenix. Consequently, I can prove it with a trip to Arizona and direct observation.

"There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

Morals are sets of rules intended to govern human behavior. Note that there are no morals for polar bears, sheep, tigers, etc. If human behavior is governed by many different sets of morals, then, logically, there is no such thing as a moral absolute. The citations of different people who behaved in extremely different manners was a illustration of that assertion.

What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

Your assertion is patently false. First, if moral principles were absolutes, there would be no competing systems of morality, e.g., Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Toaism, Buddhism, etc. Likewise, there would be no “moral dilemmas,” leading to a philosophy called “moral relativism.”

Note that there is no “chemical relativism.” If one combines the same elements under the same conditions, the results are always within the same outcome predictions. However, if one combines the same situation conditions under different moral codes, the results are seldom the same. Therefore, your assertion that there are moral absolutes is patently false.

I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

On the contrary, it is not a waste of my time. I enjoy a debate.