Ociotube - Buscador de vídeos

Re: Atheism Really Does Offer Nothing

Descargar vídeo Duración: 8:52

Why would the atheist want atheism to be believed? Or...Why would the atheist want at least some worldviews to be disbelieved? The apparent options are truth or pleasure or a combination of both. I don't want to create a straw man, so this is addressed only to those would cite one of those as the reason their arguments are valuable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_man - Wikipedia link on "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis with a link to the full text of the book. He writes on the very issues discussed in this debate I just found out today! "Truth is valuable." 1) Truth is a basic good. No other reason can be given for it's being valuable. Truth is valuable in and of itself. Ought we to pursue truth in an absolutist sense? If NOT, why be concerned about truth? If SO, what sense can you give to the absolute imperative to "Always seek truth"? But if NOT, perhaps you might say, "Well, it's a social convention that brought to us to value pleasure; and this has come by way of evolution. But why is social convention valuable? Is it absolutely valuable? 2) Truth is valuable because it is a means to pleasure. In other words, "The truth of the matter is that X brings pleasure, so I will do that. Or, the truth of the matter is that Y brings pain, so I won't do that. I think this is the best move for the atheist to make, but now the atheist has committed herself to the position, "Always get pleasure". Why, on the assumption of atheism, ought we to strive for pleasure? Because pleasure absolutely and intrinsically good? What ground might the atheist have for the absolute and intrinsic goodness of pleasure (i.e. whenever there are creatures that can experience pleasure, pleasure is always intrinsically good)? But assuming the atheist can answer all that, what of pleasure's qualitative feel and pleasure's intentionality? Can pure matter feel? Can pure matter have intentional states (pleasure being directed toward or being about a sunset, for example)? If our brain has given rise to non-physical, mental states, how do you account for this? How does pure matter do this? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ - For an overview of the philosophy of the mind and dualists argument, read this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA -- John Searle going over his work in a basic and understandable way. He argues for both the 'qualitative feel' and the 'intentionality' of mental states (such as pleasure!). But, let's also assume the atheist can answer all that, and let's get back to this notion of worldviews -- which ones should be accepted and which one's ought not be accepted. There are two types of atheist arguers, as I define them: Pervasive Atheist Arguers (PAA) and Contained Atheist Arguers (CAA). PAA argue that "Unless atheism is believed by all or most people in the world, then a disproportion of pain over pleasure will result!" CAA argue that "Unless some worldview (or group of worldviews) is rejected, then a disproportion of pain over pleasure will result!" The PAA has the hardest task. They must look at all religious texts, at all religious scholarship of all religions in the past, and at all religious scholarship of all religions currently being thought about. From that research they must then argue that certain beliefs are essential to some religion, and then do that for every religion (e.g. for Religion R1, a-b-c are essential; for R2, a-d-t are essential; for R3, d-t-j are essential). Then they must show how every essential part to every different and varied religion makes it so that pain over pleasure results. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E -- Although all the Four Horseman don't endorse PAA, but they give the feel of it. Please watch! http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistAtLARGE - I don't know if AtheistAtLarge is a PAA, but it has seemed that way to me when I get on stickam at DebateFaith. I wrote him a message a while asking him some questions along these lines, but he hasn't responded. CAA only has to show that some given religion (or group of religions) have this affect. CAA does not intend to show this for *every* religion as does the PAA. Some form ethical egoism or utilitarianism will have to be defended as well, more than likely. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/ - on egoism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ - one form of utilitarianism On the assumption of atheism, the atheist must provide 1) an INTERNALLY CONSISTENT account of why truth or pleasure or a combination is valuable; 2) an argument for why all or some religions necessitate pain over pleasure; and 3) must defend ethical egoism or utilitarianism of some form or another.