Is atheism a trick to avoid discussing first principles?
If you have a logical basis for your personal philosophy or ideology, that you live by, and you are atheist, explain it or help prove the affirmative side of this debate.
true
Side Score: 2
|
 |
false
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
First principles are nothing more than speculation, and I see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them. Odd, here I am arguing on the same side as you, and I think just the opposite, I see no hope in any discussion or agreement without them. Without them there is no starting point for a logically progressive discourse at all. However, if possible I'd like you to explain how you came to believe that first principles are nothing more than speculation. Atheism is simply a refutation of a denial for the need of these discussions (God bypasses them by simply existing throughout eternity). Your perspective is not clear to me....Is it that of the "atheism" you describe? Because if so, it seems like your argument should be on the other side. I don't see how your position could be both that there is a "need for these" discussions AND that you "see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them". Side: true
|
1
point
It's certainly not a trick to avoid them, although I think a lot of athiests may be left without a justification of first principles (I'm guessing at what "first principles" might be, since I haven't heard the term before). I would suspect that most atheists (like most people) will just adopt the first principles of their culture, or choose the first principles of their culture that they like best, if their culture has more than one set. Personally, I like to find an evolutionary justification for what makes something right or wrong. A lot of people might interpret that as justifying hurting other people in order to get ahead, but I think that we evolved a conscience, evolved a set of rules for our societies, evolved religion, because it helped us survive. These things enable us to work together in groups, and groups can accomplish a lot more than individuals can. Certain systems of right and wrong may work better than others as well, and this results in a natural selection of societies as well as of individuals. By balancing what works best for ourselves and what works best for our societies, we can derive a set of rules that works best for our society, yet still allow us to prosper within that society. For example, it would be good feed and house all of the poor, but if our society doesn't have enough resources to support that, then the society will be weakened and everyone will suffer. Side: false
|
