Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[commonsense]

You seem confused to me. Your P1 and P2 are NOT "facts". They are premises that require proof just as anything else requires proof.

I think you're creating a lot more complications than need to be created. It sounds to me like you're trying to shoehorn your premises P1 and P2 in under the radar. Sorry, no deal. That which is not knowable is not knowable. I say the same to theists. Get used to it and become honest.

Or feel free to talk to yourself if you don't want to debate your points.

You seem even more confused to me.

P1 is scientifc fact. It is a statement which has endured any and ALL empirical attempts of negation. And then comes the skeptic and just negates it without a counter-example. Completely disregarding all the failed attempts of negation.

Do you not see the difference between empirical negation (a counter-example), and axiomatic negation (choice)?

One requires effort.
One doesn't.

P2 puts you at the decision of morality or nihilism. Your call.

The negation you referenced is part and parcel of an Oxford definition, not something invented for an argument.

[commonsense]

Never mentioned God, you said.

The title of this thread certainly is about God. What are atheists?

Ask them what they are. I don't know. All I know is that they are atheists.

Are you saying atheists don't exist? That would piss them off too...

Not at all. You know better.

[Skepdick]

The negation you referenced is part and parcel of an Oxford definition, not something invented for an argument.

Oxford definition:

negation /nɪˈɡeɪʃn/noun 1. the contradiction or denial of something.

It's not a contradiction, for that require "contra" evidence. Of which none is forthcoming.

So it's denial. Fine.

deny /dɪˈnʌɪ/ verb gerund or present participle: denying 1. state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.

[Gary Childress]

Never mentioned God, you said.

The title of this thread certainly is about God. What are atheists?

Ask them what they are. I don't know. Are you saying atheists don't exist?

That would upset them a lot.

I'm sorry. I upset theists too. Unfortunately, there's a lot in this world that we don't know and will likely remain unknown. If it ever becomes known, then it becomes known. Right now it isn't as far as I'm aware (though feel free to demonstrate otherwise). I chose philosophy because it approaches questions and concerns with rigorous honesty.

[Skepdick]

Never mentioned God, you said.

The title of this thread certainly is about God. What are atheists?

Ask them what they are. I don't know. All I know is that they are atheists.

Are you saying atheists don't exist? That would piss them off too...

Not at all. You know better.

Then what are you asking when you ask "What are atheists?"

I am refering to all the humans who self-identify as "atheists" for any number of reasons. What are you asking about them?

And they often say things like "there's nothing beyond nature", and "the supernatural dosn't exist".
OK. So where do your morals come from? If you have any.

[Gary Childress]

So where do your morals come from? If you have any.

Morals usually come in the form of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. "Where" they come from or go to is kind of a difficult question to answer from a subjective perspective. It's a bit like asking, where are my thoughts at this moment. Can you point to one of my "thoughts"? If you can, then that might answer the question of "where" morals come from.

[Skepdick]

So where do your morals come from? If you have any.

Morals usually come in the form of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. "Where" they come from or go to is kind of a difficult question to answer from a subjective perspective. It's a bit like asking, where are my thoughts at this moment. Can you point to one of my "thoughts"? If you can, then that might answer the question of "where" morals come from.

Sounds like a belief in the supernatural. But (some very vocal and influential) atheists keep denying the existence of the supernatural.

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

It all adds up to a (well justified) conclusion that atheists believe in the existence of a supernatural moral source.

[Gary Childress]

So where do your morals come from? If you have any.

Morals usually come in the form of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. "Where" they come from or go to is kind of a difficult question to answer from a subjective perspective. It's a bit like asking, where are my thoughts at this moment. Can you point to one of my "thoughts"? If you can, then that might answer the question of "where" morals come from.

Sounds like a belief in the supernatural. But (some) atheists keep denying the existence of the supernatural.

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

OK. So are you suggesting that one cannot have thoughts without the "supernatural"?

[Skepdick]

Morals usually come in the form of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. "Where" they come from or go to is kind of a difficult question to answer from a subjective perspective. It's a bit like asking, where are my thoughts at this moment. Can you point to one of my "thoughts"? If you can, then that might answer the question of "where" morals come from.

Sounds like a belief in the supernatural. But (some) atheists keep denying the existence of the supernatural.

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

OK. So are you suggesting that one cannot have thoughts without the "supernatural"?

I am flat out saying that "atheists believe in the existence of a supernatural moral source" fits the logical conclusion.

It's a true, factual statement.

[henry quirk]

Morals usually come in the form of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. "Where" they come from or go to is kind of a difficult question to answer from a subjective perspective. It's a bit like asking, where are my thoughts at this moment. Can you point to one of my "thoughts"? If you can, then that might answer the question of "where" morals come from.

there isn't really a sense in which morality can be exclusively a "personal" matter, in that sense of "personal."

As I say...

The impasse is the same as always: the definitions of moral, morality, etc. I've yet to see any offered by anyone (including me) everyone agrees to. All definitions are skewed to favor morality is just opinion or morality is factual.

I haven't seen any of the subjectivists say morality is impossible or morality doesn't exist. To a man they say morality is opinion. They reject moral realism, yes. They don't reject morality, as they define it.

So, for the subjectivist, morality is nuthin' but a personal matter. For him it can't be anything else. He has no measure for right or wrong outside of his opinion of the moment. In weight, choosing not to rape or slave or murder, or steal or defraud is of no more consequence than choosing not to have coffee before bedtime. How it conveniences or inconveniences him is his only measure.

[Gary Childress]

Sounds like a belief in the supernatural. But (some) atheists keep denying the existence of the supernatural.

OK. So are you suggesting that one cannot have thoughts without the "supernatural"?

I am flat out saying that "atheists believe in the existence of a supernatural moral source" fits the logical conclusion.

It's a true, factual statement.

OK. Then Atheists must believe in the existence of a "supernatural moral source". Where's the problem you're having with that conclusion?

[Skepdick]

OK. So are you suggesting that one cannot have thoughts without the "supernatural"?

I am flat out saying that "atheists believe in the existence of a supernatural moral source" fits the logical conclusion.

It's a true, factual statement.

OK. Then Atheists must believe in the existence of a "supernatural moral source". Where's the problem you're having with that conclusion?

In their continuous rejection of the existence of the supernatural. This is specifically naturalist atheists. Obviously.

[Gary Childress]

I am flat out saying that "atheists believe in the existence of a supernatural moral source" fits the logical conclusion.

It's a true, factual statement.

OK. Then Atheists must believe in the existence of a "supernatural moral source". Where's the problem you're having with that conclusion?

In their continuous rejection of the existence of the supernatural.

Atheists reject theism. Is "supernatural" necessarily "theism"?

[Gary Childress]

This is specifically naturalist atheists. Obviously.

Well, "naturalism" has its problems too. Which is why I'm not an atheist. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[henry quirk]

OK. Then Atheists must believe in the existence of a "supernatural moral source". Where's the problem you're having with that conclusion?

In their continuous rejection of the existence of the supernatural.

Atheists reject theism. Is "supernatural" necessarily "theism"?

In context: the atheist rejects an objective moral arbiter. Even if he accepts, say, animism, he accepts no ultimate source of morality. He has no measure for right and wrong beyond his own opinion and might makes right.