They ground morality in their own sinful desires.

Yeah, I did. Did you read my response?

Objects like human brains and machines that transmit electrical signals are all part of the perceived world. So if the perceived world doesn't exist then neither does your skeptical hypothesis.

The point I'm making is that your 'skeptical' hypothesis isn't really skeptical enough since you are naively assuming that objects like human brains and machines that transmit electrical signals can exist independently of perception.

Atheism is not mere disbelief. It is primarily a form of rebellion.

Why not?

If multiple all-powerful beings are perfectly united in will and purpose then they can co-exist together without destroying one another. So there's nothing contradictory about there being multiple gods as long as those gods are unified in thought, action, purpose, etc.

If the world doesn't exist then neither does your brain since your brain is just another part of the perceived world.

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

As a Christian, I consider it a privilege to be deemed 'weak'. After all, we are told in 2 Cor. 12 that Christ's strength is made perfect in weakness...

Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. — 2 Cor. 12:7-10

Stay weak, brother. ;)

Without the hope of salvation, which religion provides, life is demonstrably not worth living. — Thorongil

Agreed. But, sadly, spiritual blindness prevents many from recognizing/admitting this fact.

the ontological argument doesn't imply an intentional god that has interest in our behaviors — Reformed Nihilist

I disagree since a being who is uninterested in the welfare of others obviously wouldn't be morally perfect....

The first mover ... doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god. — Reformed Nihilist

I agree.

Pascal's wager doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god. — Reformed Nihilist

I disagree since Pascal's wager is specifically an argument for Christianity and I would say the God described in the Sermon on the Mount is morally perfect (and therefore worthy of worship), intentional, and caring.

There is exactly zero reason to conclude that the first mover, God of the ontological argument, God of Pascal's wager, at al, are the commonly worshipped God from whatever neighborhood you live in or grew up in. In most cases, there's no line of reasoning that the God in question even has most of the properties we commonly associate with gods, like intentionally, moral goodness (being worthy of worship), or interest in our behaviours. — Reformed Nihilist

The ontological argument entails the existence a morally perfect being. And a morally perfect being would be worthy of worship. A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of His creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well). So it looks like you're wrong on all three counts. The 'argument from religious experiences' is another argument for a God worthy of worship too.

Yes you did consent to being born. You can read more about our pre-mortal existence and our choice to come to earth here: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Premortal_Life

Check mate anti-natalists!

Classical theism and Berkeleyan idealism.

Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow? — TheMadFool

The answer is simple: sin. They don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle.

Thanks for the Pascal quotes. It is a shame he died so young :C

Yes, but those are just Hume's metaphysical positions. There's more to Hume than that. Two other factors I can think of:

• Ethics — Agustino

Hume used the same boring trick in ethics too.

"There's no necessary connection between an 'is' and an 'ought'" -- > skepticism about morality

Hume was a one-trick pony.

"Should I dedicate all my time to the pursue of eternal life" — AXF

I was a devout life-extenionist a few years ago. I kept a strict calorie restriction diet, abstained from all hedonistic activities, and had ambitions to pursue anti-aging research. The lifestyle is extremely stressful. Depressing thoughts would always cross my mind: "what if I die a few months before a cure for aging is found?", "what if I'm part of the last generation to die?", "that last meal I ate is going to shave a few more hours off my life", "time is running out", etc. I eventually gave up the cause when it hit me that death really is inevitable. Now I dedicate all my time to pursuing eternal life through the more conventional means of religion.

Hume was a pretty boring philosopher, imo. He used the same tired trick over and over again to produce various forms of skepticism..........

"There's no necessary connection between sense-experiences and material objects." -- > external world skepticism

"There's no necessary connection between memories and past events." -- > skepticism about the past

"There's no necessary connection between past events and future events." -- > problem of induction

"I never perceive myself." -- > skepticism about the self

... and what solution did Hume offer to these skeptical problems? "Let's hit the club, guys!"

Boring philosopher, indeed.

I was sort of with you up until this...

One thing it's not is that it's not a being that you can communicate with or pray to, like the Christian concept of a God. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Sorry, but a god you can't communicate with is not really a god at all.

if people really join God after death, then you should be happy that they died! — Agustino

Eh, not so fast. It all depends on the spiritual state of the person who dies. If someone dies after living righteously before God then you ought to be happy for them indeed. The scripture below describes the inconceivable joy that awaits such a person.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - 1 Cor. 2:9

But if someone dies without earnestly repenting of their sins then you ought to mourn for them; for they are unprepared for God's judgment. The two scriptures below vividly describe the dreadful state of such a person.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. - Mos. 2:38

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell. For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. - Morm. 9:4-5

Clearly, not everybody is going to be better off in the afterlife.

Doctors have actually made progress in finding cures to particular diseases; whereas philosophers have made no progress whatever in refuting skepticism, and never will. Like I said, it's time to find a new discipline.

I think that Dennett's own philosophical works might be entering into an area of post-intelligent design. — Colin B

LOL. I'd say that ship has already sailed.

"I know I have a pretty good idea of how the world works, how I define words, etc... until someone actually challenges my assumptions about those things... then I start to doubt what I thought I knew... and having my assumptions challenged and doubting what I thought I knew is uncomfortable." — anonymous66

I'd say most academic philosophers have the exact same mindset.

the natural world is all there is — Hugh Harris

Define 'natural world'

Isn't it the case that no human has figured out the answers to these questions? Why not label humanity itself as a failure because of these unanswered questions? — anonymous66

It's not the job of humanity as a whole to find answers to those questions. But it is the job of philosophers to get satisfactory answers to those questions, which they have failed to do. Philosophy is a failure. Time to find a new discipline.

As one who subscribes to libertarianism, I define a being with free will as one who is the 'uncaused, cause of their actions.'

The beliefs seemed completely absurd to me, and they still do. — Terrapin Station

Religious beliefs should seem absurd to those who haven't had any religious experiences - see 1 Cor. 2:14 (the whole chapter hits on the same theme).

I'm a bit surprised "theism' was as high as 14.6%. — Terrapin Station

Actually, I would put the percentage of theists lower since most "theists" in philosophy don't really take their religion seriously.

Most theistic discussions in the phil-of-religion begin and end with debates about the existence of God, which is not the real substance of religion. The real substance of religion is the lived experience of companionship with God. God is supposed to be a being with whom you can have a personal relationship. He is supposed to be a living reality; not just the conclusion of a sterile argument from natural theology.

Very, very few philosophers (I would say far less than 14.6%) actually focus on God as a living reality. One of them is Paul Moser. I highly recommend his work - which helped me greatly in my struggles to move past arguments and enter into a personal relationship with God.

Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless." — anonymous66

They're correct. After thousands of years of philosophy, philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not, whether there's an external world, whether other minds exist, whether human beings have free will, whether the sun will rise tomorrow (problem of induction), whether their cognitive faculties are reliable, etc. Philosophy is a failure of a discipline. To me, the failure of philosophy represents the absurdity of putting one's trust in the unaided human intellect. Boy, am I glad I got a degree in engineering!

incredible. Thanks for sharing!

(I'm referring to the music by Ravel, btw)

What's wrong with an infinite regression of decision making processes? If the past is eternal, then such a regression becomes possible.

"god did it!" ... is philosophically unsatisfying. — jkop

Says who?

I'm quite philosophically satisfied with that statement.

To what religion do you belong? — Thorongil

Apostolic United Brethren.

A Cartesian-style homunculus is out of date — darthbarracuda

...

but there still remains the very real experience of having a self that emotions somehow act upon. — darthbarracuda

There’s the rub, eh? Cartesian dualism may be currently out of philosophical fashion but it still remains the most accurate description of conscious experience.

God exists. Get over it.

“Life ... is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

There's nothing wrong with violence if God commands it.

How many believe some version of 'we can't get outside of our conceptual schemes to check them against the world?' — The Great Whatever

That looks about correct to me...

Dennett believes that our conception of conscious creatures with subjective inner lives - which are not describable merely in physical terms - is a useful fiction that allows us to predict how those creatures will behave and to interact with them.

Sounds like solipsism (a denial of other minds) to me...

God's love. All else is vanity...

Never understood the hype surrounding Bertrand Russell.