But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous.

Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.

And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims? — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration.

Ok I will amend the argument:

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything

Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position

Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow. — Rank Amateur

I laughed at this, it was very funny, truly :smile:
But you are mixing together claims and facts. A claim demands facts, the claim itself isn't a fact. Claiming there's a teapot in space needs support by evidence, claiming there isn't a teapot in space is a nonsense claim since there's no proof of any teapot in space. Therefor you can't say that atheists claim there isn't a teapot in space since they haven't even gotten to the point of hearing a reasonable argument for a teapot in space. Atheists does not make claims that aren't proved by facts, if they see a claim, they want proof of that claims, that is what burden of proof is about.

If I claimed there's a rabbit under your bed and you said to me that I need to prove it, if I were a theist I would not care to give any proof. If I were an atheists I would not claim there to be or not be a rabbit under your bed because any claim would be ridiculous without evidence of there being one. If you look under your bed and say I was lying about there being a rabbit under your bed, an atheist would say that they didn't even make the claim, since they didn't make any claim about neither, but a theist would say; "well you don't know if it ran away", "you don't know if it's an invisible one", "you cannot prove that it wasn't there".

Atheists demand proof of claims that doesn't have proof. They do not make claims. Theists makes claims that doesn't have proof and demand proof of the opposite and without any, they accept their claim as truth. This is a fundamental fallacy in how to reach a rational conclusion in any form under any situation. Atheists are still waiting for the argument to start, given the lack of evidence from theists, atheists are really asking the question, why bother with religion? The argument that atheists cannot value emotion and beautify because of this, is in any sense of the matter, bullshit (referring to earlier posts on this)

Atheism isnt a claim about anything. It is not a system of any kind, nor a way of viewing the world. You guys are getting it wrong on both sides here.
Atheism means “without belief”, that its literal meaning. The “a” means “without”, the “theism” means belief.
Theism means “belief”.
Its easy to look up the origins of the word.
In philosophy academia, certain arguements use variations or specific extrapolations on the base word. Most of you are conflating it all together, which is leading to people making confused arguments.
Atheism is specifically the lack of a belief about something. To call it a belief is to not understand what the word means. (The words “atheism” OR “belief”.)
If the question is “do you believe in god?”, and your answer is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist. Yes, even if you are undecided, an agnostic, you can still be an atheist. Not mutually exclusive.
If you are defining athiest/atheism in any other way, you are using an idiosyncratic definition that is in service to a specific position you hold or argument you are making. This will only lead to confusion as everyone proceeds to talk past each other. Yes, even you fence sitters (not intended as derogatory, merely descriptive) who are trying to equate the reasoning of the two positions. There are two things, the position someone holds and the how or why of that position. Atheism and theism are positions, states of belief, reasoning only comes into play when either of them encounter a proposition.
So Atheists, stop claiming ground you dont hold with the word you are using to describe your position. Science is not atheism, atheism has no method. Science does.
Theists, im sorry but the burden of proof is on you. The reasoning process starts with the claim you choose to make whatever it may be. When you call yourself a theist, you are saying “I believe”, but you have to say in what you believe in order to have a discussion about it. Be that an exercise in reason or faith is of course up to you.
Agnostic types (its hard to tell exactly what term applies to each of you, but hopefully “agnostic-ish covers it), stop trying to equate the reasoning betweeen two positions when no such reasoning exists. You have no dog in the fight until a proposition is stated and the reasoning process begins, THEN you can bitch about “militant” atheism if it rears its head, or if the process on either side of the proposition ends up beimg two equal acts of unreasonableness or reasonableness.
You will all find that if you operate from this basis, your discussions will be much more productive, assuming understanding is the goal rather than grandstanding or preaching (which is not restricted to the theistic position).

A claim demands facts, — Christoffer

I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact.

If all that can be claimed true is that which we currently believe - presumably by science - to be true. My argument is there is an almost infinite list of things and concepts that at were at one moment in time most certainly not know to be a fact, that actually were - in fact - real.

There is a hidden proposition in your view that our current understanding of what we call "facts" is the complete state of affairs of what all facts are. I challenge that as false.

If I can summarize all your posts, you are making the noseeum argument against theism. Basically the argument goes - we have looked in a lot of places that occupy time and space, and we have not seen anything we would call "God". And since we haven't seen anything that occupies time and space, or evidence in time and space there of that we would call "God" -

traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God
Christoffers conclusion - ????

Ok - I amend to

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - God is - is supported by reason
P4 - I reject God is - is supported by reason

Conclusion - neither God is, or I reject God is, is a superior position.

traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God — Rank Amateur

...is not a claim since such a claim demands that the previous claim had proof supporting it. There is not a teapot in space is a nonsense claim, since no one supported such nonsense. Same goes for god. Theists claim there is a god, atheists ask for evidence for it, theists don't give a shit.

Atheists do not make claims since claims demand a previous claim. Claiming god doesn't exist demands that we have agreed there is a god before claiming it isn't. If theists can't prove their claim true, there's nothing to argue against. Atheists do not claim anything if they do not have facts to support it and so far burden of proof is on theists to start the argument, which they can't. Atheists do not have any burden of proof, because demanding that is as nonsense as demanding proof there isn't a teapot between us and the sun.

P3 - God is - is supported by reason — Rank Amateur

How is this a valid premiss?

says:

Yes, there's a huge difference between faith in god and faith in the truth.

Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something.

Faith in the truth only means faith in what is a coming conclusion, whatever it might be

Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more problematic when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still going to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is.

faith in god is faith in a claim that has no direct correlation with any facts or logic, only the claim itself.

That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims.

I am passed this point - just added that as a cheap shot and little tongue in cheek

I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument.

Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something. — yazata

That god isn't truth demands that someone claims that god is truth. To claim that god is truth demands that the claim that god exists is true. The line of claims ends up at the theist claim that is unsupported by facts, which means that you cannot end up with god being or not being truth if you haven't solved the validity of god in the first place.

Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more circular when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is. — yazata

Yet, even that is not any argument against atheists, since atheists follows the truth were it may lead. What you speak of is close to agnosticism, but agnosticism is sometimes a non-argument in favour of an existing god, meaning they us the lack of knowledge to support the possibility of the existence of god being true, which is still a kind of cop-out. Atheism will accept the existence of god if it's proven, atheists will never claim that god doesn't exist if the proof is presented. That kind of malleable viewpoint seems to only exist within atheism and that standpoint itself shows it's vastly different from theism.

That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims. — yazata

If you can show what isn't logical about that, go ahead. Atheists claim things that have proof or logic, if you can show what isn't logic I will change the claim. This is the key difference between theists and atheists. Atheists does not claim anything that doesn't have logic or evidence and will change if challenge with better logic or evidence.

Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other — Christoffer

I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning is from a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people have fallen into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. How many times Darwinism or genetics has been abused to push some idea or agenda that has nothing to do with them?

Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes. — Christoffer

Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?

Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics.

History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today. — Christoffer

Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do as reality is anything but simple.

I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument. — Rank Amateur

The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god. Asserting that the first cause is god is a wild conclusion that does not care for the conclusion of the actual argument. The actual argument only points to a first cause that we don't know about and it is valid in the sense that it points to that unknown, no atheist would deny that. However, theists points to this unknown and say it's god. That is not the definition of god that theists in other cases describe god as, hence, the argument does not support theists claims of a god. The argument is only valid as pointer to the unknown start of events for the universe, nothing more, nothing less. We haven't proved this first cause or how it happened, which doesn't mean it's god or anything like it. The argument is a good one, just not for any kind of god, which is an assertion dislocated from the argument and a claim by theists that does not have any relation to the argument or line of thinking about determinism.

The term atheist does not refer to anyones dedication to the truth. That is not what it describes Christoff. Following the truth is one thing, atheism another. I know a flat earther who is an atheist. The term says nothing about a mode of thought or pursuit of any kind unless it is specifically loaded to do so.
In order to make headway in this discussion, you need to stop conflating atheism with a particular atheist you might have in mind. Everyone does.

Sorry, Christoffer. Apologies.

The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god — Christoffer

Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.

The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God.

I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning on a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people fall into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. — ssu

I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god? I attribute atheism to have a foundation close to the process of science, meaning that it demands evidence for any claims about life, the world and universe. That is not a claim, it's a demand for proving claims. Demanding proof for a claim is not a claim in itself.

Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?

Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics. — ssu

I would suggest looking into the findings about how we humans evolved. There is theories in psychology and sociology about how groups of people function, that we have problems to function as a group when we reach over 12 people in a group. This is where people started to get rid of competitors, when we started doing crimes against the group to survive or become better off than others in the group. This is also my point; that when we grew larger than 12, those smaller groups, we needed systems to govern society and that is were our morals and ethics came to be. That these morals and ethics were corrupted by those in power is a later historical entry.

Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do. — ssu

You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present? You mean that Einstein's theoretical physics were false? Since things like gravitational waves wasn't proved until this year? Science is more than experiments proving, it's also about logic proving. Mathematical logic in line of Russel has to do with a logic that can be drawn on a whiteboard and still be as valid as experimental proof since the logic itself is solid. 2 + 2 is 4; if you demand evidence of it, you ignore the logic of that math and that math is as basic as nature itself.

Now that you're all talking about the same thing as before I'm going to merge this thread with 'How do you feel about religion?'. Comments from @BrianW apology thread have been merged here.

The OP was:

This is a personal and general apology for our misconduct especially expressed in the Atheism vs Theism threads. I/We should know better, and do better.

It may be fun to play debate at a philosophy forum but, if our objectives are not clearly defined, we may undermine the fundamental of it. It may end up being a witch hunt for mistakes and loopholes that can be used against a person instead of trying to understand what is being expressed. Without such understanding, how can we claim our arguments to be reasonable? Philosophy has to be more than just arguments reflecting people's biased opinions. It has to be more than a self-assertion that it is logical for any personal perspective to reflect absolute truth to any significant degree and to the communal human experience. It has to be more than a play at logic when we don't fully appreciate what it means to think or possess facts. We should not misrepresent our limitations as impossibilities; or use ignorance to validate any possibility. We should not stack up imaginary probabilities and statistics to beef up our hypotheses. When we don't know, it's because we are ignorant. The best we can do is learn. And above all, we should know our limits, beyond which, we can offer no significant contribution.

My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.

Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.

2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.

3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.

4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.

I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum.

Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.

The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God. — Rank Amateur

Aquinas is dead and didn't go through both the renaissance nor the enlightenment period. It's still making a claim that the first cause, the one necessary for everything we know, is "god". There is nothing about the god that exists within any of our definitions that can be asserted to being that first cause of everything. Making that connection is projecting your own ideas about god on top of an abstract concept of the first mover in a deterministic universe. That is not an argument with any validity and any claim that it proves the existence of god is a failure to understand the difference between a true conclusion and a conclusion that is converted into a cognitive bias.

A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional.

My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.

Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.

2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.

3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.

4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.

I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum. — ChatteringMonkey

agree thanks for the post

I know a flat earther who is an atheist. — DingoJones

Then, that person is not an atheist. Not in the sense of following evidence and logic to the truth. Sure, in the sense of denying the existence of a god, but being a flat-earther has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism doesn't have to do with belief, which means it demands proof, which means it cares for truth. The foundation of atheism becomes pretty clear.

The sense of following evidence and logic to the truth is not what atheism is. Atheist does not include ANY beliefs. Those are the province of each individual. Atheism just means “without belief”. Thats it. Anything over and above that is specific to another position or argument is what it is, but it isnt atheism.

You actually cherry picked that bit out now that I look back.
Why did you do that? Why didnt you address the other points that I made in the same post?

I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god? — Christoffer

Religions basically do give answers on how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities as the reason for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand?

You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present? — Christoffer

No. They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.)

Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. — BrianW

Hold up, we need to rewind. I didn't say anything, specifically, about speculation about the unknown, nor any significance assigned to it. We were talking about belief or disbelief in the existence of any deity/deities. That's not necessarily speculation about the unknown, and again, that's not a choice. Here's an exception: my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown, and it isn't something that I choose to believe. It's not speculation, as it has a very firm grounding in a fundamental law of logic, it's not unknown, and I can't help but find it convincing, so it's not a choice.

To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. — BrianW

You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which can be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on.

Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. — BrianW

Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it? Also, that seems more specific than what we were initially talking about. If so, can you also explain why you've moved from a broad topic to a subset within that broader topic? There are beliefs about what's probable and beliefs about what's possible, both of which can fall under the topic of beliefs about the existence of any deity or deities.

If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief. — BrianW

What do you mean by that? How are you using the term "metaphysical"?

Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective.
However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. — BrianW

So, you agree? I don't see how what I said is much different from saying that there's a relative reference point which we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And sure, we can call it reasoning or factors or a perspective or an interpretation. Whatever is the basis for their view.

Accept as in allow to be. — BrianW

But no one here is saying that religious beliefs aren't allowed, so what's your reason for making that point? Disagreeing with beliefs is what goes on here. That's very different from saying that these beliefs aren't allowed.

Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.) — BrianW

I really don't agree with your general sentiment here. Not all of it, there are parts I agree with, and I'm not suggesting that I'm favour of all out war or anything of the sort, but I don't think that a kind of 'back off', 'leave it alone', 'it's all equal', 'lets all hold hands' approach is the right one. I think you mean well, but I think that there's merit in putting it all out in the open and arguing things out. Nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to the substance behind a belief, and if you happen to be the kind of person who doesn't want their beliefs exposed to scrutiny, then you have the option to keep them private, instead of expressing them on a public philosophy forum.

A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional — Christoffer

Thank you for your opinion above - however it in no way challenges whether or not is reasonable to believe in the Cosmological argument as Aquinas made it. In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.

This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you. — Rank Amateur

If, as you state, you are a believe in reason, this last part should give you pause.

Religions basically do give answers how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand? — ssu

Like morals about slavery and such? Religion is just a vessel for basic morals and ethics established long before the religions you give credit for these. You also assume that morals cannot be established by non-religious people, which is a prejudice against any kind of moral system that doesn't rely on religious belief.

This is the usual "atheists are immoral" argument that fails over and over.

They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.) — ssu

You are dividing the two, too definitively. Right and wrong can be asserted through what is true about human psychology but I agree philosophy is key to figuring out morals. However none of these has anything to do with god or religion, which claims moral truths without foundation for those claims. Philosophy and science try to find a foundation that is valid instead, which is more rational than claims based on belief in a system just because of the belief itself.

Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous. — BrianW

I very much agree with this, I feel one should start from what one knows and can know, and not from what one can't know. And how do Gods fare with practical experience as a limiting factor?

I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration. — BrianW

The aim of religion is to anchor traditional morality, to keep people from questioning that morality... Thou shall not eat the fruit from the tree of knowlegde of good and evil!

And that morality is used to keep people in line, which from the perspective of the rulers is very usefull.

But if your aim is questioning and knowledge, then that is contrary to the aims of religion. The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians.

In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. — Rank Amateur

You seem to miss the fact that no atheist is disapproving the conclusion of the first mover based on the logic and evidence at hand. It's the assertion that the "first mover" and "god" is the same thing that isn't proven. It's like me saying that the cosmological argument proves that the teapot in space created everything in the first place, that the teapot is the first mover. There is nothing to bind the concept of god to the "first mover" of the cosmological argument so there is nothing to disprove. No one is arguing against the first mover since we don't have enough data to disprove that logic, but saying "it is god" is a claim with no facts to back it up.

You cannot attach one argument and combine it to another conclusion just because you want to. The claim that god exists has nothing to do with the conclusion of the cosmological argument.

In what way is the "first mover", the initial cause of all causality, "god"? Explain that before claiming the cosmological argument to prove any existence of god. I see no correlation between the conclusion of god existing with the actual conclusion of there being a "first mover". There isn't any correlation here, please point it out.