To defend the agnositc-atheist view:
The fact beauty and our feelings of beauty are explainable does not undermine their beauty.
By "perception based" I feel you mean to say that the atheist is like an animal eating sweet fruit, he gorges on the perception he finds so tasty, only taking pleasure at its most base level. You mean to say, I believe, that the atheist will not take what is called "spiritual" pleasure from things. But there is no reason to believe this. I believe kindness is beautiful, and so would feel emotionally touched to see an act of kindness. This is even when I know kindness honouring kindness might not be defend able logically, save for utilitarian reasons.
To criticise the Christian world view:
I fully believe that a Christian can see the world in such a way. But, when you say that something possesses "intrinsic" qualities you base that belief on God, which is also your subjective belief. Why cant an atheist also have a subjective belief that, say, something is beautiful?
So you're saying you need to "make up" some reason (AKA divine participation) for you to accept life as beautiful, because otherwise you would be a nihilist and would see any form of beauty or happiness as a complete lie. (That is the rational basis you are arguing on right now.)
The intrinsic quality of beauty only exists if there is a God.
The intrinsic quality of beauty only exists if there is a God.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that things are explainable. My point is that there is a metaphysical property to things that is actually present and that is beauty. That science can explain emotional responses to certain stimuli is besides the point.
I mean that there is no spiritual quality actually present to observe within the materialist framework. If you act as if there is then you are being inconsistent.
I believe that so many atheists are inconsistent on this point, because there actually is a spiritual component of the world that cannot be ignored.
I use the term intrinsic for a reason. Something that is intrinsic is not based on subjective opinion. I don't care about the subjective. I care about the real. The intrinsic quality of beauty only exists if there is a God.
I don't want anyone to "make up" anything. I want people to discover truth and not lie to themselves. If you are being inconsistent you are definitely lying to yourself
Oh, really? I believe that you believe that. I can see for myself what is beautiful and what is not. Anything else is just like, your opinion, man.
Preposterous! Now to me, this perspective is bleak and unimaginative. Even in my religious heyday, I wasn't narrow enough to think that myself and other Christians had a monopoly on experiencing the beauty in life over everyone else.
It is far passed my bed time and I have to go to bed. I really hope someone else will continue for me on my side of this.
What I will say is I find your representation of the atheist world view as materialistic highly misleading. Brief definition of materialistic:
"Materialistic describes a person who is markedly more concerned with material things (such as money and possessions) rather than spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values."
Even if we exclude the atheist from the spiritual arena, which I believe would be most unfair, we can still firmly claim they can concern themselves with cultural and intellectual values. You should take your reference to atheists as materialists out, it simply isn't true.
*edit* I see I need not worry over support. Just as well I'm going then, otherwise poor Beef would be shockingly outnumbered. ;<
You're missing my point.
You have no external verification that your beliefs are real; and you just stated that those who do not share your beliefs are unable to experience real beauty.
What else am I supposed to logically get out of your comments, other than that you need to believe what you believe in order to experience beauty and meaning in the world, and otherwise you do not see any beauty or meaning?
(From a rational perspective, you should believe in something because it is "true" as the main criteria, NOT based on what benefits the belief in question happens to provide you. Rationals believe in things regardless of how good or bad the truth is; whatever is true is whatever is true, and that's really the end of it.)
But I'm pretty aware at this point that you don't really get how people can experience beauty and love and wonder in the world without having to ascribe some underlying meaning to it; you just basically negate their perceptions by saying it's all fake.
Do you all not understand what intrinsic means???
There is a difference between saying intrinsic beauty is dependent on the existence of God, which is what I said, and saying that experience of beauty is dependent on belief in God, which I did not say.
I don't care what colorful and emotional language you use the bottom line is that in a materialist world beauty is perception based. You perceive something to be beautiful because of a random colliding of chemicals in your brain. Within a Christian worldview beauty is an intrinsic quality possessed by both God and created things. When we view something as beautiful we are recognizing it's intrinsic value not merely experiencing a chemically stimulated emotional response.
It certainly is.I don't know if I continue in this discussion if I'm going to have to continue to defend myself on these sorts of levels. It's exhausting.
You're missing my point and you are completely misinterpreting what I'm writing. None of what you write above is true about my position. I don't know why I expected more from you.
Because typically you've thought I'm reasonable, but right now you're apparently not in the mood to be challenged.