Atheist!

[wmrs2]

The premises you talk about exist. They are called facts. They are verifiable. If you make a statement based on facts, like the Earth is round (well almost) then you don't need to have faith in that statement or be afraid that someone comes along and disproves you. I don't know if you remember that, but the Church maintained that the Earth was flat, until there really was no choice there anymore.

Classic logic? You mean as in Aristotelean? We have had the advent of science and a few hundred years of philosophy in between. The current model of logic has been laid out by Betrand Russell - which is still used in philosophy, mathematics, science - although Christian fundamentalists would have preferred to burn him at the stake.

Of course logic is a deduction. But you don't deduct from something you have to introduce with "I believe that". You can of course, but then you are making a statement about your faith. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That is a different statement from the one you have made before. The way you phrased it, it sounded like you believe you are born with a mind functioning on logic principles. It doesn't. That is what I stated.

Where did I misrepresent science though? Science is not drawing on self-evident truths or absolutes. It is drawing on data, facts. If the world really is the way we perceive it and if the little cage of our limited understanding is giving us an accurate impression of what there really is, is an entirely different question. Good scientists therefore tend to introduce new theories with "it would appear", or "in view of all available data" - simply because we are uncovering more layers of the natural world as we go along, as our ability to measure and define progresses and renders previous theories obsolete and sometimes plain wrong.

I have failed to... Huh? Why would I have to do that? I only stated that it isn't provable, unless you allow inferences from premises that are faith-based. Now you claim you can prove it scientifically? Go ahead then, I am all ears, especially since you said you can do that based on facts. Just to make that plain once more - a fact is objectively verifiable, not a subjective impression.

Confused about what I believe? I know exactly what I believe, thank you very much. Do our beliefs tally? Probably not. That is the thing about beliefs - they are subjective. I don't challenge people's beliefs. Maybe you should heed the quote from the Bible you gave there. It doesn't say you have to accept God's existence as a scientific fact - it says, you have to believe. It doesn't say, you have to claim you know. Knowing and believing are not the same thing. Read Christian mystics. They have a concept called "the unknowable" - for a very good reason. Expand your knowledge about your own religion, instead of trying to challenge or lecture others about how they have to view the world.

I am very pleased that we find agreement on several important issues. You say, "The premises you talk about exist. They are called facts. They are verifiable. " Agreed, this is all true. That is the way logic and science works.

But. just like Newton did not create the law of gravity, he discovered this law. The law of gravity always existed and was a fact waiting to be explained. It was a fact that everybody knew and demonstrated this every time we shot an arrow at a wild beast long before Newton was born. There are some facts that are here present for us to discover and explain. The true nature of facts is as much a part of metaphysics as it is science. Ontology is a legitimate discussion although atheist deny this property to God. It remains a legitimate discussion in spite of what we call evidence or facts. You could as easily reject cosmology as ontology as a format for discussion but both cosmology and ontology remain legitimate topics of the metaphysical world.

"I believe that" sometimes refers to post Newton laws but these are facts that have not been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. Nevertheless these are facts waiting to be explained. "The earth is round" is a fact that was later to be explained. When we viewed the earth from space, it was not round but rather oval shaped but round enough to be called round shaped. The point is, because a fact is subjective does not mean it is false. Many subjective beliefs become objectively verified. Subjective beliefs can be true and should not be discarded on another person's say so without verification that these beliefs are false. That is why I say the atheist offers no proof that God does not exist.

Just like Newton's law was waiting on the work of logic and terminology to arrive, many self-evident truths are like this. The self-evident truths are facts that are worthy of deductions leading to a democratic and free society. If we allow different thinking people to badger us into thinking we do not necessarily have these facts at hand, then the democratic world is really at risk. These facts are worthy of our belief and I think very scientifically demonstrated and verifiable. That seems to be what we are fighting about here on this forum.

There are those, who fight the hardest by calling names and casting insults, that feel as if they should be the top authority is saying what is right for the rest of us. There is no major problem in discussing our differences once we get rid of the person that feels he is the finale judge of all things in depute.

Thank you for the kind advice you give to me. I will use some of it to the best of my ability. I encourage you and everybody else to work hard at understanding the views of others unless they have a particular unique gift to the human race that makes them a Superman. In which case, I would be interested in knowing what this gift is.
wmrs2

 

[wmrs2]

And somehow I am still hoping my dear friend amicus will drop in to prove that Jesus was actually a socialist and "moocher" in Rand's terms - that would make the discussion even more interesting.

I have read some of amicus' works. His writing is good. His problem seems to be that there are too many Supermen trying to put word's in his mouth.

 

[sr71plt]

IThe belief that religious people are out to convert liberals to Christ is over rated.

Oh, I should hope that's true--since Christ was about as liberal as they came in those days (or even in these days, apparently).

 

[wmrs2]

I agree that Christianity hasn't been defended by you. (Crappy literary construction, btw; passive voice is weak.) You're just not very bright. I love how you keep making these unwarranted assumptions about me, about liberals, about atheists, and about things you have no idea about from personal experience. But I distinctly recall when I was registering for this board that I had very specifically checked the box that said "Not interested in letting some 23-yo subliterate tool on the Internet dictate what I believe in." But anyone who's getting his rocks off on visions of young Christian women being crucified is hardly someone to be telling someone else about how their suppressed libido is a problem, ne c'est pas?

Thousands of people here... that is a lovely thought. It's yet another fantasy of yours, but I think not.

I'm perfectly willing to present ideas in a humanitarian way to many people. You're just not worth the effort. You honestly haven't made the cut for human status in my book. (It's an earned right with me.) And that's the honest truth.

I love that song that Sarah posted the link to. Yeah, it fits you to a T.

Oh, btw: it's "their peers," not "there peers." It's a common problem among poor writers. Just like "a while" vs. "awhile." And "yelp," not "yep." Check your English textbook. It'll help you a lot.

Just in case you come back from your phone call, let me set the record in order. Your are not the Superman you think you are. I did not even know you existed until you started throwing insults indiscriminately at anyone who challenged your high and lofty position among mankind. Who in the hell are you that I would want to earn your respect. If it means to be like you, there is no way I could show such ignorance of gentleman conduct on a public forum.

You say you do not believe in God but you keep books like a god and require others to make the cut to be human. What do you think other fair minded people think of you?You are not a god but you make a pretty good f**l. Nay, your not worth the effort of a conversion attempt, your too anti human.

 

[sr71plt]

Just in case you come back from your phone call, let me set the record in order. Your are not the Superman you think you are. I did not even know you existed until you started throwing insults indiscriminately at anyone who challenged your high and lofty position among mankind. Who in the hell are you that I would want to earn your respect. If it means to be like you, there is no way I could show such ignorance of gentleman conduct on a public forum.

You say you do not believe in God but you keep books like a god and require others to make the cut to be human. What do you think other fair minded people think of you. You are not a god but you make a perty good f**l. Nay, your not worth the effort of a conversion attempt, your too anti human.

There, there, wmrs2. You seem to be about to go over the edge. Take a deep breath and think, "What would Christ do."

(I think Christ would probably stop playing your game, myself.)

 

[Guest]

Um. What?

(referring to wmrs2 post)

 

[amicus]

Late last night I scrolled through this thread back to post 255, where it changed from 2006 to 2009, wondered why it was revived and why it has been continued as it has.

Anyhow...I read each and every post up to the current one, last night, and set forth of offer an opinion or nine, clicked the 'submit' icon and the site told me I had to be logged in to do that....first time that ever happened...any way, long story short, I lost the typed thoughts, growled and turned the machine off.

But here it is and here I am again, for whatever that may mean.

I had offered that worm2 was most likely an Alt; then thought, perhaps a literate person pretending illiteracy and then, maybe a young one with that sixth grade education making quite a splash in the forum and attracting the attention of all the big frogs in attendance.

Choosing to err on the side of 'kind and gentle', I came down with the 'young one', and offered lauditory praise for the effort and tenacity put forth.

Then, today, a more literate and less pretentious foray by worm2, has made this a curious affair indeed.

Atheism is dangerous and a threat to established thought, be it Christian or Humanist, or any flavor of the two combined or melded in any of a thousand variations, much better than 'blank & Jerry's' ice cream by far.

Both function from 'faith' as a fundamental assumption, both are constructs created to satisfy the big questions asked by all from whence we came and where we go and why. (BladeRunner, Harrison Ford/Rutger Hauer scene).

All forms of faith are simply evasions of the 'big' question, what is life and what does it mean and where do we go when we die...

There is little point, I learned long ago, in actually holding discussions with believers of either cloth, as both, when it pleased them, deny logic and reason and claim the 'self evident', axiomatic truth as their own. In one case postulating a 'God', to answer all questions, and in the other, 'the greater good', as the fundamental premise.

Both are in error.

In reality and in consideration of the process by which the mind functions, 'evidence', provided by the senses permits the mind to observe, perceive and formulate and take that sensory evidence, insist it be non contradictory and congruent, with both previous observations and reality itself, and reach abstract conclusions as to the nature of the Universe and life itself.

Faith is nice and comfortable, although demanding at times and vicious when challenged and like Humanism, totally superior when compared to other versions, a matter of self preservation.

There is another variety of 'faith' now in vogue, that of Mother Earth and her dependent children as evidenced by the flower child syndrome of the sixties that has burgeoned into a love of nature and a hatred of industrial man.

Most dreamers of the last century who expressed their thoughts in science fiction, predicted that formal religion would gradually die out and be replaced by the communal caring of Humanists. Except perhaps, ole Robert Heinlein, who, as did Ayn Rand, offered up the 'individual' his rights and liberties as the fundamental premise upon which to construct an objective and rational society and code of ethics.

What this thread became, in my opinion, was a defense of Humanism with all the 'usual suspects', ganging up on the poor lone believer wit h the usual tactics applied to all who dare disagree with the progressive liberal atmosphere.

What it really is, would be a battle between two faiths, both of which claim to be superior.

Worm2, there is no God, never has been, never will be. You cannot prove a negative or the non existence of something because the non existence leaves no evidence.

Humanists, those progressive Liberals who band together here are nothing more than a 'prayer group', all believing that since there is so many of them, they must be right, doing just what they claim they do not, constructing an entire belief on a false assumption.

That being said, I repeat another oft spoke them of mine, the majority of humans require the crutch of believe in order to survive, psychologically, in the face of disease and death and the neverending struggle for life.

Religion has a better recommendation as, in general, it has produced music and art in adoration of a deity, in many ways worshipped beauty and symmetry, while perhaps Picasso and the modernists reflect the chaotic nature of the world as viewed by Humanists.

Ether one is a bad bet that you should avoid like the plague.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Funny that Amicus would show up in this thread at this point. Almost like this was all orchestrated. Sort of wonder what he posted (no, I don't. )

 

[rgraham666]

Funny that Amicus would show up in this thread at this point. Almost like this was all orchestrated. Sort of wonder what he posted (no, I don't. )

I can summarize.

Liberals! Liberals, liberals, liberals. Liberals! LIBERALS!

They're responsible for everything bad that happens in the world including the fact that the milk went sour in my fridge.

You're welcome.

 

[sr71plt]

I can summarize.

Liberals! Liberals, liberals, liberals. Liberals! LIBERALS!

They're responsible for everything bad that happens in the world including the fact that the milk went sour in my fridge.

You're welcome.

I find even the summary close-minded and self-centered. But thanks anyway.

 

[oggbashan]

There are Christians and there are Christians. I could extend that sentence with a thousand clauses and I still wouldn't cover all the variations of "Christian" belief and certainly not all the variations of Christian deeds.

wmrs2 is a not uncommon variant - the Christian without ears to hear what wmrs2 doesn't want to hear.

I prefer the other sort of Christians found in the Christian thread in the Authors' Hangout and those people, Christian or not - it doesn't matter - who support those of us who are perplexed, worried, in pain or distress.

wmrs2 arguments are like the oozlum-woozlum bird - they fly around in circles and disappear up the ass.

Og

 

[Guest]

There are Christians and there are Christians. I could extend that sentence with a thousand clauses and I still wouldn't cover all the variations of "Christian" belief and certainly not all the variations of Christian deeds.

wmrs2 is a not uncommon variant - the Christian without ears to hear what wmrs2 doesn't want to hear.

I prefer the other sort of Christians found in the Christian thread in the Authors' Hangout and those people, Christian or not - it doesn't matter - who support those of us who are perplexed, worried, in pain or distress.

wmrs2 arguments are like the oozlum-woozlum bird - they fly around in circles and disappear up the ass.

Og

I must quote this in my sig, dearest King.

May I?

 

[oggbashan]

I must quote this in my sig, dearest King.

May I?

Of course. My pleasure.

Og

 

[Guest]

Of course. My pleasure.

Og

 

[amicus]

Ah, yes, the fella with the cake on his head. Last night, when the preceding posts were fresh, you, Ogg, were included in my incisive commentary. Had to do with 'self evident', as expressed by ole Tom Jefferson, which you disparagingly referred in an off-hand manner as you rejected 'axiomatic truths', a concept formulated long before the British Isles were overrun by the Roman hordes.

I would imagine that Tom used, 'self evident' as a choice of words more communicable to the general populace than, 'axiomatic', y'know, he wouldn't have wanted to appear too sophisticated and worldly in front of the butchers and blacksmiths that made up the constituency in those days.

Nonetheless, 'axiomatic' is a good and proper philosophical term, in use long before English was even spoken in the world.

I do so cuddle up to, 'A is A'; a thing is, that which it is.

Such a lovely little experiment in logic.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

But "Axiomatic" is not what wmrs2 used but "self-evident" to describe statements that are neither axiomatic nor self-evident...

Og

 

[amicus]

Agreed, Ogg, and couched in such language, as I recall, to make one suspicion even a sixth grade education. I do wonder at the motive the worm2 might have in the pretense of illiteracy early on, but then, to each his own motives I suppose?

ami

 

[sr71plt]

I would imagine that Tom used, 'self evident' as a choice of words more communicable to the general populace than, 'axiomatic', y'know, he wouldn't have wanted to appear too sophisticated and worldly in front of the butchers and blacksmiths that made up the constituency in those days.

Tom didn't use the word "self-evident." Tom used "sacred and undeniable" at that point. "Self-evident" was how it turned out after it went through committee.

As usual, you presume you know too much.

 

[oggbashan]

Agreed, Ogg, and couched in such language, as I recall, to make one suspicion even a sixth grade education. I do wonder at the motive the worm2 might have in the pretense of illiteracy early on, but then, to each his own motives I suppose?

ami

I wonder too.

However, I am glad to see that you appear to have recovered your usual form and I hope your health is permanently improved.

My best wishes for your long and healthy existence (even if we may continue to disagree frequently).

Og (off to bed to sleep off the rum)

 

[amicus]

Why thank you Ogg, how very pleasant. (I am jealous of Ogg's hat)



Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Repeat:

Tom didn't use the word "self-evident." Tom used "sacred and undeniable" at that point. "Self-evident" was how it turned out after it went through committee.

As usual, you presume you know too much.

Personally, I think "sacred and undeniable" would have been more understandable to butchers and blacksmiths--assuming Tom was speaking to them. He wasn't; he was speaking to men of greater property in that time.

 

[Liar]

The true nature of facts is as much a part of metaphysics as it is science. Ontology is a legitimate discussion although atheist deny this property to God. It remains a legitimate discussion in spite of what we call evidence or facts. You could as easily reject cosmology as ontology as a format for discussion but both cosmology and ontology remain legitimate topics of the metaphysical world.

In the world of metaphysics, God exists. (So does Puff the Magic Dragon. And The Future. And Vampire Jesus)

In the world of ontology, we ask ourselves: What can God (and all the other things that "are") be? An omnipotent being? A fictional character? A thought process? Something else? What is the nature of this concept that we have assigned a word to?

Epistemology asks: How do we know what God is? What ontological answers to the question "what is God" can we actually substantiate? How do we know when we have an answer?

Science asks: Once we have a crieteria for an answer, how do we go about fulfilling those criteria?



Pragmatim and phronetics tell us, that when people start confusing those four diciplines, calling answes based on ontology science, or attempting science without thinking through the epistemology, things get fucked up.

One example of this is touting Intelligent Design as a scienteific theory. It is perfectly valid ontology and philosophy. But it never passed the filter of epistemology on it's way to science.

 

[amicus]

Once upon a time, late night and well into my 'cups', as Ogg might say, I mis-spoke, 'cosmetology' for 'cosmology', and liked to never have lived that down.

"There you go again...", thus sayeth Ronnie raygun, whom I fondly refer to.

Cosmology
Ontology
Metaphysics
Omnipotent
Epistemology
Phonetics?
Pragmatism

I preferred it, I think, when worm2 was feigning ignorance and using common language. All of the above, contained in a few short paragraphs leaves a 'chilling effect' on 99 percent of any who may read, even if you did offer a partial definition of both.

It is also usually the departure point for an excursion into the netherlands of arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin, and akin to those who quote bible verses to bolster a weak presumption.

For example...had you stopped at Metaphysics and offered, 'beyond physics', translated to mean concepts and abstractions that are apart from the concrete 'physical' nature of reality, but logically and rationally tied to sensual perception with applied congruency and non contradictory evidence, you might have offered a path to comprehension between reality and the conceptual abilities of the human mind to those struggling to understand the schism between science and faith.

Comprehending formal philosophy is never an easy thing, if it were, everybody would do it. Most prefer to take the easy way out; slip back into faith and belief, and gain a sense of security in just living.

Which ain't all that bad a thing, I suggest, were I capable of not thinking, I might consider such a course for myself.

Amicus the atheist...

 

[jomar]

The result of boredom...

I suspect most of those posting here suspected wmsr2 of being an alt, rather than an ESL person with a sixth grade education.

And the main entertainment value was not his/her religious conviction, because who cares, really, but his/her "logic" and "proof"...or lack thereof. Not to mention the fun factor of arguing with a true believer.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh, I should hope that's true--since Christ was about as liberal as they came in those days (or even in these days, apparently).

my. my! You are so threatened by the least comment from a person you don't even know. What difference does that make? Is there something in that title of liberal that makes you feel better? You are so insecure my friend.