Atheist!

[sr71plt]

This would be the thread that you would find all of those personal attacks I made against wmrs2 that you charged me with on another thread, Amicus. Find them here and point them out for me, please (along with any connected posts by wmrs2 too, for comparison purposes)--or just stop this intellectually dishonest posting technique you employ.

Can't substantiate your malicious charge, can you, Amicus? You're nothing but a blowhard. Just making it up as you go along.

 

[DeeZire]

An atheist can shout "Oh my god!" during sex without compromising his/her principals because an atheist's god can be anything - Jose Quervo, for example. In fact, that's how atheists interpret the national anthem: "Jose can you see..."

 

[Guest]

An atheist can shout "Oh my god!" during sex without compromising his/her principals because an atheist's god can be anything - Jose Quervo, for example. In fact, that's how atheists interpret the national anthem: "Jose can you see..."

By the Danzer.

It gives a lee light.

 

[wmrs2]

Presumably under another ID, because the thread started in 2006. In my opinion this thread has, in general devolved -- long, long posts peppered with quotes are not my idea of how to use a BB for dialog, I much prefer to read a post which is a short, clean single paragraph. That way the thread encourages more people to post, and is therefore more interesting, having a greater variety of viewpoints and styles. Diversity of opinions are the key, not argument

Wrong!

 

[wmrs2]

On the contrary, in humanism is it always wrong to commit genocide, in religion, it always depends on whether it's "god's will" or not, there are examples all around you - calling it "error" in hindsight doesn't seem to help, the pattern never seems to change.

Basing ones ethics on the musings of some paleolithic sheepherders is the essence of relativism. Even the Jews systematically re-examine and revise their own records and the moral lessons and behavioral algorithms derived from them, through a process of debate and consensus - it's a signal departure from the revelatory model. Catholics do the same thing, but the process is far less transparent, and the motives behind the revisions often appear more... political.

Meanwhile, the laity often makes it up as they go along, mixing and matching various interpretations from wildly divergent sources, constantly spawning new sects - revelation is the central pillar, and this is as random and arbitrary as throwing darts for all practical purposes. Guess what? That's how religion works, it's often little more than a framework for tribal identification, the subject of no end of hand wringing for the clergy - it invariably fragments.

Science makes the entire debate process transparent, the consensus, however robust it may appear, is always subject to revision, provided dissent or modification passes the confirmation gauntlet of predictive validity and replicability of results.

On the contrary, in humanism is it always wrong to commit genocide, in religion, it always depends on whether it's "god's will" or not, there are examples all around yout

Those who commit genocide are not Christian even if they call themselves Christian. Christians never promote genocide. Humanism makes genocide possible and moral because morality is defined by man's will and not the will of God. Humanism is the default ethics of atheists because atheist make up their own law, change these laws, and write new ones. Christians do not always obey the laws of God but these laws do not change.

Orthodox Jews nor Christians change God's laws. How you describe religion does not match real religion of Jews and Christians.

 

[wmrs2]

Most athiests care so little about religion that most believers don't even know who they are - and the athiests aren't bothered about that either.

With all due respect, this statement is not one of fact.

 

[wmrs2]

One liners are what chatrooms are for, IMO, and there is always that thing on your mouse, the "scrollwheel" I think it's called.

Since it's Subjoes thread, I apologize for getting longwinded, but I happen to think it's a subject that deserves some thought, whether you believe in the supernatural or not - all things being equal, it's neither here nor there to me, but when public policy is being based on magical thinking, it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, and the lines need to be drawn clearly and unequivocally.

Religion is an oral tradition that envelops and syncretizes dissenting or competing concepts and ideas - the ancient seasonal festivals and deities (saints), etc., the constitution and the legal system, now it's trying to assimilate science itself - logical positivism, now a distorted version of evolutionary psychology and mainstream philosophy - I'd like to maintain the distinction between objective analysis and political spin lest all objective meaning be lost.

You fail to recognize the value of natural theology which is discovering God through reasoning. All reasoning to be correct must have a premise that does not change. There is a large gap between what atheist and theist believe is a proper premise for reasoning. The deductions made from ontological premises produce religion. Deductions from non being of cosmological models is faulty and non religious. Objective analysis is not possible without ontological certainty. The fact is, science, math, physics, chemistry, logic are all properties of the ontological model whereas the cosmological model says man creates these constructs; therefore constructs created by man are deemed faulty by theist. Spin is only possible in the cosmological model.l

 

[DeeZire]

Hi wmrs2 - since you are now on my ignore list, I can't see what you're saying, but I can imagine it. Anyway, I just wanted to wish you the best in your Godly endeavors, as I would expect you to wish me the best on my journey down Jose's path of enlightenment. I suspect we'll all end up in the same place anyway, regardless of the route that takes us there - that same place being a pile of dust, of course.

Peace and love,

D

 

[ishtat]

With all due respect, this statement is not one of fact.

Quite right . It is an opinion in fact two opinions and as I am the atheist and you are not, I suspect you know less about what an atheist thinks than I do.

By the way I was a tad disappointed you accepted quite so meekly my short demolition of your "ontological argument a few posts back.

 

[xssve]

Those who commit genocide are not Christian even if they call themselves Christian. Christians never promote genocide. Humanism makes genocide possible and moral because morality is defined by man's will and not the will of God. Humanism is the default ethics of atheists because atheist make up their own law, change these laws, and write new ones. Christians do not always obey the laws of God but these laws do not change.

Orthodox Jews nor Christians change God's laws. How you describe religion does not match real religion of Jews and Christians.

The old shell game, they considered themselves Christian and do what they do in the name of Christianity - that's not enough to call them Christians? Whose call is that?

AS far as I know, in most protestant religions, all you have to do is claim Jesus as your personal savior, and you're in - if there is a god sorting out who believes, and who is just taking advantage of superstition, I'd like to see the report - is it published quarterly? Annually?

Religions sell fear and hysteria, and it's very easy to channel these things into mass violence, so it's very handy - particularly when you are otherwise expected to grovel for "authority".

So fine, you may be a true Christian, could well be, I'll take you at your word that you don't participate in mob violence, and will protect the victims of mob violence at your own peril like Jesus did for the woman who was about to be stoned, I applaud your sincere faith.

At this very moment however, Dominionists and Reconstructionists are plotting to overthrow the constitution, using armies of children to do their dirty work Joel's Army - and you are spreading their propaganda of anti-secularism, moral relativism, etc. Are they "true Christians"?

Sound hysterical? It's nothing new - ever hear of the inquisition? The crusades? Slavery and apartheid? Native American Genocide? Inter Catera?

And really, all you've got is sex - gimme an example of "moral relativism" that doesn't involve sexual behavior.

 

[Guest]

Hi wmrs2 - since you are now on my ignore list, I can't see what you're saying, but I can imagine it. Anyway, I just wanted to wish you the best in your Godly endeavors, as I would expect you to wish me the best on my journey down Jose's path of enlightenment. I suspect we'll all end up in the same place anyway, regardless of the route that takes us there - that same place being a pile of dust, of course.

Peace and love,

D

What DZ said.

 

[JagFarlane]

What DZ said.

Ayup, she got boring.

 

[Guest]

Ayup, she got boring.

Tough to tell, thank goodness, when she/he/it is on ignore.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I know one thang for certain, I'M NOT ON GOD'S IGGY LIST.

Maybe THATS the problem for most atheists: theyre either on God's IGGY list or theyre Special Needs. It's likely.

 

[hypnopup]

People who says this, haven't read Aritotele properly. It's only the ideologically tailored cliffnotes version if his legacy that leaves out the validity and practical implication of opposing premises.
Sounds to me like you're confusing atheists with agnostics. Atheism is based on an absoute and unchanging axiom.

Actually, athiesm and agnosticism are two different things.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about what you KNOW. Do you know there is a god, that there isn't a god, or are you unsure? If you aren't sure whether or not there's a god, then you're agnostic (without knowledge).

Thiesm/Athiesm is about what you believe. If you believe there is a god, then you are a theist. If you lack belief in a god, then you're an athiest.

So, I (for example) am an agnostic thiest. I think a god exists, but I'm not sure. Most athiests are agnostic athiests... they lack belief in a god because they don't have knowledge that one exists.

(I have a few athiest friends).


Oh, and the Pledge of Allegiance and the US currency originally had zero reference to god. Those were references were both added later due to christian groups.

 

[cloudy]

Oh, and the Pledge of Allegiance and the US currency originally had zero reference to god. Those were references were both added later due to christian groups.

Indeed, but there are still a few ignorant folks who insist on calling the U.S. a "Christian nation."

btw: welcome to the AH.

 

[Guest]

Indeed, but there are still a few ignorant folks who insist on calling the U.S. a "Christian nation."

btw: welcome to the AH.

Add my voice to cloudy's. Welcome.

You've entered at quite a turbulent time.

 

[xssve]

You fail to recognize the value of natural theology which is discovering God through reasoning. All reasoning to be correct must have a premise that does not change. There is a large gap between what atheist and theist believe is a proper premise for reasoning. The deductions made from ontological premises produce religion. Deductions from non being of cosmological models is faulty and non religious. Objective analysis is not possible without ontological certainty. The fact is, science, math, physics, chemistry, logic are all properties of the ontological model whereas the cosmological model says man creates these constructs; therefore constructs created by man are deemed faulty by theist. Spin is only possible in the cosmological model.l

Belief in god is not a premise, it is a conclusion in search of a premise, and generates pretty much nothing but spin.

The premise here is that when it comes to god, nobody knows any more than anybody else, and that is indeed, unchanging.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Indeed, but there are still a few ignorant folks who insist on calling the U.S. a "Christian nation."

btw: welcome to the AH.

DO THE MATH AND GET BACK WITH US.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Most Of The Order We Impose Upon The World Has No Tangible Existence. You Cant Prove Geometry Any More Than You Can Prove God, But Both Are Useful. There Is No Such Thing As Philosophy; It Doesnt Exist In Nature. But Believing It Exists Is Useful.

 

[wmrs2]

Quite right . It is an opinion in fact two opinions and as I am the atheist and you are not, I suspect you know less about what an atheist thinks than I do.

By the way I was a tad disappointed you accepted quite so meekly my short demolition of your "ontological argument a few posts back.

I did miss that. With your permission, I will revisit this dismantling of the ontological model and get back to you soon.

 

[wmrs2]

The old shell game, they considered themselves Christian and do what they do in the name of Christianity - that's not enough to call them Christians? Whose call is that?

AS far as I know, in most protestant religions, all you have to do is claim Jesus as your personal savior, and you're in - if there is a god sorting out who believes, and who is just taking advantage of superstition, I'd like to see the report - is it published quarterly? Annually?

Religions sell fear and hysteria, and it's very easy to channel these things into mass violence, so it's very handy - particularly when you are otherwise expected to grovel for "authority".

So fine, you may be a true Christian, could well be, I'll take you at your word that you don't participate in mob violence, and will protect the victims of mob violence at your own peril like Jesus did for the woman who was about to be stoned, I applaud your sincere faith.

At this very moment however, Dominionists and Reconstructionists are plotting to overthrow the constitution, using armies of children to do their dirty work Joel's Army - and you are spreading their propaganda of anti-secularism, moral relativism, etc. Are they "true Christians"?

Sound hysterical? It's nothing new - ever hear of the inquisition? The crusades? Slavery and apartheid? Native American Genocide? Inter Catera?

And really, all you've got is sex - gimme an example of "moral relativism" that doesn't involve sexual behavior.

It is not clear to me how you use the term "moral relativism." Relativism is not the property of the Christian model. Homosexuality, for example, is not a choice that a Christian makes, the choice a Christian makes is established in law. To chose this lifestyle is to ignore determinant law and follow a law created by man to suit what he says his needs are.

The old shell game, they considered themselves Christian and do what they do in the name of Christianity - that's not enough to call them Christians? Whose call is that?

It is the call of the individual who knows or does not know God. You are what you do and what you really believe. It is that old rose thing and called by any other name, it is what it is. The term Christian is a modern day invention. It was only used twice in the New Testament and its meaning has changed in every generation. The choice term of what a follower of Christ was in the Book of Acts of the New Testament was "believer."

The type of lives that either atheists or Christians live do not factor in to a debate of whether there is a God or not. It makes a good finger pointing technique but it is not sound logic.

Inquisition were not held by true believers but like you suggest, anybody can be a Christian for all one must do is match the meaning of the Christian term of that generation. A true believer's definition of Christian does not change from generation to generation.

It is a gross error in logic to try to justify the existence or non existence of God based on human behavior. It will work with the crowd and it will incite some to violence, but it is not a real effective part of philosophical discussion.

 

[xssve]

It is not clear to me how you use the term "moral relativism." Relativism is not the property of the Christian model. Homosexuality, for example, is not a choice that a Christian makes, the choice a Christian makes is established in law. To chose this lifestyle is to ignore determinant law and follow a law created by man to suit what he says his needs are.

See, now there you go - the word "law" has a certain common and objective meaning and yet you are using to infer something else entirely - the lal in this country means the statues, common law and case law in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America - I have no idea what "law" you are referring to, it has an arbitrary meaning known only to you - that is relativism.

It is the call of the individual who knows or does not know God. You are what you do and what you really believe. It is that old rose thing and called by any other name, it is what it is. The term Christian is a modern day invention. It was only used twice in the New Testament and its meaning has changed in every generation. The choice term of what a follower of Christ was in the Book of Acts of the New Testament was "believer."

I still don't know what it is - how do you know I'm not a true Christian, and you the apostate?

The type of lives that either atheists or Christians live do not factor in to a debate of whether there is a God or not. It makes a good finger pointing technique but it is not sound logic.

Inquisition were not held by true believers but like you suggest, anybody can be a Christian for all one must do is match the meaning of the Christian term of that generation. A true believer's definition of Christian does not change from generation to generation.

It is a gross error in logic to try to justify the existence or non existence of God based on human behavior. It will work with the crowd and it will incite some to violence, but it is not a real effective part of philosophical discussion.

It's an error of logic to talk about it at all if you think it will resolve anything - the only thing you've established is that you believe it, it seems self evident to you - doesn't seem at all self evident to me, and unlikely to in the future, ever - it seems much more self evident to me that you're spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles.

How do you propose resolving this dilemma, "legally"? Deuteronomy 13:6-9? Is this the law you are referring to?

We've worked past that, most of us.

 

[wmrs2]

I will comment specifically with the ontological argument sometimes called the "proof" for the existence of God. This has already been dealt with by Xssve but I will try express it perhaps a little more bluntly.

The ontological believer says " I believe in god so a priori god exists" or if you like "god exists so I (must) believe in him."

It is a circular argument with both the premise and the conclusion being the same and both being unprovable assertions. It is therefore nonsense.

It is worthwhile to look at its historical origins. As applied to religion the ontological argument was first presented by Ibn Sina in the 10th century and within a 100 years applied to christianity by St Anselm of Canterbury. It seems to me that it was no accident that this idea gained traction at the height of the power of the medieval church and when the thinking of the great Ancient philosophers had been suppressed by 1000 years of church omnipotence over the minds of men.

St Thomas Aguinas would have none of it despite its appeal to more superficial minds and though Descartes, educated by the Jesuits struggled to find a new respectability for the idea. However, two really great philosophers, Kant and Hume, men of the enlightenment, destroyed it . Hume's comment is particularly pointed and conclusive.

"There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction.Whatever we conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being therefore whose non existence implies a contradiction. Consequentially there is no being whose existence is demonstrable."( my emphasis)

It seems to me almost tragic that "believers" cling to this discredited idea from the Dark Ages and I conclude that once again, as noted in my previous post 1053 the persistence of the ontological argument is rooted in the primal fear that governs the believers mind.

I am somewhat surprised that you think your analysis of my ontological argument is dismantled with what you present here. First your reference to circular reasoning is a misunderstanding projected as an argument against those who believe in God. The fact is that all schools of knowledge recognize that at some point in deduction and induction circular reasoning is employed.
Circular reasoning is neither good or bad. It is what it is. It is how circular reasoning is used that creates the nonsense to which you refer.

It is a circular argument with both the premise and the conclusion being the same and both being unprovable assertions. It is therefore nonsense.

This is circular reasoning. You have a premise. If the premise is faulty, your reasoning will be faulty. If your premise is strong, your reasoning is strong. The deduction you make are good if the induction process will bring you back to a complete duplicate of the premise on which all your deductions were based.

The quality of correct reasoning is not a matter of circular reasoning but the quality of the beginning premise of reasoning. That is why your argument adds nothing to fact gathering in relation to whether there is or is not a God.

It is worthwhile to look at its historical origins.

The history of ontology is traced back to the beginning philosopher of the Pre-Socratic years, In your discussion of ontology you completely ignore both the Pre-Socratic philosopher and the Classical Minds of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others. It was from this heritage that Christianity developed its theories of ontology. The philosophers you mentioned only discussed what was given to them.

You mention a priori knowledge but you misuse the term. This type of knowledge was the subject of philosophy long before the philosophers you mention ever discussed any type of innate or universal knowledge. There are many who think that Anselm, Aquinas, Hume, Lock, Kant and others added nothing to or against the ontological argument. Certainly the Dark Age philosophers of the Church added very little to the debate. For you too conclude that the ontological argument is over is rather philosophically naive.

Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction.Whatever we conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being therefore whose non existence implies a contradiction. Consequentially there is no being whose existence is demonstrable."( my emphasis)

The above is your statement of a rule, like the scientific method is a rule or the law of gravity is a rule. But I see no premise that supports your rule. In fact, you give no premise therefore you speculate only "there is no being whose existence is demonstrable." Now that is circular reasoning, very weak circular reasoning, because your inductive process leads to no premise whatever.

At first reading of how you think you dismantled the ontological theory, the beginning philosopher might think you have a real point but closer examination shows that like most cosmological arguments, this one is more speculation than reason and requires more faith to be believable than religion.

 

[amicus]

Hypnopup...welcome to the fray... "...

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about what you KNOW. Do you know there is a god, that there isn't a god, or are you unsure? If you aren't sure whether or not there's a god, then you're agnostic (without knowledge).

Thiesm/Athiesm is about what you believe. If you believe there is a god, then you are a theist. If you lack belief in a god, then you're an athiest..."

~~~

I am sure you must be aware of the glaring contradiction in what you posted, 'agnosticism is about what you 'KNOW', 'agnostic, (without knowledge).

Theism is faith
Agnosticism is doubt
Atheism is knowledge.

The means by which the human mind 'learns' of reality, is through the use of his senses to perceive reality and his mind to identify and classify the product of his senses.

There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a purple people eater ruling the universe; thus there is no purple people eater. Thas deductive knowledge, we deduce from the lack of evidence that no such critter exists.

Have a good day...

amicus..