Atheist!

[xssve]

Good night, anybody but amicus can ask another, I'll look at it tomorrow.

 

[amicus]

'Gay Rights', you mean the right to contract HIV/Aids? It is known as the 'Gay Disease', you know, and you think it has not impacted the medical system?

Think again.

Amicus...

 

[hypnopup]

Hypnopup, you went from newbie to obscene rather quickly, an ALT are you? Or just riding on the coat-tails of the long time adversaries here?

No amicus, I'm not a member of any ALT discussion board (although it wouldn't surprise me if you were a member of that kind of subgroup). I simply do not like to have people put words in my mouth, lie, question dodge and generally act like a troll.

You might also check the definition of solipcism as I clearly stated that reality is the arbiter of existence and not my own existence.

You are correct. You were not referring to a "I" in the solipsistic sense. I was being sarcastic... but I will admit that I was in error.

I can understand your distress, for if you allow my objectivity to cause you doubt in your faith, what the hell ever it is, then you are lost. So, you respond in like fashion to the liberal fascists who will never, ever admit they are wrong.

No, amicus, I am not "distressed". I am very irritated at you for the following reasons.

1. What faith is required for Deism? You still didn't answer that question.
2. You didn't answer if you knew what Deism is, but continue to pigeonhole me where I don't belong
3. I will admit when I am wrong, as I did above. Again, you categorize me entirely wrong without evidence.
4. I am not a "liberal fascist", and again you seek to label me without evidence or knowledge. Your "objective reality" seems to be more the fantasy of your mind.
5. You put words in my mouth when saying that I stated there were no alternatives to Deism
6. You called me a liar without evidence
7. You called atheism a well founded, supportable philosophy, when it is not. It is merely a lack of one belief.
8. You call my claim ludicrous without any rationale why.
9. You misrepresent my stance as having life after death, prayer, and god worship... without knowing a thing about my stances at all.
10. You started off declaring that I made a "glaring contradiction" when I hadn't
11. You make the statement "atheism is knowledge" when it isn't.

As with the cost/benefit ethics of xssve, if there is too great a cost to attempt to save a preemie, then you let it die. Yup, I get that. Izzat ur belief also?

Let's deal with some of the stuff you've already piled on your plate before dealing with other issues.

 

[NoJo]

Thank you, hypnopup, this is the most congenial expression Ive seen here in a while!

Waay back there, someone commented that atheists must have a paucity of belief, and that's exactly right. They also seemed to think this was philosophically debilitating-- that's quite wrong...

Sometimes it's important to remember an important rule of the philologist -- namely, that words only very reluctantly shed their etymological roots. which is to say, the etymology of a word is sometimes useful when trying to clarify its meaning.

The word "Atheist" was coined in the 16th century and meant, originally, "No God".

"Agnostic", coined much later, in the 19th century by Darwin's great friend and champion Thomas Huxley, meant "no knowledge (about God)".

Now, although I don't know where or when Huxley coined this term, I'd guess he was making, like Darwin, an even stronger claim: not just that (in his personal opinion) there is no God, but that it is impossible for anyone to know of the existence God, because God is not subject to evidential knowledge. This is not quite how people use the term "agnostic" today, where it carries implications of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting and prevarication.

The important point here is that modern atheism is much as Huxley's agnosticism, a strong statement, not a statement of one's personal beliefs or opinions, but a statement of fact, like "There is no magic bullet".

At one point in my life I held a plethora of irrational beliefs, or rather, I remained "agnostic" (in the modern sense) about them: Dowsing using divining rods, the I-Ching, Hypnosis, acupuncture, tarot, Pythagorean numerology and Cabala -- all that fringe science and abracadabra.

If the me of today met the me of my late teens, I would smile indulgently at this ingenuous youth. I'd certainly not censure him, because I know that a degree of gullibility and openness are, in ones youth, the converse side of healthy curiosity and love of knowledge.

But gullible I certainly was -- easily fooled and tricked by magicians and charlatans. Forgiveable in ones smitten youth, but less so as an adult.

Similarly, I believe that the modern Western society, in its youth in the 17th century , can be forgiven for its religious beliefs back then, but now that it's grown up and seen holocausts, genocides, and above all the growth of democracy, we really should be embarrassed that we cling on to some of those childish religious beliefs.

 

[ishtat]

At first reading of how you think you dismantled the ontological theory, the beginning philosopher might think you have a real point but closer

I have just got off a 13 hour flight from Tokyo to London and this thread's still a bit of a curate's egg

What you suggest was my inadequate argument was in fact precisely quoted from David Hume . Now he was not a 'beginning philosopher' by any stretch of the imagination. Having read your reply I am happy to restate the view that the ontological argument for the existence of god was the product of the medieval dark ages and has no place in a post enlightenment society. It bluntly, is nonsense but if it gives you comfort you're welcome to it. ( the ethics of the tolerant atheist leads me make that last point!)

Incidentally I'm quite happy to be described as a beginning philosopher how would you describe your own philosophical capacity?.

 

[ishtat]

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.

Now JBJ there are a bunch of propositions there.

1 I am
2 I am not
3 I (for the sake of this post alone am god) and you'll go where I damn well please. Note 'damn' is the clue.
4 And in my temporary non existent capacity would remind you that we use English up here and never ignore sinners.

 

[ishtat]

~~~

Bottom dollar is...theists must posit the deity has always existed, as must 'big bang' theorists/agnostics, when queried concerning the origin of their bump in the night.

Amicus

Granted, but my objection is when the same assertion which is posited is also taken to be conclusive proof within itself.

Therefore if someone posits the existence of god it remains a belief and cannot of itself be admissable as proven.

I'm tired, it's 6 30 am or something like that and feels like midnight.

 

[lindsay48223]

i'm Atheist

 

[Guest]

I drink therefore I am.

 

[wmrs2]

I have just got off a 13 hour flight from Tokyo to London and this thread's still a bit of a curate's egg

What you suggest was my inadequate argument was in fact precisely quoted from David Hume . Now he was not a 'beginning philosopher' by any stretch of the imagination. Having read your reply I am happy to restate the view that the ontological argument for the existence of god was the product of the medieval dark ages and has no place in a post enlightenment society. It bluntly, is nonsense but if it gives you comfort you're welcome to it. ( the ethics of the tolerant atheist leads me make that last point!)

Incidentally I'm quite happy to be described as a beginning philosopher how would you describe your own philosophical capacity?.

I do not regard you as a beginning philosopher, There was no insult intended here; but, I still think that the beginning philosopher might be too easily persuaded to think that the ontological argument for God's existence is not as strong as it actually is.

I have been a philosopher most of my life and my love for the truth has led me in many directions but my best deductions have led me to God. The capacity of the mind may not mean as much as the willingness to accept the truth when one finds it.

There are several intervening variables besides reasoning or capacity that keeps a person from accepting the truth. Human nature, to give one example, is often very opposed to following the truth. If a person has learned through early experiences in life to be a homosexual and arrives pleasure from the homosexual lifestyle, then the lust of his fleash is going to create a barrier to accepting that homosexuality is a deviation from normal human development.

To carry this comparison further, a homosexual is not likely to believe in natural theology because he/she will not want to accept eternal and unchanging law because a homosexual would then be faced with changing its personal lifestyle. There are many more examples of life situations that determine how one thinks besides capacity.

In my world view, it is important to build on each correct deduction as much as possible. One false deduction will set off a chain reaction of may false deductions. For this reason, Jesus Christ told his followers to walk in the light or the light would become darkness.

Making a false deduction is not necessarily fatal because on should always examine his reasoning to discover false deductions. One excellent method of testing false deduction is the process of induction. When one is led back to his initial premise, one will discover much about his reasoning. He may discover that somebody has changed the premise of his deductions and because the premise has changed, all his deductions were based on a different premise. That is why we must not change eternal law while seeking the truth. Atheist do not follow this reasoning process, for which I am sure that I will be challenged on this point. I am prepared to defend this assertion.

This scenario, if not convincing, is certainly a strong argument for the existence of God and it does lean heavily on the scientific method as well as other eternal laws of a God.

 

[wmrs2]

To sub Joe
This one statement you make can not be substantuated. From my point of view, it is pure speculation with no premise whatsoevr for clear thinking.

but that it is impossible for anyone to know of the existence God, because God is not subject to evidential knowledge.

If it were a fact that God was not subject to evidential knowledge, this would be true. That God is not suject to evidential knowledge is not true or proven but is speculation that the atheist asserts.

Also, that is is impossible tof anyone to know of the existence of God, is also sepulation. There are more people who think and believe they know God than there are who say one can not know God. It would be more reasonable, based on experiences and reasoning to sepecualate that one could know God.

 

[kendo1]

There are more people who think and believe they know God than there are who say one can not know God.

Just as a matter of interest, where do you source your figures for this statement? Is it a matter of belief?

Ken

 

[Liar]

No, amicus, I am not "distressed". I am very irritated at you for the following reasons.

1. What faith is required for Deism? You still didn't answer that question.
2. You didn't answer if you knew what Deism is, but continue to pigeonhole me where I don't belong
3. I will admit when I am wrong, as I did above. Again, you categorize me entirely wrong without evidence.
4. I am not a "liberal fascist", and again you seek to label me without evidence or knowledge. Your "objective reality" seems to be more the fantasy of your mind.
5. You put words in my mouth when saying that I stated there were no alternatives to Deism
6. You called me a liar without evidence
7. You called atheism a well founded, supportable philosophy, when it is not. It is merely a lack of one belief.
8. You call my claim ludicrous without any rationale why.
9. You misrepresent my stance as having life after death, prayer, and god worship... without knowing a thing about my stances at all.
10. You started off declaring that I made a "glaring contradiction" when I hadn't
11. You make the statement "atheism is knowledge" when it isn't.

Welcome to the board, friend. Here's to hoping you persistent enough to last longer in amicus' wondrous web of thinly veiled fallacies than I usually do before I give up and leave him to his ramblings. I wish you luck.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Welcome to the board, friend. Here's to hoping you persistent enough to last longer in amicus' wondrous web of thinly veiled fallacies than I usually do before I give up and leave him to his ramblings. I wish you luck.

Now, that's just unkind. Why should hypnopup waste so much time on Ami?

 

[Liar]

That God is not suject to evidential knowledge is not true or proven but is speculation that the atheist asserts.

Likewise, that God is subject to evidential knowledge is not true or proven either.

Also, that is is impossible tof anyone to know of the existence of God, is also sepulation. There are more people who think and believe they know God than there are who say one can not know God. It would be more reasonable, based on experiences and reasoning to sepecualate that one could know God.

Key word here is believe. It's about faith and belief. To believe in God in spite of lack of proof. To "know" in your heart what you can't know scientifically. Thats the whole point of faith, is it not?

 

[Kev H]

...That is why we must not change eternal law while seeking the truth. Atheist do not follow this reasoning process, for which I am sure that I will be challenged on this point. I am prepared to defend this assertion.

Hi, wmrs2. I'd like to hear your detailed explanation (but please do not feel you must defend it, as such--I'm curious as someone who has no opposing stand to defend or need of validation). Call it an intellectual curiosity (in particular, how you'd reason with someone of amicus' rational bent).

Also, I really wish I had the time to keep up with this flurry of activity, but alas, the necessities of life make this impossible. Welcome to the AH, hypnopup (in case someone has not told you yet, amicus was not calling you a liar, but referring to a poster here by that name, though he certainly is not blameless--he has a hard time resisting the urge to poke people unkindly to see how they will respond).

 

[Liar]

Now, that's just unkind. Why should hypnopup waste so much time on Ami?

Hey now, we all get our kicks in different ways.

 

[amicus]

KevH...

"...Call it an intellectual curiosity (in particular, how you'd reason with someone of amicus' rational bent)..."

~~~

It may not appear rational or logical, but I do not question or debate a person's faith; I attempt to respect it as a given and go on from there.

Not only that, but debates with many, high in religous circles in both academe and the real world, (on live radio), has led me to understand that such a discussion is not productive for either.

Although I relentlessly tease the liberal fascists here, by accusing them of belief, and that may be true in some cases, but usually it is just faulty premises and bad reasoning or logic that leads me to prick the balloon of collectivism.

It is a curious matter, though, to read the accumulated defense of wmrs2's faith against the constant and extremely rude assaults, and smile as she makes point after point that solidify her faith and show the weakness of the humanists/relativists.

It ranks right up there with my "The Feminist Mistake", of many years ago, and is just as entertaining...doncha think?

ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Now JBJ there are a bunch of propositions there.

1 I am
2 I am not
3 I (for the sake of this post alone am god) and you'll go where I damn well please. Note 'damn' is the clue.
4 And in my temporary non existent capacity would remind you that we use English up here and never ignore sinners.

WELL, ITS LIKE THIS. A LOT THAT HAPPENS IN LIFE RESULTS FROM DUM FUCKING LUCK AND LEAPS OF FAITH. IF DOING THE MATH WERE SO WONDERFUL WE WOULDNT BE HAVING A GLOBAL DEPRESSION RIGHT NOW. NOT IF WE'RE AS SMART AS WE BELIEVE WE ARE. WE KNOW EVERY THING WORTH KNOWING.

I'M READING A BOOK ABOUT SAMUEL GOLDFISH AND CECIL B. DEMILLE MAKING THE FIRST FEATURE LENGTH MOVIE INSIDE A BARN NEAR A ONE HORSE TOWN NAMED HOLLYWOOD BACK IN 1913. NO ONE WANTED TO INVEST IN IT. IT WAS MADNESS. ANYONE WITH BRAINS KNEW THEY WERE DAFT.

 

[xssve]

'Gay Rights', you mean the right to contract HIV/Aids? It is known as the 'Gay Disease', you know, and you think it has not impacted the medical system?

Think again.

Amicus...

Think homophobia doesn't inspire people to take chances and lie when because of anal retentives like you they risk everything by being outed, their jobs, their families, their lives?

The "Gay disease" as you call it, spread from heterosexuals to gays because of homophobia, and from gays back to heteros - because of homophobia.

Think Larry Craig.

Don't bother I know what you'll say, shit I could probably write it for you, you and wmrs2 are almost identical, you sound like a couple of wind up toys, but that's how ethics works - you get the benefit of not having to leave the cold comfort of your smug, small minded self righteousness, somebody else pays the cost, you're a parasite ami.

 

[Guest]

Oh, ami.

You know that Aids is a completely heterosexual disease in Africa.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, ami.

You know that Aids is a completely heterosexual disease in Africa.

I'm pretty sure Africa doesn't exist on Amicus's world map. All those liberals of an unfortunate color.

 

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Africa doesn't exist on Amicus's world map. All those liberals of an unfortunate color.

*claps hand to forehead*

Silly me.

 

[amicus]

Oh, ami.

You know that Aids is a completely heterosexual disease in Africa.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

Since it can be transmitted by both sexes, so I understand, that now makes sense.

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/fall98/public_deliberation_and_scientif.htm

The AIDS Movement


Almost from the time the disease was first noticed -- when it was still being characterized as a "gay disease"

I browsed dozens of sites under the keywords, academic research gay disease, origins of aid, and several other phrases...you might do the same and note the polarity between supposedly credible sources and of course, the political ones.

The scientific jargon, which if you read the link above, is certainly not cast in absolute terms and seems to suggest it is no longer productive to even search for the cause and transmissal of the original infection.

I can understand that in context. Even if the original infection was from man/monkey sex, or anal intercourse between males, it really makes very little difference as the disease reached epidemic quantities in Africa and elsewhere.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

QUOTE]

~~~

Since it can be transmitted by both sexes, so I understand, that now makes sense.

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/fall98/public_deliberation_and_scientif.htm



I browsed dozens of sites under the keywords, academic research gay disease, origins of aid, and several other phrases...you might do the same and note the polarity between supposedly credible sources and of course, the political ones.

The scientific jargon, which if you read the link above, is certainly not cast in absolute terms and seems to suggest it is no longer productive to even search for the cause and transmissal of the original infection.

I can understand that in context. Even if the original infection was from man/monkey sex, or anal intercourse between males, it really makes very little difference as the disease reached epidemic quantities in Africa and elsewhere.

Amicus...

I'm just guessing this all translates to "Sorry, I was wrong."