Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
Why on earth anyone would want to call this "God" I don't know.phildwyer said:
"We can all agree that experıence exısts."<---this phrase is a tautology? Is it just like "cogito ergo sum"? In any case there are a lot of unstated things tied up with "experience" and "exist" - this can't be a foundational axiom in any epistemology.
"If ıt exısts, then ıt must be *possıble* for ıt to exıst."<----again, little more than vacuous wordplay, and a tautology again.
"If ıt ıs possıble for experıence to exıst, there must be certaın condıtıons whıch *make* ıt possıble."<----either yet more vacuous wordplay but actually not logically true. Something could simply exist without 'conditions'. What are the conditions of these 'conditions'? Are there an infinite regression of 'conditions'? Sorry but this is just a load of verbose tosh.
"God ıs the sum of those condıtıons."<----zing!
philoggic in full effect. Or is that the phildwyer private langauge where every single word has its own unique meaning?"Havıng agreed upon thıs, we can begın to argue about Hıs nature."<---and so starts another phildwyer trolling thread where he starts making every-more bizarre statements along the lines of:
"everyone will now agree that..."
"I have now proved conclusively that..."
"all rational people will now agree that..."
and
"sorry but I now have to fly to timbuku after eating this ciabbatta with sun-dried tomatos and basil"
I am going to enjoy seeing Aldebran and phil "debating" with each other.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
maya said:
well ... that's debatable.
dont forget that a lot of that stuff was referring to what g-d would do to a sinner, or what the consequence of their actions would be, and not what humans should do to them.
basically what goes around comes around.
there were plenty of safeguards put in place to ensure that such things as the death penalty didn't happen, it's just that they were not available to the (non-jewish) public, and not included in the main body of the "bible" because they were a different text
there are some very nasty things in the new testament which often get overlooked
i know that a lot of it was added by paul and the church fathers but still it's there ...
for instance, if you strip Jesus' teachings of all the dodgy "supernatural miracles" , it leaves a surprisingly humanist thought (love your neighbour as yourself, respect the poor/women/misguided, love and compassion, etc.)
in fact, the core beliefs of Jesus are suspiciously similar to the teachings of the Buddha...hmmm, now THAT is a conspiration theory and a half!
not really ... all religions are the same, basically, and they're going to have the same basic values since the all worship g-d (but in a different way)
well not all of them
and one could say the same thing of political parties ... like so many people think that if you're not left wing or right wing then you're the scum of the earth, or stupid or something ... like "if you aren't a socialist before 25 then you have no heart, if you're a socialist after that age then you have no brain"
my religion basically says, if you're not jewish and don't believe in g-d then it doesn't matter as long as you're a good person...but if you are jewish then you're obliged to follow it basically in whatever way ... unfortunately the fucked up nature of some humans and their greedy self interest means that they've even found a way to turn that into a load of fundamentalist hatred ...
and islam afaik lets peoples of the book (jews and christians) into heaven ... and if im not mistaken there was a catholic pope who said much the same thing if you're a decent person then you're allright ...
and if you look at the bjp and hindu fundamentalist groups in india and the way they've treated muslims and christians ... then you have to realise that it isn't unique to a particular religion ...
seriously though you could get a religion whose holy book was a blank sheet of paper, and people would look at it in such a way as to justify killing someone because there are people who could get that out of anything ...
i think the thread-starter should think about how he phrases his (very rhetorical) "questions"- the basic premise of your questions are, you don't respect that people don't believe in God, and want to know why that is- NOT because you gen uinely want to know, but because you want to tell them that they're wrong...is THAT "tolerance"? no.
no it isn't ...
but on the other hand there is a lot of intolerance here regarding religion ... and i've read some things which are truly ridiculous ... it's like ffs people get over it ... we live in such an atheistic society that it really isn't worth getting that angry about (unless of course you or someone you know has been hurt)
i couldnt agree more with that ...
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
you know i really do disagree with your historical take on religion a lot froggie, but i respect your opinions on it because unlike so many on here you've studied it and tested your own beliefs and argue your points in peaceful and tolerant ways.
pinkmonkey
2.4 hour party person
frogwoman said:
I agree, it is religious intolerance that causes trouble and wars. I may not believe in God, but it does disgust me when I see some of the (quite frankly rabid,nasty and judgemental) hatred and disrespect some people get here, just for believing in a God or following a faith. It is so hypocritical, can't they see?
Until people can respect each others views and beliefs, whatever, how can they ever have proper dialogue, how can they ever improve things? Until we respect each others differences, I can't see any improvement in the shit that's going on in the world.
Yes it can be annoying when people preach and try to convert you, but try to see it from their POV. They only want to share what they gained from their faith and what made them happy with you. No need to be nasty or get your knickers in a twist, just be firm and say no.
maya
timewasting fool (in every universe)
too true- sad how human nature seems to be so basically flawed that we're able to end up knocking each other in the head or hurting each other over even the most trivial matters...frogwoman said:
yeah, i feel ashamed how some hardcore atheists are often so self-righteous about their own "superiority" that they act just as sneery and judgemental as some of the worst fundamentalist religious types they're criticising...frogwoman said:
i often feel ashamed about the arrogant ways some atheists talk to believers, and vice versa of course...
noone knows "the truth", there is no such things as truth- we just have to accept it.
((of course one can get scientific about things and claim that there's no empirical evidence for faith, well that's correct but it doesn't rule out the possibility that it might (very unlikely, but still) be a tiny, tiny little chance that it could be so?
even if i don't think so, others can think that all they like to me! as long as they don't beat anyone else around the head with it))
i also think it's wrong to condemn religion as a whole...IMO it's the fundamentalist interpretations of beliefs that are the reason i worry, but i also see a lot of good things in religions-
the peace of mind and feeling of security people get from prayer and the belief in a higher purpose in life, the ethical guidelines that condemns egoism and greed/pointless over-indulgence, the call for compassion towards your fellow human beings, faith as a comfort to support you through difficult times, etc...all good things.
...it's only when one abuse the faith to stir up hatred towards the non-believers, or people of other groups/religions, or to justify fighting or violence of any kind, that it becomes- by proxy, so to speak- "evil".
thankfully, this is more an exception than the norm.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
pinkmonkey said:
it would seem not ... ah well
i used to be like that as well when i was about 13 or so ... like a really rabid atheist who didnt see the point of religion at all, and used to make fun of people that believed in something
we live and learn though innit ... i think its a sign of immaturity that people can't get over prejudices they hold for very little reason ... and that goes for religious people that hate atheists or people from other religions, they feel threatened by it because perhaps they have some doubts about their faith as well ... or perhaps they just think its something they have to do
innit ...
yeah i mean sometimes i think i might have unwittingly done that
... and not even really realising it, it's just something that i want to share with people i do try not to though ...
it can work when you want to scare people though ...
sometimes those people can be nice to have a chat with though...as long as there is an understanding that their beliefs are different from yours and that you're not interested in converting etc
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
maya said:too true- sad how human nature seems to be so basically flawed that we're able to end up knocking each other in the head or hurting each other over even the most trivial matters...
yeah
innit
well a lot of it is feeling threatened, because if they considered that there was another point of view to be taken, for some people this stuff is so important, or they just believe it so completely, that their entire worldview would collapse and they wouldn't really be able to cope with it
well, i dunno ... there are certain things which are universally true IMO
but with religions, it's not really the same...you have your beliefs and other people have theirs ... there's no reason why you have to denigrate them ... as though the possibility that they believe in something makes what you believe any less likely ...
there is more factual evidence for g-d existing than the idea that there are "hidden forces" governing the free market or that communism would really work in practice... oh no but it would, it really would! lol
and there's also no empirical evidence for morality ... you can logically argue for anything being right or wrong... that doesn't mean it is though
innit
fundamentalism and cults aren't proper religions IMO, you have to ask yourself whether what someone is saying and doing is accordance with the demands of the religion itself ... whether they are actually living their lives in accordance with what that religion actually says or just worshipping their own hate and fear in a religious guise ... and with fundamentalists you will often find it is the latter, as they are often very troubled people (although some of them are just wankers and aren't even aware of it)
the peace of mind and feeling of security people get from prayer and the belief in a higher purpose in life, the ethical guidelines that condemns egoism and greed/pointless over-indulgence, the call for compassion towards your fellow human beings, faith as a comfort to support you through difficult times, etc...all good things.
innit
i know for a fact that if it wasn't for my faith i wouldn't be here today ... and thats all the proof i need for g-d's existence, i thank him every day for me still being alive ...
well normally that doesn't happen for religious reasons ... but religion is used as a cover ... its people being threatened by those different to them, or geopolitical reasons - instead of just saying "oh we're going in there to take their land" you can say "they're infidels, we're gonna fight a holy war against them" and dress it up like that ... and unfortunately being the way we are, some people are bound to fall for it ...
maya
timewasting fool (in every universe)
frogwoman said:
innit- reminds me of a science fiction story where the inventor of a robot tries to teach it human emotions and right from wrong,frogwoman said:
but gets to the conclusion it's impossible-
things are so incredibly more complex than the simplified/childish "good vs. evil, right vs. wrong" axis...there's so many exceptions and unforeseen factors that will complicate things...
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yepmaya said:
innit- reminds me of a science fiction story where the inventor of a robot tries to teach it human emotions and right from wrong,
but gets to the conclusion it's impossible-
things are so incredibly more complex than the simplified/childish "good vs. evil, right vs. wrong" axis...there's so many exceptions and unforeseen factors that will complicate things...
and thats a good thing though (in a way) ... life would be very boring if every situation was the same ...
TeeJay said:
Yes ıt ıs, well spotted Teejay. The only thıng we can be certaın of ıs that we are havıng experıence of what *appears* to be a world outsıde us. So the only truths we can know are truths about that experıence, rather than truths about the world outsıde us. So any epıstemology must ask what makes that experıence possıble, and the answer must ınclude thıngs that are prıor to experıence. These thıngs are ınnate ıdeas. The source of these ınnate ıdeas ıs God, and ıt ıs ın thıs sense that we say that God 'creates' the world. Well, I wıll try to answer any questıons you may have later on, but ıt ıs kofte for breakfast for me today, followed by a swıft tour of Topkapı palace. No I'm not jokıng.
Structaural
in Chatsubo
phildwyer said:
How could you possibly know?
This seems to be a mish-mash of the outdated ideas of Phenomenalism (that the perception itself of objects is all that really exists) Idealism (the only things which can be directly known for certain are ideas) and Spinoza's Rationalism (in which there is only one substance ie God), which isn't surprising as you seem more "up to speed" on philosophy from previous centuries than anything more contemporary.phildwyer said:
Why do you remind me of a kind of new-age 00's version of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho?
About Idealism:
In The Construction of Social Reality John Searle offers an attack on some versions of idealism. Searle conveniently summarises two important arguments for idealism. The first is based on our perception of reality:
1. All we have access to in perception are the contents of our own experiences
2. The only epistemic basis we can have for claims about the external world are our perceptual experiences
therefore,
3. the only reality we can meaningfully speak of is the reality of perceptual experiences (The Construction of Social Reality p. 172)
Whilst agreeing with (2), Searle argues that (1) is false, and points out that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#John_Searle
Whenever I hear you start a post with the line "The only thıng we can be certaın of ıs..." I immediately think of this:
About "Foundationalism" generally
One might conclude that there must be some statements that, for some reason, do not need justification. This view is called foundationalism. For instance, rationalists such as Descartes and Spinoza developed axiomatic systems that relied on statements that were taken to be self-evident: 'I think therefore I am' is the most famous example. Similarly, empiricists take observations as providing the foundation for the series.
Foundationalism relies on the uneasy claim that it is not reasonable to ask for justification of certain propositions. If someone makes an observational statement, such as 'it is raining', it does seem reasonable to ask how they know - did they look out the window? Did someone else tell them? Did they just come in shaking their umbrella? Coherentism insists that it is always reasonable to ask for a justification for any statement. Coherentism contends that foundationalism provides an arbitrary spot to stop asking for justification and so that it does not provide reasons to think that certain beliefs do not need justification. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism
Welcome to the 21st century phil. You really need to update your understanding of modern philosophy and stop living in the past.
TeeJay said:
I'm far more famılıar wıth 20th century phılosophy than I am wıth that of prevıous eras, so I know very well that ıt has been domınated by antı-foundatıonalısm (ın the Anglophone tradıtıon) and antı-logocentrısm (the Contınental equıvalent, whıch I regard as vastly more sophıstıcated).
The basıc ıdea of such schools ıs that appearance ıs all there ıs: there ıs no essence. A dıfferent way of puttıng the same thıng ıs to say that sıgns are all there ıs: there are no referents. In other words, the world and our lıfe ın ıt do not *mean* anythıng.
From my persepctıve, however, the ınterestıng questıon ıs *why* such thought has arısen at thıs partıcular moment ın hıstory. My argument ıs that we can trace a parallel development ın the 'economy,' where money has been revealed as an autonomous and self-generatıng sıgn. I also fınd the ethıcal crıtıques to whıch autonomous representatıon has been subjected hıstorıcally (such as relıgıous ıconoclasm) extremely persuasıve.
In short, mutatıs mutandıs, I belıeve that antı-foundatıonalısm and antı-logocentrısm are Satanıc modes of thought. As I have saıd before, thıs ıs hard to deny, sınce *logos* means 'God.'
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Why do some of us get so defensive?
Well one reason is that it's annoying when phild continually alters his frame of reference/argument or simply ignores stuff that he can't/won't answer, and in your case that you're a PR boy for your faith in the same way that loads of lefties here are for theirs, especially when that faith - or those proclaiming membership and belief in that faith - does some really nasty and unpleasant things to people.
Don't get me wrong - corrupted modernism in various guises has killed as many as religion, just as the advanced form of feudalism we call capitalism continues to kill so I'm not going to stand around saying 'But hasn't the rule of men been so much better than the rule of god when it comes to governing societies', but I think that having guiding principles that are written by humans and acted on by humans and can be changed by humans is potentially a far better way of running society that basing it all on a test which can trace it's ancestry back about 3000 years and which is claimed (at least in parts and by some of it's adherents) to be the actual Word of God.
My own personal 'belief' system comes from this - that nothing is immutable and that they key to both success now and in future is how one best adapts, carried out in a framework of what one personally believes to be limits to positive human behviour (i.e. we don't go round killing each other all the time). I also find that i don't actually need to interpose some God figure into reality and my universe to make sense of it or to guide me or to comfort me.
Well one reason is that it's annoying when phild continually alters his frame of reference/argument or simply ignores stuff that he can't/won't answer, and in your case that you're a PR boy for your faith in the same way that loads of lefties here are for theirs, especially when that faith - or those proclaiming membership and belief in that faith - does some really nasty and unpleasant things to people.
Don't get me wrong - corrupted modernism in various guises has killed as many as religion, just as the advanced form of feudalism we call capitalism continues to kill so I'm not going to stand around saying 'But hasn't the rule of men been so much better than the rule of god when it comes to governing societies', but I think that having guiding principles that are written by humans and acted on by humans and can be changed by humans is potentially a far better way of running society that basing it all on a test which can trace it's ancestry back about 3000 years and which is claimed (at least in parts and by some of it's adherents) to be the actual Word of God.
My own personal 'belief' system comes from this - that nothing is immutable and that they key to both success now and in future is how one best adapts, carried out in a framework of what one personally believes to be limits to positive human behviour (i.e. we don't go round killing each other all the time). I also find that i don't actually need to interpose some God figure into reality and my universe to make sense of it or to guide me or to comfort me.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Can I be arsed to trawl back through the Darwinist and Rational Proof threads, that is the question.
BTW, was having a think about your Satan in the Markets thing last night - could make the basis for a fine piece of fiction, and I (finally) got what you were saying...while I disagree with a lot of your fundamental premises (ideas existing separately to brain matter etc), within that framework yeah, it's an obvious manifestation of one of the demons (not Satan himself tho)...indeed, it would be Mammon rather than the Big S...
BTW, was having a think about your Satan in the Markets thing last night - could make the basis for a fine piece of fiction, and I (finally) got what you were saying...while I disagree with a lot of your fundamental premises (ideas existing separately to brain matter etc), within that framework yeah, it's an obvious manifestation of one of the demons (not Satan himself tho)...indeed, it would be Mammon rather than the Big S...
kyser_soze said:
Well of course the demons aren't actually real as such. They're personıfıcatıons of varıous forms of opposıtıon to *logos.* Mammon represents greed. Belıal ıs lust (not bad ın ıtself but bad ınsofar as ıt dısplaces spırıtual love). Moloch ıs vıolence. And so forth. You're rıght about the fıctıon ıdea.
Similar threads
