Atheism

[thaiboxerken]

Atheism is a state of being, that state of not believing in a god or gods. It is not a philosophy, religion or idealogy. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

It doesn't matter if anyone else says that it's a philosophy or it's built on a philosophy, it is simply not true. People are atheists for many reasons, some simply haven't heard of "god" or "gods". Saying atheism is a religion or philosophy only shows that the person making the statement is ignorant and arrogant.

[Watcher]

Why did this statement require a new thread? :confused:

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Watcher
Why did this statement require a new thread? :confused:

why not ;)

[justsaygnosis]

Let me play 'devil's advocate' for a moment. Someone could maintain that atheism is a philosophy or fraternity of some sort based on the number of atheist societies and organizations that exist.
In that case they may be simply ill-informed rather than ignorant or arrogant although ill-informed and ignorant are usually two sides of the same coin.
Misconceptions about anyone are easy. It's easy to believe all baptists think alike or all buddhists think alike if one doesn't bother to investigate deeper. It's just as easy to believe all atheists think alike.



Forgot this on the 1'st post.
Why did this statement require a new thread?
Troll Bait

[c4ts]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Let me play 'devil's advocate' for a moment. Someone could maintain that atheism is a philosophy or fraternity of some sort based on the number of atheist societies and organizations that exist.

Those people can believe all they want, and they can still be wrong because no amount of belief can change actual knowledge or fact. They assume that one who does not believe in God denies the exisetence of God based on no knowledge of theism or atheism whatsoever. Since they are trained to believe instead of think, they cannot seperate what they believe from what they really know, and cannot seperate what they know from what is really true. Therefore, belief = truth. (porisms: fact = truth, truth = fact) Also, since the existence of God is "factual," facts supporting facts are incontrovertible, as are facts that lack disproof (disproof of fact is absurd given the syllogisms), so fact + fact = incontrovertible. It's easy to believe that an atheist believes there is no God becuase to one who believes instead of thinks, they cannot conceive of thought without disbelief. Therefore, disbelief = belief in the contrary.

If they then obtain knowledge that there is such a thing as organized atheism, belief + knoweldge = belief + belief = fact + fact = incontrovertible and therefore true. If they do not obtain knowledge that there is such a thing as organized atheism, they may speculate that because they are organized, so is the opposition. Given speculation requires some amount of thought(however minimal), speculation = thought. But they are not encouraged to think, but believe, so belief + speculation = belief + thought = belief + belief = fact + fact = incontrovertible, and I think I just stopped making any sense whatsoever.

[justsaygnosis]

Those people can believe all they want, and they can still be wrong because no amount of belief can change actual knowledge or fact. They assume that one who does not believe in God denies the exisetence of God based on no knowledge of theism or atheism whatsoever.

This forum is sufficient proof that there is diversity of thought among atheists. I'll rephrase what I said earlier. "It's easier to believe in the lack of diversity by refusing to investigate the basis for the belief itself."

Ken likes argument, like we all do. :)


----
Atheism is a state of being, that state of not believing in a god or gods. It is not a philosophy, religion or idealogy. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.
----


Right, a "state of being". Taking a crap is a state of being.

Atheism is in your head. Can you tell me how something can be in your head and not be an idea? It is your views on the way things are or are not. That is a philosophy.


----
People are atheists for many reasons, some simply haven't heard of "god" or "gods".
----


Yeah, show me one person who hasn't heard of some type of god(s)?

The baby example doesn't cut it, because a baby has no knowledge about the affairs and terms of adults. Saying one is an atheist requires a certain mindset about what that word means. A baby lacks even atheism.


----
Saying atheism is a religion or philosophy only shows that the person making the statement is ignorant and arrogant.
----


O'Hair stated that atheism rests on the philosophy of naturalism. You must be speaking of all philosophies besides naturalism.

[BobM]

Atheism is a state of being, that state of not believing in a god or gods. It is not a philosophy, religion or idealogy. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.As defined, yes. In practice, however, many people do not treat it as such.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


This forum is sufficient proof that there is diversity of thought among atheists. I'll rephrase what I said earlier. "It's easier to believe in the lack of diversity by refusing to investigate the basis for the belief itself."

You disagree with my statement?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by c4ts


You disagree with my statement?
NO

[Legallee Insane]

I actually find it quite surprising that this thread hasn't been trashed by Franko's über-babble. I was quite expecting to read a load of crap, something akin to:

"Blah, blah, blabbity-blah A-THEIST blah, blah blah blah blaaaah, TLOP, ahhh, bla-blah-blah blah GODDESS, bla, blablablalbalba, FREE WILLY bla."

[TheERK]

I think it is incorrect to claim that atheism is not a philosophy.

Not believing in god(s) plays a significant part in how you view the way things are. If you are a strong atheist, then it is certainly a philosophy. If you are a weak atheist, you *probably* believe that a thing is unknowable. Either of these, IMO, qualifies for a philosophy.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TheERK
I think it is incorrect to claim that atheism is not a philosophy.

Not believing in god(s) plays a significant part in how you view the way things are. If you are a strong atheist, then it is certainly a philosophy. If you are a weak atheist, you *probably* believe that a thing is unknowable. Either of these, IMO, qualifies for a philosophy.
I think you could say that atheism is an element of many philosophies. It makes no statements about morality or how one should live their lives. It is most often an element of materialist philosophy, but is not restricted to that. I have even met the rare lazy-minded atheist who doesn't believe anything but doesn't take the time to think about them either, but this type is rare. Most atheists arrived at that position by thinking a lot and coming to the conclusion that belief without evidence is self-deceptive. Even so, most (but not all) atheists admit that a god is possible. It's not much of a philosophy if it admits that the only tenet could be proved wrong with one single verifiable god-sighting.

Atheism makes you you.

Its viewpoints are part of the atheist like the viewpoints of theism are part of the theist.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Whodini
Atheism is in your head. Can you tell me how something can be in your head and not be an idea? It is your views on the way things are or are not. That is a philosophy.

Exactly, it's the overall view on the way things are or are not that makes a philosophy. That's why you could say that atheism could be a part of one's philosophy, but you can't say that it is a philosophy in itself.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by fidiot


Exactly, it's the overall view on the way things are or are not that makes a philosophy. That's why you could say that atheism could be a part of one's philosophy, but you can't say that it is a philosophy in itself.

Um, this is not what Whodini was saying. He is claiming that atheism is a philosophy.

I am with you. Atheism is not my philosophy at all. It is a _consequence_ of my philosophy, in the same way that I don't try to sit on an invisible chair in my office is a consequence of my philosophy.

[Gregor]

While acknowledging that the converse probably exists (i.e. animosity towards a religion creates atheism first, philosophy as justification follows), I'd like to think that atheism, agnosticism, and deism are the by-product of a prior philosophy.

Example: If I chose to be a materialist, and I conclude that I've seen no evidence of a God. One by product= atheism. Another may be nihilism, or humanism, or hopism (a nod to Martin Gardner who doesn't believe in a god, but hoping for a 'superior being' gives psychological comfort).

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Atheism is not my philosophy at all. It is a _consequence_ of my philosophy, in the same way that I don't try to sit on an invisible chair in my office is a consequence of my philosophy. Well said!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Atheism is a state of being, that state of not believing in a god or gods. It is not a philosophy, religion or idealogy. It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

It doesn't matter if anyone else says that it's a philosophy or it's built on a philosophy, it is simply not true. People are atheists for many reasons, some simply haven't heard of "god" or "gods". Saying atheism is a religion or philosophy only shows that the person making the statement is ignorant and arrogant.

As everyone should know by now I disagree totally. But I've given my reasons countless times before, and I've just been ignored. Your position is just simply wrong as I have very patiently explained on other occasions (to other people even if not you).

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As everyone should know by now I disagree totally. But I've given my reasons countless times before, and I've just been ignored. Your position is just simply wrong as I have very patiently explained on other occasions (to other people even if not you).

Does it make it true?

Atheism is a lack of belief in something. You do not need to be a materialist, skeptic, communist, mystic or whatever you think we need.

Maybe just critical thinking.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tricky

I think you could say that atheism is an element of many philosophies. It makes no statements about morality or how one should live their lives. It is most often an element of materialist philosophy, but is not restricted to that. I have even met the rare lazy-minded atheist who doesn't believe anything but doesn't take the time to think about them either, but this type is rare. Most atheists arrived at that position by thinking a lot and coming to the conclusion that belief without evidence is self-deceptive. Even so, most (but not all) atheists admit that a god is possible. It's not much of a philosophy if it admits that the only tenet could be proved wrong with one single verifiable god-sighting.
I agree completely.

If there weren't so many theists around, I wouldn't use the term at all, and if the world was full of believers in fairies I would be an afairist. It says very little of my philosophy, except to those who cannot perceive one not derived from a divine source.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheERK
I think it is incorrect to claim that atheism is not a philosophy.



Yes, I would certainly say so in the sense in which people actually employ the term rather than in some technically abstract way which hardly anyone uses.

To declare one is an atheist in our modern culture is to implicitly imply that you subscribe to a family of other allegedly related beliefs ie the hypothesis we cease to exist when we die, the correctness of the materialist metaphysic etc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Does it make it true?

Atheism is a lack of belief in something.

No it's not. This is a misapprehension of what atheism means that apparently many atheists share. It is the positive affirmation that there is no existent which could reasonably come under the label of "god".

[Franko]

I agree completely.

If there weren't so many theists around, I wouldn't use the term at all, and if the world was full of believers in fairies I would be an afairist. It says very little of my philosophy, except to those who cannot perceive one not derived from a divine source.

You certainly don't seem to have ANY trouble believing the A-THEIST fairy tale that you have magic "free willy" powers! (credulous hypocritical moron)

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then CAR, TLOP (God) is more conscious then YOU.

But YOU go right along believing in your fairy tales ...

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

To declare one is an atheist in our modern culture is to implicitly imply that you subscribe to a family of other allegedly related beliefs ie the hypothesis we cease to exist when we die, the correctness of the materialist metaphysic etc.

Jesuschrist!, you just need common sense to be an atheist.

You cannot believe in something which has no a single piece of evidence and you know that. Everything which is alternative to materialism is nothing more than pure speculation. You just admitted that.

You dismiss what Science has achieved, however I ask you, what have mysticism or mental monism done to increase human knowledge about how the Universe works? Nothing, nada, zero.

[Franko]

Q-Source:
You dismiss what Science has achieved, however I ask you, what have mysticism or mental monism done to increase human knowledge about how the Universe works? Nothing, nada, zero.

A-Theism <> Science

What exactly has A-Theism done to increase human knowledge?

Tell people that coins ALWAYS land TAILS up because there is no evidence that they will land HEADS up? You call that "Science" Q-Source???

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Franko


You certainly don't seem to have ANY trouble believing the A-THEIST fairy tale that you have magic "free willy" powers! (credulous hypocritical moron)

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious then CAR, TLOP (God) is more conscious then YOU.

But YOU go right along believing in your fairy tales ...

Bzzzt. Wrong! I believe "free will" might very well be non-existent and all my actions are predetermined by the state of the universe, or at best happen semi-randomly based on aforementioned state and "quantum fluctuations" or somesuch. And having admitted that to myself I then ignore it, because it's of no use to me, and freaks me out. :) Amazing isn't it, that the universe can produce such a state that I percieve "myself" as freaked out at the thought that "my" thoughts are a mere product of a series of predetermined or semi-random events?

[Skeptical Greg]

I apologize if someone has already thrown this out, but since the need to define Atheism seems to come up from time
to time, as if there is something new to add, which there isn't, I'll throw out my 'old' stuff along with the rest.

Atheism is a religion or philosophy, if not liking tennis ( fill in your own ' I don't care for), is a sport.

For some, Atheism might be ' anti ' theist, and they would do well to identify themselves as such.

I label myself as Atheist, because I have no evidence for the existence of a supernatural
being that interacts with human beings in a verifiable manner.

This definition would fit the true connotation of the ' A ' in Atheist, meaning " without "...

I suggest that people who are so intent on defining what an Atheist is, might do well to try define their own philosophy in a coherent manner, and then compare notes with someone who claims to be an Atheist.

If you call yourself an Atheist, and are still trying to decide what it is, in my opinion, you have mislabeled yourself.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No it's not. This is a misapprehension of what atheism means that apparently many atheists share. It is the positive affirmation that there is no existent which could reasonably come under the label of "god".

This might be pretty good if you modified it slightly.. i.e..

I ( the Atheist ) have found no existent which could reasonably come under the label of "god".


Not saying you should.. ( modify your statement )..

Just showing how a small change could make it work for me, without significantly altering the idea you have presented..

[Franko]

bjornart:
Bzzzt. Wrong! I believe "free will" might very well be non-existent and all my actions are predetermined by the state of the universe, or at best happen semi-randomly based on aforementioned state and "quantum fluctuations" or somesuch. And having admitted that to myself I then ignore it, because it's of no use to me, and freaks me out. Amazing isn't it, that the universe can produce such a state that I percieve "myself" as freaked out at the thought that "my" thoughts are a mere product of a series of predetermined or semi-random events?

So you are conceding that The Laws of Physics control all of your actions, your movements, your motion through spacetime?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


A-Theism <> Science

You always forget this one. :rolleyes:


What exactly has A-Theism done to increase human knowledge?

Nothing.


Tell people that coins ALWAYS land TAILS up because there is no evidence that they will land HEADS up? You call that "Science" Q-Source???

There is no evidence at all to accept or reject the God question.

You prove Ho: there is a god

[Franko]

There is no evidence at all to accept or reject the God question.

Then you are an Agonstic NOT an Atheist.

Why do you persist in deliberately mislabelling yourself? Intellectually it is misleading and dishonest.

Agonsticism: God = Unknown
Atheism: God = False

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Franko


A-Theism <> Science

What exactly has A-Theism done to increase human knowledge?



The answer to that is absolutely nothing at all. It was precisely the belief in an all powerful God which made the birth of science possible. If intellectuals in the 17th century had mostly been atheists our present technological society almost certainly wouldn't have existed.

So much for atheism increasing human knowledge :rolleyes:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Franko


Then you are an Agonstic NOT an Atheist.

Why do you persist in deliberately mislabelling yourself? Intellectually it is misleading and dishonest.

Agonsticism: God = Unknown
Atheism: God = False

and

Atheism: God = NOT True

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Franko


So you are conceding that The Laws of Physics control all of your actions, your movements, your motion through spacetime?

In science a 'law' is merely a theory that has extremely good backing, and most of them have a limited scope. I'm conceding though, that based on my, perhaps faulty, understanding of the universe, there is no evidence supporting the existence of free will. The existence of free will however is not a necessary component in my philosophy, the illusion of free will suffices.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko


Then you are an Agonstic NOT an Atheist.

Why do you persist in deliberately mislabelling yourself? Intellectually it is misleading and dishonest.

Agonsticism: God = Unknown
Atheism: God = False

I am an atheist because this is just a belief. I have no evidence at all, but I prefer to assume that there is no God because things make sense under this assumption.

It is just a bet, what side do I think the coin will land on?. You choose heads up, I choose tails up. None of us know the outcome yet...

It is not rational, it is not logical, but we need to believe in something. I don't think it is dishonest because atheism/theism is based on beliefs not on knowledge.

Q

[Franko]

Interesting Ian:

The answer to that is absolutely nothing at all. It was precisely the belief in an all powerful God which made the birth of science possible. If intellectuals in the 17th century had mostly been atheists our present technological society almost certainly wouldn't have existed.

So much for atheism increasing human knowledge

What's that saying about great minds ... ;)

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If intellectuals in the 17th century had mostly been atheists our present technological society almost certainly wouldn't have existed.

How do you come to this conclusion? What is it in not believing in a god that would have prevented them from searching for order in the universe?

[Franko]

Bjornart,

There is a guy on this forum nicknamed Bjorn. You aren’t a relation by any chance?

In science a 'law' is merely a theory that has extremely good backing, and most of them have a limited scope. I'm conceding though, that based on my, perhaps faulty, understanding of the universe, there is no evidence supporting the existence of free will. The existence of free will however is not a necessary component in my philosophy, the illusion of free will suffices.

Okay, good enough. You are at least conceding to the possibility that your actions are all preordained. But if that is the case then:

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

(where TLOP = The Laws of Physics)

So in the same way that YOU are more conscious then CAR, TLOP must be more conscious then YOU.

For several years I have kept a small stone in my pocket. It is a non-descript little pebble; I picked it up from the ground one day while I was pondering the subject of fate.

Often when I am on the phone, or in a meeting, or just plain bored, I will take out my little pebble and roll it around between my fingers, or push it across my desk. And sometimes I wonder if that little rock imagines that it is living a life of great adventure compared to some other rock lying undisturbed for millennia at the bottom of the ocean, or on the surface of the moon. As I roll that little stone about I ponder if it imagines it has free will.

Now I ask you Bjornart, in what way is that tiny stone superior to Me – the unseen force which moves it? I control its Fate. I am master of its Destiny. I could crush it with a hammer, or I could fling it into a deep dark pool to be lost and forgotten.

To that little pebble, I am a God!

So are you certain that there is no evidence for “god”?

If you aren’t certain, then why claim that there is “no god”??? Isn’t that misleading and hypocritical?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The answer to that is absolutely nothing at all. It was precisely the belief in an all powerful God which made the birth of science possible. If intellectuals in the 17th century had mostly been atheists our present technological society almost certainly wouldn't have existed.

So much for atheism increasing human knowledge :rolleyes:

Again, I feel you are making some excellent points here..

Particularly that the search for an understanding of God gave rise to Science as we know it today..

Ironic, that this search should serve to reveal a rational explanation for phenomenon, that previously
could only be attributable to God.

.. so to paraphrase your last statement..

The increase in human knowledge did give rise to Atheism.

[Franko]

Q-Source,

That is called Being a dire Pessimist!

I am an atheist because this is just a belief. I have no evidence at all, but I prefer to assume that there is no God because things make sense under this assumption.

How does assuming you have “free will” and there will be no consequences for your actions make sense? How does believing things which are obviously self-contradictory “make sense”?

How does claiming that “you believe” a coin will land TAILS up because there is no evidence it will land HEADS up make sense?

It is just a bet, what side do I think the coin will land on?. You choose heads up, I choose tails up. None of us know the outcome yet...

Right – that is called Pascal’s Wager, yet for some strange reason you and the other A-Theists are all rooting to LOSE!

I don’t know why anyone would play the great game of existence and try for the loss, I guess some people are just inherently pessimistic and suffer from terminal depression?

When you go on a job interview do you go in with the attitude that you are not going to get the job? When you take a class at school do you automatically assume that you are going to get a bad grade and fail the class? What is the difference? Why is this your essential line of reasoning for your metaphysical beliefs?

It is not rational, it is not logical, but we need to believe in something. I don't think it is dishonest because atheism/theism is based on beliefs not on knowledge.

Logical deism is based solely on Logic. As it turns out though … logic is a fundamentally optimistic pursuit … then again, so is existence. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bjornart


How do you come to this conclusion? What is it in not believing in a god that would have prevented them from searching for order in the universe?

Because intellectuals were disposed to feel that the world was beyond human comprehension, and that they couldn't possibly surpass the intellectual acheivements of the ancient Greeks in anycase.

But then they thought "Hang on, if an all powerful benevolent God exists of which our minds are a reflection, wouldn't he have created a Universe operating according to rules which we may be able to discern"?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Franko
Bjornart,

There is a guy on this forum nicknamed Bjorn. You aren’t a relation by any chance?
Bjørn is a common Scandinavian first name, it means bear. I have relatives named Bjørn, but they don't hang out on this board.


Okay, good enough. You are at least conceding to the possibility that your actions are all preordained. But if that is the case then:
TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR
(where TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
So in the same way that YOU are more conscious then CAR, TLOP must be more conscious then YOU.


Nope, doesn't follow. Consciousness cannot be defined in relation to the physical laws of the universe, it's a philosophical notion. By my definition consciousness is binary. A car isn't conscious, a chimpanzee probably is, a rock isn't conscious, a fish... probably isn't. The underlying structure of the universe... who knows? It appears to be deterministic, in which case there is no need for it to be conscious.


If you aren’t certain, then why claim that there is “no god”??? Isn’t that misleading and hypocritical?
Why make any claim? I also claim there are no fairies, no hobbits and no boojum, outside of fiction. Do you also call that misleading and hypocritical? The fiction of god or gods or spirits is as old as mankind, but to me that doesn't give it any value above later fiction, except in the importance of understanding it when interpreting the actions of those who believe it.

[Franko]

Nope, doesn't follow. Consciousness cannot be defined in relation to the physical laws of the universe, it's a philosophical notion. By my definition consciousness is binary. A car isn't conscious, a chimpanzee probably is, a rock isn't conscious, a fish... probably isn't. The underlying structure of the universe... who knows? It appears to be deterministic, in which case there is no need for it to be conscious.

Then explain how a non-conscious entity can control a conscious one?

Are you seriously claiming that when you drive your CAR, that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are? If that is not what you are claiming, then how can TLOP being controlling YOU in an analogous fashion, yet be less conscious then YOU? That is a contradiction in your worldview.

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

YOU are more conscious then CAR.
TLOP (God) is more conscious then YOU.

If not, then explain away the contradiction in your beliefs?

Franko:
If you aren’t certain, then why claim that there is “no god”??? Isn’t that misleading and hypocritical?

Bear-art:
Why make any claim? I also claim there are no fairies, no hobbits and no boojum, outside of fiction. Do you also call that misleading and hypocritical?

Hey, maybe “fairies” live on some distant planet. Are you prepared to say that this is impossible? Like you said why make any claim?

Agnosticism = Not enough Information = Unknown

The fiction of god or gods or spirits is as old as mankind, but to me that doesn't give it any value above later fiction, except in the importance of understanding it when interpreting the actions of those who believe it.

If you don’t believe in “free will” then you believe in “god” you just aren’t calling it “god”. If your actions are preordained by The Laws of Physics, then you are conceding that a higher power (or force) is controlling you. All of the empirical scientific evidence says that this is the case. But calling “god” “TLOP” and pretending that She is not conscious doesn’t alter what is True in reality.

If TLOP is non-conscious, then you are non-conscious. Do you feel non-conscious?

[DrMatt]

There's an old riddle which goes:

"How many legs does a lamb have, if you call a tail a leg?"

The official answer is 4.

My position on this is a bit more subtle. I maintain that the question itself is ambiguous. Anybody who cannot understand the official answer probably needs help learning to think clearly. Anybody who thinks the official answer is the one correct answer will probably end up unnecessarily talking at cross-purposes with others.

The ambiguity of the question arrises because "if you call a tail a leg" implies the presense of two different languages--one in which the word "leg" applies to tails, and one in which it doesn't--but the riddle doesn't tell us which language the question is asked in.

Similarly, words like "atheist" and "religion" are often bandied about with great ambiguity--or even with skewed ideology. The likelyhood that nonsense is taking refuge in equivocation of words is just about 1.0, as soon as the word "religion" appears in a discussion by more than three people.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

That is called Being a dire Pessimist!

I don't see how and why.


How does assuming you have “free will” and there will be no consequences for your actions make sense?

I have FW, therefore I am responsible for my own actions here. There is no God who will listen to my prayers or forgive my sins.
It makes sense because I don't feel as a puppet.

Fatalists think that they cannot change their destiny, so they just sit and wait quietly. That is just conformism.


How does believing things which are obviously self-contradictory “make sense”?

Such as...?


How does claiming that “you believe” a coin will land TAILS up because there is no evidence it will land HEADS up make sense?

According to you, it makes a lot of sense to believe that Gravity is conscious. It makes sense to think that the Universe is an illusion in the mind of the LG.


Logical deism is based solely on Logic. As it turns out though … logic is a fundamentally optimistic pursuit … then again, so is existence.

Logic is just logic. You think that believing in the after-death life is optimism, but you just lie yourself, because it is only wishful thinking.

[Franko]

Q-Source,

I don't see how and why.

I told you why … you are playing Pascal’s wager and rooting to lose. That’s called insanity.

I have FW, therefore I am responsible for my own actions here. There is no God who will listen to my prayers or forgive my sins.

If you are in a plane that is about to crash, or if an asteroid is heading towards the Earth, or if you are about to give birth and you want a healthy baby, prayer is about the only thing you will find you have.

It makes sense because I don't feel as a puppet.

Your CAR told me the same thing.

Fatalists think that they cannot change their destiny, so they just sit and wait quietly. That is just conformism.

You don’t understand Fatalism. Do I seem like the sit quietly type Source?

I am the Arch-Enemy of conformity, I put that bitch down personally.

Such as...?

You believe that No evidence makes something False when you want it to (NO God), and that other times No evidence makes something True when you want it to (You have “free will”). That called being logically inconsistent.

According to you, it makes a lot of sense to believe that Gravity is conscious. It makes sense to think that the Universe is an illusion in the mind of the LG.

And where do you think the little Gravitons have been hiding all of this Time? Like I said before Source, without Time consciousness cannot exist, and without consciousness, Time cannot exist.

Logic is just logic.

You and the other A-Theists don’t understand something very fundamental about Logic.

You think that believing in the after-death life is optimism, but you just lie yourself, because it is only wishful thinking.

If the evidence indicated that I would “cease to exist”, then I would say that I will one day “cease to exist”, but the evidence doesn’t say that.

You A-Theists are just Pessimist. You don’t really enjoy existence – deep down maybe you want it to end. So you use your wishful thinking to wish that you will “cease to exist”. Maybe, in this case … wishing will make your dream come True???

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko
You A-Theists are just Pessimist. You don’t really enjoy existence – deep down maybe you want it to end. So you use your wishful thinking to wish that you will “cease to exist”. Maybe, in this case … wishing will make your dream come True???

Thanks for telling me about me. I didn't know that deep down I want to end my existence. Now I know, thanks to you, Franko. Is there anything else I need to know about myself?

[Franko]

Thanks for telling me about me. I didn't know that deep down I want to end my existence. Now I know, thanks to you, Franko. Is there anything else I need to know about myself?

Well if that isn't the case, then will you kindly give me your empirical evidence for believing you will "cease to exist"?

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko Well if that isn't the case, then will you kindly give me your empirical evidence for believing you will "cease to exist"?

Will you kindly give me ANY evidence that I implied that I will "cease to exist"?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko

If you are in a plane that is about to crash, or if an asteroid is heading towards the Earth, or if you are about to give birth and you want a healthy baby, prayer is about the only thing you will find you have.

No, you cannot know this. I wouldn't pray to God because I don't believe it exists.

It is kind of praying to Mickey Mouse in a critical moment. Would you really do that?



Your CAR told me the same thing.

Do you talk to cars?



You don’t understand Fatalism. Do I seem like the sit quietly type Source?

No, I don't undestand it the way you do.

How can a soldier like yourself believe that there is nothing we can do to change our future?.


You believe that No evidence makes something False when you want it to (NO God), and that other times No evidence makes something True when you want it to (You have “free will”). That called being logically inconsistent.

I told you before (many times now) that I do not claim something is false when there is no evidence.

This is not intellectually honest, Franko.



You and the other A-Theists don’t understand something very fundamental about Logic.

Then, do not bother in explaining any logic to me.


You A-Theists are just Pessimist. You don’t really enjoy existence – deep down maybe you want it to end. So you use your wishful thinking to wish that you will “cease to exist”. Maybe, in this case … wishing will make your dream come True???

Thank you, that was very nice.

[Franko]

Will you kindly give me ANY evidence that I implied that I will "cease to exist"?

Having trouble with your own beliefs?

Either you want to debate or not. If you want to debate then pick a side, and defend it. Otherwise run along.

[Yahzi]

I don't think it is dishonest because atheism/theism is based on beliefs not on knowledge.
Uh, no.

There is no belief involved in my athiesm.

For the thousandth time: I am going to imagine a creature next week, which I will name a Groo. Tell me right now: what is your position regarding the existances of Groos? Do you possess a belief that they do not exist, or do you merely lack a belief that they do? Do you actively possess a belief that every possible imaginary creature which I have not yet named does not exist? That's a lot of beliefs... a infinite amount, even.

Isn't it just more logical to say that you lack a belief in these entities? In the same way, I lack a belief in God. No belief involved, I simply don't have one. I don't believe God exists in exactly the same way I don't believe imaginary creatures which you have not yet made up exist.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko


Having trouble with your own beliefs?

Either you want to debate or not. If you want to debate then pick a side, and defend it. Otherwise run along.

I have trouble with other people telling me that I want to cease to exist.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Isn't it just more logical to say that you lack a belief in these entities? In the same way, I lack a belief in God. No belief involved, I simply don't have one. I don't believe God exists in exactly the same way I don't believe imaginary creatures which you have not yet made up exist.

O.K. I lack a belief in God, but this "lack of belief" does not exist in a vaccum, right?

[Franko]

Q-Source,

No, you cannot know this. I wouldn't pray to God because I don't believe it exists.

If you thought you were about to die, and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it (just wait sooner or later this ALWAYS happens) then you may see things differently.

It is kind of praying to Mickey Mouse in a critical moment. Would you really do that?

It’s all Fate Baby. In my experience if all you have available is a futile gesture then a futile gesture is all you have.

Source:
It makes sense because I don't feel as a puppet.

Franko:
Your CAR told me the same thing.

Source:
Do you talk to cars?

Chickie, for all you know You are God, and I am simply a figment of your imagination.

So are you sure you are talking to “Me”? Maybe you are just talking to yourself?

How can TLOP control you in the same way YOU control CAR, and yet TLOP be less conscious then YOU? Is it possible that your CAR is more conscious then YOU, because you seem to be telling me that less conscious things (TLOP) control more conscious things (YOU).

Franko:
You believe that No evidence makes something False when you want it to (NO God), and that other times No evidence makes something True when you want it to (You have “free will”). That called being logically inconsistent.

Source:
I told you before (many times now) that I do not claim something is false when there is no evidence.

You are telling me that you don’t believe there is a God and you have conceded that you have NO EVIDENCE for this belief.

If what you are claiming was actually TRUE, then you would be labeling yourself AGNOSTIC instead of ATHEIST.

Thank you, that was very nice.

It’s the TRUTH. Whether you perceive it or not is all dependant on your preordained Destiny.

[Franko]

I have trouble with other people telling me that I want to cease to exist.

Well since you can't give me a logical reason for believing it, what else would I assume?

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko


Well since you can't give me a logical reason for believing it, what else would I assume?

What are you talking about? First you tell me that I want to cease to exist, and then you ask me to prove it to you?

[Franko]

What are you talking about? First you tell me that I want to cease to exist, and then you ask me to prove it to you?

You assume that you will cease to exist based on your pessimistic A-Theistic nature.

You have no evidence for this belief. You just hope that it is True.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
If you thought you were about to die, and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it (just wait sooner or later this ALWAYS happens) then you may see things differently.

Does that make it true?


Chickie, for all you know You are God, and I am simply a figment of your imagination.

So are you sure you are talking to “Me”? Maybe you are just talking to yourself?

I know what this means in Franko's language.

This means that we don't have anything to discuss.



You are telling me that you don’t believe there is a God and you have conceded that you have NO EVIDENCE for this belief.

If what you are claiming was actually TRUE, then you would be labeling yourself AGNOSTIC instead of ATHEIST.

Does it change anything at all, Franko?

DOES IT??

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko
You assume that you will cease to exist based on your pessimistic A-Theistic nature.

You have no evidence for this belief. You just hope that it is True.

Where does my wanting to "cease to exist" come in?

Edited to add: If you can't prove it, end of discussion. Assumptions just won't do.

[Franko]

Q-Source,

Does that make it true?

Yes, but I think you may be misunderstanding me.

If Fatalism is True, then your actions are preordained, and prayer would make perfect logical sense. People “pray” when they realize that their Destiny is not under their own control.

I know what this means in Franko's language.

This means that we don't have anything to discuss.

No, it means how do you know that you are not all that exist? You ever had a dream at night? Your mind is generating that reality isn’t it? So you know that your mind is capable of generating a reality. How do you know that this is not what is happening this very instant?

How can you prove that this is not the case? I’ll tell you, that one way or the other there is a “god” Q-Source, the only question that remains is whether there is any one other than the person reading this to occupy the position.

Does it change anything at all, Franko?

DOES IT??

Only if honesty matters in reality Q-Source.

[Franko]

Where does my wanting to "cease to exist" come in?

Why else does someone believe something that there is no evidence for believing?

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko
Why else does someone believe something that there is no evidence for believing?

If you don't have anything to contribute, don't start asking irrelevant questions. If you want to discuss the above, please start a new topic.

[Q-Source]

Speaking of irrelevant questions...

I like you avatar Fidiot. Who are they?

[Franko]

If you don't have anything to contribute, don't start asking irrelevant questions. If you want to discuss the above, please start a new topic.

So you see what I am saying ... you just don't want to concede?

Why aren't I surprised A-Theist ... ?

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Franko


So you see what I am saying ... you just don't want to concede?

Why aren't I surprised A-Theist ... ?

Obviously you don't see what I'm saying. Asking questions that are irrelevant to the original question doesn't prove anything. If you want to talk about how atheists have no proof that people cease to exist when they die, start a new thread on that topic. I, however, asked you to prove that I WANT to "cease to exist"(which you claimed), and that means that you either prove it or put up with the fact that you are wrong. The moment that I step up and pronounce that I know that human beings cease to exist when they die, is the moment that I will argue about it. You, on the other hand, start asking new questions instead of answering directly.

[Franko]

Franko:
You and the other A-Theists don’t understand something very fundamental about Logic.

Q-Source:
Then, do not bother in explaining any logic to me.

Q-Source, do you think that you were born knowing as much about Logic as you know today?

I’d say that you awareness of logic is directly proportional to your self-awareness. I’d say that they both increase over Time.

So do you think that one person can teach another person Logic Q-Source? Do they teach Logic courses in School?

[Franko]

fidiot,

If you are happy ceasing to exist, then Buddy ... I am happy for you. Good luck! ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
...do you think that you were born knowing as much about Logic as you know today?
Most high school students understand more about logic than those who are unable to recognize a flawed syllogism.


I’d say that you awareness of logic is directly proportional to your self-awareness. I’d say that they both increase over Time.
Your awareness of logic will increase a lot faster if you actually study it. (hint hint)

Originally posted by Franko
So do you think that one person can teach another person Logic. Do they teach Logic courses in School?
Yes and yes (for example) (http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/Smith/1Alogic.html) . Of course there is always the occasional student who is unable to learn regardless of how many lessons he has.

[Franko]

Most high school students understand more about logic than those who are unable to recognize a flawed syllogism.

You mean that you still believe that 2 + 2 = 4 is flawed, and yet you still can’t precisely explain what the “invisible flaw” actually is?

I thought you agreed that even by your definition of the term “obey” that YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS?

Waffling again Tricky? Consistency seems to cause you a lot of trouble. Hey … I could go back to the thread and dig it up, but Soubrette is about as neutral as it gets in here, and even she disagreed with you in the end.

Your awareness of logic will increase a lot faster if you actually study it. (hint hint)

Coming from the guy who claims that TOAST is more complex than a human being, and that he has magical “free willy” powers that allow him to control the laws of physics, and that universes magically appear out of no where, that is rather comical Trixy.

Perhaps you’ll teach me more of what you know about “logic”?? :)

Yes and yes (for example) . Of course there is always the occasional student who is unable to learn regardless of how many lessons he has.

You seem to have difficulty giving a lesson in why you believe you are able to make “choices”? What is the “YOU” that is making the “choice” Trixy? I thought that “YOU” were nothing more than atoms obeying the same laws that any other chemicals obey? If you are claiming that this is not the case, then why do you repeatedly refuse to explain how you think it works?

If Fatalism is True, then your claim that NO GOD EXIST would be utterly ridiculous. I wonder if after dedicating such a large portion of your existence to the doctrine of A-Theism if you would even be capable of conceding this point, regardless of what evidence was presented?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Uh, no.

There is no belief involved in my athiesm.

For the thousandth time: I am going to imagine a creature next week, which I will name a Groo. Tell me right now: what is your position regarding the existances of Groos? Do you possess a belief that they do not exist, or do you merely lack a belief that they do?

What a dipstick :rolleyes:

In this case we would lack a belief in your "groo". But your groo is not comparable to a particular conception of God. You know, you really need to get away from this idea of God being a thing in the world existing amongst other existents.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What a dipstick :rolleyes:

In this case we would lack a belief in your "groo". But your groo is not comparable to a particular conception of God.

How do you know? You don't even know what a groo is, and you think you can claim to know it's properties?




You know, you really need to get away from this idea of God being a thing in the world existing amongst other existents.

So God doesn't exist, then? OK...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

What a dipstick

In this case we would lack a belief in your "groo". But your groo is not comparable to a particular conception of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How do you know? You don't even know what a groo is, and you think you can claim to know it's properties?



If a groo is a physical existent then it is not comparable to a particular conception of God. As atheists almost invariably tend to be materialists/physicals, and as materialism holds that reality is exhausted once one has provided a complete physical description of the world, then it is a pretty safe guess that when any atheist proposes an existent it will be extremely like that that existent will be physical, and hence wholly unlike a particular appropriate conceptualisation of "God".





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, you really need to get away from this idea of God being a thing in the world existing amongst other existents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So God doesn't exist, then? OK...

No, you are pre-supposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic. In as much as materialism implies atheism this conclusion is circular.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If a groo is a physical existent

Whoever said it was? That is something you have made up.

As I said, you don't even know what it is, yet you proclaim to know its properties.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Tricky


Your awareness of logic will increase a lot faster if you actually study it. (hint hint)


Yes and yes (for example) (http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/Smith/1Alogic.html) . Of course there is always the occasional student who is unable to learn regardless of how many lessons he has.

Hey Tricky,

Good link.

I think that most people confuse "common sense" with Logic, so just because something makes sense in their heads, they think that it has to be logical.

Logic is Art and it requires some years to learn such skills and to apply them properly.

Q

[Tom Head]

Originally posted by Gregor
Another may be nihilism, or humanism, or hopism (a nod to Martin Gardner who doesn't believe in a god, but hoping for a 'superior being' gives psychological comfort). Actually, Gardner is a theist (he explicitly describes himself as such in The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener)--but he's a theist of the fideist Miguel de Unamuno/Soren Kierkegaard school, which does not claim to ground belief in God in proof or special revelation.


Cheers,

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tom Head
Actually, Gardner is a theist (he explicitly describes himself as such in The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener)--but he's a theist of the fideist Miguel de Unamuno/Soren Kierkegaard school, which does not claim to ground belief in God in proof or special revelation.

Cheers,
That sounds more like a Deist than a Theist, but I have always argued that people are what they call themselves.

[Aardvark_DK]

Franko, a few days ago I claimed that you were never rude to the women at this forum. I was wrong. Sorry.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Your awareness of logic will increase a lot faster if you actually study it.
Aside:

For anyone interested in logic, I would highly recomend:

The Logic Book, Second Edition by Merrie Bergmann, James Morr, and Jack Nelson. Published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright 1990.

It's the book we used in my Symbolic Logic class in college. I think it's a remarkably easy read and very understandable. I still pull it out from time to time to refresh myself.

edited to add:

Originally posted by Q-Source

I think that most people confuse "common sense" with Logic, so just because something makes sense in their heads, they think that it has to be logical.
Too true, Q.

Common sense tells us that the ground beneth our feet is solid. Systematic application of logic along with emperical observation tells us otherwise. Of course, I'm sure that we could give examples of the differences between common sense and logic ad nauseum.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Aside:

For anyone interested in logic, I would highly recomend:

The Logic Book, Second Edition by Merrie Bergmann, James Morr, and Jack Nelson. Published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright 1990.

It's the book we used in my Symbolic Logic class in college. I think it's a remarkably easy read and very understandable. I still pull it out from time to time to refresh myself.
Thanks, Upchoice. I looked at The Logic Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0079130836/qid=1045496548/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1795435-4655017?v=glance&s=books) on Amazon.com, and it does look good. A bit pricey though. Perhaps I can find a used copy.

[pointless aside] I noted that in the "People who bought this book also bought" section was this book.
How to Give Her Absolute Pleasure: Totally Explicit Techniques Every Woman Wants Her Man to Know.

Makes you wonder if logical people need help in the boudoir.:D
[/pointless aside]

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

A bit pricey though.
Are you suggesting that universities force their students to purchace overpriced books for their classes? :eek:

Seriously, I feel your pain. I got mine used about 7 years ago and the stupid thing was $40 (left the sticker on it). The real crooks aren't on the streets. They're in university book stores. :mad:

edited to add:

Apparently, not only do logicians need help in bed, but they also read Tolkien, are conservative apologetics ("Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism" by William J. Bennett) AND outraged liberals ("Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!" by Michael Moore)

Those wacky logicians!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Are you suggesting that universities force their students to purchace overpriced books for their classes? :eek:

Seriously, I feel your pain. I got mine used about 7 years ago and the stupid thing was $40 (left the sticker on it). The real crooks aren't on the streets. They're in university book stores. :mad:

The publishers are a lot to blame, changing editions in order to kill the used book market.

I am part of one of the most coveted textbook contracts in the country. Publishers go to great extremes to get our contract. The last time we went through this, we specified in the contract that we would use the same edition throughout the life of the contract. My purpose for pushing this was to keep a used text market for the students. Of course, after two years they changed the edition, and we objected. So to appease us, they created a special edition of the text, in soft cover and missing a couple of chapters, that they sold at the used text price. We accepted that.

Now comes the time to renew our contract. Personally, I want to change texts (for unrelated reasons). We'll see.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


The publishers are a lot to blame, changing editions in order to kill the used book market.
I meant no offence. I was just venting some old frustration with a system I'm not even in anymore.

Well, that and I thought it was funny. I do that.

Sorry.

[Tom Head]

Originally posted by Tricky
Thanks, Upchoice. I looked at The Logic Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0079130836/qid=1045496548/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1795435-4655017?v=glance&s=books) on Amazon.com, and it does look good. A bit pricey though. Perhaps I can find a used copy.I just bought a like-new copy for about five bucks off Half.com, and there are a few others at that price (or very close to it).


Cheers,