On Agnosticism

[AtheistWorld.Com]

This thread is not about the definition of agnosticism. This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.

Agnosticism should be defined by the idea that the existence of GOD is unknowable.

Agnostics are the "I don't know"ers of the skeptical world.

I once put forth an argument that agnostics are simply weak people for whom logic is not of concern.

In other words they claim that god is unknowable or that the existence of god is unknowable.

My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple. Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.

The conclusion will be that the agnostic will have graduated to the atheist grade.

To say that god is unknowable begs the question "what god?" and "what is god?" One first needs to explain these questions before one can claim that god is unknowable or that weather god does or does not exist is unknowable.


Max

[chulbert]

We've beaten this one to death. I think you will find that most of us hold the position that agnosticism is a position of knowledge whereas theism/atheism is a position of belief.

"I don't know if god exists (agnostic), but since I don't have any reliable evidence that he does, I don't believe in him (atheist)."

"I can't prove he exists (agnostic), but I marvel at the beauty of the world and feel that god must exist (theist)."

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I think you will find that most of us hold the position that agnosticism is a position of knowledge whereas theism/atheism is a position of belief.

O'contrare, agnosticism is a postion of lack of knowledge.

"I don't know if god exists (agnostic), but since I don't have any reliable evidence that he does, I don't believe in him (atheist)."
God? What god? What is god? Where is the postion of knowledge?:rolleyes:

Max

[Starrman]

This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.

I think it is completely rational to be agnostic. I think what they are saying is, I do not have the proper knowledge to know if there is a god or not, so I will not say one way or another. They are, by being agnostic, acknowleding their lack of knowledge on the subject. This is actually quite rational.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I think it is completely rational to be agnostic.
So you say...:rolleyes:

I think what they are saying is, I do not have the proper knowledge to know if there is a god or not, so I will not say one way or another.

WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD?

Max

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD? Crikey, what are you, a broken record?

The agnostic position is that those very questions you ask cannot be answered until further evidence one way or the other is obtained.

I spent a long time at the agnostic level, because I was rather insistent that god was too long-standing of a concept to write off, but too unclear to define and acknowledge.

So, I spent some time looking at all the various definitions of god(s) in various belief systems, and whether any of those were plausible. What I came up with is that there are so many ways people define god, that one true god probably doesn't exist. If there is such a god, it is not the type that regularly controls the actions in his universe. If there is one, it's so laissez-faire that discussing his existence is futile, because he never does anything. It is certainly not the nanny as defined in Christianity.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Well, the same can be said about the IPU.

Do agnostics hold the same position about the IPUs?

Max

[Peter Jenkins]

What's an IPU and where can I buy one..... They sound rather cute........

as far as i can see, an agnostic looks at the evidence and says "i'd like to see more evidence, until then, my default is that some kind of 'god of the gaps' is possible....."
An atheist looks at the evidence and says "this is enough...I consider the case proved"
I am an atheist, because i consider that there is enough eveidence in, to support my position....... However, I accept that the agnostic has a viable point of view.
P

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Well, the same can be said about the IPU.

Do agnostics hold the same position about the IPUs? I repeat:

I wrote:
I spent a long time at the agnostic level, because I was rather insistent that god was too long-standing of a concept to write off, but too unclear to define and acknowledge. The belief in unicorns has not drastically affected societies over thousands of years, nor has any society put serious thought into the attributes and behaviors of unicorns.

One can study theology, there is no such thing as unicorn-ology. You can't make the comparison, and it's a weak argument. "How can you prove I don't have an invisible unicorn under my bed?" is just stoopid, I've never liked the comparison and I still don't think it's relevant. "But there's just as much evidence for unicorns as there is for god" is wrong. There is no holy book about unicorns, much less several holy books. People don't worship unicorns. Governments have not been established in the name of unicorns. Wars have not been fought for unicorns.

There's a lot more to theism than there is to the belief in unicorns. So, as I've said multiple times, you can't write off theism the same way you write off unicorns. Only after taking time to study different belief systems and see the inconsistencies and only after examining evidence can one logcially say they lack a belief in god(s).

[AtheistWorld.Com]

an IPU is an Invisible Pink Unicorn and it is the creator of all existence and it is the supreme god of all reality.

It is a fictitious character invented by us atheists to compete with the xtian god in a humorous sense...

So are agnostics agnostic about the IPUs as well? :D

Now do you see how irrational the agnostic position is?

Agnostic: "I don't know"
Atheist: What don't you know?
Agnostic: If god exists or not.
Atheist: What god? which type?
Agnostic: Any
Atheist: Have you considered wheather it is logically possible for a god of any type to exist?
Agnostic: huh?

To put it simple, the supernatural is a logical impossibility and any god put forth by man thus far is bathed in circular reasoning.

One cannot know if the unknown does or does not exist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I think it is completely rational to be agnostic.

So you say...:rolleyes: Why isn't it a rational option?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
One cannot know if the unknown does or does not exist. Isn't that the opinion of the agnostic?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Isn't that the opinion of the agnostic?

and BINGO was his name-o

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Yes and it is irrelevant and meaningless when we are speaking of defined gods...

IF you want to speak of undefined gods than we would be practicing an excercise in futility.

That is why I asked, What god? what IS a god? etc.


ARRRRGHHHH FIXING TYPOS...

[whitefork]

I have an idol in my house. I worship it, I pray to it, I sacrifice to it.

I can touch it, I can see it, taste it, smell it, and hear it if I knock on it.

I can show it to you and you can do the same.

It answers my prayers sometimes.

I call it god. I'm not going to tell you what my idol looks like, but everything I've said about it is true.

Therefore god exists. Can you possibly deny that god exists?

You can with good reason take an agnostic position about my idol, you can accept that he exists, or you can deny that he exists. The first two choices are quite reasonable, but the third is not.

So, theism and agnosticism are valid positions with regard to my idol, but atheism does not appear to be.

[Upchurch]

What about the "hands off" God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may?

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Kullervo, we are not interested in childish reasonings... on this thread. We are speaking of the accepted forms of "gods" relevant to the nature of existance creation, evolution etc. etc.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

What about the "hands off" God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may?

Define this god? By what logical conclusion do deists conclude that such a beast did in fact do as they claim? and what is the nature of this god's character and person and/or characteristics?

We first need to know WHAT we are talking about not merely a label.

[Pahansiri]

God, Gods the subject is in totality irrelevant. Meaningless.

If there is or there is not is what is an exercise in futility.

Caring what or if others believe as to a God or Gods or people not sure or people who do not believe is also an exercise in futility as much as caring about who someone/ adults may love or sleep with.


Just what I believe.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Pahansiri
obviously this thread is not for you.

Please stay out if you have nothing relevant to contribute?

Max

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Pahansiri
obviously this thread is not for you.

Please stay out if you have nothing relevant to contribute?

Max


LOL:rolleyes:

[whitefork]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Kullervo, we are not interested in childish reasonings... on this thread. We are speaking of the accepted forms of "gods" relevant to the nature of existance creation, evolution etc. etc. You quite clearly asked what god is. I told you. It's not my problem if you don't like my answer.

Now, you say what god is. Please give a logically coherent answer - then say why his existence is impossible.

All you've apparantly said is that:

God is self-contradictory
Contradictions do not exist.
therefore god does not exist.

You've merely defined him out of existence. I'm underwhelmed.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Define this god?Funny. I thought I just did. Excuse me for repeating myself, the "God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may"
By what logical conclusion do deists conclude that such a beast did in fact do as they claim?No logic, just gut feeling.
and what is the nature of this god's character and person and/or characteristics?Extremely passive.

Now having defined this god, how is it self contradictory?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I am not interested in rants.And yet, that is what you are doing. How ironic.
You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level. Unfamiliar with the Socratic method, eh? Max, this is a skeptics' board. You couldn't have come on here and thought that no one would question your premises, surely?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.

You argue like a child youself. If you have points to make, make them with logic and reason, not with insults. You won't make ANY points around here by simply calling people names, or disparaging their arguments. This isn't your typical Internet forum, there are a lot of very smart people here, as you'd discover if you tried to communicate instead of instruct.

And if you're not here to convince us of your points, what are you doing here?

[whitefork]

You keep using that word "god". I do not believe you have a meaning for it.

Do you believe the word to be meaningless? If you do, why not simply say so?

If you believe it to have a meaning, please define it and we can discuss it.

I'm quite serious by the way. What are you trying to accomplish here?

Until you tell us, I'll assume that you're merely trolling. I have a good definition of that activity.

Now feel free to put me on ignore.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

No logic, just gut feeling.

I'm not interested in talking about irrational issues.

You have not defined this god you merely defined your claim of this god.

Let me come down to your level for a bit:

1. Is this god a he/she?
2. Is this god omnipotent?
3. Does this god exist outside space and time? if yes, what is outside space and time and how do you know?
4. Does this god need nurishment?
5. Can this god become less than god and then return to being god again?
6. By what logical process was this god conceived?
8. Where did this god come from and how do you know?
9. What else do you know about this god besides merely a claim?
10. Do you recognize the scientific method as authoritive?

Max

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Unfamiliar with the Socratic method, eh?At least someone's paying attention here.

Thanks, man. That wedding must be coming up pretty soon, right?

[Sundog]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.

There is no such thing as a true skeptic.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.

Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4

[Doubt]

I do not know if god exists. I see no evidence that there is a god. The universe as it appears to exist does quite nicely without one.

One big problem. Why is there a universe at all? The IPU analogy does not address this. The existence of a god could explain it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So how does one reach the conclusion that there is no god?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.

Speaking of psychological needs this morning, I suggest if you want to be a skeptic that you examine the kink in your own psychology that feels the need to expand "you're wrong" into "how pathetic".

You know nothing about me, youngster; I cr*p bigger than you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I'm not interested in talking about irrational issues.But you're so good at them.

No. Wait. I'm sorry. You good at being irrational. My bad.
You have not defined this god you merely defined your claim of this god.Not my claim, just a claim I've heard. As such, I'll do my best to respond.

1. Is this god a he/she? Yes or, maybe, neither. One could argue that gender might be transcended by such a thing.

2. Is this god omnipotent? Hm... Tricky word, "omnipotent". Why don't we say that this god has the ability to start the universe and step back to watch.

3. Does this god exist outside space and time? if yes, what is outside space and time and how do you know? Well, logically, spacetime is a function of the universe and doesn't exist independently from it. Since such a god must exist prior to the existance of the universe (and therefore spacetime), I'd say that this god must exist outside spacetime, or at least, doesn't need to exist in spacetime.

4. Does this god need nurishment? I honestly wouldn't know.

5. Can this god become less than god and then return to being god again? Interesting question. Since this is an extremely passive god, let's say that it doesn't, whether or not it has the ability to.

6. By what logical process was this god conceived? Okay, gut feeling aside, let's take an ID approach with this god, shall we? There is too much order to the world for there not to be an intelligence behind it. However, this god just set the initial conditions and rules and let the chips fall where they may with no further intervention.

8. Where did this god come from and how do you know? I don't know and I don't, but there are many things about the universe I don't know and it hasn't stopped me from investigating them.

9. What else do you know about this god besides merely a claim? Nothing other than it's a possibility that doesn't interfere with current understanding of science.

10. Do you recignize the scientific method as authoritive? When it comes to the nature of reality, I do. edited to add: incedently, what does my opinon of science have to do with the definition of this god?

Can you now show a logical contradiction in this god?

<hr>Originally posted by Kullvero
At least someone's paying attention here.I try. :D
Thanks, man. That wedding must be coming up pretty soon, right?November 15th. The pressure is on. So many details....

[whitefork]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.
Relative to what, I ask? Logic is not relative - it is in fact quite absolute. Would you care to divulge your definitions of "logic" and "reason" before we decide what is a valid argument for the existence of god?

Here are two exercises for you. Please tell me whether the arguments are valid or not.

Some Muslims are Saudis
Some Saudis are terrorists
Therefore, some Muslims are terrorists.

The sun is shining.
The sun is not shining.
Therefore, my house is pink

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
This thread is not about the definition of agnosticism. This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.

Agnostics are the "I don't know"ers of the skeptical world.

I once put forth an argument that agnostics are simply weak people for whom logic is not of concern.

In other words they claim that god is unknowable or that the existence of god is unknowable.

My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple.

What god? What is a god? Please provide the exact definition of god you are using here.

Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.

The conclusion will be that the agnostic will have graduated to the atheist grade.

To say that god is unknowable begs the question "what god?" and "what is god?" One first needs to explain these questions before one can claim that god is unknowable or that weather god does or does not exist is unknowable.
Max

Yes, as does one who says the concept of God is a logical impossibility.

Please demonstrate your claim that the concept of God is a logical impossibility using Gods from 3 major religions today.

Then show how this type of proof can be extended to any concept of God.

Adam

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Nothing other than it's a possibility that doesn't interfere with current understanding of science.

really? Does current understanding of science have anything to say about things ourside space and time? If not how is the existence of your god a "possibility"?

Max

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


really? Does current understanding of science have anything to say about things ourside space and time? If not how is the existence of your god a "possibility"?
Nothing in science says there can't be something outside spacetime. It just isn't defined by science. Thoughout history there have been a lot of things that weren't defined science until later.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Sundog
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is simply disturbing evidence to me that atheists can be as irrational as anyone else.

There is no such thing as a true skeptic.

Greetings Sundog.

While I fully agree with the first statement the second There is no such thing as a true skeptic.

I do not believe is true. Of course there will be people who act in a silly ego filled way on all “sides” but there also people who can have a logical, respectful decision on all sides without letting emotion an and it’s base ego arise and control their actions.

Our friend AtheistWorld.Com’s actions are like that of many conservative Christians attacking with anger and ego ( fear) anyone who will not believe as they do or may disagree with them.

It is all ego and ego is fear, they feel they just HAVE to be right for if the other is right they would be wrong and this just can not be handled, again.

A true skeptic a person really seeking truth does not fear learning something new or being wrong if they are wrong. Science is about being proven wrong over and over to find the truth.

As is often the case Upchurch if pointing out the hypocrisy in our new friends posts.

We could simply replace there is “ONLY ONE TRUTH and GOD and I HAVE IT” with AtheistWorld.Com’s there is “ is NO GOD and ONLY ONE TRUTH and I HAVE IT”.

Just what I believe.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Our friend AtheistWorld.Com’s actions are like that of many conservative Christians attacking with anger and ego ( fear) anyone who will not believe as they do or may disagree with them.

When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful. We're skeptics. When we see a claim, we like to challenge it. Your claim was:My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple. Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.Before we can address the second part of the claim (agnosticism is illogical) we must first address the first part fo the claim (the concept of god is simply a logical impossibility).

If you could prove the first part, you would be much further along in prove the second part.

And is there really any need for name calling? This is an honest discussion and I've done my best to answer all your questions concerning defining a God who might be logically consistant. Can you find a flaw?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Greetings Sundog.

While I fully agree with the first statement the second

I do not believe is true. Just what I believe.

Hi Pahansiri!

Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, what I really mean by that is more like: No one is capable of a truly skeptical attitude at all times, and those who are sure they are being completely skeptical are very often failing to examine themselves and their own arguments skeptically.

We have graphic examples of this here, all the time. AW is just the latest one.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
We're skeptics. When we see a claim, we like to challenge it. Your claim was:Before we can address the second part of the claim (agnosticism is illogical) we must first address the first part fo the claim (the concept of god is simply a logical impossibility).

If you could prove the first part, you would be much further along in prove the second part.

And is there really any need for name calling? This is an honest discussion and I've done my best to answer all your questions concerning defining a God who might be logically consistant. Can you find a flaw?
Whazzup? Didn't he promise to put you on Ignore yesterday?

[metacristi]

AtheistWorld.com

I once put forth an argument that agnostics are simply weak people for whom logic is not of concern.


Agnosticism is a much more complex position than seems at first sight.I agree that it is primarily concerned with knowledge [usually defined as meaning 'scientific,objective,knowledge' for which we have arguments beyond all reasonable doubt] however this is not enough to engulf the whole domain of agnosticism.Indeed those who say that 'God cannot be known [forever]','hard agnostics' in my acception,are rather in a minority among agnostics.The majority of them simply say that we do not have,for the moment,evidence beyond all reasonable doubt pro/con God therefore they cannot make a rational decision to believe or to disbelieve prefering neither to believe nor to disbelieve ['suspend judgement regarding belief/disbelief' but only for the moment]-'weak' agnosticism in my acception.

Under the generic umbrella of 'weak' agnosticism there are two main subtypes:for some agnostics only scientific arguments proving/disproving the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt are accepted when dealing with the belief/disbelief problem whilst for some others 'sufficient reasons to believe/disbelieve do not mean only 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but also enough evidence [different from proof,arguments beyond all reasonable doubt or certitudes!] that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.

For example in the latter case of 'weak' agnosticism the agnostic conlcudes that there is also enough mysterious 'subjective evidence' that might be taken into account,that in spite of the 'successes' of naturalism this is still not an argument beyond all reasonable doubt against God's existence [naturalism is still a conjecture indeed] and moreover that there are still enough ontological questions where 'God hypothesis' is still on equal foot in absolute with scientific hypotheses [the apparition of the universe,why should the laws of nature remain basically the same for long periods of time and so on].Based on all these facts a 'weak' agnostic of the second type [the first type 'weak' agnostic take into account only objective,scientific data] arrive also at the personal conclusion that it is impossible to have a definite stance in the problem of belief/disbelief preffering to neither believe nor disbelieve.

An agnostic atheist [also of two kinds depending on the data accepted: only objective data or more] for example would arrive at the personal conclusion that God hypothesis is inferior to naturalism preffering to disbelieve whilst an agnostic theist [like me] would conlcude that God hypothesis is more probable to be true in the light of the known data available.

Because we arrived until here I think it's interesting to define 'strong' atheism also.Well in my acception it is of two types: there are some 'strong atheists' who claim that science has already proved with arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that God hypothesis is 'objectively' inferior to naturalism and therefore all would be rational person is forced to disbelieve ['fundametalist 'strong atheism'] and some others who merely say that all known objective facts provide a sufficient basis for disbelief [no claim that belief is nonrational or irrational however,also no direct mention of the fact that we do not have yet sufficient knowledge to settle the problem of God existence/nonexistence as do agnostic atheists].My categories do not inlcude the so called 'weak atheism',clearly an artificial position anyway in no case 'atheistic' [see some of my former posts where I've explained in detail why],since simple 'lack of belief' is only a form of 'weak agnosticism' of the second type...

Returning at your objection against what I name 'strong' agnosticism the most common answer I received from such people was that 'we cannot prove or disprove God with arguments beyond all reasonable doubt'.I do not agree with this,future can be full of surprises,moreover I think there can be established standards even today.

For example here is the standard I propose [taken from a post of mine on another site-it is from an argument against the common mith that 'you cannot prove a negative'-implying all possible cases] that will make 'God hypothesis' less probable 'objectively' [making belief nonrational also]:


"1.A 'theory of everything'.This in itself does not give sufficient arguments because there is no reason to suppose that this theory is unique and infallible (it represents merely a fallible objective truth-there is no good reason to think otherwise) and moreover does not make 'God hypothesis' less probable but corroborated with:

2.The computational approach of consciousness (using boolean algebra) is proved beyond all reasonable doubt as being correct.
Here by arguments beyond all reasonable doubt I mean a detailed,'working',description of the dynamics of the brain,a 'holistic' view (even if we had the proof that all mental states correlate with physical states-anyway far from being achieved now-this would,simply,be not enough).Another chance is to emulate a human mind using technology:an android whose consciousness is indistinguishable from that of a human being for example.

3.'Confirming' repeatedly abiogenesis (in intersubjective experiments).

4.A multiverse hypothesis,fully compatible with alll observed facts,consistently 'confirmed' therefore,whose ontology is confirmed also experimentally (even indirectly).For example the discovery that the so called 'false vacuum' (the main theoretical 'entity' posited as existing ontologically by Guth's multiverse hypothesis) is a reality would be enough.


This approach is totally compatible with the scientific method,the God hypothesis would be proved [in case that the above requirements will be 'confirmed' experimentally] as being less probable in a sound,scientific,manner,exactly how,for example,the aether was rendered less probable 'objectively' by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Still this does not imply certitudes,the aether or God could still exist in spite of that 'sufficient evidence',however this would entitle naturalism to 'graduate' from the status of simple conjecture to that of 'fallible scientific truth'.Which would make belief in God nonrational [according with the requirements of logic] exactly how belief in a flat Earth or in aether [as it was conceived in the 19-th century at least] is nonrational.
Anyway what counts,and this is what I wanted to underline,is that till then the naturalist approach is only a conjecture,the claims that science and logic compel all rational people to be skeptical or to disbelieve in God are [still] totally unfounded."

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Sundog

Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, what I really mean by that is more like: No one is capable of a truly skeptical attitude at all times, and those who are sure they are being completely skeptical are very often failing to examine themselves and their own arguments skeptically.

Are you sure about that?
:D :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.


My friend in each post we find along with poor spelling much anger and hypocrisy.

Here we find 2 cases of hypocrisy.

1- You call all who will not do as you tell them to idiots yet speak of being respectful.
2- You also call all who will not do as you tell them to idiots yet spell “descency” wrong. Is that not like calling some one stupid and spelling it “stuiped”?

This is a board and from what I have come to know of you the little I do you post to many, there are boards to hear what people think and exchange ideas yet this bothers you.

Back to the conservative Christian analogy it seems your idea of freedom of speech is we are free to say what you allow and as to freedom of belief we are free to believe what you wish us to.

Just what I believe.

Oh yes a closing note, the crux of your statement was that is was us that “Made” you be rude that is silliness, no one can make you do, think, believe anything.

No one has that power over anyone without their allowing it.

May you be well and happy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Are you sure about that?
:D :D

Daisy, daisy.. give me.. your answer.. do...

BOOM

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Whazzup? Didn't he promise to put you on Ignore yesterday? Promise, nothing. He flat out put me on his Ignore list. :con2:

Perhaps he figured out, like I said, that putting everyone who disagreed with you on Ignore will make you a very lonely poster...

Give him time, he's a newbie and still learning his netiquette. We all made mistakes early on.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Promise, nothing. He flat out put me on his Ignore list. :con2:

Perhaps he figured out, like I said, that putting everyone who disagreed with you on Ignore will make you a very lonely poster...

Particularly when that's, at last count, everyone.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4 Omnipotence is old hat. Only die hard true believers still buy into the concept of omnipotence.

However, not all gods are defined as omnipotent, now are they? Even Franko never went so far as to claim omnipotence for his Goddess and Franko made a lot of wild claims.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Give him time, he's a newbie and still learning his netiquette. We all made mistakes early on. Yes, but this is at least his second go at being a newbie. I think his other account is still active too, making this one a sock.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Yes, but this is at least his second go at being a newbie. I think his other account is still active too, making this one a sock. What other account?

[AtheistWorld.Com]

1. Is this god a he/she? Yes or, maybe, neither. One could argue that gender might be transcended by such a thing.

So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.

2. Is this god omnipotent? Hm... Tricky word, "omnipotent". Why don't we say that this god has the ability to start the universe and step back to watch.
Stand back into where? What place?

3. Does this god exist outside space and time? if yes, what is outside space and time and how do you know? Well, logically, spacetime is a function of the universe and doesn't exist independently from it. Since such a god must exist prior to the existance of the universe (and therefore spacetime), I'd say that this god must exist outside spacetime, or at least, doesn't need to exist in spacetime.
So then, how would such a being interact with the physical matter which requires space/time without being inside space/time?

4. Does this god need nurishment? I honestly wouldn't know.
Again you claim knowledge of a being whose basic atributes you do not know.

5. Can this god become less than god and then return to being god again? Interesting question. Since this is an extremely passive god, let's say that it doesn't, whether or not it has the ability to.
How do you know it is a pasive god?

6. By what logical process was this god conceived? Okay, gut feeling aside, let's take an ID approach with this god, shall we? There is too much order to the world for there not to be an intelligence behind it. However, this god just set the initial conditions and rules and let the chips fall where they may with no further intervention.
I do not see any evidence for any order in the world aside from that which man has made (limitted as it may be) so what order are you speaking of?

8. Where did this god come from and how do you know? I don't know and I don't, but there are many things about the universe I don't know and it hasn't stopped me from investigating them.

There are many things which are impossible. Are you aware of this? If yes, are you aware that making a claim without substantiation is merely a claim? If that which you claim cannot be defined or its atributes be defined the it is a logical impossibility to the extent we understand nature, logic and the laws there of.

9. What else do you know about this god besides merely a claim? Nothing other than it's a possibility that doesn't interfere with current understanding of science.
Not true. You first need to explain you claim and the atributes if we are to have an intelligent discuasion/debate. Current understanding of science does not allow room for your deist/passive god unless you throw out the laws of physics as understood by science today.

10. Do you recognize the scientific method as authoritive? When it comes to the nature of reality, I do. edited to add: incedently, what does my opinon of science have to do with the definition of this god?
Amazing. On the one hand you claim to adhere to current scientific method and understanding there of yet on the other hand you make a claim of a god whch has no room within the same. As I said, you and your type are irrational and argue in circles.

Can you now show a logical contradiction in this god?

Yes. This god is a fiction of your imagination or the imagination of the originator of this myth. How is this a logical contradiction?

Logic deals with reality not fiction and we either adhere to proven methods such as the scientific methods or we do not.

In lala land anything is possible but I do not smoke crack nor do I use drugs, so in my reality and my world a=a.

You have failed to list the atributes of this god therefore you have presnted nothing of substance to refute.

Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.

It is one thing to understand that there are unknown factors and it is another to make a claim that "something" is unknown and this something might be god but since we have yet to define god it is an irrational position to claim lack of knowledge one way or another weathe this god does/can/does not or cannot exist.

For this reason it is a logical falacy and a clearly an irrational position.

and for the last time, if you cling to the belief that this passive god exists you need to tell me what you mean by this "god" such as what is this god and its atributes. You cannot claim that it is possible that this thing exists before defining what this thing is.

Logic can only refute/confirm what is logically definable/not. If it cannot be defined logically it cannot exist.

Max

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.


By what logic do you assume a "supreme being" would have a gender?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.

Max

And yet this is exactly what you do. You claim these same unknown things do not exist, you take an ideological position based on a lack of knowledge.

Way to refute yourself.

Adam

[AtheistWorld.Com]

By what logic do you assume a "supreme being" would have a gender?

I do not know what a "supreme being" is! never seen one or proof of such so I have no clue what you are talking about.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Logic deals with reality not fiction and we either adhere to proven methods such as the scientific methods or we do not.

............

Logic can only refute/confirm what is logically definable/not. If it cannot be defined logically it cannot exist.

Max Logic is purely formal. Logical definitions define the properties of logical operators.

Do logical operators exist? What is the ontological status of "if - then" or "and"?

And now, the big question. What is "reality"?

Is "house" logical, or not? It's not a proposition. How can logic apply to a concept in isolation from an assertion about its properties or relations?

We need to know your definitions of logic and reality before we can evaluate the truth of your assertions.

I believe that the two statements quoted above are contradictory unless you add some qualifications.

For this reason it is a logical falacy and a clearly an irrational position.Please state the name of this formal fallacy.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

You claim these same unknown things do not exist, you take an ideological position based on a lack of knowledge.

Not true at all. I am simply stating that one must define what the hell one is talking about if we are to be able to talk about it.

Agnostics claim that we cannot know if god does or does not exist. That is fine with me. The problem is that agnostics cannot define this god. So how can we even debate/discuss whether god can or cannot exist if we do not even know what this god IS.

In other words agnostics claim that something might or might not exist and let's call this something god. How the hell is that not irrational?

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


I do not know what a "supreme being" is! never seen one or proof of such so I have no clue what you are talking about.

Therefore, you cannot insist that it be defined as one gender or the other. Is this really an example of your "logic"?

Next.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Therefore, you cannot insist that it be defined as one gender or the other.

If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What other account? NoDeity (http://nodeity.com/tulbure.html) seems to be the poster that really has this guy figured out. He seems to be a con man (for example, the use of "Dr." in his title when trying to sell his book) albeit very unsuccessful. His previous incarnation was AtheistRevolution (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=3057).

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

You are making the logical error of anthropomorphism: of assuming that intelligent beings, divine or otherwise, would necessarily have human, or even animal, characteristics. You have no evidence to base such a conclusion on.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

You are making the logical error of anthropomorphism: of assuming that intelligent beings, divine or otherwise, would necessarily have human, or even animal, characteristics. You have no evidence to base such a conclusion on.

I am not assuming anything. I have reached no such conclusions.
You are claiming I am assuming this and that and you continuously try to tell me that I said this or that or that I believe this or that...

Stop trying to put words in my posts...;)

[diddidit]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Is it possible that an unknown exists? Yes. Can we know what this unknow is? No! So how can we make a claim to know that this unknown exists? We cannot. rational people do not take ideological positions based on lack of knowledge.


Isn't that precisely what agnosticism is?

Have you read The Demon-Haunted World, Max? Can you logically prove that there isn't an undetectable dragon in my garage?

My goodness, but you're bad at this!

did

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


I am not assuming anything. I have reached no such conclusions.
You are claiming I am assuming this and that and you continuously try to tell me that I said this or that or that I believe this or that...

Stop trying to put words in my posts...;)

Not true. You said this:


So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell.



Do you withdraw your demand that we classify this "god" as male or female, then?

[diddidit]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

Didn't you insist that we had to know that to know that this supreme being exists (or not know, as the agnostic case you've misidentified would say)? Ya know, I think people here could just ignore you, as you've done a fine job of refuting yourself!

did

[Fun2BFree]

George (edited to correct the name of the author) Smith's The Case Against God makes a long and complicated argument very similar to AW.c--if you have never read it, AW.c, I suggest you do...it is too complex for me to recount here but I think you will like it...

I think part of the problem with the agnostic position on God is that the God notion is afforded more leeway than just about any other unsubstantiated idea or thing....I mean there are a lot of things for which there is a lack of evidence and we are very comfortable saying that the probabilty that such a thing exists is so small that it is fair to say it does not exist....it does seem that the God hypothesis is not held by agnostics to the same standard as other hypotheses...how many agnostics are willing to give EQUAL consideration to the God hypothesis and to the idea that those nut jobs who wore the purple shrouds and Nike's are actually enjoying eternity riding around behind a comet? Belief in God does direct one to behave in a particular way--as does not believing in God...sort of like a rudder on a boat...but I am unclear on what the agnostic position does to influence the arc of one's behavior? Deciding to decide not to decide--- if followed to consistently, it is a bit like a rudderless ship, isn't it?

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Fun2BFree thanks for the tip.
and I agree with your observations.

To the previous poster who posted this Do you withdraw your demand that we classify this "god" as male or female, then?

Yes as long as you convince all deists to do the same. We were talking about the deist/passive god after all and it is not I who made the claim of this god's gender but the deists themselves.


As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

If it were a “ supreme being “ it would not be supreme as it would need craftsman to design it, produce the components, and construct it.

It would seem these “things, beings” would then be the creators not the “robot or a machine”.

For that reason this post is illogical and perhaps as you say Please stay out if you have nothing relevant to contribute

This is not how I believe as this is a forum and all are free to speak if their point is logical and relevant, or not.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

If it were a “ supreme being “ it would not be supreme as it would need craftsman to design it, produce the components, and construct it.

It would seem these “things, beings” would then be the creators not the “robot or a machine”.



We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But let me entertain your rants anyhow.

Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

otherwise what is the point of your rants?

For that reason this post is illogical and perhaps as you say...
:rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Wow. You're just not getting this, are you? Let me explain.

I am an atheist, but I am a skeptical atheist. You have made the claim that the concept of God is logically inconsistant. I'm asking you to prove that claim. I'm trying to work with you to try to help you make your point, yet you are fighting me.

My guess is that you are a "hard atheist" which is also sometimes refered to as a "religious atheist".
Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com

So you admit that you have no knowledge of a basic atribute of such a beast yet you want to claim knowledge of its existence? Hmmm does circular logic ring a bell. You've made the assumption that gender is a "basic atribute" and that this hypothetical god is a "beast". I've defined this god to be neither.

Regardless, even if I did claim to have knowledge of its existence (which I never did), how by any stretch of the imagination is that circular logic?
Stand back into where? What place?I was speaking metaphorically. I wasn't assuming physical existance for this god.
So then, how would such a being interact with the physical matter which requires space/time without being inside space/time?I specifically said that this god doesn't interact with physical matter. Please pay attention.
Again you claim knowledge of a being whose basic atributes you do not know. Again, I never claimed actual knowledge of a hypothetical being. Regardless, why the tendency to attack me rather than to attack the logical consistancies/inconsistancies of the god? This, in itself is a logical fallacy....
How do you know it is a pasive god? by definition.
I do not see any evidence for any order in the world aside from that which man has made (limitted as it may be) so what order are you speaking of?We're not talking about reality, which would require evidence. Your claim is to logical inconsistancy. Please stick to that.
There are many things which are impossible. Are you aware of this? If yes, are you aware that making a claim without substantiation is merely a claim? If that which you claim cannot be defined or its atributes be defined the it is a logical impossibility to the extent we understand nature, logic and the laws there of.Okay, I'm going to assume that you misunderstood that this is a hypothetical situation.

However, the definition of logical impossiblity has nothing to do with being able to define something. It has to do with consistancy. Have you had any formal training in logic?

I'm going to forego the rest of your post, if you want to take another crack at the logical aspects of it rather than attacking me and my hypothetical model.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I'm going to forego the rest of your post, if you want to take another crack at the logical aspects of it rather than attacking me and my hypothetical model.

You have not presented any hypothetical "model".
You simply made it up as we went along.

So, why don't you present and outline the scenariou of this passive god of your imaginary hypothetical "model" so we can have a foundation for proper debate.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com



As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.

Again personal attacks against people who do not believe as you do, the same style as the “fundies” you also attack but do not see you are just like.

You judge “all” agnostics as this or that then complain above people here are telling you what you believe or do not believe. Hypocrisy.


You can no more judge or know what “ all” agnostics think or believe then the Christian that says “ everyone is a sinner”.


I as Buddhist look at the god idea 2 ways the first and foremost being it is totally irrelevant.

The second being it seems very illogical and there is no evidence.


I also know that what I know for certain is I certainly do not know much.

There may be a god in some form but could care less.I lose no sleep over it nor start a web site saying there is not or post to many boards being ego filled and unkind demanding there is not.

We just do ( or most) do not attack people for their belief in a god or 2 or a billion.

You keep dancing seeking a set definition of “god” you will never get one.

Allow me to leave you with 2 quotes the first I can not remember who said it Concervtives: Authoritarian personality syndrome: characterzied by exaggerated submission to authority, extreme levels of conformity to conventional standards of behavior, self rightous hostility and punitiveness toward deviants and members of minority groups. Atlemyer limits the syndrome to the political right wing. Right wing authoritarianism is associated wtih hostility toward homosexuals, Aids victims, drug users, the homeless, and environmentalists.

The 2nd is by Buddha.

'Only here is there purity' -- that's what they say -- 'No other
doctrines are pure' -- so they say. Insisting that what they
depend on is good, they are deeply entrenched in their personal
truths. Seeking debate, they plunge into an assembly, regarding
one another as fools. Dependent on the authority of others, they speak in dispute.
Desiring praise, they claim to be wise. Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
-- anxious, desiring praise -- the one defeated is staggered. Shaken with criticism, he
seeks for an opening. He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished, defeated, by those
judging the issue: He laments, he grieves -- the inferior exponent. 'He beat me,' he
mourns. These disputes have arisen among contemplatives. In them are victory & defeat.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes, for they have no other goal than the gaining of praise. He who is praised there for expounding his doctrine in the midst of the
assembly, laughs on that account & grows haughty, attaining his heart's desire. That
haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation, for he'll speak in over-estimation & pride.
Seeing this, one would abstain from disputes. No purity is attained by them, say the
wise.... Pasura Sutta

[Starrman]

WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD?

Irrelevant.

An agnostic is admitting his/her ignorance to this question. He/she is not agnostic toward any particular definition of god, just the idea of a supreme being that has some sort of role in the creation of or continuance of the world.

They are admitting that they do not have all of the information necessary to know there is or know there isn't a god of any kind. This is rational.

Now you are saying:
They are simply lazy, period
That is not the same as irrational, are you changing your point from "agnostics are irrational", to "agnostics are lazy?"

:confused:

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame. It's hopeless to argue here, and I've already made a couple points in this thread that were ignored by you, but I wanted to chime in on this thought.

For the longest time, as I mentioned, I operated under the label of agnostic. We basically live our lives as atheists (don't pray, don't go to church, etc.) It was never much a concern to me to reach a conclusion one way or the other on the existence of god(s).

Simply put, I had other things to worry about. Not everyone can donate as much time as you do to going hog wild on Internet message boards. It had nothing to do with intellectual laziness, it had everything to do with intellectual time management.

I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of what the average agnostic thinks. Furthermore, making blanket statements (like we're all lazy) shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, that you're not willing to understand the position.

I propose that most agnostics are, to a certain extent, apathetic towards theism. We just don't much care one way or the other.

Edited to add: Looks like Pahansiri beat me to the point. :)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com




We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But let me entertain your rants anyhow.

Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

otherwise what is the point of your rants?


:rolleyes:

My great friend do you NOT read peoples post or so fast perhaps you do not understand what is written?



You write ;We were talking about "god" in this thread not about supremebeings.

But p you wrote also and to which I responded to If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

You see my friend YOU are the one talking about supreme beings not me..

Upchurch was talking about a god ( and no he does not believe in gods no matter how much you keep saying he does) having a gender.

You then posted If this supreme being is a robot or a machine one can hardly expect it to have a gender.

Implying that a god would be a supreme being and a silly statement about a robot or a machine being one. I pointed out it could not be a supreme being as others would have to make it.. I am trying to speak in a way you can understand.

So again reading this slowly can you see you are wrong, again?



You go on to say Are you claiming that there is only one level of "supreme beings"?

Again I believe you just do not follow a conversation and are not a liar.

PLEASE show me where I said there are any levels of supreme beings or any such thing..

Take a deep breath, get some rest and read and respond free from ego and emotion.

if yes, can you show any evidence that supreme beings exist and can you describe what they are like, what they may look like and what their characteristics and atributes are?

LOL my friend you really become so confused, read all most post again and I will give you $100. For each time I said I believed in a god or supreme beings…


You write in anger; otherwise what is the point of your rants?

To point out all your silliness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


You have not presented any hypothetical "model".
You simply made it up as we went along.Actually, I borrowed from deist philosophy. But regardless, maybe this god at a time idea isn't a very good one.

Let's start over, How is the concept of God logically inconsistant in all cases?

[Pahansiri]

All other posters here attempting to have a mature logical conversation with AtheistWorld.Com http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/frusty.gif

AtheistWorld.Com responce to anything logical we post..
http://www.boomspeed.com/texas_bugman/dancenaked.gif

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Simply put, I had other things to worry about. Not everyone can donate as much time as you do to going hog wild on Internet message boards. It had nothing to do with intellectual laziness, it had everything to do with intellectual time management.

Wow! You must have alot to think about continuously.... Some of us can think because we are willing to think and willing to excercise our brains which in turn speeds up thr thought process.


I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of what the average agnostic thinks.

Yes I do. They don't.

Furthermore, making blanket statements (like we're all lazy) shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, that you're not willing to understand the position.
I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.

I propose that most agnostics are, to a certain extent, apathetic towards theism. We just don't much care one way or the other.

Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Actually, I borrowed from deist philosophy. But regardless, maybe this god at a time idea isn't a very good one.

LOL, you crack me up! That is rich! :D

Let's start over, How is the concept of God logically inconsistant in all cases?

By definition.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com




I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.





To think is to be lazy????:confused: :eek: :rub:

[AtheistWorld.Com]

To think is to be lazy????

You have it backwards...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


LOL, you crack me up! That is rich! :DLovely.
By definition. Okay, what is the definition of God?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com





Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up.

The problems facing our civilization is not if someone believes in a God,, or does not or does not know is in NO way a problem. facing our civilization.

Hate is, hunger is violence is, illiteracy is.

PLEASE tell me how someone saying they do not know for sure if there is a god or not is a problem facing our civilization? This is without any logic.

My friend it is not being an agnostic that is a problem it is what you have demonstrated here the belief that you contain “ THE TRUTH” and anyone who does not believe you is inferior and people have only the rights to believe as you do.

My friend you are the Pat Robertson of Atheist.

I hope you find comfort from your pain

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lovely.
Okay, what is the definition of God? Let me rephrase this, God is not logically consistant by what definition?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


You have it backwards...


LOL PLEASE KEEP UP...

YOU said

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com




I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.

Are you doing drugs?

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Which begs the question as to responsability...
If the problems facing our civilization are not important enough to ponder and resolve them then not only agnostics lazy but parasites as well. Thanks for bringing this up. hmmm, problems facing our civilization that I can think of:

Hunger
War
Tyranny/Terrorism
Human rights violations
Poverty

Maybe I missed a couple. Hammering down a definition of god, especially when so many different people (people as in collective societies, not individuals) have fought for thousands of years to have their definition accepted, is not high on my list.

What if I told you I didn't have time to conclude there is no god because I was too busy feeding starving children and helping old ladies cross the street. Would I still be lazy in your eyes?

Your thought crises are not my problem.

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lovely.
Okay, what is the definition of God?

Now, is there a way to have the next post be AW.c's original post?

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Let me rephrase this, God is not logically consistant by what definition?

LOL! I get the feeling you regret getting into this debate and now are seeking to turn the tables/find a way out quick because you found that you are not very good at playing the devil's advocate.

anyway, to answer your question, too many to list. That is why I asked for your/a model.

Here is where you can find my SHORT refutation of many possible ones:
http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4

Max

[AtheistWorld.Com]

What if I told you I didn't have time to conclude there is no god because I was too busy feeding starving children and helping old ladies cross the street. Would I still be lazy in your eyes?

No, in such case you would be an idiot.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Fun2BFree thanks for the tip.
and I agree with your observations.

To the previous poster who posted this

Yes as long as you convince all deists to do the same. We were talking about the deist/passive god after all and it is not I who made the claim of this god's gender but the deists themselves.



My apologies; I misunderstood.

Let me see if I understand your position. Your problem is with people who are agnostic about the crop of gods we already have? If so I finally see your point. Yes, I would consider the ideas behind the Christian god, and any other I can think of, discredited.

I think this doesn't adequately describe many who call themselves agnostics, though. Many simply consider that we don't have all the facts yet to say either way whether the Universe popped into existence with or without a "creator".

[The Lord God Almighty]

Yo, atheist dude, you're not scaring me.

Your linked article does not contain any arguments, merely a set of assertions.

If you would take the time to actually formulate a true argument, we might have something to discuss.

Right now, you only have some tossed out opinions and pasted-together Ayn Rand quotes.

You will have to do better if you are going head to head with the likes of Upchurch or SlimShady.

Do not underestimate these guys, or I will be forced to unleash Tricky on your posterior.

Your friend,

The Lord

[Martin]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
LOL! I get the feeling you regret getting into this debate and now are seeking to turn the tables/find a way out quick because you found that you are not very good at playing the devil's advocateI think you should have a read of this (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html). It might stop you from making such an idiot of yourself.

[Starrman]

No, in such case you would be an idiot.

He's an idiot for feeding the poor and helping old ladies across the street. You are a bastion of rationality.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Many simply consider that we don't have all the facts yet to say either way whether the Universe popped into existence with or without a "creator".

Yes we do. Logic. What is the logical conclusion to who created the creator and the creator's creator and on and on?

On the other side of the coin, if the creator simply existed, then I can claim existence simply existed and all that is within existence is natural thus no room for the supernatural.

If you follow any argument to a logical conclusion the end result is very simple.

What we do not know is the infinite possibilities about the nature of existence and that is another topic all its own. But with regards to the creation or the universe or its origin, the answer is very very simple and the answer is a logical conclusion.

One need not be Einstein to understand this.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


No, in such case you would be an idiot.

''Name calling and labeling. Extremists are quick to
resort to epithets (liar, Nazi, fabian, et al.) to label and
condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their
arguments and to discourage others from hearing them
out.''

This was taken from the book by John George and Laird
Wilcox titled ''American Extremists'' ISBN 1-57392-058-4
copyright 1996.

It was found under the sub-heading of "The Traits of
"Extremists"p.56.


Concervtives: Authoritarian personality syndrome: characterzied by exaggerated submission to authority, extreme levels of conformity to conventional standards of behavior, self rightous hostility and punitiveness toward deviants and members of minority groups. Atlemyer limits the syndrome to the political right wing. Right wing authoritarianism is associated wtih hostility toward homosexuals, Aids victims, drug users, the homeless, and environmentalists.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

He's an idiot for feeding the poor and helping old ladies across the street. You are a bastion of rationality.

Helping the problem continue to exist is not solving the problem.

Take a look at the savages in Africa for instance. The missionaries and charities beg for money to feed them but not to force them to use contraceptives. The dumb savages refuse self control and birth control but expect food so they can keep on multiplying. Such parasites should not be helped and puting a side a greater problem in order to solve a simpler and less dangerous one is hardly a rational aproach.

max

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
No, in such case you would be an idiot. You crack me up. Your assertion makes no sense.

Let me explain this one a different way: Not everybody is consumed with knowing whether there exists a god. That doesn't make any said individual an idiot, lazy, or a detriment to society.

It's all in how much evidence is enough. Atheists say "I've seen enough evidence to know that the probability of a god existing is small enough such that I can reasonably assert I believe in no god." Agnostics say "there does not yet exist enough evidence for me to reasonably assert that god exists or doesn't exist."

There's nothing wrong with being unsure. You seem to think there is, and that is where this argument has fundamentally forked and will not converge.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


Yes we do. Logic. What is the logical conclusion to who created the creator and the creator's creator and on and on?

On the other side of the coin, if the creator simply existed, then I can claim existence simply existed and all that is within existence is natural thus no room for the supernatural.

If you follow any argument to a logical conclusion the end result is very simple.

What we do not know is the infinite possibilities about the nature of existence and that is another topic all its own. But with regards to the creation or the universe or its origin, the answer is very very simple and the answer is a logical conclusion.

One need not be Einstein to understand this.

Oh, you were doing really well until that last line! :D

We have a dialogue going; let's try to continue it. Here's what I think is one problem with your reasoning. Playing devil's advocate here, so don't be insulting.

If we as skeptics are allowed to ask "What created God", we are falling into the same trap as believers who ask "What created the Big Bang". Both positions are an argument that causality must be satisfied. The fallacy is obvious: we as nonbelivers say, "Nothing created the Big Bang, it just WAS". They say, "Nothing created God, he/she/it just WAS". See the problem?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


LOL! I get the feeling you regret getting into this debate and now are seeking to turn the tables/find a way out quick because you found that you are not very good at playing the devil's advocate.ah. Another personal attack. Good, that's productive.

I must admit, I'm much more practiced at argueing the other side of this debate, but you are hardly threatening as a debator. With you excessive use of links, abusive and demeaning languange, and not actually addressing questions, I'd place you somewhere between billiefan2000 on the low end and maybe Interesting Ian on the high end.
anyway, to answer your question, too many to list. That is why I asked for your/a model.So, how do you back your claim that god is logically inconsistant by definition when you don't know all possible definitions? Is it absolutely impossible that there is a god/definition out there that you haven't considered that isn't logically inconsistant?
Here is where you can find my SHORT refutation of many possible ones:
http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=4As I said before, finding an omnipotance inconcistant takes almost no imagination whatsoever. It's the old "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it" paradox. It's hardly conclusive that all gods are logically inconsistant.

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Martinm
I think you should have a read of this (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html). It might stop you from making such an idiot of yourself.

And, of course, this. (http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html)

did

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Upchurch, if you go back and re-read your initial replies to me you will find that YOu are the one who initiated personal attacks not me.

How is it that your personal attacks are ok but not my comebacks? :D

If we as skeptics are allowed to ask "What created God", we are falling into the same trap as believers who ask "What created the Big Bang".

The big bang happenes over and over without end. The universe expands and the collapses back on itself and explodes again etc. etc. there is an actual model for this so don't start ranting again.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Upchurch, if you go back and re-read your initial replies to me you will find that YOu are the one who initiated personal attacks not me.

How is it that your personal attacks are ok but not my comebacks? :D



The big bang happenes over and over without end. The universe expands and the collapses back on itself and explodes again etc. etc. there is an actual model for this so don't start ranting again.

Could you post in his words his personal attacks on you?


By the way thisThe big bang happenes over and over without end. The universe expands and the collapses back on itself and explodes again etc. etc. there is an actual model for this so don't start ranting again.

You do well at times, become free from your ego and anger and silliness and we can all have a mature conversation as friends.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

It's hardly conclusive that all gods are logically inconsistant.

I never said anything about "all god" merely the ones claimed to be responsible for the universe/world...

I know some gods are real, I have one between my legs...;)

[Martin]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
The big bang happenes over and over without end. The universe expands and the collapses back on itself and explodes again etc. etc. there is an actual model for this so don't start ranting againYou overstate the case. While that's a possibility, it's far from proven. You won't find anyone working in the field who would actually state this as fact. At this stage, it's an interesting hypothesis, nothing more.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Upchurch, if you go back and re-read your initial replies to me you will find that YOu are the one who initiated personal attacks not me.

How is it that your personal attacks are ok but not my comebacks? :DExcellent avoidence.

Now what about that claim of yours?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


I never said anything about "all god" merely the ones claimed to be responsible for the universe/world...

I know some gods are real, I have one between my legs...;)

Your hand is not a god:rolleyes:

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Martinm
You overstate the case. While that's a possibility, it's far from proven. You won't find anyone working in the field who would actually state this as fact. At this stage, it's an interesting hypothesis, nothing more.

I believe it's been fairly well established that the universe will not collapse on itself; in fact, its rate ot expansion is accelerating.

did

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
The big bang happenes over and over without end. The universe expands and the collapses back on itself and explodes again etc. etc. there is an actual model for this so don't start ranting again.

"Don't try to fool me, young man; it's turtles all the way down."

I don't understand the aggression. I don't consider it logical that someone who supposedly prides themselves on being rational succumbs to his emotions and shows off his inferiority complex in virtually every post. Haven't you ever been in a debate class? Are you unaware of how it's supposed to work?

In any case, I try not to deal with people who can't discuss things calmly, so see ya.

[Pahansiri]

All that is compound is subject to decay. An endless cycle of coming together and breaking apart.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Haven't you ever been in a debate class? Are you unaware of how it's supposed to work?

LOL!

I have seen your posts and the posts of many on here. You people are hostile and now you cry when you get treated the way you treat others?

I have been in a debate class and know how it is supposed to work. The trouble is, nobody on here gives a crap about proper debates.

Look in the mirror more often.

You come into a thread and take it off topic from your very FIRST post and yet have the audacity to demand respect! Ha!

I have no respect for the disrespectful period!

The vast majority of people on here are snakes to say the least!

Furthermore, I am an Objectivist and have been around a long time and know full well the types of mentalities "skeptics" have.

I am not a skeptic. I am a realist, and objectivist a hard core atheist and I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc.

Max

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


LOL!

I have seen your posts and the posts of many on here. You people are hostile and now you cry when you get treated the way you treat others?
Max

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many others who have elicited such a negative response among a bunch of pretty thoughtful people so quickly. I leave you to it, I've got more interesting windmills to tilt at.

[Martin]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I am not a skepticNo, really?!

[whitefork]

Three words AWC:

Check your premises.

Some of them are faulty.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


LOL!

I have seen your posts and the posts of many on here. You people are hostile and now you cry when you get treated the way you treat others?

I have been in a debate class and know how it is supposed to work. The trouble is, nobody on here gives a crap about proper debates.

Look in the mirror more often.

You come into a thread and take it off topic from your very FIRST post and yet have the audacity to demand respect! Ha!

I have no respect for the disrespectful period!

The vast majority of people on here are snakes to say the least!

Furthermore, I am an Objectivist and have been around a long time and know full well the types of mentalities "skeptics" have.

I am not a skeptic. I am a realist, and objectivist a hard core atheist and I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc.

Max


Translation. http://www.boomspeed.com/texas_bugman/dancenaked.gif

[Martin]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Three words AWC:

Check your premises.

Some of them are faultyThat's eight words :p

[Frostbite]

Stop feeding that troll.

[Starrman]

The dumb savages refuse self control and birth control but expect food so they can keep on multiplying.

There is a good point in there somewhere, but you try to make it in such an awe-inspiringly asinine way. Your point, what I think it is anyway, is again irrelivent.

My point was not that his specific examples of charity were good or bad, I simply meant that he was not being lazy by not concerning himself with thoughts of god, but puttin his energies elsewhere.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Three words AWC:

Check your premises.

Some of them are faulty.

In fact, abandon the premises immediately.

:cool:

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Stop feeding that troll. Thanks, man, I needed that.

Feeding time's over, AWC.

Bye.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

My point was not that his specific examples of charity were good or bad, I simply meant that he was not being lazy by not concerning himself with thoughts of god, but puttin his energies elsewhere.

My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Martinm
I am not a skeptic
No, really?!
Martinm, the sarcasm was so thick, I had to get a towel to wipe it up. :D

:rub:

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I am not a skeptic. I am a realist, and objectivist a hard core atheist and I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc. Then how do you ever expect them to respect you? Don't be bamboozled by the way you are treated. I've found that, by and large, I've been treated rather well on these forums. Your mileage may vary...

[Samus]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...;) I don't think theism is the root cause of all evil in this world. Organized religion, on the other hand, has played a part in some of the worst atrocities in recorded history.

Methinks you're mis-directing your anger.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Then how do you ever expect them to respect you?

I don't nor desire it. If someone initiates personal attacks against me they have blown it and will treat them as hostile.

I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com

The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial Is there any point in my asking what your proof of this is?

Interestingly, the concept of absolute good and evil is intemently tied to the concept of religion, where the religion supposedly represents one side and works to combat the other. hm...

[Martin]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I have no respect for the disrespectful period!Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
I do not respect bleeding heart liberals, conservatives, communists, anachists and dumb atheists etc.Your lack of self-respect is understandable, given how little about you there is to respect.

[Fun2BFree]

It is not that God is necessarily logically inconsistent--it is that agnosticism is really not logically different from rationally arrived at atheism...and to label it as somehow different is perhaps logically dishonest and inconsistent...


They both start from the exact same foundation--that there is not sufficient evidence for God's existence-

The rational atheist says I do not believe in God because there is not sufficient evidence to do so--and I do not believe in things without evidence--this is the foundation of rational thought--built on evidence

What is the agnostic saying-----
"there is not sufficient evidence but I might believe in God anyway???"
:confused: Can that be said to be a rational approach?

(by the way it was George not David Smith who wrote the book which is actually called Atheism: the Case Against God.)

[AtheistWorld.Com]

http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=12

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


My point exactly. This is where the irritating part comes in. The god factor is the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial and in order to solve the problem one needs to be well armed and willing to fight and oppose the godeists...;)

Hatred, greed are the root cause of all evil in this world from time immemorial.


Your “thinking” is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Just another angry person blaming the world for his failures screaming out his hate and anger from behind the safety of his room and computer screen.

I do feel great compassion for you and am happy you are powerless to spread your hate or harm anyone. I do hope you overcome this and your suffering eases.

May you be well and happy.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


I don't nor desire it. If someone initiates personal attacks against me they have blown it and will treat them as hostile.

I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated)

I do not believe that is the case and please allow me to make my case.


Example One;

theistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

Kullervo, don't play stupid here. I am not interested in rants.

You know full well at what level this thread is so please don't drag it into your stupidity level.



Kullervo made no personal statement about you to this point no has anyone.

So far this is the first proof that you have again lied, this time to your statement [quote] I never initiated hostilities or personal attacks against anyone on here from day one. (Note the word initiated

Example 2

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

Yes, most atheists are in fact irrational but it is all relative.

On the other hand you have shown to have no knowledge of what logic and reason means yet you have the audacity to acuse others of same. How pathetic.

Calling someone pathetic, is a personal attack.

You are 0-2 at this point.

Example 3

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112


When you idiots do not have even basic descency and intentionally take thread off topic one can hardly be respectful.

Here you attack everyone in the room that does not agree with you. Also descency is spelled decency.

Example 4


AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112


Yes as long as you convince all deists to do the same. We were talking about the deist/passive god after all and it is not I who made the claim of this god's gender but the deists themselves.


As for the agnostic position again, agnostics are people who are too lazy to excercise their mind on issues to the logical conclusion.

They are simply lazy, period. But they do have a more elaborate form of circular reasoning which puts fundies to shame.


Here you attack all agnostics and the possibility that you can know all agnostics is not possible so again you are proven to be a liar as all agnostics could not have attacked you first. Also exercise is spelled exercise.

Example 5

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

I do understand your position. You are lazy to think.

While as I pointed out before here you mean to say “ you are too lazy to think” but said I do You are lazy to think.
But regardless of the poor wording and spelling mistakes I left out you called them “lazy” that is a personal attack.


Example 6

AtheistWorld.Com
Scholar

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 112

quote:What if I told you I didn't have time to conclude there is no god because I was too busy feeding starving children and helping old ladies cross the street. Would I still be lazy in your eyes?

No, in such case you would be an idiot.

Here you call someone an idiot for being a compassionate human.. How sad.



I could go on but I believe I have proven my point.

Please if you are an honest man and a “great “ debater please post the words/post of others that correspond to your post, that meaning they came before each of the examples.

Post their exact post and show us that they attacked you first.

A mature “debate” champion as yourself would find this easy to do. If you can not, or just ignore this it will be clear you are a liar and do not believe what you say.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
http://atheistworld.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=12
I gave it a try, but the mind-numbing power of this "article" finally got to me. Here's what I was able to get through before nearly dozing off...
The Source Of Wealth

{snip} So, let’s get down to the root cause and source of wealth; the fountain of happiness and well being.A very cynical view of happiness and well being, but ah well.
Wealth is created by the creative mind of thinkers; by those who seek to know things which they do not understand, or to know what else is possible. The men and women whom think about invention, experimentation and advancement of their own knowledge, those are the real source of wealth. To know means science.I'm sure this would be a surprise to any scientist who has ever sought a grant. :rolleyes:

The creative mind of thinkers is the source of advancement, not wealth. The primary source of wealth is labor and effort. An idea isn't enough, it must be implemented. The efficency of the implementation determines the degree of profit. Knowledge alone doesn't always create a profit.
Man sees all this formless stuff, all these substances existing in nature, all the elements found in both organic and inorganic forms and of various shapes and types. All this shapeless stuff is meaningless and worthless in its original form.Actually, I find great worth in shapeless air. But, AtheistWorld.com is waxing poetically, so I'll try not to interupt with logic.
I could use Thomas Edison or Ford as examples, but instead, I will use Bill Gates as a perfect example. Bill Gates was a nobody, as far as wealth and riches are concerned. However, this great thinker used his brain and took a piece of software which was rendered garbage by his employer, and turned this garbage into millions and millions of dollars.Actually, this isn't quite true. Bill Gates took other people's ideas and hard work (e.g. Steve Jobs) and implemented them more shrewdly (and some would say, more underhandedly).

Regardless, Bill Gates is more the exception than the rule. Ford would have been a better example, but even he just implemented the ideas of others.
I am not going to go into the accusations made against Bill Gates and MS which claim that he used unethical tactics to get rich, because accusations are made due to religious ethics and morals which are in themselves worthless. That which society calls "morals and ethics" today are religious doctrines and altruistic in nature and so they are worthless.I'm guessing AtheistWorld.com has never heard of the social contract or living in a society of laws...

In fact, this sounds to me like a plea to anarchy. If altruistic laws are worthless, why should theft be agaisnt the law? Or murder?
Only those whom [sic] are evil make such accusations, those whom [sic] envy achievers, whom [sic] would take what is not theirs simply because their greed is of such nature. Man has always attempted to destroy achievers, throughout all of human history. Bill Gates and many like him, were able to achieve all this, because he had the freedom to do it, to think and innovate and expand. Because he had and has a love of money as a motivating factor, because of the very thing Christianity calls evil, our lives are far better....so, if I read this mass of gramatical errors correctly, Bill Gates' greed is the source of wealth and, therefore, happiness but the greed of others is evil because it restrains Gates' greed. Further, the source of thie second greed is Christianity because Christianity calls greed evil. :eek:

Not only is this nonsensical, it in no way supports the conection between Christianity and this second form of greed.
Altruism

The foundation of altruism, of Christianity and religions of all sorts says "that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (Ayn Rand - "Philosophy: Who Needs It?") Here, I thought the foundation Christianity was Christ :rolleyes:

Regardless, this is a very strange definition of "altruism". Since when does a principle of altruism mean that man has no right to exist for his own sake? What is the justification for this statement?
Furthermore: "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is SELF-SACRIFICE - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the SELF as a standard of evil, the SELFLESS as a standard of the good." wow... So, if I starve myself to death, to no one else's benefit, that is altruism? It's like he's using a whole different dictionary. (I may have to rethink that this isn't Franko with a new sockpuppet...)
One very important thing I must point out is that Christianity, (or any religion) does not have a moral code! That is right! It has NO MORAL CODE, no moral standard at all! I challenge any and all Christians to write down their moral code and submit it to everyone so we can see what it says.Unsupported statement. Also an Argument from Ignorance.

Okay, I skimmed the rest of the rest of the article and I really can't get past the fact that he paints Christianity with a very broad brush. He totally ignores that there are different groups of Christians who believe vastly different things. He paints as erroneous picture of Christians as billie paints of atheists.

[Pahansiri]

Well done Upchurch.

You say at the end of your post He paints as erroneous picture of Christians as billie paints of atheists.

It seems our friend AtheistWorld.Com is an Atheist billie on roids.

billie is a young kid looking for an Identity, a place to fit in I believe AtheistWorld is a bit older I believe and also he is just more pissed off about it.

The Buddha said when one is afraid, they are always so offensive about it.

[Fun2BFree]

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave---she wrote some entertaining novels and some interesting essays all about how selfishness is actually good---her ideas while not all backed up by evidence and sound reasoning were fun and Atlas Shrugged is a blast once you get into it--until the 20 page speech at the end which attempts to explain her philosophy--but this AW.c guy really has not fully understood her and has twisted and mutilated her ideas and yet some might be confused that this is somehow an accurate representation of Objectivism-which is basically a reason based approach that got side-tracked/derailed by the Rand cult of personality.

[Jet Grind]

Great, we have a Randroid on the board. :rolleyes:

Just stop feeding the troll and he'll go away.

[whitefork]

If this discussion is ever to get back on track, the following guidelines might be helpful.

A makes a claim, like "The existence of god is logically impossible".

B offers a counterexample, like "I have an idol that I worship as god".

A says, "No, we're talking about a creator-god here"

C says, "OK, what about a god that creates the initial conditions for the universe, turns the crank, and leaves".

At this point, things broke down, I think. A posts a list of possible attributes for C's god, and asks C which apply to his god.
This is not the way the discussion should go. C's definition should be sufficient for an analysis of the god-concept, to say whether it is logically possible or not.

These responses are not relevant:

Who created your god?
If your god wasn't created, why isn't the universe sufficient to explain itself?

You'll notice that these are phrased as questions. This is against the rules. The claim under investigation - "god is logically impossible" - cannot be proven by asking questions, only by deduction.

Saying "god is not necessary" does not demonstrate that "god is impossible".

What's happening here is that the claimant using the old technique of asking his questioners to prove that his claim is false.

If there is a valid deductive argument that proves the impossibility of the existence of god, it probably take the form of a reductio - irrationality of the square root of 2 for example, or a demonstration that some kind of construction is impossible to carry out in a finite number of steps, and so on.

I guess I'll have to wait until a real argument appears before I can analyze it.

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, I feel another satire coming up. Gonna be short, though.

:rolleyes: Hans :rolleyes:

[Fun2BFree]

By the way--I would like to chime in on the root causes of the world's problems---to quote an old Burt Bacharach song--"What the world needs now, is love, sweet love. That's the only thing that there's just too little of."

I would beg to differ and say that what the world needs now is thought, rational thought--this is what there is too little of and religion -while the root cause of the problem is certainly the fertilizer--and what an appropriate metaphor for religion--it is manure--People have been conditioned and told that religious thought-which is based on the "virtue" of faith- is a good thing...
there is simply no evidence to support this notion--that faith is good--faith is bad---believeing things to be true because your mind tells you is a bad thing....it is not always a bad thing but it is too much a potential for a bad thing when reality is not required to be validated to back up our behaviours and actions-

Example- A guy believes a sniper is poised to shoot at him from a building across the street---(let us say that objective reality shows there is no such sniper-but this guy believes it anyway--)and he acts accordingly- crawling around on the floor of his own home..he is not hurting anyone with his mistaken "faith" but he could one day fire back at the building in "defense" all because his actions are based on a NON-REALITY...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
It seems our friend AtheistWorld.Com is an Atheist billie on roids.At least AWC writes his own stuff rather than relying on the work of others. Doesn't make it any less spun to his purposes, but it is his own material. Gotta give him credit for that, I suppose...

[CompletelyUnoriginal]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


Take a look at the savages in Africa for instance. The missionaries and charities beg for money to feed them but not to force them to use contraceptives. The dumb savages refuse self control and birth control but expect food so they can keep on multiplying. Such parasites should not be helped and puting a side a greater problem in order to solve a simpler and less dangerous one is hardly a rational aproach.

max


I was going to respond to this *****, but have decided against wasting my finger muscles on it.
Something tells me that you're a little too close-minded to care about my response anyway.

There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic. You don't have to clearly define something to think that it may or may not exist.
I am an agnostic and I feel that ANY god or ANY definition of god may or may not be real.
I have never seen any evidence that ANY type of god exists, is that proof that no god exists? No.

It's that simple.
What were you saying about not needing to be Einstein to understand...?

[whitefork]

How about this formulation?

It's not necessary to hold an opinion about everything. There is nothing inherently morally objectionable about saying "I don't know" or "I have no opinion". What is Agnosticism other than saying "I don't know"?

I know people who feel compelled to have an opinion about damn near everything. They are frequently mistaken and will argue for the sake of arguing. Many of them cannot tolerate ambiguity or indifference. Your best defence against these individuals may be to take no position when asked if you have one.

Does god exist? I don't know.
Do you have an opinion about the existence of god? No.
Don't you think that you ought to have an opinion? No.
You realize that god hates people who don't believe in him, don't you? And at this point you can probably go over to the bar and pour yourself another drink.

[CompletelyUnoriginal]

Sounds good to me with one exception;
I DO have an opinion about the existence of god (insert any and all definitions of "god")-
god may or may not exist.

[whitefork]

"God may or may not exist" appears to be a tautology. Attempting to hold the opposite view may cause think-muscle to cramp up.