Atheism

[stiggywiggy]

I am wondering about the nature of those "discussions". Are there family members who doubt that you loved your wife?

No.

Are there family members who don´t believe in love?

Not in mine. At least I don't think so.

Are there family members who don´t believe your wife existed?

No. What weird questions.

Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.

 

[quatona]

Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.

So what´s the nature of those discussions you are having? Are they anywhere close to the discussions we are having here?

 

[quatona]

Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.

The problem is rather: How could I (or someone else) possibly discuss your feelings?
Your love for your wife is undisputed, as is your belief that a God exists.

 

[Davian]

What quatona said.

But here are my comments anyway:

I serously doubt if you found a defintion which equates it with "non-existent."

Let's see it.

I did not say 'equate'.

Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly? No.

Take it up with Kant.

You can scientifically study it all you want, but no science will explain why, for example, the curvature of a woman's body attracts me. That is a completely irrational (or a-rational) phenomenon.

I find absolute statements such as that to be suspect. Are you confident that you are aware of all that neuroscience has to say on that subject, or may discover in the future?

And yet I posited no such thing. I was speaking merely of how irrational it is to posit the contrary.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof? Next, will you ask for me to prove a negative?

So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it? What do you base that on?

In the context of the discussion, and the terms you were using, ignosticism.

I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.

Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.

 

[stiggywiggy]

So what´s the nature of those discussions you are having?

Well, my wife of 20 years died of breast cancer a few years ago and I loved her greatly. You can use your imagination about what any discussions about that love may entail. And if I ever get to know you better, maybe I'll share with you. But I'm puzzled as to why you want me to flesh out such personal details with you.

Are they anywhere close to the discussions we are having here?

Not remotely.

You ask very strange questions and never explain why.

 

[stiggywiggy]

The problem is rather: How could I (or someone else) possibly discuss your feelings?

Why would you or anyone else want to discuss my feelings? You don't even know me.

Your love for your wife is undisputed,

How could you know that? It is to me.

as is your belief that a God exists.

How could you possibly know whether or not anyone disputes if I believe that God exists? And if you knew, what of it? How does that impact our discussion here as to whether or not that which cannot be defined therefore cannnot be discussed?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it? What do you base that on?

>In the context of the discussion, and the terms you were >using, ignosticism.

​

So you base your belief that if something cannot be defined, it therefore cannot be discussed, on....... a word?? Then I suggest you DEFINE that word so you can DISCUSS it in regard to how that word negates the ability to discuss that which cannot be defined.

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
​

I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.
​

Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.

So you think that if I discuss here in detail the love I had for my wife to a guy who doesn't know me and never knew my wife, that that will somehow help you explain how the indefinability of a word or concept precludes its ever being discussed? How would that work?

Take it up with Kant.

Kant's not here, so I'm taking it up with you. So I'll ask again:

Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly?

​

.I find absolute statements such as that to be suspect. Are you confident that you are aware of all that neuroscience has to say on that subject, or may discover in the future?

You're the guy who thinks otherwise. So tell me. How does "neuroscience" explain my attraction to the curvature of a woman's body?

Attempting to shift the burden of proof?

Huh? You make no sense. You had said that I posited the existence of the transcendent. You fail to show where I did that, since I never did and never have. I pointed out to you that on the contrary, it is YOU who posited the non-existence of the transcendent. What "burden of proof" are you talking about, and why do you see it shifting?

Next, will you ask for me to prove a negative?

I'm beginning to think your overindulgence in laughing emoticons should be directed toward you. You continue to make no sense. You make comments and don't even attempt to explain them. Let's take that last one, for example. Please cut and paste whatever quote of mine leads you to believe that I might ask you to prove a negative.

Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.

You want me to relate conversations with you about my love for my wife? Sorry, I won't be doing that at least until I get to know you better.

Why do you want to know? Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case that that which cannot be defined therefore cannot be discussed.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Correct. I've said that several times now.

Yes, you've said that something which can't be proven should be given more weight if a lot of people believe in it, despite examples like a lot of people believing Elvis is still alive and lots of people believing other belief systems, which don't seem to carry any weight with you at all, despite the numbers. It sounds like special pleading.

To tell? No way to tell? Dang, I thought you had it there for a minute. Since when does considering the remote possibility that phenomena X can be real, tell us whether or not it is real?

If we can't tell whether something is real or not, how can we know it is?

If a juror hears two witnesses relay very unbelievable testimonies, they are INSTRUCTED to consider them, not use them "to tell" if they are true.

You weren't talking about unbelievable testimony, since lots of people do believe in Jesus Christ or other forms of God. You were talking about testimony that can't be tested or proven, and how irrational it is to disbelieve it if a lot of people believe it. I disagree and think it's very rational to believe what can be tested or proven, and not irrational to disbelieve testimonies that can't be. You seem to agree with that in some cases, like for Elvis or other gods.

I'm not even being abstruse, much less obtuse. It was a simple question. What testimonies have you read from ancient Greek citizens which relay personal experiences with Zeus or Minerva?

If I recall my Greek Mythology, Leda and Alcmene, among others, had personal experiences with Zeus. There are more, a lot more as I recall, but I don't see the point to further research. Athena, the Greek name for the Roman Minerva, was a virgin goddess, by the way.

Of course not. I never even implied it would.

You said, or implied, that Christianity should be given more weight because of the number of people who believe in it.

Your analogy will work only if you can show me someone who claims to have had a personal experience with the Nigerain scheme actually working.

Why, can you show me someone who claims to have a personal experience with Jesus Christ that can be similarly proven in the same way, such as money from a Nigerian prince?

You can't, so I suggest you drop the analogy.

Both claims are unbelievable and neither claim can be proven and neither claim has any tangible results that can be measured.

 

[Davian]

I see you have had a little HTML struggle, but here goes...

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it? What do you base that on?

​

So you base your belief that if something cannot be defined, it therefore cannot be discussed, on....... a word?? Then I suggest you DEFINE that word so you can DISCUSS it in regard to how that word negates the ability to discuss that which cannot be defined.​

​

I already did that, but you didn't like "non-existant", so the ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
[/INDENT]

I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.
​

So you think that if I discuss here in detail the love I had for my wife to a guy who doesn't know me and never knew my wife, that that will somehow help you explain how the indefinability of a word or concept precludes its ever being discussed? How would that work?

I am very sorry to hear of your loss. The point is, when you talk with your family, do you not have to use words that have agreed upon meanings?

Kant's not here, so I'm taking it up with you. So I'll ask again:

Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly?

​

Where did I post these axioms? I don't even agree with Kant.

You're the guy who thinks otherwise. So tell me. How does "neuroscience" explain my attraction to the curvature of a woman's body?

Neuroscience is the study of brains. Are you positing that something other than your brain might be responsible for those feelings you have?

Huh? You make no sense. You had said that I posited the existence of the transcendent. You fail to show where I did that, since I never did and never have. I pointed out to you that on the contrary, it is YOU who posited the non-existence of the transcendent. What "burden of proof" are you talking about, and why do you see it shifting?

In post # 150 you claim: "They transcend the empirical realm".

In post # 187 you state: "Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case..."

Your claim, *your* case.

And it's not shifting - it's still all yours.

I'm beginning to think your overindulgence in laughing emoticons should be directed toward you. You continue to make no sense. You make comments and don't even attempt to explain them. Let's take that last one, for example. Please cut and paste whatever quote of mine leads you to believe that I might ask you to prove a negative.

My indulgence in laughing emoticons is an indication that I find things funny. Don't take it personally.

To continue....

In post # 187 you state: "Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case..."

You want me to relate conversations with you about my love for my wife? Sorry, I won't be doing that at least until I get to know you better.

Why do you want to know? Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case that that which cannot be defined therefore cannot be discussed.

link.

 

[quatona]

Well, my wife of 20 years died of breast cancer a few years ago and I loved her greatly. You can use your imagination about what any discussions about that love may entail. And if I ever get to know you better, maybe I'll share with you. But I'm puzzled as to why you want me to flesh out such personal details with you.

I have no personal interest at all in that. You were the one who brought up those "discussions" as an analogy for the discussions here, and I am merely wondering to which extent the two are comparable.

Not remotely.

You ask very strange questions and never explain why.

The strangeness of my question merely reflects the strangeness of your comparison.

 

[quatona]

Why would you or anyone else want to discuss my feelings?

I don´t know. You were the one bringing up the discussion about your feelings, for whatever reason.

You don't even know me.

I neither would nor could discuss your feelings, even if I knew you better.

How could you know that? It is to me.

Exactly my point.

How could you possibly know whether or not anyone disputes if I believe that God exists?

Well, I don´t dispute it, and I haven´t seen anyone else here dispute it.

How does that impact our discussion here as to whether or not that which cannot be defined therefore cannnot be discussed?

I don´t know. You were the one introducing your family discussions concerning your love for your wife - I am just trying to find out why you felt this was relevant for the topic at hand.

The reason why I cannot discuss based on undefined keyterms is simple: A definition would be required for me to even have an idea what you are actually trying to communicate.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that one of the problems with atheism is that a lot of secular culture is pretty grim. That does not make it false, it just makes it impractical. I am not saying the faith based culture is necessarily superior, but in a junkyard aka "civilisation" anything that gives me a ride will do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that one of the problems with atheism is that a lot of secular culture is pretty grim. That does not make it false, it just makes it impractical. I am not saying the faith based culture is necessarily superior, but in a junkyard aka "civilisation" anything that gives me a ride will do.

What leads you to think that "a lot of secular culture is pretty grim", and what does that have to do with atheism?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stiggywiggy]

Yes, you've said that something which can't be proven should be given more weight if a lot of people believe in it,

Correct. The American jury system agrees with that position.

despite examples like a lot of people believing Elvis is still alive and lots of people believing other belief systems, which don't seem to carry any weight with you at all, despite the numbers. It sounds like special pleading.

It's special pleading only in the sense that I am pleading with you to exercise some common sense. Obviously if 2 billion people claim that Elvis never died, but has been seen recently, only an idiot would give equal weight to the same claim made by a mere hundred or so.

If we can't tell whether something is real or not, how can we know it is?

You can't know. That should be obvious. In fact it's tautological. If we can't know that X is real, we can't know that X is real. (What strange questions you ask.)

You weren't talking about unbelievable testimony, since lots of people do believe in Jesus Christ or other forms of God.

So you don't find testimonies about experiences with Jesus to be unbelievable?

Sorry. I mistook you for an atheist.

You were talking about testimony that can't be tested or proven, and how irrational it is to disbelieve it if a lot of people believe it.

Well we certainly agree on that. Popularity of a belief surely cannot offer proof for that belief. Whatever guy you've mixed me up with, who is contending such nonsense, let me know and we'll go after him together.

If I recall my Greek Mythology, Leda and Alcmene, among others, had personal experiences with Zeus.

What years did Leda and Alcmene walk the earth?

You said, or implied, that Christianity should be given more weight because of the number of people who believe in it.

Yes, the principle is the same as that of our justice system, which instructs us to give more weight to 20 unprovable testimonies than we do to 2 unprovable testimonies.

Why, can you show me someone who claims to have a personal experience with Jesus Christ that can be similarly proven in the same way, such as money from a Nigerian prince?

No. Why would you think that which is POSITED as unprovable can be proven?

 

[stiggywiggy]

I see you have had a little HTML struggle, but here goes...
[/indent]I already did that, but you didn't like "non-existant", so the ball is in your court.

For what? I don't see any ball, metaphorical or otherwise.

I am very sorry to hear of your loss.

Thank you.

The point is, when you talk with your family, do you not have to use words that have agreed upon meanings?

Of course. I use words with meaning when discussing anything with anyone. And as I said, I can used those words to discuss that which I cannot define, i.e. my love for my wife, thus disputing the contention that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.

Where did I post these axioms?

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?

I don't even agree with Kant.

So to answer a question, you simply refer to someone with whom you don't agree? Strange.

Neuroscience is the study of brains. Are you positing that something other than your brain might be responsible for those feelings you have?

Absolutely. I do not confuse the conveyance system with that which is conveyed. Of course, you are positing the opposite. Neither one of us will be able to prove our postulates.

In post # 150 you claim: "They transcend the empirical realm".

In post # 187 you state: "Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case..."

Your claim, *your* case.

My case? No, I specifically asked you to give me an example of how a discussion about one's love for one's wife might somehow manifest an inability to discuss that which cannot be defined.

My indulgence in laughing emoticons is an indication that I find things funny.

So what are you busting a gut about in this discussion?

Don't take it personally.

Why would I do that? I don't even know you. In fact the idea that I might take a laughing emoticon from you personally just might deserve a laughing emoticon of its own.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I have no personal interest at all in that. You were the one who brought up those "discussions" as an analogy for the discussions here, and I am merely wondering to which extent the two are comparable.

To the same extent that ANY two would be comparable. Forget my wife for now, deal with this:

That which cannot be defined can still be discussed, whether particularized love or the particularized taste for okra. That's why we have the word "ineffable," which can be both defined and discussed.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I don´t know. You were the one bringing up the discussion about your feelings, for whatever reason.

Wrong, as usual. I never said a thing about feelings. Let me refresh your memory. Someone here claimed that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed. I gave an example which contradicts that: I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I can discuss it.

I neither would nor could discuss your feelings, even if I knew you better.

Then why did you bring up my feelings then?

I don´t know. You were the one introducing your family discussions concerning your love for your wife - I am just trying to find out why you felt this was relevant for the topic at hand.

That must be because you got in the discussion late or something, and perhaps missed the reason for bringing it up. So you don't like the wife example? OK, try my love of okra. I cannot define the taste, yet I can discuss it.

The reason why I cannot discuss based on undefined keyterms is simple: A definition would be required for me to even have an idea what you are actually trying to communicate.

So you need to already know about X before you can listen to someone else discuss X? So either (a). you've never learned anything or (b). you were born knowing what you now know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can Shakespeare NOT transcend his own works?

I didn't know Christians worshiped Shakespeare as a transcendent god. However, I do know that answering a question with a question isn't really an answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ask a prosecuting attorney or a defense lawyer. He or she will explain to you why one should give greater consideration to the testimony of five, than one would to the testimony of two. I'll let you extrapolate the numbers outward, and then you can apply it to Buddhism, Christianity, abominable snowman claims, whatever.

It looks like you're telling me that you should give more weight to the religious testimony of Buddhists than people of your own denomination. That makes me wonder why you're not Buddhist. Seems like it would be the correct thing to do if the number of people believing in something correlated with how much weight we should give to personal testimony. Maybe it's not such a great approach to finding truth after all.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Especially if one counts non-experience as an experience. That is, since 2/3 of the world do NOT experience the truth of Christianity, surely it is false.