Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

[hamashiachagape]

So, what are you even talking about, huh?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stult2.html

 

[hamashiachagape]

So, what are you even talking about, huh?

People who call themselves Atheists from an Epistemological standpoint are not Atheists, but Agnostics. It is reflected in their claims. Atheism is self contradictory. Especially as a majority of people here so far have interpreted it because its steeped in post modernism. What I'm stating it Be Intellectually Honest.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

People who call themselves Atheists from an Epistemological standpoint are not Atheists, but Agnostics. It is reflected in their claims.

No, not necessarily. Don't forget about self-contradictory statements, for example. Or "self-stultifying statements." Or plainly and simply meaningless, semantically empty statements.

You cannot be agnostic about Invisible Pink Unicorns, or sdahkferuhz, or some such. At best, you would be confused.

Especially as a majority of people here so far have interpreted it because its steeped in post modernism. What I'm stating it Be Intellectually Honest.

Whom are you telling this? ETA: And I am absolutely convinced you know absolutely all about post-modernism, what with your having read McDowell and given your obsession (or so it seems) with it (PM, that is).

 

[hamashiachagape]

No, not necessarily. Don't forget about self-contradictory statements, for example. Or "self-stultifiying statements." Or plainly and simply meaningless, semantically empty statements.

You cannot be agnostic about Invisible Pink Unicorns, or sdahkferuhz, or some such. At best, you would be confused.

Philosophically speaking, invisible...then pink is self refutation. You are switching the subject though, unless you also consider Invisible Pink Unicorns to be a part of Atheism. Otherwise its a part of another position that we are not discussing right now. Haven't you heard the sum of the whole is greater than its parts? At the same time, taking one of its parts to refute the rest is also valuable to do as it demonstrates that its claims are not steeped in absolute truth when you do this. "Invisible Pink Unicorns" fails on a self refutational basis, just as Atheism does. But not an arbitrary, I don't want to look at it, basis as Atheism adheres to. It still does not do anything to the fact that Atheism is a position. You are actually utilizing a mysticistic strategy (a position that Atheists would not be fond of to begin with) when you state that it is a lack of position.

Whom are you telling this?

Everybody who tries to call themselves Atheists.

 

[dewaddict84]

The evidence for the Theory of Evolution is so convincing and its use as a tool for understanding the world so well-refined that it takes a deep emotional attachment to a religion that deems it taboo to prevent its acceptance.

What? No. This is You have to twist religion to believe that such a denial is taboo. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. This is what WicketWillow has been going on about. Listen.

I'm an atheist. I also like cheesecake.

Oh man, I like cheesecake too, it must be one of those atheist things.

The church of Atheism even agrees.

Yeah, don't put too much faith in what they have to say, ok?

[agnostic atheism]I am stating, choose one or the other.

No.

Any statement is philosophical

Naw man. You're doing that thing where you broaden the meaning of a word to include everything. With effort, it can be done with pretty much anything. But if EVERYTHING is philosophical, then the definition of philosophy loses all meaning as there's nothing to distinguish it by. Really, if it's all philosophy, what ISN'T philosophy? If the answer is "nothing", then that means the statement "____ is philosophical" becomes empty and meaningless.

As a philosophy kind of guy, that's your focus. A math guy would also say that everything boils down to mathematics. And a hair-brained baker would say that everything is really just baking. (also, Bender would say all activities are just a primitive form of bending.) You'd all be right, in your own way, but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics.

The realist realizes that a rock is just a rock. There's nothing much philosophical about it.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What? No. This is You have to twist religion to believe that such a denial is taboo. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. This is what WicketWillow has been going on about. Listen.

AHHHH Evolution being called a religion. Wow. Scientists would be proud of this I'm sure. At least Creation Scientist Jonathan Sarfati would.

Oh man, I like cheesecake too, it must be one of those atheist things.

Okay?

Yeah, don't put too much faith in what they have to say, ok?

Why not?

No.

Why?

Naw man. You're doing that thing where you broaden the meaning of a word to include everything. With effort, it can be done with pretty much anything. But if EVERYTHING is philosophical, then the definition of philosophy loses all meaning as there's nothing to distinguish it by. Really, if it's all philosophy, what ISN'T philosophy? If the answer is "nothing", then that means the statement "____ is philosophical" becomes empty and meaningless.

No because Philosophically, while underlying everything, things still have different meanings. So how?

As a philosophy kind of guy, that's your focus. A math guy would also say that everything boils down to mathematics. And a hair-brained baker would say that everything is really just baking. (also, Bender would say all activities are just a primitive form of bending.) You'd all be right, in your own way, but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics.

Actually, I'm a Theological kind of guy.

The realist realizes that a rock is just a rock. There's nothing much philosophical about it.

I'm a Metaphysical realist.

 

[hamashiachagape]

No, not necessarily. Don't forget about self-contradictory statements, for example. Or "self-stultifying statements." Or plainly and simply meaningless, semantically empty statements.

You cannot be agnostic about Invisible Pink Unicorns, or sdahkferuhz, or some such. At best, you would be confused.

You make a good point about Agnosticism. Which is why I'm a Theist.

Whom are you telling this? ETA: And I am absolutely convinced you know absolutely all about post-modernism, what with your having read McDowell and given your obsession (or so it seems) with it (PM, that is).

[/QUOTE]

Well, everybody here. Read his book. Some of the facts are..meh, but the Epistemology is great.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Philosophically speaking, invisible...then pink is self refutation.

Correct

You are switching the subject though, unless you also consider Invisible Pink Unicorns to be a part of Atheism.

I am not switching the subject. Or are you somehow of the opinion that we are talking about Invisible Pink Unicorns themselves, huh'?

Otherwise its a part of another position that we are not discussing right now. Haven't you heard the sum of the whole is greater than its parts? At the same time, taking one of its parts to refute the rest is also valuable to do as it demonstrates that its claims are not steeped in absolute truth when you do this. "Invisible Pink Unicorns" fails on a self refutational basis, just as Atheism does.

If somebody does not believe that God exist, that is not self-refutating.

No more than not believing that Australia does not exist. Such a person, might at best be wrong, but that is it.

Or, no more than not believing that Atlantis doesn't (didn't) exist. Such a person, might at best be wrong, but that is it. Again.

Or, that IPUs don't exist. It is even impossible to believe in IPUs.

When it comes to ssxuera, it is impossible too to believe that it exists, simply because it is empty and meaningless. It might, however, confuse the heck out of people to actually state that you don't believe in it, but it will not be self-contradictory.


I am not sure what kind of problem you have with that.

But not an arbitrary, I don't want to look at it, basis as Atheism adheres to. It still does not do anything to the fact that Atheism is a position. You are actually utilizing a mysticistic strategy (a position that Atheists would not be fond of to begin with) when you state that it is a lack of position.

Atheism can be this, or it can be that. Again, I don't see quite what problem you have with that.

Everybody who tries to call themselves Atheists.

Don't forget to take an oxygen mask.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You make a good point about Agnosticism.

N'est-ce pas?

Which is why I'm a Theist.

And why I am a strong atheist. (I'd rather be a theist/deist or some such though, depending on which definition of "God" you manage to convince me about. But that is not going to happen, and would be no different from learning a new word.)

 

[hamashiachagape]

N'est-ce pas?



And why I am a strong atheist. (I'd rather be a theist/deist or some such though, depending on which definition of "God" you manage to convince me about. But that is not going to happen, and would be no different from learning a new word.)

Well right now we're only talking about Open Theism. The rest has to do with Theological concerns, now that we have something to talk about.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You may wish to read a book on Antony Flew, who made the same jump into Open Theism. We can progress from there.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well right now we're only talking about Open Theism. The rest has to do with Theological concerns, now that we have something to talk about.

No, I am not an open theist. Strong atheist/ignostic.


(And I meant to say that "I'd rather be a theist/deist or some such though than agnostic ... ." Sorry, if that caused confusion. It is not going to happen anyway.)

 

[MewtwoX]

You may wish to read a book on Antony Flew, who made the same jump into Open Theism. We can progress from there.

Now that was a rather sad case of exploitation by some apologists. They took avdantage of Flew's emerging senility to "convince" him with an argument from design.

Antony Felw's book was practically ghost written by a Christian apologist.

There isn't much "street cred" there.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Now that was a rather sad case of exploitation by some apologists. They took avdantage of Flew's emerging senility to "convince" him with an argument from design.

Antony Felw's book was practically ghost written by a Christian apologist.

There isn't much "street cred" there.

Is that what they're telling you?

I don't recall Antony Flew accepting Jesus Christ as Lord. It does make for an interesting conspiracy theory though.

Can we do the same thing with Charles Templeton? How does this game work?

 

[hamashiachagape]

No, I am not an open theist. Strong atheist/ignostic.


(And I meant to say that "I'd rather be a theist/deist or some such though than agnostic ... ." Sorry, if that caused confusion. It is not going to happen anyway.)

You are not following logic. I would encourage you to be more open minded.

 

[MewtwoX]

Is that what they're telling you?

I don't recall Antony Flew accepting Jesus Christ as Lord. It does make for an interesting conspiracy theory though.

Can we do the same thing with Charles Templeton? How does this game work?

I didn't say they tried to convert him to Christianity. It was good enough to "persuade" him to some kind of vague deism for big newspaper headlines.

It's not much of a conspiracy though, considering the whole thing was perpetrated by a Rev. Abraham Varghese.

There was a New York Times article about this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You are not following logic. I would encourage you to be more open minded.

Don't make yourself look so silly. You don't even know me.


And speaking about open-mindedness ... Have you read the telephone-book of Tokyo? If not, I would encourage you to do so. It might just be a real eye-opener and change your philosophical outlook - forever. (And if it doesn't work with Tokyo, try Moscow, Sao Paolo, or Los Angeles.)

 

[hamashiachagape]

I didn't say they tried to convert him to Christianity. It was good enough to "persuade" him to some kind of vague deism for big newspaper headlines.

It's not much of a conspiracy though, considering the whole thing was perpetrated by a Rev. Abraham Varghese.

There was a New York Times article about this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html

From your article, it makes the point I'm trying to make. "Flew’s “conversion,” first reported in late 2004, has cast him into culture wars that he contentedly avoided his whole life. Although Flew still rejects Christianity, saying only that he now believes in “an intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world,” evangelicals are understandably excited."

Flew became an Open Theist. That is by definition what his statement means.

The article is rather hypercritical of Christians who want to seem to make it sound as if Flew became a Christian. Although in the end, this can be seen as a strawman.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Don't make yourself look so silly. You don't even know me.


And speaking about open-mindedness ... Have you read the telephone-book of Tokyo? If not, I would encourage you to do so. It might just be a real eye-opener and change your philosophical outlook - forever. (And if it doesn't work with Tokyo, try Moscow, Sao Paolo, or Los Angeles.)

What about the opening and closing statements of the phone book? They tell you how the information is to be utilized. Hence there is philosophical information.

The phone book example that you are utilizing is once again a red herring. Taking the phone book example as you want me to, the question as you seem to want to relate it to in this matter is Atheism an ambiguity fallacy? Is that supposed to help its purposes? How? However, taken out of context of its useful purpose in this case (which I'm not doing with Atheism), it would have tons of nonsequitors. A name and information proceeding it does not contradict itself. Ambiguity fallacy is different from self contradictory statements.

I'd encourage you to read with an open mind. And the 2nd law of noncontradiction is your best friend.

 

[MewtwoX]

Did you read further... you know, when they started talking about Flews current mental condition and the questionable dynamic between himself and the Reverend?

My point is... mentioning Flews' conversion isn't going to convince many Atheists here.