Atheism

[stiggywiggy]

No. There's obviously nothing absolute about that statement, which is probably why you didn't even attempt to explain why you were deluded into thinking it is.

Hint: I will not simply be taking your word for your declarations.
​

You made an absolute statement.

Then by all means, get on with it!! Cut and paste the statement and elaborate about where you see absolutism.

How does your use of the word "undefinability" leave it open to being defined in the future?

Who said it did and who said it didn't? Why do you ask so may irrelevant questions? Did I somehow imply that my inability to define the love I had for my wife, or the pleasure I get smelling the creosite on telephone poles, somehow means either that some day they both will be definable, or that they never will?
​

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

You might want to lay off the nitrous oxide.
​

or replying to your posts.

That might be a good idea.
​

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

I can relate to your misery. For example, I like it when Jennifer Lopez visits me, but alas, that too never happens.
​

It appears that you are wrong.

Post #220 stiggywiggy says: "OK. Thanks for the belated admission."
Post #234 stiggywiggy replys: "Admission??? What are you talking about? Let me put my quote up again...." [/

quote]

Man, you seem real confused here. So you somehow think that if I acknowledge that you admitted something, that I therefore admitted something on my own?

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

So you were not the guy saying something that stupid? My bad.
​

Actually, you were the one who first said words to that effect back at the end of post 169.

​

Nope. I checked post 169. No words to that effect at all. Most likely that's why you just put the post number up, instead of cutting and pasting that very a post of mine. If you had done that, it would have proven you wrong.




Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

So you DO believe that although transcendent phenomena (if they exist) cannot be defined, they CAN be discussed? OK, we're together on that.
​

Sure, but those discussions will be of no significance.

​

To YOU??? Of course not. Please explain your rationale behind simply declaring that discussions about possible transcendent entities are not "significant?"

How are they less significant than discussions about Gilligan's Island, which transcended nothing??

Same goes for "God".

Wow. I never knew until this moment that Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth and Thomas of Aquinas wasted so much of their life with something that has no significance whatsoever. If they had only met you, and heard your declaration of the insignificance of any talk about God, maybe they could have chosen more lucrative careers.

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Correct. Providing empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical realm would not be possible. By definition.
​

Providing empirical evidence for the existence of a non-existent realm would not be possible. By definition.

Providing empirical evidence for the existence of a non-existent God would not be possible. By definition.

​

Of course. Why state the obvious? That point is axiomatic to the point I made when I first entered this thread. But it seems we now have this implied from you:

If X cannot be empirically proven, all discussions about X are not "significant."

Well then, it looks like since you will be unable to provide empirical evidence for the validity of that opinion, according to you, we can no longer have a significant discussion about whether or not that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.




​

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Because it works.
​

Analogies do not work without supporting evidence.

And yet this one did. That's why you simply make declarations. You are unable to show me how it doesn't work.

Look, if you think it "doesn't work" (how vague can you get?), why not at least cut and paste the analogy and give me the details about what you think isn't working.

By supporting evidence, I assume you mean "empirical evidence." Now your task is to explain why empirical evidence is necessary for an analogy. Why didn't our English teachers warn us about the importance of empirical evidence when using analogies?

I guess you think before I could use that analogy, I should have first empirically verified that hypothetical creatures who live under the hood of a car all their lives, will never see an accelerator.

They cannot stand alone and be of any significance.

​

Stand alone??? What are you even talking about? The analogy I used "stood alone?" What's that mean.




Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

It won't be coming, since I sure never said that you do not have evidence to support your "understanding" of how the brain works.
​

Wrong.

Well no., I'm right. You have this strange habit of declaring stuff and then cutting and pasting immediately below the declaration, putting up the very quote showing the error in your declaration. Take here for example. I said and you reqoted:

Post #220 "None. I also have no evidence to the contrary. Nor do you."

How could you possibly have construed my saying that you had no evidence to the contrary that a transcendent realm exists, as somehow tantamount to saying you do not have evidence to support your "understanding" of how the brain works?




​

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Webster does not take theological stances.
​

I specifically asked for *your* definition of angels. Do you define them as fictional or real?

​

Real.



Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Yep. Pretty much any word can be defined. In fact, all words have definitions available somewhere. It is certain phenomena that cannot be defined. I gave an example with the love I had for my wife.
​

Again with the absolute statements, with nothing to back them up.

​

Man, you have GOT to learn the definition of "absolute." You don't even attempt to explain what word or term you think I am using in an absolute sense. At least give me a hint: Am I allegedly using "definitions" absolutely? Am I somehow in your mind stating that my love for my wife is absolute? Is it an absolute in your mind that I am using words "absolutely."

Define "God."

Nah,I won't be doing that. I've stated about ten times here that I cannot define God. That fact, was axiomatic to my entry into this thread.

Define "Transcendent".

Lying beyond the range of perception, aka empirical verification.

As your response did not include a robust definition for 'transcendent' or a demonstration of why the word is of any significance, I will accept this as abdication on your part.

​

Look, man. If every response I make meets with demands for dictionary definitions from you, I do indeed "abdicate." I figured I was dealing with someone with a better vocabulary. If you don't know the meaning of words like "transcendent," just look them up. Or at least don't get involved in discussions about words you don't even know the meaning of.
​

 

[RobinRobyn]

In a trieal there are certain standards of evidence that must be met. If I say I dreampt that someone killed my brother that will not do. But that does not mean that for example mystical experiences cannot be treated as evidence by certain people. Of course, whether accepting them, ant this standard of evidence actually leads ont to the truth is questionable. I suppose it ultimately depends on your epistemology and metaphysics, and what relation they actually bear to reality. I think that empiricism and physicalism are the safest options, because they are more conservative in their claims. But I am not sure that they are the only way, even if that means accepting I am not a philosophical know all.

The dream is the kind of evidence Stiggywiggy seems to believe is accepted all the time in court trials. He is mistaken.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Well no, it is simply not true that all witnesses have their testimony proven with evidence. Have you ever been to court? Ever at least watch Perry Mason or Law & Order?

I didn't say lawyers use corroborate evidence for all witnesses, only those whose testimony needs corroboration the most.

The fact remains that our justice system allows unprovable eyewitness testimonies for a reason. It is so that jurors can consider them; not simply accept them as factual.

They can be used, but without corroboration, it's weak.

Why does it matter if its transcendental? An eyewitness testimony with nothing else accompanying it is NOT evidence. Certainly not provable evidence.

All witness testimony is evidence, and you brought up transcendental testimony.

 

[sandwiches]

Don't say things like that without at least attempting to show what you mean.

Oh wait. You CAN'T. Maybe because you know I never did any such thing.

I quoted you HERE where you were implying that the testimony of a large group should be believed over the testimony of a smaller group and you ignored my post. I guess you don't like being shown where you're wrong.

 

[CTD]

You can hold exactly the same attitude toward any spiritual beings, includes God. So, if an atheist believed in ghost and expected that science would discover some concrete evidences of ghost "in the future", then why wouldn't the atheist also believe in God?

That's a very good point there: atheists persist in telling us this, that, and the other thing will be discovered, proven, explained, etc. A very large percentage of their arguments presuppose future discoveries, of which we have no evidence.

 

[CTD]

I quoted you HERE where you were implying that the testimony of a large group should be believed over the testimony of a smaller group and you ignored my post. I guess you don't like being shown where you're wrong.

I don't have any problem keeping track of stiggywiggy's position. It's been consistent from the very beginning. None of the attempts at misportrayal have remotely approached success.

I would briefly summarize it:
Testimony of hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be casually dismissed.

Now that's from memory, but I'm confident in the accuracy.

I suggest reading someone's own words, rather than those supplied by hostile entities.

 

[sandwiches]

That's a very good point there: atheists persist in telling us this, that, and the other thing will be discovered, proven, explained, etc. A very large percentage of their arguments presuppose future discoveries, of which we have no evidence.

Give an example of what you're talking about.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't have any problem keeping track of stiggywiggy's position. It's been consistent from the very beginning. None of the attempts at misportrayal have remotely approached success.

I would briefly summarize it:
Testimony of hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be casually dismissed.

Now that's from memory, but I'm confident in the accuracy.

I suggest reading someone's own words, rather than those supplied by hostile entities.

This is incorrect. Maybe you should read his posts, instead. He says:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

So, he's not merely saying, as you indicated, that "Testimony of hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be casually dismissed." He is very clearly saying that we should not give equal weight to the testimony of many as we do to the testimony of a few. So, why should we not give them equal weight?

 

[CTD]

I don't have any problem keeping track of stiggywiggy's position. It's been consistent from the very beginning. None of the attempts at misportrayal have remotely approached success.

I would briefly summarize it:
Testimony of hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be casually dismissed.

Now that's from memory, but I'm confident in the accuracy.

I suggest reading someone's own words, rather than those supplied by hostile entities.

This is incorrect. Maybe you should read his posts, instead. He says:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

Instead? No - that's supplemental, rather than contradictory. There's no contradiction, and you shall not manufacture one. Anyone can see what's been said; anyone can see how many attempts to put words in the man's mouth have failed. Anyone with the least bit of sense will predict failure for future attempts as well.

So, he's not merely saying, as you indicated, that "Testimony of hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be casually dismissed." He is very clearly saying that we should not give equal weight to the testimony of many as we do to the testimony of a few. So, why should we not give them equal weight?

Oh, is it supposed to be difficult to keep track?

I can copy & paste:

Pro tip: Don't say things like that after spending 10 pages advocating the contrary.
​

Don't say things like that without at least attempting to show what you mean.

Oh wait. You CAN'T. Maybe because you know I never did any such thing.

Yes, this is the accusation we're discussing. You have chosen to present one quotation, but you haven't presented ten pages of contradiction, neither shall you. You haven't presented so much as a single contradiction.

Either you don't understand how evidence works, or you think the readership doesn't.

Here's the original context, by the way.

Any argument from popularity is bad and that's why it has its own name: Argumentum ad populum.

Popularity? I'm talking about numbers, not popularity, and I'll say it again:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

So explaining the difference between argumentum ad populum and his own position somehow constitutes a contradiction???

Somehow ... nobody shall ever explain.

And there's a reason why: if - just if now, the man did decide to adopt ad populum, what then? Then there would be a problem - not just the fallacy, but an actual contradiction. His argument would shift drastically - it wouldn't be consistent any more. I doubt you'll convince him.

He'd go from "so much testimony should not be ignored" (paraphrase) to "whoever has the most people wins". Sounds like a potential loser, like self-defeat. Those with no testimony likely outnumber those with testimony. Small wonder you wish him to fall into the trap.

Still, even if he did - here's what's funny: it wouldn't make you right.

 

[sandwiches]

Instead? No - that's supplemental, rather than contradictory. There's no contradiction, and you shall not manufacture one. Anyone can see what's been said; anyone can see how many attempts to put words in the man's mouth have failed. Anyone with the least bit of sense will predict failure for future attempts as well.


Oh, is it supposed to be difficult to keep track?

I can copy & paste:
Yes, this is the accusation we're discussing. You have chosen to present one quotation, but you haven't presented ten pages of contradiction, neither shall you. You haven't presented so much as a single contradiction.

Either you don't understand how evidence works, or you think the readership doesn't.

Here's the original context, by the way.



So explaining the difference between argumentum ad populum and his own position somehow constitutes a contradiction???

Somehow ... nobody shall ever explain.

And there's a reason why: if - just if now, the man did decide to adopt ad populum, what then? Then there would be a problem - not just the fallacy, but an actual contradiction. His argument would shift drastically - it wouldn't be consistent any more. I doubt you'll convince him.

He'd go from "so much testimony should not be ignored" (paraphrase) to "whoever has the most people wins". Sounds like a potential loser, like self-defeat. Those with no testimony likely outnumber those with testimony. Small wonder you wish him to fall into the trap.

Still, even if he did - here's what's funny: it wouldn't make you right.

A lot of words and very little substance. More importantly, you evaded the point of the debate entirely by mocking strawmen. The point remains that he continues to promote the idea that we should give more credence to the testimony of many than to that of few. Why should we do this?

 

[CTD]

A lot of words and very little substance. More importantly, you evaded the point of the debate entirely by mocking strawmen. The point remains that he continues to promote the idea that we should give more credence to the testimony of many than to that of few. Why should we do this?

Do tell...

How many posts ago did this become "the point"?

Reviewing... does not support that conclusion.

Your "strawmen" false accusation is duly noted, routine as it may be.

And here's a hint: what you really need to do is actually justify the flippant dismissal of a superabundance of testimony. That'd be to the point.

 

[sandwiches]

Do tell...

How many posts ago did this become "the point"?

Reviewing... does not support that conclusion.

Your "strawmen" false accusation is duly noted, routine as it may be.

And here's a hint: what you really need to do is actually justify the flippant dismissal of a superabundance of testimony. That'd be to the point.

CTD, why should we put more credence in the testimony of many over the testimony of a few?

 

[Red Tornado]

Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?
I am a strong atheist in the view of the Christian religion, as I was a previous devot Christian. A weak atheist for pagan religions.
What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?
Its your life bro, do what you want.
What are your opinions on Religion?
A free thinking one (ie one without rules from a book that can be speficially quoted or mistranslated) tends to be the one I can endure and talk to happily. )
What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.
Love those guys.
Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?
Some, mostly online. Mostly I get the "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" thing on youtube.

 

[Ken-1122]

Mistake

 

[plindboe]

Recently I have become fascinated by Atheism and Atheistic philosophy.

Atheism is just a response to a single claim, it's not a philosophy.

I want to ask you guys (the Atheist community here) what should Christians know about Atheism?

What atheism is defined as, by people applying the label to themselves, would be a good start. An atheist is what you are if someone asks you if you believe in God or gods and you answer it with a no. A position that's hard to criticize and demonize, so many Christians make up their own definitions instead.

Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?

What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?

I dislike the strong/weak qualifiers, because even atheists can't agree on their meaning. I used to call myself a strong atheist, because not only don't I believe that there are God/gods (atheism), but I also have the belief that there are no God/gods (strong atheism). I recognize though that this isn't knowledge, but a belief that is liable to change if I'm exposed to new, convincing evidence, so that also makes me an agnostic. Some atheists' heads seem to explode if I describe myself as an agnostic, strong atheist; so I think it's best to just stop using the strong/weak qualifiers entirely.

What are your opinions on Religion?

Not a fan at all. But I see that some people seem to need it, so I don't really want religion abolished entirely. The bigger enemy is dogma and arrogance. I consider myself more on the same side as the liberal religious people (versus the fundamentalists), rather than on the side of the irreligious (versus the religious).

What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.

I don't know who Peter Atkins is, but I like the others very much; Hitchens and Shermer the most. They all have their flaws, but I think their voices are very important. Questioning religion is a virtue to me, because unquestioned religion tends to become more and more extreme over time.

Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?

No. I live in a predominantly atheist country though, so that's not saying much.

Peter

 

[Upisoft]

I dislike the strong/weak qualifiers, because even atheists can't agree on their meaning.

I dislike any qualifiers. I can't qualify myself as either theist, atheist and/or agnostic. The faith icon on my profile is chosen for its visual appearance.

In fact I don't know what I believe. I'm often surprised by my subconscious me and the beliefs it has. I can talk about my conscious me and say it is an atheist, but that's not all what is me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can talk about my conscious me and say it is an atheist, but that's not all what is me.

"Atheism" is a very tiny part of atheists. It doesn't describe one as completely as "Christian" does, because Christianity is a way of life, and atheism isn't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

"Atheism" is a very tiny part of atheists. It doesn't describe one as completely as "Christian" does, because Christianity is a way of life, and atheism isn't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Indeed, but since my subconsciousness may disagree with my consciousness I do not tend to claim that I'm an atheist. I am not only my conscious part. I know my subconsciousness can have its own decisions. It would be not fair to put labels on me that may disagree with that part of me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Indeed, but since my subconsciousness may disagree with my consciousness I do not tend to claim that I'm an atheist. I am not only my conscious part. I know my subconsciousness can have its own decisions. It would be not fair to put labels on me that may disagree with that part of me.

If you are consciously an atheist, you are an atheist. I don't see what sense it makes to wonder what one is subconsciously. That's like saying that if consciously one doesn't believe that one can fly, but subconsciously one might dream of oneself flying, therefore one can't say that one doesn't believe that one can fly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

If you are consciously an atheist, you are an atheist. I don't see what sense it makes to wonder what one is subconsciously. That's like saying that if consciously one doesn't believe that one can fly, but subconsciously one might dream of oneself flying, therefore one can't say that one doesn't believe that one can fly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is not that simple. In this case one has conscious belief that one can't fly. Or IOW, the conscious belief database in his mind reads:
1) I can't fly.
///end

If that person has the opposite statement in his subconscious belief database:
1) I can fly.
///end

This person will have very serious mental condition.


In my case I have no conscious statement about god(s). There is nothing in my conscious belief database:
///end

Whatever is the statement in my subconscious belief database, if there is one will not be contradictory to my consciousness. But I think it matters, even I don't know what is it.