GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:06 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Just keep displaying your ignorance here. Atheism does not say anything about your ethics or morality. This is just something that theists like to invent to make them selves feel better. If they can wedge dogma into atheism then it doesn't make them feel so awkward that they accept a premise without any basis. However; you should be reminded that atheism contains no dogma. That is like saying to a person who doesn't believe in gremlins that they have some dogma about the existence of gremlins and since they don't believe that gremlins are the cause behind the random break down of machinery that thinking there must be another explanation is dogmatic is just plain stupidity.


Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged

Atheist Dogma 1) There is no god. Diverge from it and you are no longer atheist.

There are others but does one really need to go past the morphology of the name a(non)-theos(god)-ist(follower/practitioner)? the name adopted is inherently dogmatic. There need not be an enclave of atheist masters doling out doctrine. To adopt and ideology that lays claims on the supernatural or extra-sensory is to adopt dogmatic principles. Claiming there is no God and there is no afterlife does just that.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:28 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged

Atheist Dogma 1) There is no god. Diverge from it and you are no longer atheist.


Actually you missed something very important in your definition.

Just because something is the way in which it is, does not make it dogmatic. The dogma comes when believing in something for no good reason other than to believe in it. That's what make theism dogmatic. Atheism has more support, there is a lack of evidence for the existence of god and that supports the position of atheism.

It's like a child in bed at night believing there is a monster in it's closet. Although it has never actually seen the monster, it believes the monster is there. That is dogmatic, however if the child were to turn around and say there is absolutely no good reason why i should believe there is a monster in my closet because i have never seen it, that does not make it dogmatic.

There is a difference here and you are refusing to see it.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 08:50 pm
@Krumple,
So instead of the OED from whence the definition came we are to use your definition because it suits your dogmatic beliefs about not being dogmatic?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 09:03 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

So instead of the OED from whence the definition came we are to use your definition because it suits your dogmatic beliefs about not being dogmatic?


no not at all, there is a clear distinction between what is conceived through the senses as being real, and there are things in which are only conceived in thought which have no basis in reality. You have to draw a line somewhere at some point otherwise you turn reality into insanity. Why don't we go around saying there are invisible clowns running around that steal socks from dryers and are the cause for the depletion of the ozone layers? Because there is absolutely no basis to do so. But what you are trying to promote is that we should give credence to invisible clowns.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:26 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

So instead of the OED from whence the definition came we are to use your definition because it suits your dogmatic beliefs about not being dogmatic?


no not at all, there is a clear distinction between what is conceived through the senses as being real, and there are things in which are only conceived in thought which have no basis in reality. You have to draw a line somewhere at some point otherwise you turn reality into insanity. Why don't we go around saying there are invisible clowns running around that steal socks from dryers and are the cause for the depletion of the ozone layers? Because there is absolutely no basis to do so. But what you are trying to promote is that we should give credence to invisible clowns.

And absolutely none of this has anything to do with dogma or dogmatic beliefs that isn't projected by your own definition. I have drawn a line, I drew a line demarcating those that adhere to an ideology that requires certain beliefs to be held without fail. Granted if we are to use your definition for everything I am indeed a blathering ignorant buffoon, and so is everyone who doesn't agree with you. Luckily we don't have to do that no matter how many drier steel socked wearing clowns there are running around the thread,
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:32 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
And absolutely none of this has anything to do with dogma or dogmatic beliefs that isn't projected by your own definition. I have drawn a line, I drew a line demarcating those that adhere to an ideology that requires certain beliefs to be held without fail. Granted if we are to use your definition for everything I am indeed a blathering ignorant buffoon, and so is everyone who doesn't agree with you. Luckily we don't have to do that no matter how many drier steel socked wearing clowns there are running around the thread,


Well i can't speak for all atheists but i can speak for myself. i would not be an atheist if there was actually some consistent evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I am more than happy to change that if some new evidence were to reveal it to be true. To ignore that evidence would be dogmatic, but i wouldn't adhere to atheism despite the evidence. However this is exactly what theists do, since there is no evidence they base not only their belief but their whole rational on reality is based off this one unfounded thing and that is dogmatic.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:44 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:
And absolutely none of this has anything to do with dogma or dogmatic beliefs that isn't projected by your own definition. I have drawn a line, I drew a line demarcating those that adhere to an ideology that requires certain beliefs to be held without fail. Granted if we are to use your definition for everything I am indeed a blathering ignorant buffoon, and so is everyone who doesn't agree with you. Luckily we don't have to do that no matter how many drier steel socked wearing clowns there are running around the thread,


Well i can't speak for all atheists but i can speak for myself. i would not be an atheist if there was actually some consistent evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I am more than happy to change that if some new evidence were to reveal it to be true. To ignore that evidence would be dogmatic, but i wouldn't adhere to atheism despite the evidence. However this is exactly what theists do, since there is no evidence they base not only their belief but their whole rational on reality is based off this one unfounded thing and that is dogmatic.


And you automatically assume that theists have never experienced the divine? That a majority of the world's population has never experienced the extra-sensory or supernatural? Evidenciary atheism is as evidentially unsound as any theism. Ask a devout theist, they will say X method if adhered to properly will bring about Y result. Ask an atheist, by applying Z methods I have not achieved Y results. One cannot use instructions for assembling a bicycle to program a DVD player.


And still you have not addressed the dogmatism inherent in atheism without applying your own definition of dogmatism
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:49 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
And you automatically assume that theists have never experienced the divine? That a majority of the world's population has never experienced the extra-sensory or supernatural?


Not anything that is substantial enough. They can induce a near death experience on a person by simply attaching an electrode to the temple and pass an magnetic field between two electrodes stimulating the temporal lobe of the brain. It will induce an out of body experience and for prolong exposure will give a near death experience.

I am pretty certain that pretty much every single "divine" experience can be explained in rational and logical ways which don't have to include anything supernatural. I know this for a fact because i have had similar experiences.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:57 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:
And you automatically assume that theists have never experienced the divine? That a majority of the world's population has never experienced the extra-sensory or supernatural?


Not anything that is substantial enough. They can induce a near death experience on a person by simply attaching an electrode to the temple and pass an magnetic field between two electrodes stimulating the temporal lobe of the brain. It will induce an out of body experience and for prolong exposure will give a near death experience.

I am pretty certain that pretty much every single "divine" experience can be explained in rational and logical ways which don't have to include anything supernatural. I know this for a fact because i have had similar experiences.


Substantial enough for what? Rational how? Logical how?

Rational: Subject to reason
Reason is one of the human mental faculties that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which, rational beings propose (specific) reasons and is it is particularly associated with human nature, that which is most unique and essential about human beings.
Reason is often contrasted not only with the ways in which non-human animals appear to make decisions, but also with authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and in potential conflict with reason.

to avoid too much Ctrl c and v Logical's applied definition is similar

So to sum up rational thought based on reason is that thought in which a logical conclusion is arrived by means of proper thought given a specific set of parameters. Is it my fault you insist on using a set of parameters that do not produce a rational outcome? Given the argumentation here the only reason you do not experience evidence for God's existence is because you have adopted a set of axiomatic parameters that preclude it.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 11:17 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
So to sum up rational thought based on reason is that thought in which a logical conclusion is arrived by means of proper thought given a specific set of parameters. Is it my fault you insist on using a set of parameters that do not produce a rational outcome? Given the argumentation here the only reason you do not experience evidence for God's existence is because you have adopted a set of axiomatic parameters that preclude it.


Yeah and to do that would require that i be consistent and then everything that is not real would have to be considered. I would have to assume that gremlins are real, that flying pink elephants are real and that invisible clowns are real. The list gets huge. So I should also consider that Zeus is real and let's not forget that Ra would be real. Should I keep going or was there a spot you wanted me to stop believing in fantasy and calling it real?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 11:40 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:
So to sum up rational thought based on reason is that thought in which a logical conclusion is arrived by means of proper thought given a specific set of parameters. Is it my fault you insist on using a set of parameters that do not produce a rational outcome? Given the argumentation here the only reason you do not experience evidence for God's existence is because you have adopted a set of axiomatic parameters that preclude it.


Yeah and to do that would require that i be consistent and then everything that is not real would have to be considered. I would have to assume that gremlins are real, that flying pink elephants are real and that invisible clowns are real. The list gets huge. So I should also consider that Zeus is real and let's not forget that Ra would be real. Should I keep going or was there a spot you wanted me to stop believing in fantasy and calling it real?


You can believe anything you want to be real. I'm not stopping you. Hyperbole and straw man your argument as much as you want. Methods of experiencing divinity like methods of other rational processes are specific and well documented. One might have the occasional epiphany, and so do non-theists. Your argument above if it can be said to be an argument states minus the obvious insults to my intelligence.

God is not real so I will not believe in other things that aren't real. This does not address the why and how God is not real, which we already covered. To address that and still categorically and dogmatically deny that others might have experienced the divine would make you irrational in light of what rationality actually is.

All one has to do to adjust his/her axiology for a divine experience is to allow in one's ideology the possibility. Seems to me to be awfully short sighted and unscientific to dogmatically follow a axiological path that does not allow for the possibility of the extra-sensual and super-natural.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 11:50 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
You can believe anything you want to be real. I'm not stopping you. Hyperbole and straw man your argument as much as you want. Methods of experiencing divinity like methods of other rational processes are specific and well documented. One might have the occasional epiphany, and so do non-theists. Your argument above if it can be said to be an argument states minus the obvious insults to my intelligence.


The only argument I was making is one of consistency, which you refuse to acknowledge would need to be there to be rational with your argument. You can call that a straw man if you want but it was pointing out that just what is believed in then? Where do you draw the line? If you are drawing the line you have to make a clear distinction of why, you can't just say because i want to and i don't need to give any explanation. That is just silly reasoning.

GoshisDead wrote:

God is not real so I will not believe in other things that aren't real. This does not address the why and how God is not real, which we already covered. To address that and still categorically and dogmatically deny that others might have experienced the divine would make you irrational in light of what rationality actually is.


yeah but the irrational part is that everything in your every day life does not utilize that frame of mind at all, absolutely none of your activities use it but then all of a sudden when it comes to this very vague notion called theology it somehow plays a vital role and is real. I find that incredibly telling. It's like if a person was screaming at you to watch out there is a rock flying through the air and it looks like it is headed in your direction. Yet you stand there and say well i don't have to accept your point of view of the rock about to hit me as any evidence. Then it strikes you on the head and you continue with your banter that it wasn't a rock but something else.

GoshisDead wrote:

All one has to do to adjust his/her axiology for a divine experience is to allow in one's ideology the possibility. Seems to me to be awfully short sighted and unscientific to dogmatically follow a axiological path that does not allow for the possibility of the extra-sensual and super-natural.


supernatural is typically unfounded and lacks any credible sources. So many people who claim to have some experience or ability tend to fall incredibly flat any time they are examined. not to mention the more we examine psychology and do experiments in the lab we find out that many of these things are explainable with behavioral science and biology. Believing in a fairytale is not supernatural it is natural.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 12:17 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:


The only argument I was making is one of consistency, which you refuse to acknowledge would need to be there to be rational with your argument. You can call that a straw man if you want but it was pointing out that just what is believed in then? Where do you draw the line? If you are drawing the line you have to make a clear distinction of why, you can't just say because i want to and i don't need to give any explanation. That is just silly reasoning.

Point conceded, all things not real should not be believed in.


Krumple wrote:

yeah but the irrational part is that everything in your every day life does not utilize that frame of mind at all, absolutely none of your activities use it but then all of a sudden when it comes to this very vague notion called theology it somehow plays a vital role and is real. I find that incredibly telling. It's like if a person was screaming at you to watch out there is a rock flying through the air and it looks like it is headed in your direction. Yet you stand there and say well i don't have to accept your point of view of the rock about to hit me as any evidence. Then it strikes you on the head and you continue with your banter that it wasn't a rock but something else.

have you met devout people? none of them deny there is power and potency in the physical, and yet almost every conscious action in their day is influenced by the divine. It is hubris to say that just because people do not believe like you that they would get hit in the head with a rock and call it Jello, and it is nowhere near the argument that any theist here has ever made. Throwing absurd analogies in an attempt to make another look stupid is sort of base. We have met elephants, clowns, gremlins etc.. in this thread. If behavior generated from an ideology is your standard, go live in a monastery and see how their actions only comply with the physical.


Krumple wrote:

supernatural is typically unfounded and lacks any credible sources. So many people who claim to have some experience or ability tend to fall incredibly flat any time they are examined. not to mention the more we examine psychology and do experiments in the lab we find out that many of these things are explainable with behavioral science and biology. Believing in a fairytale is not supernatural it is natural.


Unfounded - credible - both terms that are incredibly subjective and again can only produce verifiable results using a specific axiomatic ideology. Again no one is denying the power and potency of the physical. Psychological/neurochemical/biological experiments and experimental results in no way preclude the divine nature that the experience generated by those psycho-neurochemic-biological process. All the results show is that the body is functioning a certain way at the same time a person is experiencing a certain thing. It is simply an exercise of faith that says those functions are in no way divine as well. why in the world would one want to separate the physical from the divine? As much as it may be an arbitrary conjoining it is also an arbitrary separation.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 01:52 am
in all of history no concept has caused more deaths , fear and fear of death and psychological fear than god , really

when we wake up to this fact , Humanity will mature ( and by the way throw the devil out by his horns as well )
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 02:17 am
God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind), by Randy Newman


Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror fro the foulness of thee
>From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 02:19 am
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 10:02 am
@sometime sun,
Anyway Sorry sun for hijacking your thread.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 08:22 pm
Which God do we speak of? Wrathful Yahweh, Elohim, or the like, in actual Biblical history context, or simply the idea of a creator of death?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 08:35 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

Which God do we speak of? Wrathful Yahweh, Elohim, or the like, in actual Biblical history context, or simply the idea of a creator of death?


I began with examples of several gods but the OP narrowed it to the Judeo-Christian biblical God.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 10:30 pm
@GoshisDead,
Oh that's okay, at least you guys don't run away from the other when you disagree. Or become personally insulting.
Where is everybody?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is God a Murderer?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 11:20:19