52
   

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:20 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If one rejects a belief, they are a non-believer, without regard to any problems you might have.


If one rejects a belief...they are a non-believer on that issue. That does not mean they are non-believers in all regards.

Some atheists (Edgar, for instance) assert that there are NO GODS. I do not believe that...but I also do not believe there are gods.

Are you saying that the people who reject Edgar's belief that there are no gods...like all the Christians on this board...are non-believers?


Quote:
But, yeah, Spade sees Bill believing in god because that's what he wants to see.


That may well be...and as you can see from my response, I got your message.





cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:20 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
There is no problem with any god(s). Gods are only in man's creation and imagination. To say man is made in the image of god is a man-made creation. Gods and religions have been responsible for many atrocities, killings, and inhumanity against others - even in their same culture.

Morals from religion is an oxymoron.

Man needs only one simple edict; treat everyone and everything with respect and dignity. Everything else is a sham.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:21 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
He will say something about how God is so evil based on the Bible's account, Which means he is not saying it to me...But he is speaking Directly over my head to the God he is voicing his disapproval at...

And directly to the God he closet worships...But "thinks is evil" not at all really anything directed toward me...


LOL your logic as lacking as your sense of reality it would seems.

The Christian god fantasy is an evil and ugly god fantasy by the accounts of the fantasy contain in the bible.

So real or not real how could anyone worship such a monster and evil being as portray in the bible.

To sum up real or fantasy does not in any way impact the above question. now does it?
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:29 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Writing "beng" rather than "being" is not a syntactical error. As with biology, you expose your ignorance when you delve into areas outside that pathetically small body of knowledge whichyou claim to command.


Your cultural "plain English" is being pressuposed as the meta-language, "beng" (suggested by the object) would be a syntax error of any sentence in this case.

It appears that you continue to appeal to "social science", in this case the subsets of linguistic grammar, which is a system of no truth value, it is in fact a deviation of formal systems, which is not a theoretical linguistic, these syntax or semantic concepts are axiomatic derrivations of proof.

Also, "typographical error" is your assumption (it is not linguistic subset), and is, by definition, subjected to syntax error, however why is a syntax error valid in the meaning of morality?

It is you that suggested my language is erroneous, you appear to have beliefs that there OUGHT TO be a correct way for natural language, this is self refuting, being that it is open to interpretation, just like morality.

Furthermore, your abductions are invalid inference, logically , EVEN if what you assert is true, though it is your cognitive bias that suggests I have a "small body of knowledge", hence your conclusion NEVER appear to have have entailment.

Quote:
First, one does not assume that a prokaryote is an extremophile by definition...Second, i did not allege that subjective morality is a trait of all forms of life, i referred only to human communities


Where did I assume this, is this not what you refer to as "straw man" (though definition is actually propositional)?

I already clarified my objective in this case, if it cannot be generalised to life, how is it naturally valid?

How do we quantify morality?

If it is not physical, it has no material quantification, meaning it would entail that the morality you are referring to is immaterial.

Quote:
i responded to that remak. If you had morality in mind, it is no fault of mine that you failed to make that clear. Ants and bees are known as social insects--they form communities to prosper the reproductive function. That is a part of you natural science, even though you may not be bright enough to understand it.


You are red herring.

Again, why is "prosper the reproductive function" good?

Can you define and elaborate good and bad?

Quote:
Recognizing that humans are a part of the natural world, and that therefore human societies are natural artifacts is not an ontological statement, whether or not you are capable of understanding that. You are simply trying to insist on your jargon-laden babble-speak, and i am not obliged to play your game.


Defining "human society" as cultural artifacts may be valid, however this is not biological, there is no correlation to genetics to suggest how these cultural consequences occur.

Example:
Humans genetically flying =/= humans culturally flying
Humans genetically eating =/= humans culturally eating

However, culture may be investigated by "social science", this is the error.

The ontology I am referring is ethical related, the being of "human society" entailing such implications, philosophy of the mind is unsolved, moral values appear to be subjective and immaterial, this also suggests why there does not appear to be a neural correlate to naturally ressolve "social science".

Quote:
All you are saying is that think you are able to recast my arguments in your babble-speak terms for the convenience of your arguments. It is not, however, rhetorically valid. When you create inferences where none existed, or restate what i have stated in a manner which no more than convenience for your argument, you have indulged the straw man fallacy.


Are rhetorics epistemically valid?

As for "convenience for your arguement", you have yet to argue why your moral assumptions are obligatory.

You stated that moral values are subjective, why are there obligations to your interpretation of bad?

Furthermore, you have no evidence that morality is in fact natural, you already stated that it is not physical, therefore your arguement entails supernaturalism.

Quote:
You are, apparently, unable to respond without resorting to straw men. It also appears that you are unable to express your thought clearly enogh to, for example, make clear that you refer to morality when you don't specify that in your statement. I see no value in continuing to play your jargon word games, because you can't proceed in a rhetorically coherent manner, and you fail completely to understand things outside your narrow, putative area of expertise--such as the distinction between spelling and syntax


You have yet to illustrate the logical fallacy that satisfies a straw man.

The concept spelling is inconsistent with linguistics, it requires the subsets, such as syntax, you inconsistently deviate from systems of study.

To clarify, spelling is not the "social science" of linguistics.

Quote:
that there is no such thing as "extremophilic functionality." Organism which are called extremophiles don't suddenly display a "functionality" or a behavior. The reference is not to bahvior or function, but to the ecological niche which the oranixm occupies. Even the term extremophile is highly problematic, as it is subjective. Additonally, it is not known if extremophiles occupy such niches in preference or simply because they can tolerate them.


Your false attribution of contextomy is invalid, I never stated "behaviour" or "suddenly display functionality", it is the state of metabolic function being subjected to the extream environment.

Philia is a property (it is translate "loving" however "plain English" is generally negated) not a subjective values, there are THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS, such as an Alkaliphile survivng caustic conditions of a base and hydroxyl concentration defined at least PH level of 9.

How can you define "occupy such niches in preference", theoretically?

They are not sentient, your "social science" continues to be of naturally inconsistent applications.

It is certainly ammusing that you follow by stating:
Quote:
You just want to preen yourself of an illusion of profound knowledge which evaporates on close examination.


This is EXACTLY how I was interpreted your arguement.

Quote:
You might have said you misspelled a word, or that it was a typographical error--instead, you make an hilarious reference to syntax, which suggests that you know no more about the language than you do about natural sciences.


I do hope my refutation clarifies.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:34 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If one rejects a belief, they are a non-believer, without regard to any problems you might have. But, yeah, Spade sees Bill believing in god because that's what he wants to see.


This is incorrect, it is self refuting.

By defintion atheist propositions are beliefs, such as there is no God or God is impossible.

You have NO arguement for atheism.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Man needs only one simple edict; treat everyone and everything with respect and dignity.


But how would such a moral edict be inculcated and would it even work? It sounds more like a platitude in the service of the usual proposition that ci. is a very, very nice man.

I'm not convinced that the people in the immediate vicinity of airports think that the passengers in the large jets that skim over their rooftops taking off and landing are treating them with respect and dignity.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:14 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
So real or not real how could anyone worship such a monster and evil being as portray in the bible.


You must have had people in your life that you had great respect for and they believed in the bible. It is impossible for you or I to see the God of the old testament as a loving god but I bet your respected friends seen him as loving. They probably had an answer for anything that you seen as hateful in the bible.

Perception is a magical thing isn't it? Things will be how ever one perceives things to be. I think that there will come a day when we can chose through medical science to believe in a God or not by manipulating our neurocircuitry.

Imagine that, we can all go on a God trip if we chose to. Who knows maybe it will be a new type of high for us atheist. Talk about smoking angle dust. lol
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:14 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I assumed at the time that every one had used the same reasoning and was shock to find otherwise!!!!!!


It must be quite a shock to have delivered yourself of your remarkably precocious insights and found the edifice of religion still standing.

Quote:
I got no enjoyment in not being a believer in my childhood and being told that such people was going to hell and burn forever.


I can't see any reason for you to bother about that if you were aware that people saying such things were stark, staring mad.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:18 pm
@spendius,
Quote:

I can't see any reason for you to bother about that if you were aware that people saying such things were stark, staring mad.


What if these people were your parents?
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No, i'm not saying that, and i'm also not falling in with your simple-minded word game. The religious are not religious because they reject a belief that there are no gods. They are religious because they profess a belief. Really, you should be able to do better than that. You favor this simple-minded way of seeing things because you can't let go of your conviction that theism and atheism are equal but opposite belief sets, and you still think you are intellectually and morally superior in your agnosticism.

I don't mind if you think that way, i just think it's silly. But don't try to enlist my participation in your silly game.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:35 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
grew up, when the **** did that happen


lol's... Yeah, kind of stuffed up there, IDK, I haven't exactly yet either. Smile
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:36 pm
I know an atheist who said he didn't believe that there was a creator god and another who was 'without god'. Both live their lives untroubled in anyway by their different views. Both believe they are atheists. How does this affect their day-to-day lives... it doesn't. Should it? I don't think so.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:37 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
No, i'm not saying that, and i'm also not falling in with your simple-minded word game. The religious are not religious because they reject a belief that there are no gods. They are religious because they profess a belief. Really, you should be able to do better than that. You favor this simple-minded way of seeing things because you can't let go of your conviction that theism and atheism are equal but opposite belief sets, and you still think you are intellectually and morally supoerior in your agnosticism.

I don't mind if you think that way, i just think it's silly. But don't try to enlist my participation in your silly game.


Sounds good to me.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Sounds good to me.


There seems to be wisdom in that reply.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:42 pm
@igm,
Quote:
I know an atheist who said he didn't believe that there was a creator god and another who was 'without god'. Both live their lives untroubled in anyway by their different views. Both believe they are atheists. How does this effect their day-to-day lives... it doesn't. Should it? I don't think so.


This arose because some atheists here want to classify me, and other agnostics, as atheists. They say that we do not "believe" in a god, we are atheists. The fact that we do not "believe" there are no gods doesn't seem to matter to them.

I understand why they want to count us as atheists. It would definitely improve the pool.

But it just is not so.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I am grateful that I ran into such books as the Age of Reason and knew that even some of the founding fathers shared my opinion and that I was not alone.Now as an old man I am kind of proud of that young boy however I am still more shock that other grown ups can be believers in such clear nonsense.


Do you know what Bill? You are no different than any new found Christian that ran into the "book" called the Bible.. And, from there became a believer, from thoughts as a child that maybe God existed.

The only difference with you, is that whilst they were searching for "does he exist", you were hell bent on searching for he doesn't.

And, so I am sure those people are shocked that an old man like you can be a non believer, given he was so frightened as a child, that he would go to Hell, and don't say you weren't as you were.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
There seems to be wisdom in that reply.


Thank you, RL. I liked it myself.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ok...?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Most of us here know the fact that you also do not "believe" there are no elves, leprechaun , flying spaghetti monsters and so forth.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 03:49 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Ok...?


If your question is: Does the "It just is not so" apply to the "agnostics are atheists" or to the "improve the pool" ...

...the former.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 04:56:36