14
   

The tolerant atheist

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 07:05 am
@Leadfoot,
You can whine about atheists to your heart's content. I have no "faith" that there is no god, god is just something i don't believe in . . .

. . . you snotty, hectoring son of a bitch.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 07:09 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
. . . you snotty, hectoring son of a bitch.


I know it gets awfully repetitive, but I look at it as my duty, as a sworn witness, to testify to the fact that this poor boy has done been..

VICTIMIZED, yet again, sho nuff.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  6  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 07:39 am
@layman,
Underwhelming, but get a good lawyer if the millions start rolling in. I have copyright pending on the word 'Rorty'.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 08:51 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
. . . you snotty, hectoring son of a bitch.
So how do you really feel? I bet you're just pissed cause I went out with your GF ehBeth. Don't sweat it, that's all over.

Damn, there I go hectoring again.

And you forgot 'sanctimonious asshole' in the list.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 12:22 pm
Allow me to repeat my concept of God, namely, God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

That is the God atheists deny to exist.

So, Oh atheists, you and I are agreed on the concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

We differ only in that with you there is no such God in existence, with me there is such a God in existence.

Now, let me prove that God as per my concept of God exists, namely, from the fact that the universe has a beginning so it needs a cause which I call by the word creator, God is the creator cause of the universe.

The proof of the existence of God consists in the fact established in science that the universe has a beginning about some 13.7 billion years ago.

What is your proof that there is no creator-cause of the universe scil. God? -- understanding God in concept from my part and also from your part (but you deny His existence, still you are acquainted with the concept and know its meaning: otherwise you would not be connected with me in your understanding) as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning?

There are objections to the existence of God, but when I see nitpicking objections I will not give them attention, because nitpicking consists in seeing into the most minutest useless detail of an issue, useless detail that has no consequence to the determination of existence or non-existence of the object in question.

So, Oh atheists, the way you exchange thoughts on the existence or non-existence of God, on critical thinking, do you always go into nitpicking, instead of seeing the whole picture in its big scheme? In which case, you are not in touch with the big picture like you are not in touch with the whole universe, which has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, according to the fact established in science.

Now, let me read genuine objections from you, Oh atheists, not beggary whinings based on nitpicking, because nitpicking is a dodging of the issue, as the issue is about the totality of the universe, wherefore you should not go into nitpicking mode, like saying that causation and creation are not the same, when if you examine the concepts of causation and creation, they are the same, only that causation is general and creation is a specific kind of causation: every instance of causation is a specific instance of causation, and that means anyone examining it must give it specific or special attention i.e. what you call special pleading -- only in your case it consists in nitpicking, and but nitpicking is for beggary pseudo intellectuals.

In other words, your concern is with your kind of beggary special pleading; that is a non-consequential way of thinking, because every pleading is special insofar as it is a specific issue, unless you will now go into another nitpick, namely, that all issues should be generic issues, that is silly, and it betrays your deficiency in critical thinking, owing to a myopic brain.

Okay, Oh atheists, produce now an objection to my proof of the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, and mind you, abstain from nitpicking, because if you are just into nitpicking you are like only doing panning for gold dust by sweeping the floor of a gold smith's shop, because you are so very poor that you cannot just buy some pieces of pure gold jewelry; and I feel sorry for you as you are making of yourselves intellectual beggars good only for begging the question.

So, if your are intellectual giants, produce genuine solid objections, not nonsense nitpicking beggary whinings, like insisting that God does not exist because then God would be a very special entity whereas according to you every being in existence is a generic entity.

Okay, let's hear some serious not nitpicking nonsense from you, Oh atheists, and show yourselves capable of seeing the big picture of things, that is the universe which has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.

What is your objection against the universe being the proof for the existence of its creator and operator, God, Who is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning?
fresco
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 12:50 pm
@Susmariosep,
No. Your axiom that 'the universe had a beginning' can easily be challenged.
1. You are speaking perhaps of the known universe, and that knowledge is changing year on year. We'don't yet 'know' about most of the universe, or whether this universe is unique.
2. The concept of 'beginning' is predicated on a psychological concept of 'linear time. This is not the 'space-time' of physics, nor does it encompass speculation as to 'what happened before the Big Bang'.

No matter how hard you try, any attempt to establish a 'first axiom' will be subject to an infinite regress. The generalization of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem implies exactly that. You can only try to establish a 'functional axiom' which is forever open to question, hence your inevitable reliance on 'faith' alone as a justification. 'God' as eternal and 'unchanging' is merely an attempt at 'closure' against 'the void' of infinite possibilities. It is 'a hope' for 'solid ground' in the face of the actuality of the fathomless.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:21 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
It is 'a hope' for 'solid ground' in the face of the actuality of the fathomless.

"Actuality of the fathomless" is what we're always trying to capture with language and art. We never go past metaphor, though.

God is a metaphor?
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:40 pm
@fresco,
Fresco says: "No matter how hard you try, any attempt to establish a 'first axiom' will be subject to an infinite regress."


Let's hear from you, fresco, an exposition of infinite regress in regard to my proof of God existing from the existence of the universe which science tells us has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.

I wait for your exposition with bated breath.
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:47 pm
Everyone, attention, attention, we are waiting for Fresco and also perhaps his fellow Oh atheists, to expound on infinite regress, in respect of my proof of God existing from the science fact that the universe has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 02:37 pm
@Susmariosep,
You have now had two such expositions.
The first given by another poster involves the best known issue of 'what caused the prime cause'. Surely I don't need to go into the philosophical deconstruction of 'causality' per se for you to understand the infinite regress inolved in looking for the cause of causes.
The second was reference to Godel's theorem the logical proof of which
implies that any 'system' has at least one axiom whose validity must be assumed. Read that assumption as 'religious faith' in the case of 'believers'.

Your theatrical 'bated breath' comment appears to be an indicator that your self integrity feels itself sufficiently threatened to hide behind the guise a stylized 'antagonist'. The fact that you may be realizing that such an opponent hasn't a leg to stand on as far as 'logic' or 'science' is concerned is quite understandable. I suggest you stick with 'faith' and keep away from the technical stuff. You clearly have no understanding of the 'functionality' of the 'Big Bang' hypothesis ......one of the currently more successful models in that blink of history we call 'modern science'.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 03:04 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The second was reference to Godel's theorem the logical proof of which
implies that any 'system' has at least one axiom whose validity must be assumed. Read that assumption as 'religious faith' in the case of 'believers'.
I'm jumping threads again here but it's as good a point as any to inject what I'm referring as 'second order effects' of a possible God on the mental life of individuals who answer the almost universal first order effect, that being 'the urge to know if there is a God'.

Why must we characterize faith as only the product of unconditional acceptance of some religious dogma?

What are the objections to the evidence offered by those 'believers' who claim or infer that they have been directly influenced by God in various ways? On what basis is that evidence to be dismissed? Are we to assume they are all delusional, lying or trying to deceive? Undoubtedly, this is the case in some instances but it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss them all on that basis alone.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 04:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
What are the objections to the evidence offered by those 'believers' who claim or infer that they have been directly influenced by God in various ways? On what basis is that evidence to be dismissed? Are we to assume they are all delusional, lying or trying to deceive? Undoubtedly, this is the case in some instances but it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss them all on that basis alone.

Methodological naturalism says assume there's a natural cause and look for it.

Metaphysical naturalism says no supernatural cause will ever be found.

Amy Schumer says:

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 04:12 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
Methodological naturalism says assume there's a natural cause and look for it.

Metaphysical naturalism says no supernatural cause will ever be found.
Exactly my man! Science says as an article of faith that we dismiss them all as whack jobs!

Case closed.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 04:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
What Western believers might call 'directions from 'God', Eastern Buddhists might call 'ideas arising from meditation'. The Westerner attributes his 'inspiration' in terms of his immersion in a 'theistic culture', the Easterner in terms of a his own. Neither interpretation constitutes 'evidence' for the 'cause' of subsequent actions in a scientific sense because neither is open to public scrutiny or the possibility of contradiction.
Reference: Karl Popper. The falsifiability principle. Philosophy of Science 101.

Also, you are playing 'language games' with the word 'evidence'
Reference: Wittgenstein. Philosophy of Language 203. (and he was 'a believer'!)
Tuna
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 04:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Exactly my man! Science says as an article of faith that we dismiss them all as whack jobs!

If all scientists were metaphysical naturalists, then that would be true.

Methodological naturalism means you start with the assumption that a natural cause can be found. It's an attitude St Augustine recommended. It is not, as the name implies, a metaphysical viewpoint, and it requires no faith beyond what's necessary for accomplishing mundane tasks and applying common sense.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:06 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
What Western believers might call 'directions from 'God', Eastern Buddhists might call 'ideas arising from meditation'. The Westerner attributes his 'inspiration' in terms of his immersion in a 'theistic culture', the Easterner in terms of a his own. Neither interpretation constitutes 'evidence' for the 'cause' of subsequent actions in a scientific sense because neither is open to public scrutiny or the possibility of contradiction.
Reference: Karl Popper. The falsifiability principle. Philosophy of Science 101.

Also, you are playing 'language games' with the word 'evidence'
Reference: Wittgenstein. Philosophy of Language 203. (and he was 'a believer'!)
What I am suggesting for now is not 'directions from God' (which I would be skeptical of as well) What I said was 'influence from God. The 'evidence' I'm suggesting is not even something which most believers are even aware of or able to articulate. For now I'm talking about the certainty which they have about God's existence which they usually can't nail down to a cause. This applies to people with or without a religious affiliation or tradition from which to draw that certainty. Many of them ARE aware of how lacking they are in ways to justify that 'faith'. This includes credible people like Wittgenstein to the most naïve and misguided fundamentalist to the meditating Buddhist.

I'm suggesting that the 'unfounded certainty' they have could be due to the influence of God on an individual answering that 'urge to know'. Even if they themselves are not aware of the source of that influence.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:07 pm
This is exactly what i've said so many times. God-botherers show up here, hoping to pick a fight with atheists, and they attempt it by telling atheists what they (the atheists) think, and often make no distinction between scientists and atheists. They're like schoolyard bullies, and they're about a thousand years or more behind the times in terms of naturalistic science and its methodology. Unfortunately for Tuna, the title of his thread acts like a magnet for such types.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:20 pm
@Leadfoot,
But that's what a believer would suggest ! And on the other hand a spiritualist might suggest that 'the source' is our dead ancestors communicating with us from beyond the grave. It is only the tolerance of 'mainstream' religions by liberal societies which allows you to assume that 'believers' might have superior explanations of their convictions relative that of spiritualists. Scientifically speaking they equally ad hoc.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:37 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Underwhelming, but get a good lawyer if the millions start rolling in. I have copyright pending on the word 'Rorty'.


Heh, good one, Fresky. You're learnin, eh? Who pulled the cobb out of your ass, I wonder?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:51 pm
I figure inquiring minds wanna be knowwin, so Imma tell yawl, eh?:

There aint but one true God: Priapus!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
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 10/20/2019 at 06:19:52