The tolerant atheist

@fresco,

Sorry folks, as I had already known beforehand, Fresco is not going to accommodate us with an exposition on infinite regress, in respect of my proof from science, for the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Dear Fresco, please change your mind, everyone is waiting with bated breath for your exposition, as you are to all appearances an expert on infinite regress.

Hopefully you don't go into infinite regress on and on and on not producing your expert's exposition on infinite regress.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
One thing is establishing a working definition of a concept. Another thing is asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of a concept from the aspect of truth. What is there to examine from the aspect of truth when a concept's truth is taken as a given?...One thing is entertaining a hypothetical proposition another thing is entertaining the validity or lack thereof of a hypothetical proposition taken to be true.

Exactly. DON'T take it as true. No one forces you to do that except yourself, eh? Just consider the concept, provisionally. You can entertain the "possibility" that something could be true without deciding that it is.

If you're on a jury, you have to be open to the possibility that the defendant "could" be either guilty or innocent. You don't have to assume one or the other in order to hear the facts and arguments presented, do you?

He has a point. You start to sound like a juror who refuses to even CONSIDER the fact that a defendant could be innocent because, by God, he's BLACK, and you already know he did it. It would insult you and your beliefs to even "pretend" otherwise.

Apparently, that's not what he was getting at seeing as how he dismissed the first three considerations of his concept as not being truthful, factful and logical.

What, exactly, is he looking for? Consession? Ain't gonna' happen.

0 Replies

Please, dear readers, watch out for posters who are in the habit of name-dropping, or grand ideas dropping.

Ask these grand ideas dropping persons to please give an exposition of the grand idea that they are name-dropping, in not over a hundred words, and see whether they make any sense at all, in the way of a concise, precise, and intelligible account of the grand idea they are name-dropping on: see if they will not go into infinite regress with words and more words, but no concise, precise, and intelligible exposition in not over a hundred words will ever come forth from their thinking prowess.

0 Replies

This thread is about Tuna saying that (s)he is a tolerant atheist unlike PZ Myers who is a fanatically bigoted atheist, whose argument against God existing is to steal a Communion host, stab it and throw it in the waste basket, all shown forth in a video in the worldwide internet, availing himself of the campus internet access.

I am entering this thread with a motion for clarification of the concept of God, as atheists are denying God exists, but they never bother with the most important factor in an issue, namely, definition of terms.

So, I am one among theists in mankind and my definition of God is that in concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

All arguments socalled from atheists are essentially nothing but dodging which amounts to nonsense talk, because it strays away from the genuine issue which should start with their concept of God.

Ah yes, they have concepts of God, like flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, orbiting teapot in space, as though resorting to demeaning analogies is their way to intelligent exposition of their proof against God existing.

Now, they will come forth with their defense for resorting to demeaning name-calling against God, namely, they are not the ones making a claim, and besides they cannot prove a negative.

So? So please atheists if you are not making any affirmative claim, and you are not into proving a negative because for you it is impossible to prove a negative, then common discretion dictates:

Quote:

that better to spare readers from your useless talking to no purpose in the exchange of an issue intelligently and respectfully, you hold your peace or go away, because you are with wasting the time and trouble of readers, wasting also the bandwidth. of this Able2know forum.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Who or what created your god? Alternatively, explain why your god is a special case that, unlike the rest of the universe, wasn't created. You keep accusing people of dodging, but you keep on dodging and dodging and dodging... Laughing

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

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.

Uh.. Right. Ya can't believe anything a believer says. Talk about ad hoc.

I already stipulated that there are obvious delusional people, liars and hucksters who claim to be believers. But conflating those who believe in a God with spiritualists is a handy tool to divert from the issue.

But WTF is this **** about liberal society for 'allowing me to assume' anything?! Cripes fresco, this is the most disjointed allegedly "scientific" load of crap' launched at believers I've ever seen.

0 Replies

@FBM,

[ See Annex below for the post of FBM. ]

FBM, you are asking about who or what created my God, I already explained to you that in my concept of God, He is the creator etc.

I think you did not get me, I already said and will repeat again, God is not in my concept in need of a cause or a creator.

You start from the point that God has a creator or cause, and I am telling you that in my concept God does not need a creator, etc., because He is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

We have to now discuss the validity of the concept of an uncreated or uncaused God, do you understand my request?

Here, tell me, as I have already said a thousand times, we must first determine the validity of a concept, before we go into determining the existence of the entity corresponding to the concept, of course after we have come to concurrence on the validity of the concept.

Now, tell me, what do you say about what is a valid concept?

Allow me to suggest what is to my stock knowledge a valid concept, namely:

A valid concept is first and foremost an idea that does not have any ingredients within its composition, which render the idea intrinsically self-contradictory.

For an example, the idea of a child with an IQ of a genius, that is a valid concept, because it does not have any ingredients that make the idea intrinsically self-contradictory.

An example of an invalid concept is the following:

The idea of a dictatorship government with genuine free election.

Now, do you understand what are valid concepts and what invalid concepts?

Please do not go on and on and on with your insistence of going on and on and on without any inkling at all of what is a valid concept and what an invalid concept.

This is one dodge of atheists, to seek refuge in the guise of not knowing; atheists even forbid themselves to think beyond the Big Bang.

Okay, tell me, if you have any idea at all of valid and invalid concepts, tell me your idea, and give examples, one each of a valid concept and one of an invalid concept.

Forgive me, if you don't even know what is a valid concept and an invalid concept, I have to avoid further interaction with you.

Annex

Quote:

FBM asks:
Quote:

@Susmariosep,
Who or what created your god? Alternatively, explain why your god is a special case that, unlike the rest of the universe, wasn't created. You keep accusing people of dodging, but you keep on dodging and dodging and dodging... Laughing

PS: If readers here notice that I am not replying anymore to a poster or posters here, it is because they are not into intelligent and respectful exchange of thoughts, but they are into malingering, in effect to sabotage communication among intelligent and respectful posters.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

A valid argument is one formulated in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. I'm questioning your principal premise. You have yet to explain why your god is an exception to the rule that all things were created. Simply declaring it doesn't do anything. Until you justify your premise, the charge of commiting the special pleading fallacy stands, and your argument fails. I'll wait. Or just watch you continue to bury your head in the sand and deny the existence of the very type of logical response you asked for. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

You have yet to explain why your god is an exception to the rule that all things were created

I've already given one standard answer to that, but of course FBM doesn't read my posts.

Because there HAS to be an exception, that's why.

Why does there HAVE to be? Because without a "first cause" all you get is an infinite regression.

Why is that a problem? Because then you wouldn't have anything.

Why wouldn't you have anything? Because nothing could ever have started this "chain of causes (creations)."

Why couldn't it start? Because you would never reach a starting point. Infinity has no end.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

You ask what constitutes a 'valid concept'.It is a concept which has 'utility' but that utility is subject to social consensus by users of concepts i.e. language using humans. For example, the concepts of 'time' or 'beginning' have their uses in some human contexts but not others and their utility is subject to negotiation. Concepts , transmitted via 'words' are like banknotes. They have no absolute value.

So concepts of 'God' have their utility in various parochial groups, but concepts of 'evidence' have their utility in more universal contexts. Believers may aspire to become less parochial by attempting to hijack the more universal concept of 'evidence' and re-valuing it it terms of their own currency. Such aspiration may be driven by the need for social support, or may couched in terms of missionary work on the service of their 'God'. From a sociological point of view it may be merely one expression of the tribalism we have in common with other primates.

Finally, note the subliminal trace of recognition of these issues by believers epitomized in their adage:...

In beginning the was the word, and the word was with God.

Unfortunately, this is parochial mangling of the points above, and should more aptly read:

The origin of words as we know them resides with the evolution of Man.

Note too that 'Man made in the image of God' is the fallback position which supports the mangling.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

note the subliminal trace of recognition of these issues by believers epitomized in their adage:...

In beginning the was the word, and the word was with God.

Yeah, Fresky, we already know that you worship language as the omnipotent Creator of all meaning.

Where'd I put them brass knuckles?

1 Reply

@layman,

Look in the same place you keep you brains !

0 Replies

Apologies for the obvious typo in
In the beginning was the word

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The origin of words as we know them resides with the evolution of Man.

Oh? I thought words were a product of the evolution of pinguins... Thanks for clarifying. :-)

Also thanks for mangling John's gospel 1st verse and calling it an "adage". Such creativity!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:

"So this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: I agree that consensus is not proof of anything. But what do atheists attribute the widespread belief that there is a God or higher power? This does not mean they are church going people obviously.

Just going along with the crowd or wishful thinking does not seem that plausible. Gallup poll puts the U.S. figure at over 90%.

I think that, for the most part, it boils down to the need to explain why **** and serendipity happens, and that explanation has been reinforced societally.

So you are essentially saying that 90+% of the population is delusional (a la Dawkins) and are incapable of understanding what 'coincidence' is. And furthermore that a small fraction of the population is specially gifted with this ability and therefore knows there is no God.

Yeah, that's logical... And tollerant!

I didn't say that that percentage of the population is delusional and that the other fraction of the population is specially gifted or that they know that there is no God. Merely, the larger portion of the population buys into the idea of an intervening God as the explanation for why **** and serendipity happens, the other portion does not. There is nothing illogical or intolerant about that.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Always interesting to be put straight by a non-native speaker !
Take a leaf from your celebrated co-speaker, Derrida. 'There is nothing beyond (con)text. Of course, his creativity as we know has been discounted by you as useless !

Isn't it about time you grew out of playing the 'get fresco' game and contributed instead to the debate ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

I contribute plenty to the debate. E.g. I recently pointed out that since the concept of "tooth fairy" exists, therefore the tooth fairy must exist. That's what the ontological argument for the existence of God -- posted again and again by Susmariosep -- boils down to.

Debunking poseurs and superficial blah-blahteurs is a valid contribution, don't you think?... :-)

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I didn't say that that percentage of the population is delusional and that the other fraction of the population is specially gifted or that they know that there is no God. Merely, the larger portion of the population buys into the idea of an intervening God as the explanation for why **** and serendipity happens, the other portion does not. There is nothing illogical or intolerant about that

OK, I'll take you at your word as to your intent, but it really does not address what I was saying. It does not explain WHY 90+% believe there is a God or higher being.

What makes your statement illogical (and a bit intolerant) is that the evidence does not show that their belief is 'buying into the idea of an intervening God as the explanation for why **** and serendipity happens' or that it is reinforced by society at large.

The Gallup poll only gets that high result when the polling is done with strict anonymity and care not to tie the answer to any religion (hence the inclusion of 'higher being' in the poll question). If you ask the question publicly in any way, the percentage of 'yes' answers plummets drastically. That's why there is evidence that something other than 'going along with the crowd' is responsible.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's still an ad populum appeal, no matter how high the number is. It says nothing whatsoever about the actual existence of anything other than a common human trait.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The Gallup poll only gets that high result when the polling is done with strict anonymity and care not to tie the answer to any religion (hence the inclusion of 'higher being' in the poll question). If you ask the question publicly in any way, the percentage of 'yes' answers plummets drastically. That's why there is evidence that something other than 'going along with the crowd' is responsible

I believe there's an inate sense of spirituality in us, a questioning of the cosmos, a desire for the sublime, an attraction to the "spheres" which also feeds into mathematics and sciences. It doesn't mean that there is an object to this desire. It could be that we aspire to something that does not exist.

1 Reply

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know