Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Apr 16, 2005 17:16:49 GMT -5
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Apr 16, 2005 17:49:46 GMT -5
Boy, you really don't like the progster do you? Did you guys have a run-in on the old board or another board? Doesn't matter to me, I can get along with everyone...on internet message boards anyway... Just wondering what the history is...don't remember any from before.(until the recent religious one). Seth
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 16, 2005 20:25:24 GMT -5
I dont think he ever posted on the old board, unless he did it under a different name. I think he's still defensive about my calling him chicken I'm still waiting for those arguments that God exists.... waiting, and waiting, and waiting ...
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Apr 17, 2005 14:33:03 GMT -5
Boy, you really don't like the progster do you? Did you guys have a run-in on the old board or another board? Doesn't matter to me, I can get along with everyone...on internet message boards anyway... Just wondering what the history is...don't remember any from before.(until the recent religious one). Seth Tsk, tsk, tsk......The sad thing about written communications is that they don't convey the non-verbal aspects, which some estimate as being upwards of 70% of the whole (I've read it somewhere, I can't be sure how it breaks down exactly). Smileys and what-not help out a little, but not enough. Sure, the tone of what I wrote seems to be a mocking one, but that's how I usually respond to something that not only sounds ridiculous to me but is also proven to be wrong by not just one but SEVERAL sources. If I put out a stinker like that I would deserve to be mocked.
It's not him personally but his modus operandi that I dislike. I'm separating the man from his methodology, and it's his methodology that I nit-pick. Maybe I am a little harsh when I challenge flawed logic, bait-and-switch tactics, non sequitur analogies, and an overall sophistic form of reasoning, but don't expect me to apologize any time soon for that. Just don't read it as hatred towards a person, but rather hatred towards a methodology.
Oh, btw, the history is somewhat recent. On Daryl's board I spent far more time lurking than posting. That's because I had to be mindful of my online time when I had dial-up access. I switched to DSL just weeks before the end of the ol' orange board.I don't think he ever posted on the old board, unless he did it under a different name. I think he's still defensive about my calling my calling him chicken I'm still waiting for those arguments that God exists.... waiting, and waiting, and waiting... I did use a different name (or 2, or 3, or 4... ) on the old board. However, I don't recall arguing with you until this board.
Your calling me chicken is an example of your bait-and-switch tactics. My whole argument was NEVER about proving the existence of God (if you don't believe me, feel free to re-read all my posts) . Rather, it was about challenging you to recognize that atheism is not provable, and that ultimately both theism and atheism are acts of faith--THAT was the gist of everything I had posted. I wasn't going to allow you to switch the thread of debate nor allow myself to be baited into tangential arguments anymore than had already occurred. Hell, even my response here is taking your bait and causing this thread to drift , but I just couldn't let that one go.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 17, 2005 16:12:16 GMT -5
My calling you a chicken was an example of what some homo sapiens refer to as "humor".
Your asking me for a proof of atheism is an example of type mismatch. Atheism doesn't claim anything about the world that needs to be proven. It does not say that "God doesn't exist in the world", rather it says "the concept of God is meaningless" (which I have proven on a number of occasions). So asking for a proof that no physical entity called "God" exists is really meaningless, because we cannot have a definition of God. It's like asking me to prove that a round square doesn't exist. I cant do that. I can show that a round square is a meaningless concept, implying that it CANNOT exist.
On the other hand, theists DO claim that God exists in the real world, that is why it makes sense to ask for a proof.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Apr 18, 2005 10:37:30 GMT -5
Um...no technically: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheismIt explicitly states that 'God does not exist' (which is unsurprisingly the exact oppposite of theism) but overlooking your problems with the english language. 1. you haven't proven anything to the rest of us, yourself perhaps, but then again now we're dipping into relevance which I have little tolerance for. 2. More simply put the concept of God has more meaning, even if God does not exist, than anything else. Even if God does not exist the concept has been powerful enough to enthrall generations upons generations of people. To say that is meaningless is totally trite and well...stupid. The book of Ecclesiastes will state why you're wrong much better than I could ever hope to, but seeing as how you probably won't awknowledge that, I'll try and use a secular method to show you: If we look at Maslow's Needs Hierarchy: web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTMAsk yourself where's the worst place on that chart to be? Most people will probably say the bottom. I'm going to say the top. Why? Because when you're at the top, you'll realize the futility of life, and you realize the only place left to go is down. Otherwise life is simply a series of trying to surpress needs that you can never quench. The Concept of God gives man much much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 18, 2005 12:24:54 GMT -5
Um...no technically: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
It explicitly states that 'God does not exist' (which is unsurprisingly the exact oppposite of theism) but overlooking your problems with the english language.
Yeah, it also says that atheism is "immorality" - a very unbiased definition indeed. The problem with all these dictionaries is that they are written by English experts who are not experts in any field to which the words refer. In particular, they are not atheist philosophers. If you read any decently recent atheist philospher (most notably, Nietzsche), you will notice that they define atheism in precisely the same way I did: that is, the concept of God is meaningless. 1. you haven't proven anything to the rest of us, yourself perhaps, but then again now we're dipping into relevance which I have little tolerance for.
A proof to myself is a proof to everyone, unless you can point out a logical flaw, which you have yet to do. 2. More simply put the concept of God has more meaning, even if God does not exist, than anything else.More meaning, huh? Are we going to quantify meaning now? A concept is either meaningful or not, that's all there is to it. Even if God does not exist the concept has been powerful enough to enthrall generations upons generations of people. To say that is meaningless is totally trite and well...stupid.Just because people "believe" in something, doesn't mean they actually understand what it is. "The argument from popularity" is truly one of the weakest. If we look at Maslow's Needs Hierarchy: web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM
Ask yourself where's the worst place on that chart to be? Most people will probably say the bottom. I'm going to say the top. Why? Because when you're at the top, you'll realize the futility of life, and you realize the only place left to go is down. Otherwise life is simply a series of trying to surpress needs that you can never quench. The Concept of God gives man much much more than that. I actually agree with part of that statement, namely: most people who get to the top think that life is futile, and that's why they decide to believe in something supernatural, i.e. "not of this life". Most people's inability to take responsibility for their own life explains the popularity of religion (and other activities that give one a sense of belonging and remove the responsibility from the individual, such as: gangs, communism, and totalitarian govt in general). This is precisely the reason WHY the concept of God has to be meaningless: so that people think it is beyond their little minds to comprehend it, i.e. really their life is beyond their control. In general, I actually think that Maslow's hierarchy is orthogonal to the real problems in human life. Most of the stages in the hierarchy are caused by social interaction, rather than by one's internal state of mind.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Apr 19, 2005 8:19:09 GMT -5
Dude, dictionaries are not written by 'english professors' they are compiled from common use of words, English majors are generally not math and logic wizards but look at words like "cool" dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coolThey're smarter than to arbitrarly define definitions that contradict each other. Its put in the dictionary because that's the way the word is generally used. If someone philosopher tries to redefine a word then they are wrong until enough people accept it as a common meaning. They could call the 'concept of no god' ketchup or atheism, its the same to the rest of it. As much as I loathe relevance, that is the essense of communication, use words as people understand their meaning. I mean I'm happy to talk about concept, if you would rather, instead of existence, but if you use the word atheism, and someone talks about existence that's your fault, not theirs. Next I have no idea where people get this idea that God=lack of personal responsibility - perhaps to a calvinist but not to the rest of us. Its a 100% logical fallacy to assume the above, the proper equation is: atheism=moral relativism=no accountability=no responsibility theism=moral absolutism=accountability=responsibility Pretty easy, saying otherwise does nothing more than make an ass out of yourself.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 19, 2005 9:43:17 GMT -5
"Common use of words" is not necessarily the correct use of words. You know, the word "star" is commonly used in the expression "look, there's a falling star". But it's not a falling star, it's a meteor. Similarly, the word "atheism" is commonly used to mean "belief that God doesn't exist", because most people think you have to believe in something, so if you dont believe in God, you must believe in no-God. The actual definition of the word should be left up to the experts in the field, not to the ignorant masses.
Atheism is not moral relativism. Atheism is not a moral philosophy at all, it's only a statement about one particular aspect of life: namely the existence of God(s). Objectivist atheists, for example, have an absolute moral philosophy. Others don't have a moral philosophy. Still others have one that's not absolute.
Theism implies lack of personal responsibility because it implies your insignificance and weakness compared to God. God pretty much controls (or CAN control) every aspect of your life, so you NEVER know whether you are making a decision of your own, or if you were PREDETERMINED to have made this decision. So if you make a mistake, you can always say "I guess this is God's plan". Notice how often people say "God works in mysterious ways". It's to explain away all the mistakes that they and others have made, and thus absolve everyone of responsibility.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Apr 19, 2005 18:09:11 GMT -5
Theism implies lack of personal responsibility because it implies your insignificance and weakness compared to God. God pretty much controls (or CAN control) every aspect of your life, so you NEVER know whether you are making a decision of your own, or if you were PREDETERMINED to have made this decision. So if you make a mistake, you can always say "I guess this is God's plan". Notice how often people say "God works in mysterious ways". It's to explain away all the mistakes that they and others have made, and thus absolve everyone of responsibility. I won't agree with the blanket statement that anyone religious gives up responsibility for themselves and uses God as a crutch, but I will agree with the latter part of that paragraph as it pertains to many religious people. Too many people are lead to believe that God works directly with them and that everything that happens is for a reason of his design. While I believe that God has plans that are in motion for us and the earth, therefore his is involved...I don't think he plays all of us like puppets on strings. The whole debate that God is faced with is whether or not we will serve him as he wants if we have free will. So why dictate every little aspect of our lives, we do need to take responsibility for how we live our lives, what we do with them, and how we serve or don't serve God. The fact is(IMO), when the time comes...we'll all be held accountable for our lives, therefore we'll be responsible. Seth
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 19, 2005 18:54:52 GMT -5
While I believe that God has plans that are in motion for us and the earth, therefore his is involved...I don't think he plays all of us like puppets on strings. See, that's just the thing: how could you ever know? If you think God COULD be planning a part of your life, how do you know he ISN'T? If you can't say that he isn't, then there's always the possibility that the wrong action you took is not your fault. You can't escape this uncertainty, and if you know anything about human nature, you know that we blame anyone else first but ourselves if there is even the slightest possibility of doing so. Of course, you're right, this doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to most people.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Apr 19, 2005 19:16:21 GMT -5
That's true, but what I mean is that IMO God does have a plan for the human race in general. But if I make a mistake(Lord knows I've made enough), it's not Gods will that I did it. He may have a grand plan, but he doesn't maneuver every facet of every human beings life. The definite and absolute know/don't know thing kind of negates faith which is essential to theists.
In other words, with free will in play...I make all my decisions, good or bad. My belief in God can direct me to do something one way or another, but he doesn't make me do anything.
Whether we agree wholeheartedly or not, I also really don't like people praising God for their Emmy and Academy awards and conversely blaming, or using him as the reason why for everything bad that happens.
Seth
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on Apr 19, 2005 20:16:52 GMT -5
See, that's just the thing: how could you ever know? If you think God COULD be planning a part of your life, how do you know he ISN'T? BINGO!How people can guide their actions against something that might be true is bizzare to me. But at the same time people who do not guide their actions, who behave in a manner that is harmful to humankind are ridiculous to me. Obviously I have much more tolerance for the former and no tolerance to the latter. Sometimes I feel you have little tolerance for religious people, but I'm sure that's not true. But in any case, behaviour should be guided by the greater good. If not for God, for all of us.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Apr 20, 2005 6:13:09 GMT -5
My calling you a chicken was an example of what some homo sapiens refer to as "humor". Why would you do that if you weren't trying to bait me?Your asking me for a proof of atheism is an example of type mismatch. Atheism doesn't claim anything about the world that needs to be proven. It does not say that "God doesn't exist in the world", rather it says "the concept of God is meaningless" (which I have proven on a number of occasions). So asking for a proof that no physical entity called "God" exists is really meaningless, because we cannot have a definition of God. It's like asking me to prove that a round square doesn't exist. I cant do that. I can show that a round square is a meaningless concept, implying that it CANNOT exist. Your re-definition of atheism reads like a definition of agnosticism. Your notion that atheism is immune to being challenged is ridiculous. If any claim cannot be defended (ie., proven) then it must be categorized as "unprovable belief" (ie., faith).
The "we" in "we cannot have a definition of God" is obviously you, but not me. I can have a definition of God as something that transcends the physical realm (be it spiritual, ethereal or extra-dimensional).
Anyone can prove that a round square doesn't exist with either a pen and paper or on the computer using CAD, so long as we're restricted to the space-time continuum that we know. What you cannot do is show that it is a "meaningless concept." Why? Because the very idea of "meaningless concept" is itself meaningless because of the relativism that inevitably results from juxtaposing those two words. Besides, a round square could possibly exist in another space-time continuum; nothing anyone does could "imply" that it cannot exist. This goes back to the issue of faith, which you always seem to bypass.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 20, 2005 8:23:16 GMT -5
Your re-definition of atheism reads like a definition of agnosticism. Your notion that atheism is immune to being challenged is ridiculous. If any claim cannot be defended (ie., proven) then it must be categorized as "unprovable belief" (ie., faith).
Nope, agnostics say they dont know whether God exists. I say I do know that the definition of God is meaningless. It's not faith, I can prove it, which I will do further down in this post.
The "we" in "we cannot have a definition of God" is obviously you, but not me. I can have a definition of God as something that transcends the physical realm (be it spiritual, ethereal or extra-dimensional).
Exactly, which is why your definition is meaningless. First of all, "something that transcends..." doesn't quite cut it as a clear definition. But that's a minor flaw. The main problem is this: transcends the physical realm. This is meaningless. We can only talk meaningfully of things within the "physical realm". What does it mean for an object of type T to exist? It means that we can exhibit some object A s.t. all the properties of A match those of the definition T. But if we can detect properties of a non-physical object, then this object IS physical. That's how we define "physical"! You see, once an object meaningfully "exists", it must be physical, there is no other ways to exist, so your definition is self-contradictory.
Anyone can prove that a round square doesn't exist with either a pen and paper or on the computer using CAD, so long as we're restricted to the space-time continuum that we know.
How many times have you failed high school geometry? Squares and circles are 2-dimensional objects. You can make up a million other dimensions, there still won't be such thing as a 2-dimensional square circle.
And I certainly hope you're not an engineer. CAD cannot be used to prove a definitional inconsistency.
Because the very idea of "meaningless concept" is itself meaningless because of the relativism that inevitably results from juxtaposing those two words.
Say what? Do you even have any idea what you just said?
Maybe I should give you a more concrete example. Your definition "God is something that transcends the physical realm" is exactly as useful and meaningful as my "God is blah blah, but not bleh, yet sometimes it's boom boom boom"
Besides, a round square could possibly exist in another space-time continuum; nothing anyone does could "imply" that it cannot exist.
LMAO. Have you been watching too much StarTrek lately? I find this hillarious yet sad, because a lot of people say things that they haven't even the slightest clue what they mean. I dont know if you're familiar with topology, but one can very easily prove, from the definition of circle and square, that the circle has an infinite number of extreme points, and a square has 4 - therefore a square cannot be a circle! It has absolutely nothing to do with space-time and other dimensions.
This is precisely why my analogy works. I'm proving things from definition, not from observation. If there was a meaningful definition of God, then yes, you could argue "we just haven't seen God yet, but he could be there". But since there isn't a meaningful definition, there couldn't possibly be one in any "other dimension", or "space-time continuum", or whatever other gibberish you may come up with.
This goes back to the issue of faith, which you always seem to bypass.
See my previous paragraph. I would seriously question the wisdom of faith in anything unknown. But faith in something meaningless - well that's just plain silly.
|
|