Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Aug 22, 2006.

  1. Satyr Banned Banned

    Sarku said it and Enterprise-D said it but why let them have all the I’ll say it again, just in case our resident religious mind can’t comprehend some basic principles.
    A wasted effort but fun and funny if one doesn’t take these people seriously.

    The mind-set is the same, the motives the same, the strategies the same.
    Only slight differences between Christian minds and Muslim minds and Hindu minds and whatever minds.

    And this is where we witness the true quality of your mind.

    Excuse me for starting out like this but this is a forum where we should speak honestly and clearly. Succumbing to the need for civility is the beginning of hypocrisy.

    I find you, and those like you, borderline retarded or, at least psychologically stunted.

    We see here the full affect of what I was talking about in my ‘Christian Debate Tactics’ (Replace 'Christian' with Hindu if you want) when I mentioned the ‘turning the tables’ strategy.

    The religious mind mistakenly believes - or desperately want to - that the burden of proof rests with the one not-believing and that if he, the non-beleiver, cannot prove that something does not exist then it therefore must exist.
    This is called ‘proving a negative’.

    Let us examine its effects.

    If I say there is a green monster living in my basement or that I can fly, if the unbeliever cannot prove that there is no green monster or that I cannot fly, then both statements must be true or at least possible.

    Our resident religious specimen uses words like “plurality” or “ontology” or “epistemology” in an attempt to appear thinking or intelligent when it is incapable of simple logic.
    He wants to sit in the grownup section, even while still remaining as child, just by using adult words.

    He supposes that the Atheist must disprove his God in order for his God to not be. If a negative cannot be proven then its opposite must be true....right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is called reverse reasoning, a strategy religious minds often use as a way around their inability to provide any evidence besides Scripture.
    Scripture being a man’s work describing a man’s opinion about something he has no direct knowledge of.
    Here we see the quantity over quality argument.
    If an idea is popular it is automatically possible or more possible.
    Popularity dictates 'truth'.

    People have believed in stupidities since the beginning of time.
    The earth was flat for the majority of Europeans once upon a time.

    But majorities are also regional. One majority will believe one thing, in this region, and a completely different thing, in another, making absolutes regionally relevant.
    Funny how "universal truths" are so geographically cotained.

    We also witness here a simplification of the opposition in the “It’s all in your imagination” hypothetical argument.
    Given the logic our specimen is exhibiting here everything does exist if it cannot be shown to not exist.
    I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist, therefore he does.
    I cannot prove that Olympus is not populated by gods so therefore it must be.

    If we established this form of reasoning in everyday life we would not need to have money only ask that the other prove that we do not. If he is unable to then we can both assume that I do have money.
    Then we could all purchase anything on hypothesis.
    We can call it ‘Reverse Reasoning Credit’.

    Here reality isn’t constructed based on ongoing investigation but it pre-exists completed and indisputable and all that remains is for it to be proven or disproven.
    It IS until someone shows that it IS or IS not.

    If it cannot be proven then the burden is diverted upon the opposition who must disprove it or else risk constituting it as real if they cannot.

    Do we see now why such minds cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with and why, in numbers and given enough political clout, they become dangerous?
    Who can reason with a Muslim fanatic who is willing to die and kill for a belief he cannot prove but believes because he was taught to and which he reasons is true because it cannot be disproved?

    Can I disprove Leprechauns?
    No. I can reason them away as implausible but I cannot completely exclude them as possible, if I am truly open-minded.
    Therefore Leprechauns, according to this bright beacon of thought, are fact.

    Watch him use the very strategies I described:
    The ‘reversing the tables’ strategy comes complete with accusations he himself is guilty of.
    I ask: who’s dancing here?

    The only type of mind that would be swayed by his tactics is the desperate soul seeking a way out of his suffering and wanting to feel special in a universe that could care less.

    Should such souls be nurtured and protected?
    And before we answer, guided by our compassions, let us consider the consequences of allowing such minds to believe they are on the right track or making a good point or that they are the equals of more rational minds.

    Sheep to the slaughter.
    Watch the reversal tactic continuing.

    He entered the fray with a preemptive strike across atheism’s bow and now he uses the very strategies I’ve described, even after he read them.
    He has no other arsenal. His worldview, his very peace of mind is built upon this shaky edifice.

    Where have I excluded absolutes as being possible?
    I’ve only described them as improbable, especially for the human mind to fathom, and improbable since an absolute would be inert by definition.
    A universe containing an absolute would cease having dimensions.
    A singularity.

    Why would an absolute move or create?
    Movement and creation and action is a sign of lack or imperfection.

    The perfect would need nothing and would have no reason to do anything.

    I deem absolutes improbable.

    But our specimen attempts to divert the burden and the conversation away from him self and his absolutist hypothesis.

    I say: if there is an absolute then prove it.
    I say: I’m open to arguments, describe this absolute and then describe how you came to this conclusion or this knowledge or this certainty.

    If I say I found the fountain of youth, the other, even if he may find the idea improbable, illogical and absurd, will nevertheless ask to be taken there.
    If I answer back:
    “Disprove that I’ve found the fountain of youth.” Because I cannot take him there then who is the hypocrite?

    I’m open.
    Lead me to your absolute.
    Show me.
    Don’t show me a map that supposedly was written by someone who had seen it.
    Don’t tell me the villagers all believe in it and therefore it must be there.
    Don’t use the word ‘epistemology’ to hide your ignorance and dullness of mind.
    Don’t talk to me about hearsay, SHOW ME!!!!!
    Reason yourself to it.
    Show me the train of thought which lead you to this ultimate, absolute conclusion.

    If you cannot.
    Go off and play with the villagers and talk and laugh about how you will all remain young, when you drink from the fountain, whereas I, the unbeliever, will die an old man.

    Thinking is food for adults.
    Children should eat on their own little tables.

    It all depends on how you define the word ‘God’.

    You are using a religious definition.
    God is ‘good’, he is conscious (although why something perfect would require consciousness is unknown), he cares for you and your little family and friends, he has created a special place for you, he is human-like in both form and temperament.
    You certainly know a lot about a theoretical something - and all this from a Book, no less.
    A Book mommy and daddy introduced you to from an early age or was it a friend?
    Exactly, my infantile friend.
    I cannot definitely determine it that is why I refuse to project my insecurities, fears and hopes upon it and paint it with the most positive, for me, colors and call this miasma a ‘truth’.

    You have yet to even define the term ‘God’.
    Surprising given that it is you claiming to know what it is.

    I say openly, like Socrates did:
    I do not know.
    But from what I do know and see and think, my opinion of what existence is, is more reliable and well-thought out than yours.
    I am still willing to abandon it all if new evidence changes my mind.
    I recognize the inherit conflict of interest in any thinking, which makes me skeptical even of my own thoughts.
    This is why I come here to compare them with those of others.
    I seek out rivals to test my thoughts.
    You are not even worth being considered a rival.

    An entertaining distraction, you are, bringing me back to my early adolescence when such matters were still unclear to me.
    I'm a cat palying with a tiny mouse. Even such play becomes boring in time.

    You are still stuck in adolescence. It is a product of this ‘Dumbing-Down’ or what I’ve referred to in other threads as ‘Domestication, Institutionalization and Feminization’ of man.

    You are the perfect specimen for studying the degradation of mankind.
    My belief rises or wanes in accordance to the logic and the evidence provided.

    I have met Chinese, I have seen pictures of China, I find the idea of China entirely plausible, I witness Chinese effects on the world and so I consider China to be highly probable.

    I’ve never seen gravity, but I see its effects and then I read books that give plausible explanations for it. Not absolute explanations, PLAUSIBLE ones.

    But you require concreteness and certainty, don’t you little brain?
    Like a little child you feel anxiety and fear at the thought that your existence is tenuous and uncertain.
    You need something, someone to be there to catch you, to make you definite, to offer you hope.
    You want a way out of being self-reliant and self-responsible.
    You want a great big old daddy…..
    Here, again, our specimen is trying to equate the two lines of reasoning by completely ignoring the arguments.
    Yes, tiny mind, all human actions are motivated by fear and insecurity.

    Some, like you, give into it and create clever little fantasy worlds to escape reality through them.
    Others face it, no matter what.
    Some, like you, attempt to gain power through belonging within something bigger and stronger than them, because they feel so small and weak on their own.
    Others attempt to empower self.
    Some, like you, succumb and surrender to the dark and unknown, choosing to cast there benevolent, kind, loving entities, to pacify their many fears.
    Others try to cast light in the darkness and conquer the unknown.

    Both are guided by the Will to Power but each uses different methods.

    Yes, my dim-witted believer in fairy-tales, haven’t you heard?
    I have a tiny penis, nobody loves me and I’ve never left my mommy’s basement.

    Now show us what you’ve learned in your many travels, sage.

    Show us the absolute.
    And they grab onto anything, ANYTHING, to save themselves.

    But your worldview is so Black & White.

    Who said I’m a materialist, little brain?
    You’ve created this caricature in your mind.

    The opposite of religion isn’t anarchy, materialism, violence and amorality.
    Is that what has frightened you into your little brain’s corner?

    Spirituality need not define an anthropomorphic God, little brain, nor is man devoid of morality and compassion if he does not believe in your absolute.
    Morality and compassion are ingrained into our DNA, as part of our social behavior.
    They are both survival mechanisms, just like your belief in the absurd, and we cannot help but be as we are.
    Yes, you want to give meaning and purpose to your suffering, I see it.
    You do not want to suffer in vain, do you little mind?

    Life and Suffering are tautologies, little one.
    I’ve described my reasoning on this subject elsewhere.

    Here’s a brief synopsis of what I believe but still remain skeptical about even if my 'style' does not reveal it:

    The universe is characterized by increasing entropy creating time/space which we can call change or possibility.
    The universe is in Flux, to put it briefly.

    Matter is a manifestation of an attempt to stabilize and end this flux; find that absolute you already think exists, the singularity, the can use either word even the word God.
    The more stable the union the more hard the matter, the more long-lived.

    Life is matter animated.
    Life is a self-limiting, self-ordering unity, attempting to separate itself from the universal flux and create a pocket of order and control and stability and power within the chaotic, for it, flux.
    As matter is an instance of ephemeral ordering, life is a more efficient attempt at it.
    Where inanimate matter is this stabilizing attempt blind and guided by nothing but chance, life is animated matter - a sophistication of this same process.
    It becomes more efficient in the attempt to find perfection.
    As the universe is constantly rearranging itself it creates pushes and pulls and strains and forces on matter and life as each unity tries to appropriate the necessary energies and achieve stability. Life, then, needs to constantly upkeep itself, heal itself, grow and repair itself.
    This produced NEED.
    Life experiences universal flux as NEED.
    Life is in constant NEED.

    Consciousness is a further sophistication of this same phenomenon.
    The conscious mind becomes self-aware, in time through evolution, and guides its efforts towards self-fulfillment.
    God is a manifestation, a projection of this Need to find an end, a stable, perfect, singular fulfillment.
    Consciousness interprets this ceaseless NEED as suffering.

    When a need is temporarily assuaged suffering decreases and is experienced as pleasure.
    When it is not, it grows in intensity and is experiences as pain or despair.

    Suffering being the universal flux interpreted by a conscious mind as sensation.

    If you embrace life you must embrace suffering.
    Sorry to break it to you in this way. But even little mind's must try to grow up sooner or later.
    Yes, but for those incapable of finding it here how convenient to create the circumstances by which their worldly sufferings will lead to other-worldly eternal pleasures.
    The revenge of the meek upon nature.
    No, shame is the mind feeling exposed to the Other(s).
    It is the fear of being negatively judged by the community.
    It is a form of mass control based on the establishment of moral systems.
    Morality is the rule of the community over the individual. Shame is one of the punishments.

    One feels ashamed of one’s self, often when he breaks a moral code he has been indoctrinated within.
    I may feel ashamed of my nakedness because my community has brought me up to believe being clothed is moral or that exposing my sexual organs is dangerous or unethical.
    I love your usage of extreme imagery to create an effect. Telling...

    In nature incest is deplorable because it produces unwanted mutations.
    Sex is meant to combine dissimilar traits into new unities.
    We are therefore not inclined to perform such acts, unless we suffer from some mental disease.
    Morality, in this instance, in in accordance to genetic law. Sometimes it is not.
    Why indeed.
    This is why communal living necessitates a loss of self. It creates neurosis by establishing rules which repress and suppress natural inclinations and places limits to individual actions.
    Morals are social contracts.
    Oh…oh…the sarcasm is entertaining.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I reside as far way from you as possible.

    The hypocrisy in your selflessness and morality is intriguing but nauseating, as well.
    Like maggots on a corpse.
    No, discipline is essential for control and empowerment.

    I’m talking about freedom.
    You forget that morality isn’t the monopoly of religion.
    Religion is a product of social behavior. Morality is a projection of this.

    I, as a social being, must have a moral code even when not believing in an absolute moral dogma.
    I am what I strive to become.

    Animals believe in no absolute god nor do they have a religion but they exhibit moral behavior, little brain.
    I’m talking about the hypocrisy of the religious mind who cannot even recognize the self-interested, absolutist motives behind his own unquestioning belief.

    Such minds are capable of the worse atrocities, all in the name of the “better good”.
    There are dogmatic everythings.
    Presently we are dealing with your brand.

    You cannot prove a positive by disproving a negative, little brain.
    Name one historical instance when this was so.

    Communism wasn’t about Atheism, it was about a dogmatic ideal that used atheism as a part of its meme.
    Theism was its equal adversary.

    In fact Communism and Christianity have much in common.
    Communal interests above individual ones.
    A strict moral code.
    See Christian Burdens in my original text.
    Another tautology under your world-view.

    Man has free-will, just as long as he applies it towards God’s Will.
    If man’s will is truly free then it is evil. If it is in accordance to God's, or what another human will has described God’s will as being, then it is good.
    What a wonderful way to control minds, don’t you think, little mind?

    This makes free-will the personification of Evil, the taint, the serpent within the goodness of God’s garden.
    It’s another way of causing shame.

    As is often the case Scripture speaks through metaphor. It is only imbeciles that take it literally.
    Scripture alludes to the evils of doing what you will when this goes against God – here God becomes a representation of community.
    Ergo morality becomes a form of mass control.
    Communal Will over Individual Will.
    So, it’s all part of a game. He already knows what will happen but He’s allowing us, in his loving, compassionate way, to suffer through it anyways.
    He creates and then punishes the creation for being as He created it to be.
    Given your definitions then religion is evil.
    It closes the mind up within a hypothetical and denies it possibility with a perchance, a threat and a possible reward.
    Use 'epistemology' or 'ontology' again, it makes you seem like you know what you are talking about.
    Oh, I see now which particular brand of religion you’ve bought.

    Why would I “hit myself over the head with a hammer”?
    Are you using an absurdity to prove an equal absurdity?
    Try again.
    Exactly, little brain.

    Where is the free-will God gave you then?
    You are free to follow Him or suffer, according to your meme, but you are not free to not follow Him or choose to not make the choice at all.
    Your choice: Suffer or Surrender.
    No surprise that your kind always chooses surrender, then, is it?

    How benevolent He is, especially given that His “omniscience” makes Him aware of your choice even before He’s forced you to make it.

    All this towards what end?
    Is he amusing Himself?
    If He is then He is not perfect because He lacks something which requires fulfillment.
    Imperfect gods for imperfect beings.
    And if the universe had a cause how could it be the universe?

    God exists because if He had a cause He would not be God? Is that what you said?
    What a wonderful piece of circular reasoning.

    Your kind is known for its intelligence.
    How does one determine the reliability of your authorities?
    Second-hand knowledge is judged by the source providing it.

    In science the source is judged by its success in predicting phenomena.
    I can judge another by his previous conduct.

    In your case the source and the writer is beyond your ability to judge and he offers no standard to judge him by, so you take him at his word.
    That was deep.
    You know God’s “general desire”?
    So, god desires?

    Does not desire denote NEED?
    Desire is the focusing of Need upon an object or an objective.
    What is this “correct epistemology” in a world full of “correct epistemologies”?
    So, there are now 2 universes?
    I see.
    No human error here creating “duality”.
    How pathetic.
    You didn’t answer the question, little brain.
    Then why us, at all?
    Avoiding the question again.
    I understand.
    Avoiding the question again.
    If a human father can forgive his child for whatever misdeed and if a human father wants his child to surpass him, then why does your God display such vain vulgarity?
    Avoiding the question again.

    I love my parents.
    The one still alive, that is.

    But what does my personal life have to do with the question?
    Answer it, little brain.
    Evasive tactics 101.
    Oh, I got the picture alright, little mind.

    Again you do not answer the question but go off on a tangent which you have a ready speech for.

    Please, little mind, never change.
    My interests are benefited by you remaining in this state of stunted mental growth.

    The only danger I perceive in you is when you acquire political force through numbers, because as individuals you lack any quality at all.
    It is when imbeciles are harnessed and their delusions directed that they can become dangerous.
    Cattle in groups are dangerous.

    People, like this specimen, require shoddy logic, reverse reasoning and emotional motives to believe in what they so desperately want to believe.
    If manipulated it can be used and it is regularly used.
    Watch the news - study marketing - study politics.

    Using our specimen’s reasoning I ask a final question:

    If no one can prove that there is a Minotaur in my basement I can only conclude, in accordance with little mind’s reasoning, that there is one.
    Someone told me and I read it in a book that such creatures are real.

    Ta, ta….
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enterprise-D I'm back! Warp 8 Mr. Worf! Registered Senior Member

    Did anyone but me think that a 1 page post was kinda long?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    jk Satyr last response to you was before this...u got a lot of rebuttals to fabricate

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Satyr Banned Banned

    Don’t take my little mouse away from me, friend.
    He’s fun.

    A living example of institutionalization, an interactive specimen of human frailty.

    But he’s also kind of lame.
    I’ve known better mice….rats if you will.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Brilliant Satyr. I especially loved that you nailed him with the Quantity vs. Quality argument, while deluging him with a post so large that it can not possibly be refuted, much less read.

    Excellent strategy.
  8. AAF Registered Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    lightgigantic: “As far as coming to the point of understanding God, that will never happen by logic alone – but – if logical misconceptions are cleared about God it may enable a person to hear about the subject clearly, and that can awaken curiosity, or scientific enquiry. We have no responsibility to prove something to a person who refuses to participate in scientific enquiry (although we may give them a prasadam sweet ball). Logic is useful when dealing with a person who has a scientific mind and is willing to investigate and participate. To use logic with a person who is fundamentally irrational is useless….”.

    Re: Understanding will never happen by logic alone’! This is your first fallacy. What kind of understanding that can happen without the aid of logic? Understanding is a rational process; and no rational process can occur in the absence of logic. And so your argument is irrational and defective from the start. Call it ‘scientific enquiry’! Or call it whatever buzzword appealing to your fancy! But it’s irrational at heart.

    lightgigantic: “…There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy…….”.

    Re: This is your second fallacy. ‘So much testimony’! Do you really believe philosophical argumentation can be based upon testimonies? And what is this ‘big gun’ of psychology? ‘Blunted by envy’! That is it? Just envy! What is about this one of mine? Theists attach themselves to the false notion of God, because they are looking for a ‘FATHER’; and because they don’t want to grow up; and because they want to remain children forever. But, of course, this is a matter of psychology; and cannot be used to refute or debunk a theological or philosophical argument. The same applies to your ‘blunted by envy’. In this context, your ‘blunted by envy’ is the ad hominem fallacy and nothing more.

    lightgigantic: “…It’s just like buying a car – if you refuse to go for a test drive yet insist that the salesman logically prove to you that the car runs nicely he will say “Sorry we don’t do business that way”. In other words, can a person expect to stand outside the process of knowing God and perceive God? No”.

    Re: False analogy! Buying God is not like buying a car. It’s, in fact, like buying the optical mirages of the Sahara Desert. There is no test drive, no guarantee, and no proof. And that is exactly what you are trying to sell to your visitors! Good luck to you! And good luck to them!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  9. Satyr Banned Banned

    Have I offended you in some way?

    I could not resist the opportunity to play with a religious mind.
    They come by rarely with such tenacity and I missed their tripe.
    Mocking them is fun.

    Should I have not answered his every inanity, point by point?
    Should I have allowed him the illusion that he’s making sense?

    Maybe, but where would the fun in that be?

    I promise, no more intervention.
    I will allow all you more laconic, do-gooders deal with this man-child.
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2006
  10. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    No dude, sorry. I should have added an emoticon. I was being silly and ironic, and failing at one while succeeding at the other. I thought it was a great post. My apologies. My brain is scrambled of late. Carry on.
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    actually this is the defeat of atheistic arguments - if an atheist is not saying anything about how god doesn't exist, then this thread isn't relevant - as for proving the existence of god - thats on the other thread - the correct epistemology one - so if you want to take this diatribe there, I may respond to it (but for god's sake try and keep it concise - I can not always guarentee I will have so much idle time on my hand to thrash out long posts like Satyr's

    Makes me more curious where you get the conviction for your arguments that god doesn't exist - assuming that you actually have such arguments

    Actually you cannot even do that - or at least if you can you haven't given any premises for the conclusion

    So sarkus Have you been to china? If not, do you believe china exists (or to a lesser extent, do you give a greater ontological status to the country you are currently residing in over china)? If you actually do believe in china, please explain the logical premises behind your conviction.

    After we clear up the china thing perhaps we can work on other notions like god.
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    I can see that I made a mistake by not being clear enough

    testimony establishes credibility (neither of these three are infallible - the testimony, the establishment or the credibility)
    credibility inspires us to apply an epistemology (neither of these three are infallible)
    epistemology grants an ontological perspective - if one has applied the successful epistemology, one is granted the ontlogical perspective
    Or to put it quite simply, we may hear so many things, true and false, that may inspire us to studdy some aspect of knowledge, but only a person who has actually studied it can verify the authenticity of its claims - would you lay as a condition for verifying the authenticity of archeological claims it is suficient to call on a carpenter? Or even to call on a astronomer?

    Actually my point was not this - my point was that one can receive training in any field of knowledge and still receive something false - its not as simple as putting your backside on the seat of any room that has a sign out the front "science" or "religion" or "medicine" or anything - for instance if you came out of doctor's school but couldn't measure someone's pulse it raises shadows of doubt over the epistemology you have been applying for the past 7 years - in other words ontological achievement can be qualified

    and like I said, if you try this in the real world you will either get two responses - 1 - a more charismatic speech from the salesman (which won't work because you insist on being shown by logic alone)
    or -2- th e reply "sorry we don't do business that way"
    In otherwords if a peson is not prepared to do something as simple as take a car for a test run it indicates that the person is not at all serious about buying the car - in otherwords the refusal to apply the epistemology of religious proceses to actually understand god by atheists who insist on inundating religious threads with their perspectives of god indicates thathey are not serious about actually understanding god in the first place - if they were serious they would approach the matter in a mood of scientific inquiry - instead they choose to wallow in what is defined as unsatisfactory levels of performance for perceiving the related ontology.

    As for how philosophy is practical applicaion, think of it in terms of theory and prac - if I want to talk about physics, yet have not studied it, what am I?

    yes for persons who speak english

    I am not sure what your point is - that these concepts are unique to greek civilisation and I must establish a cultural link to establish how they were formed in India? (Actually there is a consensus, or perhas the closest thing one can expect to a consensus amongst the empirical comunity, that greek language is derived from sanskrit). But even if you disagree - if the greeks had a word for water and the vedas also have a word for water, isn't it clear what we are talking about?

    Last edited: Aug 26, 2006
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Sartyr -

    thanks for providing evidence of

    "To begin with you first have to uncover an argument. This can sometimes be quite a laborious process because people tend to use language cheaply (eg – “God is illogical” …er .. why?). To get the premises (hence referred to as P1, P2) for a conclusion (C) you may have to wade through pages of opinions and even insults ."

    I will just respond to the parts, and even then only in brief, that actually have something to do with debate and not a battle of wills, which is kind of a useless endeavour

    well actually its the basis of debate - and if you think otherwise you will be left to your own devices to ponder why people don't respond to your posts (apart from the fact they are 10 pages long)

    as for the rest ...

    Are you still in highschool?

    Try and focus on the issues - there are stacks of atheists on this forum and if you read their responses you can learn how to post in such a way that persons may feel inspired to reply

    Alternatively this is the quick and easy way to make it someone's ignore list
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2006
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    actually if you go down to the eg about the car salesman you can see that the "customer" also has a dynamic role to play


    I get to that - logic can only bring you to the point of applying the process to know something - actually there is a whole thread about "how a person can understand god" in the thread about correct epistemologies - this thread is more about the deconstruction of atheistic arguments - in other words the argument that there is no god

    try the other thread

    Its also difficult to discuss electrons with high school drop outs - what does that indicate?

    Philosophers may disagree -

    BTW are you saying it is impossible to have an objective perception?

    what epistemology did you apply to determine that god is a subjective phenomena?

    How do you know that it can only be known by subjectivity? Do you hold that physics operates on the same basis?
    Or are you saying that the only objective perception is that all perceptions are subjective (which would be a negative absolute and thus destroy its own premise)

    There's a whole thread on this if you want to take it there

    I think you may have misread it - it was an example (admittedly simplified one - yet one I have encountered numerous times nonetheless) of an illogical ATHEISTIC argument - that is the whole point - in a truthful argument that isn't logical the C doesn't relate to the P's
  15. fahrenheit 451 fiction Registered Senior Member

    what has that to do with making the misconceptions clear, unless you mean the customer must first use his imagination, to take a test drive with god, as there is no other way is there, god is purely subjective. it would be more fun to take a test drive with the IPU or the FSM or even santa.
    there is this small matter of it being objective too.
    no there is'nt, you could just as easerly say the same about understanding harry potter or oliver twist the FSM and IPU etc..
    which is impossible.
    it really would not help. my mind can produce, much more exciting fantasies, then god ones.
    it indicates, to try to use logic, with a religious person who has is head in skydaddyland is useless.
    then let a philosopher prove philosophy it is not, pure subjective supposition.
    please dont be stupid.
    none, no need it's self evident, a god can not be seen or heard anywhere else but the subjective mind, unless off course, you can enlighten us all to a gods objectiveness.
    as already said unless you can enlighten us, it is the only possible way.
    your being stupid again.
    and even more stupidity, are trying for a degree.
    you've never encountered it from an atheist. it has no logical conclusion.
    I'm assuming that the P's are premise's and the C's a conclusions, if the C's dont relate to the P's they would not be there in the first place, the premise's always would conclued to a logical related conclusion, certainly not an unrelated one.
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    The point is that the customer is demanding that the car be proven to run faultlessly by the use of logic and refusing to go for a test drive - if he was actually sincere about knowing such things, he would take it for a test drive - in the absence of doing this it is understandable why one would call god subjective or the FSM or anyother of a myriad of concoctions

    how doyou determine whether something has an objective existence unless you apply the correct process to know it?

    On the contrary such supposed truths can not fulfill the first point of the given epistemology

    Well the moment you get the courage to offer one let me know

    Do you actually have an argument with premises or are you more interested in making statements to the world?


    It raises the question how do you know that nobody can know - in other words is the fact that nobody can have an objective perception the only objective perception? And if it is how did you arrive at that objective perception?

    Can you exhibit the objective nature of an electron to a highschool drop out?

    So in other words you are using your experience (which is quite miniscule because you boldly declare you haven't even applied the relevant epistemology) as a yard stick to determine the length and breadth of what is known and what is unknowable? Interesting

    Actually I am just trying to apply the general principles you seem to be advocating in regards to the knowledge of god to the knowledge of other things, like physics

    That was what I said to the atheist who offerred it too

    So now that you seem to have a basic understanding of how to offer coherant arguments for debate, why don't you try and add a few premises for your opinions
  17. Satyr Banned Banned

    I think a fart in the wind constitutes, for you, good enough proof for an absolute hypothetical you so desperately need to make life tolerable.

    Debating your type, as many others will soon find out, is like casting pebbles in the Grand Canyon to fill it up. Just too much empty space there.

    I will just respond to the parts, and even then only in brief, that actually have something to do with debate and not a battle of wills, which is kind of a useless endeavour

    Why would you think I care?

    What a novel evasive tactic.

    Now disprove Santa Clause and I’ll stop believing he’ll bring me that new computer, I so desperately want, this Christmas.

    Do you mean the atheists who humor you into responses so that with your every word they get that feeling so superiority in comparison?

    Why would it matter if I’m on someone’s ‘ignore list’ in some sub-standard “intellectual” community Forum?
    Sorry for not taking myself as seriously as you do.
    Then again I’m not insecure and egotistical enough to have succumbed to the idea of eternity and God.
    My ego begins and ends in relation to you, in the real world…you know the one that scares you with its uncertainty.

    And one more thing.

    Never change, little mind. Never…change.
    Not that you could but still……

    I leave you now to continue using ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’ as a way of pretending you are being open-minded and philosophical.

    Philosophy is the love of wisdom or knowledge.
    You are a lover of God or self. You only accept knowledge which justifies this obsession.
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Maybe this thread should be renamed "Self-defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments"
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2006
  19. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    The very premise of the thread itself is "self-defeating."

    While there are certainly atheists that make liberal use of logical fallacies, the core assertions of religion simply don't stand up to logical scrutiny. This isn't because religion uses a different "epistemology" than science. And atheism isn't a doctrine, so it doesn't have any single epistemology.

    The alleged epistemology of religion, however, is a pseudo-epistemology. Consistently, religious people speak of "knowing" God and knowing God has "touched their lives" because of some hardship overcome. But these aren't ways of knowing, they're ways of believing. Overcoming an illness cannot be used as evidence nor can the testimony of those that say they have "experienced" God. These events could just as easily be evidence for the progress of medical science and cognitive abilities of the individual.

    The testimony of a lecturer in physics to a class that accepts, "on faith", that the lecturer's information is accurate can hardly be compared to the testimony of a religious leader to a congregation that accepts, on faith, that the believer's information is accurate. This is for the very simple reason that of both audiences, only one is capable of producing one or more believers that can actual take the information and test it.

    The religious believer audience is accepting on faith (blind trust without evidence). And they're using a pseudo-epistemology to trick themselves into believing they "know" something about the universe.
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Actually what is self defeating is when a person insists on debating on a sub-human level, whether atheist or theist .....

    Atheism does have a doctrine - it declares that god doesn't exist and that religion is a socially developed phenomena of human civilisation -both of which have no evidnce BTW (that is these things cannot be proven by the same epistemology that an atheist demands god be proven by)

    Overcoming hardship is not accepted as integral to accepting the correct epistemology for perceiving god, although it is usually commonly associated with it - in other words there are stacks of people who overcome hardship on some level but it doesn't say anything about how they are in relation to god - even by the common and well known example of jesus's life you can see that on the contrary being a fully flourishing theist can invite a lot of trouble in ones life.

    But I never said that overcoming hardship indicates knowledge of god - if you read the epistemology thread opener you would see that

    Now you are trying to lump in cure of illness with experiencing god - is that all god is? A doctor?

    Yes that is true, thats why I never declared them to be evidence of experiencing god in the first place

    Unless of course your initial premise, namely that god is a subjective phenomea, is false - in which case both scenarios would be identical - only those who undergop the process of physics perceive the reality of physics and only those who undergo the process of knowing god can know god

    What evidence does the physics crowd have? What distinguishes this evidence from the evidence the religious crowd has? (assuming that both the teachers in both scenarios are bonafide)


    Doesn't physics also operate onthe same premise? After all why is the science of physics completely rewritten every thirty years?

    Anyway, all of this would be more relevant on the epistemology thread - in all this you didn't give one argument from an atheistic point of view why god doesn't exist.
  21. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    "Sub-human:" a term used by people who think somehow humanity is the the ultimate in creation or evolution; or that organisms other-than-human are somehow "lesser" beings. Perhaps. But I question anyone that professes to know what a "sub-human" debate consists of since this implies that they have experience debating with organisms other-than-human. Do you win these arguments? Let us hope.

    Regardless, you spent an entire post saying nothing about this alleged "epistemology" that religious adherents are supposed to have. Say what you will about physics or any of the other sciences, but the ways of knowing involved in the sciences include being able to test observations and reproduce results. The student of science takes his professor's lecture on faith, but has the ability to test the speed of light or the behavior of the flagellum.

    How does the student of religious doctrine test the claim of transubstantiation? Does he sample the wine by having his stomach pumped to see if there are blood platelets? Can epithelial cells be obtained by removing the freshly pumped stomach's bread to see if it turned to the flesh of christ?

    Face it. The superstitions of religion create magic thinking not a true epistemology. And atheism is in no way a "doctrine." Among atheists there are many, many worldviews. Some have new age ideas, others are strict Popperian skeptics, some are Buddhists, and so on. Atheism is simple life without the superstitious belief in god(s). The trouble that religious adherents have is that they think their superstitions are true and, operating under these false premises, they think anyone not willing to accept their superstitions must have some agenda.

    Some atheists do. I'm one of them. My agenda is to refute bullshit, antiscience and pseudoscience. If that means debunking and refuting religious bullshit, so be it. But I don't refute religious nutters because I'm an atheist, I do so because I'm skeptic and a freethinker. The religious adherent is a trapped-thinker. He can only think in his little box with very strict limitations on how far out of the box he's allowed to stick his head. If an idea is contrary to the superstition, the religious adherent must retreat and declare the atheist out to get him.

    Your arguments are not only weak, they don't even amount to true arguments. You claim to want to defeat "varieties of atheist arguments" but you haven't even demonstrated that this is a capability among those that take the religious standpoint. The atheist argument is simple: why accept the existence of a being that hasn't been shown to exist outside the imaginations of Bronze Age storytellers? As much as it may comfort you to believe in such a being -one that offers eternal life, there simply is no reason to accept it and many to reject it.
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    The term indicates that sometimes humans act on unsatisfactory levels of performance.
    Well there's whole thread about it if you want to shift house - this thread is more about hearing atheistic arguments rather than establishing theistic ones

    Ditto for the proper epistemology of religion

    You have completely muddled methodologies - suppose I ask for a knife to cut vegetables and you bring me a microphone - then I say you are wrong and you say "No the microphone works perfectly well - there is no problem with it".

    In otherwords to say what works fine in one paradigm (inspecting someone's intestines for bread) won't work in another, namely metaphysical analysis, since the whole process is physical - you could also venture the notion that someone doesn't hae a mind because you have never "seen" it.

    So even though I don't operate out of the xtian paradigm, I can see the gist of your premises - Can matter define spirit? NO. Matter cannot even properly define human minds and consciousness - it strugles even to define electrons, which are the composite frameworks of a large amount of matter

    epistemology establishes the means to detect an ontology - just as the equations and squiggles of a mature physicist appear magical to the novice (or even more "magical" to the highschool drop out), you cannot expect to jump into the topmost realisations of religion after merely placing one's backside on a wooden seat in a place of worship.
    There is also variety in perceptions of the absolute nature of god - ironically Buddha is accepted as incarnation of god by the vedas, specifically to pull atheists into an apadharmic (moral values) paradigm

    Doesn't anyone who has applied an epistemology tothe point of ontology think their ideas are true? You declare that god is a subjective phenomena, but have not ventured an argument why? This is the correctthread to venture such evidences ...... preferably with premises to save me the effort of applying cosmetic surgery to your articles

    Then why are there theistic scientists who have contributed greatly to the progress of science - does einstein, eccles and townes also make it on your BS list?

    You assume that you are operating out of paradigms that can explain everything. In otherwords you say my box is the biggest box on the strength of your bravado rather than any evidence.

    The paradigm you operate out of (empiricism related to the investigation of matter) cannot even adequately explain matter (see earlier mention about electrons) in terms of direct perception, yet you feel it is adequate to encompass een metaphysical phenomena

    As for atheists, its only the ones who cannot express themselves in rational ways and resort to a battle of wills that I have the problems with.

    Well most the time here I spend my time saying "err I think you really have issues with the epsietmology thread"

    Just like this is not really an argument for atheism, it is an argument against theism, which actually belongs to the other thread about epistemology.

    In short though, we could ask what do you accept as evidence that god only existed in the imaginations of persons in the era 4000-1500BC? It is very difficult for archeologists to establish what was even happening in that time,what to speak of determining what was happening according to their imaginary concepts
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2006
  23. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator


    We archaeologists have the epigraphical artifacts, to show it. One of which is the christian bible. Others include ostraca and tablets as well as murals, mosaics and even scenes on pottery. While many of these pose more questions than answers, we have a very good look at what Bronze and Early Iron Age people were thinking. More than enough to say that their imaginations were in no way inhibited.

    And to be quite honest, I barely skimmed the rest of your post, I only noticed the word "archaeologists" as I was about to close my browser. If you "epistemology thread" is as much nonsense as this one, I can hardly wait. Maybe I'll look at it if simply have nothing else to read... then again, maybe Paul Dixon's FermiLab thread would be a better use of my time.

Share This Page