Freethought & Rationalism Archive

free12thinker · 05-07-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>It's pointless. WJ thinks his semantics dance is in some manner applicable by mere petulant fiat on his behalf.

Arguing in mirrors must be terrifying for you. You have my sympathy. Though it is cute that you pretend the argument that devastates theism applies to those who have no beliefs in the factual existence of magical fairy god kings.

Pointless, trivial and irrelevant, but certainly cute.

You forget, of course, that the christian cult and the islamic cult (just to name two of the most prevalent ones) can easily and effortlessly be demonstrated to be historically detrimental to society, so your transparent attempts at equivocation fail instantly when applied to the comparison of the results of theism as opposed to the absence of theism.

The absence of christian theism and islamic theism is therefore demonstrably preferable for humanity on the most basic, primary levels; justifiable through empathy/sympathy and inherent self-survival instincts.

Your repeated fallacy is in the forced (and erroneous) attempts to equivocate theism and atheism, which cannot be done. They are not flip sides of the same coin or even bastard stepchildren from a drunken father.

Both christian cult and islamic cult theism are active, positive, unproven, fear and threat-based claims designed to control and rule people's lives according to the strict adherence to proscribed doctrine that have resulted in centuries of horrific and unjustifiable atrocities as a direct result of the strict adherence of those doctrines.

It is the dogma that is to blame. That is irrefutable. You may deny it all you want (others have tried ad nauseum), but it fools no one.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Conversely (though no comparison is necessary other than to appeal to your apparently limited grasp of conceptual processing), the absence of adhering to these historically proven detrimental doctrines of the christian and islamic cults can readily be demonstrated to be an historically positive effect (not claim, but effect) on humanity.

This, too, has been demonstrated ad nauseum both here and elsewhere for centuries.

So if it's a comparison you're trying to force upon us, then the absence of adherence to demonstrably detrimental theist-based doctrines such as those found in the christian and islamic cults is arguably and demonstrably preferable, based upon the most basic, inherent elements of empathy/sympathy and self-preservation that is at the heart of every single moral decision individual's and group consciousness process on a continuing and mutable basis.

There is no requirement for establishing "absolutes" since none exist and never have, which is your transparent point, ironically demonstrating an indirect proof that no God concept factually exists.

Now, if you wish to keep on splitting little semantics hairs on this non-issue thinking you've just made the greatest macaroni Christmas tree your eight year old mind could put together for Mommy and Daddy, be my guest.

Atheism needs no justification. Theism, on the other hand, requires so much justification that the list is almost literally endless.</strong>

I thought I was articulate. I thought I could explain myself to WJ, but you Koy, have done it!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

WJ is the most useless debator I have ever come in virtual contact with, yet, I haven't been able to shut him up. Maybe he will now.

Great post.

hezekiah jones · 05-07-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
.... you've just made the greatest macaroni Christmas tree ...

rofl

WJ · 05-07-2002, 10:57 AM

Reasonabledoubt!

Unfortunately or fortunately, the original question has been answered. Atheism cannot proclaim to the world an absolute objective truth or belief (or position, or whatever 'semantically' you want to call it)about the non-existence of God.

AJ Ayer was correct; the atheist's 'argument' is nonsensical.

Walrus

Ender · 05-07-2002, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ: Reasonabledoubt! Unfortunately or fortunately, the original question has been answered. Atheism cannot proclaim to the world an absolute objective truth or belief (or position, or whatever 'semantically' you want to call it)about the non-existence of God. AJ Ayer was correct; the atheist's 'argument' is nonsensical. Walrus

Incorrect. Postivisim is a now-discredited movement in philosophy. The Verification principle is self-refuting.

Get on with the program!

~WiGGiN~

Theli · 05-07-2002, 11:10 AM

free12thinker...

Quote:

You're not understanding the difference between
1) Belief
2) Disbelief
3) No opinion due to lack of info.

I do understand the difference between belief, disbelief and lack of info. What I don't understand is where you get "disbelief" from...

Here's another way of seeing (A)theism.

Godbelief is an attribute wich some people have and some don't.
This description fits much better with the syntax of a-the(o)-ims. The a- prefix indicates a lacking of the sufix -theism, just as the a- prefix in amorality indicates a 'lack of' morality.

The big problem with your definition of (A)theism is that is seems to assume that only one god-definition exists. Take for example christians, they believe in the christian god while has "disbelief" in the thousands other god-definitions that exists/has existed, the ones they've heard of, that is.

Now, if (A)Theism was a question about belief and disbelief, wouldn't the christian be an atheist aswell?
He disbelieves the existence of almost as many gods as you do (assuming your an atheist, and you've heard of as many godclaims as he has). All but one.

According to your own system you are not actually an atheist either. How can you deny (have disbelief in) the existence of all those godclaims without having information about all of them?
Yet you say that the baby can't be an atheist since he doesn't know of any god-definition.

What sets you and the christian apart is not a question of belief or disbelief in god.
It's a question of godbelief and lack there of.

Quote:

1.) Belief - I believe John Stockton is a good point guard
2.) Disbelief - I don't believe John Stockton is a good point guard
3) No opinion - I've never heard of the guy so I really couldn't say either way.

This example is incompatible with (A)theism since it's directly based on knowledge and not on a belief. Just because you write "I believe John Stockton..." instead of "I know/think John Stockton..." doesn't make it a belief/beliefsystem.
It's an assumption. Godbelief is dependent on some knowledge in order to exist but it is not based on knowledge.
You can have a belief in John Stockton's abilities or you can lack there of.

Quote:

Babies have never heard of god. They couldn't tell you either way.

Why would someone have to tell me his belief in order to have one?

Quote:

Atheists don't just disbelieve in god because it doesn't sound right.

Why not?
If someone had no godbelief because no god explaination/theory/religion has been convincing enough, is he not a "real" atheist?

Quote:

Well with infants, there is no this, this or this...

... no godbelief.

Quote:

...so they really couldn't say either way.

Have you ever met a mute christian? Is he not a "real" christian either?

Quote:

Once again--There is a 3rd option to believe or disbelieve. If you believe or disbelieve in something, than a reason follows. But for babies, there is no signification, justification or anything of the sort. Thus, no belief or disbelief.

Excacly, he lacks godbelief.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

WJ · 05-07-2002, 11:13 AM

Hi Wiggin?

I've not heard of the verification principle? Was AJ incorrect? How so?

Otherwise, please tell us that any argument (about your non-belief in God-atheism) you have to offer us is absolute truth?

Walrus

hezekiah jones · 05-07-2002, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
AJ Ayer was correct; the atheist's 'argument' is nonsensical.

You seem to have conveniently ignored a little something we like to call "context":

Quote:

"For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted." - Language, Truth & Logic, p.115

In other words the nonsensical character of your assertions is necessarily antecedent to any putative nonsense-making on the part of atheists.

The point is, we understand that it is all nonsense, and are simply requesting empirical corroboration of your nonsensical metaphysical assertions, if you please.

To date none has been forthcoming. Indeed, the very act of theists appealing to A.J. Ayer approaches the pinnacle (or nadir) of nonsense-making.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 05-07-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
I've not heard of the verification principle?

Then what on earth are you doing working in the quote mine of LT&L?

WJ · 05-07-2002, 11:32 AM

jones!

Where have you been? We agree! If you had read my previous posts you would see that the theist's position is equally nonsensical from an 'objective absolute' perspective.

So what is your point? Are you having the same trouble justifying your, for a lack of a better word, belief? Is atheism purely a default position?

Walrus

WJ · 05-07-2002, 11:49 AM

jones (wiggin)!

Are you saying that the VP from LP remands AJ's statement that atheist arguments are self refuting?

Walrus

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2002, 10:57 AM	#63
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Reasonabledoubt! Unfortunately or fortunately, the original question has been answered. Atheism cannot proclaim to the world an absolute objective truth or belief (or position, or whatever 'semantically' you want to call it)about the non-existence of God. AJ Ayer was correct; the atheist's 'argument' is nonsensical. Walrus

05-07-2002, 11:13 AM	#66
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hi Wiggin? I've not heard of the verification principle? Was AJ incorrect? How so? Otherwise, please tell us that any argument (about your non-belief in God-atheism) you have to offer us is absolute truth? Walrus

05-07-2002, 11:32 AM	#69
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	jones! Where have you been? We agree! If you had read my previous posts you would see that the theist's position is equally nonsensical from an 'objective absolute' perspective. So what is your point? Are you having the same trouble justifying your, for a lack of a better word, belief? Is atheism purely a default position? Walrus

05-07-2002, 11:49 AM	#70
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	jones (wiggin)! Are you saying that the VP from LP remands AJ's statement that atheist arguments are self refuting? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.