Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 07:55 PM

Hello MadMax,

Quote:

Atheism describes the lack of belief in or the denial of the existence of any God or Gods. An atheist says, "No, I don't believe in any deities". However, I doubt this is what you had in mind when you claimed atheism doesn't say anything.

David: I agree: Atheism is specifically and exclusively a denial of the existence of any & all gods, and nothing else. That is that that atheism is, and that is not much at all.

Quote:

Since when do descriptions "say" anything? I didn't know they were supposed to know how to speak. I guarantee you Christianity doesn't "say" anything either. Christians say many things however. As the only thing that unites all atheists is the lack of belief in deities, the only thing all atheists would agree on saying is, "We don't believe in any deities."

David: You are confirming my description of atheism. Atheism's fundamental and only principle is contained within a single statement of denial.

Quote:

As atheism by definition only addresses a single issue, I fail to see why you'd expect it to address anything else other than that issue.

David: I don't think that atheism to address any other issues except for its single statement of denial.

Quote:

You make reference to this "incomprehensible element", the universe, and humanity but don't draw any of them together to explain exactly what is incomprehensible about atheism.

David: The statment: "There are no gods" or "God does not exist" appears empty and meaningless within the context of atheism, it is incomprehensible by atheists would place such great importance upon their denial of any & all gods existence.

Quote:

Our ignorance does not mean the universe is "incomprehensible". Its means we are ignorant of parts of the universe. It you have evidence of some aspect of the universe that we will never be able to comprehend, please present it. Otherwise withdraw the assertion.

David: Quantum mechanics and the behavior of subatomic particles appears incomprehensible, like a great mystery.

Quote:

But please, by all means, present your evidence for the conclusion that naturalism/materialism does not account for everything. How could you possibly know this unless you had absolute knowledge regarding all that is natural?

David: How does naturalism/materialism account for the existence of the Universe?
How does naturalism/materialism account for the origin of life?
How does naturalism/materialism account for the existence of humankind?
How does naturalism/materialism account for the intellect, aesthetics, ethics and culture of humanity?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:19 PM

Hello Theli,

Quote:

You seem pretty certain of this argument posted, you also seem pretty certain of god's existence.

David: Yes, I am certain.

Quote:

So how do you suppose we managed to invent the lightbulb?
How do you suppose we can sit here at opposite sides of the planet discussing, if we cannot have any knowledge?
I find you philosophy very strange.
Just because the universe is vast doesn't mean we can't know, or derive the most likely conclution from what we see.
How could the knowledge/claim of your god come to pass, if the universe is so complex we can't know anything?
This kind of philosophy isn't consistent with reality.

David: Of course we can know things. I was not speaking about knowledge, I was speaking about belief systems.

Quote:

The only unique truthvalue that exist in all beliefsystems is the existence of the very system in question. If a beliefsystem cannot bring any new verifiable info, then it's useless as a beliefsystem. It fills no purpose to our worldview.
If a beliefsystem tends to be false in it's conclutions, then all of its unique claims based on that conclution are highly questionable.

David: Beliefs systems are useless are, strictly speaking, all belief systems that an individual does not utilize. All comparative judgments of belief systems are subjective and doubtful.

If I am not a Hindu, Hinduism is not no use to me. Yet for a billion Hindus, Hinduism useful and essential for their understanding of the Universe.

Quote:

It's only use, as I see it is to confuse your motives. Please explain how searching knowledge, and then say knowledge is useless to a belief/worldview has a usefull quality.

David: All belief systems, all philosophies and all sciences contain contradictions. Contradictions are a byproduct of the limitations of human intellect.

Quote:

So, god is not real?
His qualities/actions/attributes only exists in your own mind?

David: Yes, God is not real. Words such as "real" are not meaningful when spoken in reference to God.

God's qualities/actions/attributes only exists in the human mind in the sense that all words which describe such qualities/actions/attributes utterly fail to convey any knowledge when used within the context of divinity. It is better to think of all such words as allegories or analogies rather than interpret them in a strict literal fashion.

Quote:

I find this argument of you very strange. Since you don't object to the conclution that god don't exist, you are technically a strong atheist. And you are hiding together with me behind my "atheism veil". So who are you to judge me, when you ultimatly are like me?

David: If you conclude that I am a "strong atheist" you have failed to grasp the implications of your argument:

God is not "real" because God is not contained within our concept of reality; God does not "exist" in the sense that physical things exist, because from the ultimate perspective everything within the physical universe and the physical universe itself are temporary and transitory in their existence.

All the supposed contradictions which you find in the God concept are in reality manifestations of the difference between God and our reality. God does not share any attributes with the Universe because the Universe is not God.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:22 PM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

Do you think he knows I'm not an atheist?

I suppose it's been clear on this thread, but sometimes people here mistakenly assume I am...

David: I respond to you, Helen, because your posts are a lot more interesting and relevant to the subject matter than Douglas' posts.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:26 PM

Hello Madmax,

Quote:

Might I suggest that if Douglas and others do wish to get down into the details of those debates, that they do so in another thread. If its just a cursory treatment of them, then I suppose thats okay.

David: This is an excellent suggestion.

Quote:

Douglas' view of David as an "apostate", while a bit whimsical, is pertinent I suppose. I have to agree it is very, very odd for a C of C member. Why David continues to associate himself with such a fundamentalist group, given the beliefs he has, is beyond me.

David: There is a good reason for everything, but that reason is irrelevant to the subject matter.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:29 PM

Hello Theli,

Quote:

There was some barking and flaming going on between David and Douglas, as David stated that everyone should start ignoring Douglas.
Douglas was not pleased.

David: I think everyone should ignore Douglas, his posts are a distraction on this thread. If Douglas wants to engage in a discussion, he ought to begin his own thread.

Quote:

About David's faith, I also found it abit "weak". I stated an argument with the conclution that his god did not exist, wich was based on his own words, and he agreed.

David: A Christian with weak faith could never say the things that I say.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:33 PM

Hello Madmax,

Quote:

Yes, the greatest mystery of God is that he doesn't exist. David agree's.

I never thought I'd see a version of Christianity so liberal it was virtually synonomous with atheism.

Gives support for the old adage that inside every theist is an atheist just dying to get out.

David: Theism is virtually synonymous with atheism, the only difference between the two viewpoints is merely an affirmation or a denial.

From the standpoint of statements such as "God does not exist" by believers, these are not so uncommon as you might imagine. If you examine the writings of the great mystics of all faiths (monotheistic and polytheistic) you will find that they can and do speak in that fashion without demolishing or denying theism and faith.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:41 PM

Hello Intensity,

Quote:

I find Davids a bit of a fundamentalist. His sectarian approach to examining his faith and reality in general has that closed-mind framework of fundamentalists. Look at the way he responded to you MadMax: "You dont have to understand". What kind of response is that? Of a liberal? This is passive fundamentalism. The fact that he is tackling questions from atheists here doesnt prove he is not fundamentalist: the snotty manner in which he is responding to those questions is what we use to judge that; his total lack of disregard to reality and reason, lack of any urge to provide a factual basis of his beliefs and callous approach regarding human life and suffering. His uncharitable manner (no one is obligated to explain their beliefs) closes any avenues for meaningful discussion by rendering the discussion barren and his pontificating responses are meant to cut-off any shoots of curiosity that are attempting to penetrate into his belief system for example, when asked to describe God, he says : "God is that being whose existence is not dependent upon your knowledge, belief or acceptance.". The question was not about what Gods existence is dependent upon, it was about Gods characteristics. So the answer was meant to intimidate the questioner and demean the importance of the beliefs the questioner holds. At the same time, its a prevarication and a change of subject.
This evasive approach is consistent as one examines Davids responses. When a question is asked, he either answers with a question (as he did with Bill), prevaricates by changing the subject, or answers with a pontificating response that makes the discussion barren in that direction.

Besides that, I find Davids' theology so unsupported and groundless that it doesn't even exist (I believe this was in an effort to appear open-minded and accomodating and to avoid taking a position because the only positions available are untenable). He is willing to concede anything: like he says no one will Go to hell, God does not exist, Its Ok if God kills innocent people, its Ok is earthquakes kill humans, its ok to lead a self-centered carefree life and so on.

On examining his position on religious issues, I have come to the conclusion that he has this euphoric view of his faith and everything else is brushed off casually. he said his beliefs are based on faith not fact (I even wonder why we are bothering him). He doesn't bother to support his beliefs because he doesnt think it matters to support them. In his world, faith reigns supreme over reason, science, logic, history or anything else that could be used to arrive at a conclusion regarding reality.

It reminds me of someone who is so drunk that when you tell him he is standing on a mine, he brushes you off telling you not to worry. If effect, its like he can't see his beliefs. He lacks any objective standard of examining his beliefs and he is not willing to accept any.

David: I find your critique of my faith very interesting. If my faith is not satisfying to you, that is fine with me. I didn't design my faith with the goal of satisfying the expectations of all people. I have my faith for myself, not for you.

Quote:

Most of us use reason (logic) and science(empiricism) and philosophy where empiricism fails short when examining our beliefs.

David: Perhaps you do, or at the very least you think that you do.

Quote:

David has concluded reason is too limited (he forgets that it is limited to facts) to be used when examining ones beliefs, as such he has no intention of applying it. Since God is not part of reality, he doesn't see the point of examining God as we would a real entity.

He has been so preoccupied with making God elusive to any "tests" that he has made God nothing: infinite, immaterial, unchanging, imperceptible, incomprehensible, and outside reality (inexistent).
Of course anything outside reality is imagination or fantasy.
He has admitted that God does not exist in reality.
Thus he has pushed himself to the atheists corner.
He is thus, an atheist by definition.

David: I think it is noteworthy that a Christian can be an "atheist by definition." If that is the case, what does that say about your atheism?

I can't believe that the implications of this message escape you. I am saying something very important and yet it just barely escapes you.

Quote:

Let me end this with a quote from Jean Paul Satre:

To believe is to know you believe; to know you believe is not to believe.

And to David, no matter how strong our beliefs are, that in itself does not guarantee us the truthfulness of those beliefs.

If we can not identify what constitutes truth (lacking any "objective" standard for determining truths from falsehoods), there is no point seeking that truth.

And Oh, a quote from Madmax himself:
I never thought I'd see a version of Christianity so liberal it was virtually synonomous with atheism

When you have your back to the fire, and you are backing away from fire, you end up in the same fire.

Thats what has happened to David.

Welcome to Atheism David. Its not as bad a "place" as you may think.

David: I never said that atheism was terrible. I never said that atheists are terrible. I did not come here to insult or condemn atheists.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:44 PM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

Anyway...that's liberal Christianity and that's why conservatives don't like it one bit.

David: Liberal Christianity was not designed for the purpose of making conservative Christianity happy.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:46 PM

Hello Madmax,

Quote:

Actually I knew all that, but I figured even the most liberal of Christians believed God was real and that he was some kind of supernatural entity.

David: Please define "real" as you are using it in the above sentence.

Would you say that for God to be real, God must be real in the sense that humans are real?

If you are saying this, I must disagree. From my standpoint, humans are not real as we are only temporary and transitory beings.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-02-2002, 08:49 PM

Hello Sandlewood,

Quote:

If you introduce a syllogism such as:

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Socrates was mortal

and the person with whom you are conversing responds by claiming the premises are true but the conclusion is not, then what can you do? I really don�t know. From that point you know that reason will be useless. What�s worse is if the person responds by asking �Do you want Socrates to be mortal?� Or how about �Socrates� mortality does not depend on us understanding that he really is immortal�?

David: If you have read the writings of Plato you would know that Socrates would ask these sort of questions, and many which would be even more difficult questions as well.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.