Freethought & Rationalism Archive

free12thinker · 05-09-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Phile!

But that human construction defines physical, material existence. That is what you [the atheist] base your default position on?

If you base it on things changing, then we are back to the concept of a metaphysical God being both timeless 'and' changing-contingent? To that end, and to speak to your last comment about dice, are we not talking about of a mix of free-will, contingency, and cause and effect determinism here? Kind of off-topic, but I'm just trying to understand what you base your default position on, and have yet to receive an answer from anyone.

Walrus

I think the correct statement would be: You have not found an answer that is to your liking. That will never happen here, so give up, please.

If you give up I won't tell anyone. It'll be our little secret.

philechat · 05-09-2002, 09:35 AM

WJ:

God is not defined as the rational summation of all individual occurances (which are irrational). In theology God is apart from the occurances, namely "outside the universe". Such a God is always free to change the rationality of the summation according to his will.

I am not going to debate with you about pantheism, since it's not the topic of this thread.

Another observation: When humans, with their (irrational) free will, is performing the act of trading, a system called "economy" appeared. And, surprisingly, these "irrational" incidences could actually construct a "rational" system.

WJ · 05-09-2002, 09:36 AM

Free!

I didn't know this was a game about 'giving-up', (whatever that means in the context of our discussion). These are very important questions! Those questions are about [your] atheism being a default position which, seemingly, mean nothing. Questions for which you chose not to answer(?). So, I guess that means it is you who has given up.

Anything else you'd like to say?

Walrus

snatchbalance · 05-09-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

But that human construction defines physical, material existence.

Mathematics is more of tool for communication when applied to physical phenomena. It is used to describe and predict. In the end, at least at this point in human evolution, phenomena can only be pointed out(and utilized as far as our ingenuity permits).

SB

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

free12thinker · 05-09-2002, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Free!

I didn't know this was a game about 'giving-up', (whatever that means in the context of our discussion). These are very important questions! Those questions are about [your] atheism being a default position which, seemingly, mean nothing. Questions for which you chose not to answer(?). So, I guess that means it is you who has given up.

Anything else you'd like to say?

Walrus

We have answered these questions a million times over, but you just don't get them. It isn't a coincidence when you are knocked for your lack of coherence or logic, no matter what topic you are posting things under.

I will give it one more shot though, though I know that no matter what I put down, you will misread it and go from there. But I'll give it another shot. Line up some questions for me, and I will answer them for you.

Samhain · 05-09-2002, 10:22 AM

Walrus:

Sorry, coming in a little late here. You seem to be missing a very important point which has been explained ad nauseum here.

For what reason does the refusal to affirm the illogical and inconsitent idea of god have to be based upon something? Like has been said before, atheism is not a belief, but the exact opposite, a lack of belief. Unlike holy fools like yourself, we do not base our existence on fairy tales with no logical back-up to explain our existence. This is all this means nothing more. It means we do not believe in god(s), that's it. So tell me, since you seem to be so well versed in logic and reason (

), why does a negative statement have to affirm something?

WJ · 05-09-2002, 10:22 AM

Snatch!

It is refreshing to see someone around here with a little bit of common sense.

Free!

Just answer the question(s) about your 'absolute' knowledge (as an atheist who invokes the default position) from a few posts back. Do you need help?

Walrus

WJ · 05-09-2002, 10:26 AM

EDIT; sorry for the double post....

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Jayhawker Soule · 05-09-2002, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
These are very important questions!

Any particular reason why?

Samhain · 05-09-2002, 11:15 AM

Walrus:

Get off your pulpit and answer my question. Why does a negative statement have to make a positive assertion?

05-09-2002, 10:26 AM	#138
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	EDIT; sorry for the double post.... [ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

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

05-09-2002, 09:35 AM	#132
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	WJ: God is not defined as the rational summation of all individual occurances (which are irrational). In theology God is apart from the occurances, namely "outside the universe". Such a God is always free to change the rationality of the summation according to his will. I am not going to debate with you about pantheism, since it's not the topic of this thread. Another observation: When humans, with their (irrational) free will, is performing the act of trading, a system called "economy" appeared. And, surprisingly, these "irrational" incidences could actually construct a "rational" system.

05-09-2002, 09:36 AM	#133
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Free! I didn't know this was a game about 'giving-up', (whatever that means in the context of our discussion). These are very important questions! Those questions are about [your] atheism being a default position which, seemingly, mean nothing. Questions for which you chose not to answer(?). So, I guess that means it is you who has given up. Anything else you'd like to say? Walrus

05-09-2002, 10:22 AM	#136
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Walrus: Sorry, coming in a little late here. You seem to be missing a very important point which has been explained ad nauseum here. For what reason does the refusal to affirm the illogical and inconsitent idea of god have to be based upon something? Like has been said before, atheism is not a belief, but the exact opposite, a lack of belief. Unlike holy fools like yourself, we do not base our existence on fairy tales with no logical back-up to explain our existence. This is all this means nothing more. It means we do not believe in god(s), that's it. So tell me, since you seem to be so well versed in logic and reason ( ), why does a negative statement have to affirm something?

05-09-2002, 10:22 AM	#137
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Snatch! It is refreshing to see someone around here with a little bit of common sense. Free! Just answer the question(s) about your 'absolute' knowledge (as an atheist who invokes the default position) from a few posts back. Do you need help? Walrus

05-09-2002, 11:15 AM	#140
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Walrus: Get off your pulpit and answer my question. Why does a negative statement have to make a positive assertion?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.