tommyc

I believe this was your original response.

Dr S

(W) Dr., it's the same ol hootinanyhorseshit.
(S) Oh, I never claimed that I had a unique reason for discarding Christianity and becoming an Atheist. I realized as a Christian that I had no way to back up what I was claiming. But also as a Christian there had been instilled in me a love of honesty. Most of the Atheists I meet tell the same story.

(W) a. If you and I both posess consciousness, but objectively its natue cannot be proven, then you are a liar if you try to convince me thru materialism/objectivism that you know it exists.
(S) Lucky you, it sounds like you've never been hit by a rock. It's difficult not to be objective when you are dealing with an object.

(W) Now, let me demonstrate your approach of deducing the truth. I shall claim that, cosmologically, God (though I do not know its essence), is the a necessary Being. He is the first causal agent.
(S) That's a real leap of faith and an even bigger one of logic.
Everything that we have ever observed about the universe demonstrates that it runs by natural laws, what we call physics for brevity's sake. We have never, ever, observed anything that was "outside" of nature.
Now we get to the "first causal agent" and we don't really know what it is (yet).
You however, despite the fact that we don't know that there even is a "super"natural have decided that this first cause is. Then you take an even greater leap. This "supernatural" cause isn't something along the lines of gravity or electro-magnetic force in the "natural" universe. No, somehow you have decided that this cause is an actual being. And even though none of the "beings" we have ever come across is a god, you've decided that this one is.
How you get from "we don't know" to a "god"--except for your impressive vocabulary--too closely resembles the thought processes of aboriginal shaman for my taste, thank you. I'll stick with "we don't know" since that is a position that more readily affords me the opportunity of finding out.

(W) Further, he may be just as illusionary or mysterious as our understanding of free-will because the nature of our apperception cannot be proven objectively.
(S) The idea of "free-will" is kinda silly. You claim to have free will because 'god could stop you from having it but doesn't.' The observable end is no different from that of 'you have free will because there are no gods to stop you from having it.'

(W)Prove me a liar!
(S) That sounds so harsh. I'm sure you are a very nice person, you just haven't thought this problem through all the way. You are filling a very simple existential claim with such a pile of rhetoric that you can't see over it.
If you have a god that's nice, trot him out and lets all have a look at him.
Christians tend to take that as a flip reply, but frankly that's the standard response to any existential claim.
"Is there a dog?"
"Sure, here he is. Sit boy, sit. Gooood dog."
No pleas to consciousness or materialism/objectivism, just a wagging tail and a cold nose. It really couldn't be simpler. Few sane people would argue the presence of dog, if they didn't see a dog there, on philosophical terms.
If god, however, is an adult version of a childhood imaginary friend, as he seems more and more to be, then perhaps the less said about him the better.

Hans

After reading countless posts on this subject I have come to the opinion that there are only theists and atheists. Agnosticts, while not discounting the existence of a gods (splitting hairs between itself and weak atheism), still lack a belief in the existence of gods.

Strong, weak, positive, negative, fat free, or unsweetened. They all have a lack of belief in common. Either you believe the bull or you don't. IMHO.

WJ

Dr!

Again, its not germain to the thread [agnosticism v. atheism], but I know God exists. I know from pragmatic experience and I know from logical inference. Unlike you, I don't use the apriori exclusively to guide this belief. IMO, only less intelligent people do. To that *sepecific* end, natural laws (mathematics) at some point will and have broken down. Any physicist will tell you that. Othwerwise, why is the cosmological argument still an argument?

I don't know what else to tell you other than you've lost it.

Again, prove I'm wrong!

WJ

Theli!

Let my try to answer your conern in a concise manner. You've shoe-horned me into a comfortable box that satisfies your frustration about this topic.

1. Politically, freedom from *religion* is a good thing. We were not discussing religion. (Were we?)

2. My aggenda, as you say, is to explore the limitations of logic. And I have discovered through conversation with many, not all, atheists that they are one-sided in their use of logic(excactly like some theists). I am not here to 'save' anyone, I'm learning how the atheist usues logic to arrive at judgements, conclusions, and otherwise (in)consistent uses of reason.

3. It doesn't bother me at all that you discuss God because it only supports my argument as perhaps derived from not me, but the atheist AJ Ayer. In its essence, it remains nonsensical to discuss God if you are an atheist.

I hope that answers your concerns.

walrus

tommyc

Well, I have to hand it to theists, at least they have an opinion.

tommyc

I do not understand why you believe it is nonsensical for atheists to discuss God? I find the topic interesting, I find a lot of myths interesting in fact, such as ghosts, vampires and green skinned aliens living on mars. I still believe you are trying to suggest that we deep down know it's true, that's why we still continue to discuss it.

WJ

Tommy!

Well, in your first paragraph, as you describe the need for 'strong' atheistic activism, then it merely supports the conclusion that debating itself becomes a politically motivated endeavor. Right?

Besides, as you alluded about the invention of religion, why invent the idea of a supernatiral Being to start? what is your point? If it is fighting fir with fire, you are back to political activism. have missed the obvious here? Please advise.

In your second paragraph, you might be on to something. It has been said that we are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser degree because we are not perfect. And when you use the word "care", atheism and god all in the same context, I believe therin lies the obvious contradiction.

So if you accept there is contradiction in life, how does logical thinking (deduction and the apriori) provide (absolute or otherwise) knowledge of your belief?

That, I think, is the most important question relative to your thread topic. And that is because if the answer is that thru logic, in the face of Being, no thing is absolute, then you could argue that we are 'all' agnostics when it comes to the use of pure reason.

Make sense?

seanie

no

WJ

Why? You're starting to sound like a theist.