Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 05-10-2002, 02:29 AM

HRG...

Quote:

But without the existence of humans or other intelligent beings, there would be no way to express it.

I never said that it could be expressed without a system. But the value 2 and 4 still exists, just that noone is there to observe it.

2 rocks are just as many weither you express it in numbers, letters or don't express it at all.

Quote:

In short, IMHO the existence of mathematics - or of any other formal system, like chess - depends on the existence of intelligent beings.

yes, I'm aware of that. But the values aren't created by the system, it is merely expressed in it.

WJ · 05-10-2002, 05:05 AM

Hain, all!

You guys are confused by your perceptions of how using the tools of reason viz. epistemic belief/disbelief justifies your conclusions of the existence/non-existence of God; here's another example of your lack of focus. (BTW, Free's arguments are still moot. I take back my appology. Just another air bag it seems)

"Religions are belief systems, gods themselves are not."

Ok all knowing atheist, explain your logic about how you arrived at that statement/personal knowledge of gods and why you believe or disbelieve in them? What does it mean for some- thing to exist?

Again, you'll probably reply with some gibberish default position that says no thing. Or, you'll say that because that's what we've read or heard from theists. In that regard, Snatch's last point is well taken. Otherwise, Ayer's comment stands; you're talking nonsense. We're back to because 'someone said so' or analytical objective reasoning per Free's assertions/justification of his belief. What does that prove?

How could atheists , in good conscience, claim they know about the essences and existences of gods (as asserted by Samhain) ?

I'm afraid Ayer is the only one who is true to himself. The nonsense about beating someone's wife from the moderator demonstrates the childish nature of you alls' default position or otherwise the other emotional erroneous baggage that justifies or drives your beliefs? Got anything else to say? All I've heard is a disdain about 'authority', blah, blah. Childish rationale. Of course, the irony is that 'sentience' is what created these belief systems to start.

It seems now that you all have got 'no thing' to prove your case with. No basis other than anaytical unemotional gibberish-paradox/contradiction in itself as I've whitnessed here. I'm impressed. You all just borrow from other's beliefs, I guess(?) Is that the best you've got!? I guess so. To that end, Snatch's last point is well taken. You can't rely on existential objectivity to demonstrate that your default position proves anything. At best the default position can do is provide for a stalemate.

If you can't even explain or justify your own existence, how can you explain or justify another Being's existence or, as you fondly referred to it, negative non-existence statement/position/assertions? You all are caught up in words. Do words explain existence? Please enlighten me oh great masters!

Snatch is the only one who came close to framing the problem. Go back and read all his comments, then respond with some common/practical/pragmatic sense, instead of ego/emotion and all the other baggage that seemingly drives your comments. Otherwise, perhaps you should read some books on the psychology of religion. Or, are you an expert in that area too?

FYI, read the NT. This has all been articulated before.

Walrus
--------
The default position is a stalemate. What follows;
no-thing? And?

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

philechat · 05-10-2002, 05:20 AM

Calm down, pauvre Walrus! I will pray to my Goddess for the help of you!

We have no reason to answer your loaded questions and strawmans now.

Vorkosigan · 05-10-2002, 05:32 AM

How could atheists , in good conscience, claim they know about the essences and existences of gods (as asserted by Samhain) ?

<shrug> There are no gods. My conscience is clear.
Easy, really.

Vorkosigan

brighid · 05-10-2002, 05:33 AM

Would you guys just stop feeding this troll. Now matter how many times we explain it, no matter how many times different people attempt to put things in terms a 1st grader could understand, this guy won't get it because he seems incapable of conceptualizing, or understanding much of anything.

Ignore him, please - for all our sanity put the child in a time out and walk away .... Some people don't care what kind of attention they get, as long as they are getting attention!

Brighid

WJ · 05-10-2002, 06:24 AM

bri!

Your rhetoric won't save you, nor will it make your problem go away. I'll do a psychology of religion thread (from James' critique of your use of logic) to prove once again the ignorance behind your responses.

Or, maybe I don't need to;

There are no gods. My conscience is clear.
Easy, really.

Vorkosigan

I'm curious then why it is that Vork feels the need to debate, as he has previously in this forum, if it is as easy as he says? He sounds like he's confused?

Sounds like some sort of an Ayer wannabe? Again, read Snatch's comments-all of them.

Walrus

WJ · 05-10-2002, 06:32 AM

Philchat!

"We have no reason to answer your loaded questions and strawmans now"

Thanks. That proves my case. The default position provides for no reason.

Walrus

free12thinker · 05-10-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
<strong>Hain, all!

You guys are confused by your perceptions of how using the tools of reason viz. epistemic belief/disbelief justifies your conclusions of the existence/non-existence of God; here's another example of your lack of focus. (BTW, Free's arguments are still moot. I take back my appology. Just another air bag it seems)

"Religions are belief systems, gods themselves are not."

Ok all knowing atheist, explain your logic about how you arrived at that statement/personal knowledge of gods and why you believe or disbelieve in them? What does it mean for some- thing to exist?

Again, you'll probably reply with some gibberish default position that says no thing. Or, you'll say that because that's what we've read or heard from theists. In that regard, Snatch's last point is well taken. Otherwise, Ayer's comment stands; you're talking nonsense. We're back to because 'someone said so' or analytical objective reasoning per Free's assertions/justification of his belief. What does that prove?

How could atheists , in good conscience, claim they know about the essences and existences of gods (as asserted by Samhain) ?

I'm afraid Ayer is the only one who is true to himself. The nonsense about beating someone's wife from the moderator demonstrates the childish nature of you alls' default position or otherwise the other emotional erroneous baggage that justifies or drives your beliefs? Got anything else to say? All I've heard is a disdain about 'authority', blah, blah. Childish rationale. Of course, the irony is that 'sentience' is what created these belief systems to start.

It seems now that you all have got 'no thing' to prove your case with. No basis other than anaytical unemotional gibberish-paradox/contradiction in itself as I've whitnessed here. I'm impressed. You all just borrow from other's beliefs, I guess(?) Is that the best you've got!? I guess so. To that end, Snatch's last point is well taken. You can't rely on existential objectivity to demonstrate that your default position proves anything. At best the default position can do is provide for a stalemate.

If you can't even explain or justify your own existence, how can you explain or justify another Being's existence or, as you fondly referred to it, negative non-existence statement/position/assertions? You all are caught up in words. Do words explain existence? Please enlighten me oh great masters!

Snatch is the only one who came close to framing the problem. Go back and read all his comments, then respond with some common/practical/pragmatic sense, instead of ego/emotion and all the other baggage that seemingly drives your comments. Otherwise, perhaps you should read some books on the psychology of religion. Or, are you an expert in that area too?

FYI, read the NT. This has all been articulated before.

Walrus
--------
The default position is a stalemate. What follows;
no-thing? And?

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</strong>

Your Reply:
Otherwise, Ayer's comment stands; you're talking nonsense. We're back to because 'someone said so' or analytical objective reasoning per Free's assertions/justification of his belief. What does that prove?

My Reply:
Analytical objective reasoning proves everything that we know today. Everything that we teach our students. Everything that we hold to be true, we hold after analyzing and using reason and logic to come to conclusions. Stories, legends or myth's are taught, but they are always taught as fiction. The God argument and creation were thrown out of schools because teachers couldn't validate the stories, especially with mounting scientific evidence. If you really believe that using reason and logic to justify points is fruitless, than there's really nothing left to add to this entire topic.

WJ · 05-10-2002, 06:59 AM

free!

I'd like to be nice, but every time I show the will to be 'engaging' it gets misinterpreted. So, cynicism is all there is, thus;

"If you really believe that using reason and logic to justify points is fruitless, than there's really nothing left to add to this entire topic."

Please tell me why and how the existence of a Being understood as God [the concept of] is within the entire domain of logic? Please?

The answer is that it isn't. It is not all about objective reason. Is your existence about that? How so? Perhaps that is exactly why there is seperation from church/state/public schools (kind of humorous considering the words on the american dollar).

Walrus

philechat · 05-10-2002, 07:03 AM

And, as it holds, the worship of Christian God is as futile as the worship of Ma-Zu or Zeus or IPU.

And, as a result, people who worship one god over another is a result of hopeless lack of imagination.

And, epistomological agnostics usually act as existential atheists anyway, in that their actions does not incorporate the act of god-worship.

Which, in turns, explains why we called ourselves "atheists"--we do not "act" with any gods in mind. And that's it...God is a concept as futile as IPU...It's fun to discuss non-sensical concepts however (like aesthetics or anime characters!!!)

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

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

05-10-2002, 05:05 AM	#172
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hain, all! You guys are confused by your perceptions of how using the tools of reason viz. epistemic belief/disbelief justifies your conclusions of the existence/non-existence of God; here's another example of your lack of focus. (BTW, Free's arguments are still moot. I take back my appology. Just another air bag it seems) "Religions are belief systems, gods themselves are not." Ok all knowing atheist, explain your logic about how you arrived at that statement/personal knowledge of gods and why you believe or disbelieve in them? What does it mean for some- thing to exist? Again, you'll probably reply with some gibberish default position that says no thing. Or, you'll say that because that's what we've read or heard from theists. In that regard, Snatch's last point is well taken. Otherwise, Ayer's comment stands; you're talking nonsense. We're back to because 'someone said so' or analytical objective reasoning per Free's assertions/justification of his belief. What does that prove? How could atheists , in good conscience, claim they know about the essences and existences of gods (as asserted by Samhain) ? I'm afraid Ayer is the only one who is true to himself. The nonsense about beating someone's wife from the moderator demonstrates the childish nature of you alls' default position or otherwise the other emotional erroneous baggage that justifies or drives your beliefs? Got anything else to say? All I've heard is a disdain about 'authority', blah, blah. Childish rationale. Of course, the irony is that 'sentience' is what created these belief systems to start. It seems now that you all have got 'no thing' to prove your case with. No basis other than anaytical unemotional gibberish-paradox/contradiction in itself as I've whitnessed here. I'm impressed. You all just borrow from other's beliefs, I guess(?) Is that the best you've got!? I guess so. To that end, Snatch's last point is well taken. You can't rely on existential objectivity to demonstrate that your default position proves anything. At best the default position can do is provide for a stalemate. If you can't even explain or justify your own existence, how can you explain or justify another Being's existence or, as you fondly referred to it, negative non-existence statement/position/assertions? You all are caught up in words. Do words explain existence? Please enlighten me oh great masters! Snatch is the only one who came close to framing the problem. Go back and read all his comments, then respond with some common/practical/pragmatic sense, instead of ego/emotion and all the other baggage that seemingly drives your comments. Otherwise, perhaps you should read some books on the psychology of religion. Or, are you an expert in that area too? FYI, read the NT. This has all been articulated before. Walrus -------- The default position is a stalemate. What follows; no-thing? And? [ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

05-10-2002, 05:20 AM	#173
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Calm down, pauvre Walrus! I will pray to my Goddess for the help of you! We have no reason to answer your loaded questions and strawmans now.

05-10-2002, 05:32 AM	#174
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	How could atheists , in good conscience, claim they know about the essences and existences of gods (as asserted by Samhain) ? <shrug> There are no gods. My conscience is clear. Easy, really. Vorkosigan

05-10-2002, 05:33 AM	#175
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Would you guys just stop feeding this troll. Now matter how many times we explain it, no matter how many times different people attempt to put things in terms a 1st grader could understand, this guy won't get it because he seems incapable of conceptualizing, or understanding much of anything. Ignore him, please - for all our sanity put the child in a time out and walk away .... Some people don't care what kind of attention they get, as long as they are getting attention! Brighid

05-10-2002, 06:24 AM	#176
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	bri! Your rhetoric won't save you, nor will it make your problem go away. I'll do a psychology of religion thread (from James' critique of your use of logic) to prove once again the ignorance behind your responses. Or, maybe I don't need to; There are no gods. My conscience is clear. Easy, really. Vorkosigan I'm curious then why it is that Vork feels the need to debate, as he has previously in this forum, if it is as easy as he says? He sounds like he's confused? Sounds like some sort of an Ayer wannabe? Again, read Snatch's comments-all of them. Walrus

05-10-2002, 06:32 AM	#177
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Philchat! "We have no reason to answer your loaded questions and strawmans now" Thanks. That proves my case. The default position provides for no reason. Walrus

05-10-2002, 06:59 AM	#179
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	free! I'd like to be nice, but every time I show the will to be 'engaging' it gets misinterpreted. So, cynicism is all there is, thus; "If you really believe that using reason and logic to justify points is fruitless, than there's really nothing left to add to this entire topic." Please tell me why and how the existence of a Being understood as God [the concept of] is within the entire domain of logic? Please? The answer is that it isn't. It is not all about objective reason. Is your existence about that? How so? Perhaps that is exactly why there is seperation from church/state/public schools (kind of humorous considering the words on the american dollar). Walrus

05-10-2002, 07:03 AM	#180
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	And, as it holds, the worship of Christian God is as futile as the worship of Ma-Zu or Zeus or IPU. And, as a result, people who worship one god over another is a result of hopeless lack of imagination. And, epistomological agnostics usually act as existential atheists anyway, in that their actions does not incorporate the act of god-worship. Which, in turns, explains why we called ourselves "atheists"--we do not "act" with any gods in mind. And that's it...God is a concept as futile as IPU...It's fun to discuss non-sensical concepts however (like aesthetics or anime characters!!!) [ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.