Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 02-05-2003, 04:41 PM

Amos, I'm not going to always capitalize the word god- you certainly do not need to capitalize protestantism, or catholicism either. That's not insulting. Albert, note that I said 'treading very close'. My job as a mod requires me to try to keep the discussions here as civil as possible. Disagreements, even very heated ones, are the norm, and expected. You are both entirely welcome to disagree with any non-catholic theology you want. And if you think you can prove that Catholic theology is superior, we are all ears. But IMO you will both be well served if you avoid expressing your less than flattering opinions of non-catholics here; I repeat, it amuses all the atheists, and does not really further your points.

Secular Future- I am at a loss as to why you seem upset. This is your thread, and lots of posts are being generated by it; if you feel it's gone off the topic you wanted to address, just say so, and tell us what you *do* want to talk about.

Albert- theists posit that God exists, and attempt to describe what he is and what he wants. Thus, their claim is *positive*. Atheists- weak atheists in particular- make no claims, and only question the things theists say about God. (Strong atheists *do* make a positive assertion- that God as described by some theist or group of theists *does not* exist. For an excellent defense of that assertion, look no further than some of bd-from-kg's posts in the ongoing 'requires evidence' thread.)

SecularFuture · 02-05-2003, 05:51 PM

Albert Cipriani,

Quote:

�Dear SecularFuture Who Has Left this Thread in Disgust,
You ask: �What are you talking about?!��

I�m sorry about jumping to conclusions about your talks. I should�ve taken the time to read more in-depth into your discussions. I�m under a lot of work related stress right now.

Quote:

�I am talking about the absurdity of your premise that only �positive� claims need be supported.�

Now that I think about it, you two bring up some very interesting points, and an interesting topic.

About my statement:
Lets say I were to go onto a job interview and tell the boos that I could type 300 wpm. Would it be up to me to prove my claim? Or, would it be up to my boss to prove my claim?

By saying �There is a God�, you are making a positive claim. As a skeptic, the burden of proof does not lie on my end.

If I told you that I could type 300 wpm, would you just take my word for it? No - you would not. I would have to sit down at a computer, and prove to you that I could type 300 wpm.

Quote:

� For example, consider these two statements:
1) Abortion is murder.
2) Abortion is not a legal choice.

One is positive and the other is negative and they both mean exactly the same thing. Yet you assert that only the positive one needs to be supported.�

I�m not talking about opinions. I�m talking about claims.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jobar

Quote:

� Secular Future- I am at a loss as to why you seem upset. This is your thread, and lots of posts are being generated by it; if you feel it's gone off the topic you wanted to address, just say so, and tell us what you *do* want to talk about.�

I�m just a little crazy at times. Please, don�t mind me.

You two are actually carrying on a pretty good conversation; I just didn�t know it at the time I was reading through. And to you I also apologize.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will be back later to give a more in-depth response. Must return to the chaos that is my life.

02-05-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach

I think protestant is an obsolete term for this reason. I think Chrsitians should be identified as Catholic, Orthdox, traditional Protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans), Fundamentalists, Charismatics, and Ultra-Fundamentalists.
Fiach

No no, please never identify Catholics with Christians. Catholics are sinners and Christians are not sinners. Christians have been set free from the law that was given to Moses for the conviction of sin and so Christians cannot sin (1Jn.3:9). In fact (and this gets much worse) if they have been set free from the law and again seek justification in the law they have already been severed from Christ and have fallen from Gods favor! (Gal. 5:1-4 paraphrased).

Don't you see how we cannot be both saved and sinner? and that there cannot be any paradoxes in Catholicism?

Albert Cipriani · 02-05-2003, 09:53 PM

Dear Bill Snedden,
Congratulations. I�ve only been back on this board for the past 5 days, but in that time frame, of all I�ve read, your prior post to me stands as the most well-reasoned. Thank you for that. It�s truly a delight to witness. I was starting to get frustrated and out of sorts here in reaction to a lot of the low brow stuff that goes on in place of reasoned argumentation.

Tho I appreciate your fine distinction between a formally and functionally positive proposition, alas, I can not agree with your assertion that atheism is not a functionally positive proposition.

You say, �there is no functionally positive claim in disbelief.� This is ostensibly true, but really false. My formal disbelief in the positive functional claim that 2 + 2 = 5, necessarily metastasizes into a belief in the functionally positive claim that 5 is not the sum of 2 + 2.

You cannot pretend that formal disbelief stops at formal disbelief. As Nature abhors a vacuum, the human mind cannot hold long onto what it does not believe. It immediately casts its formal disbelief into a functionally positive formulation.

But don�t take my word for it. Let SF be the judge. Using your own terminology, I put the question to SF.

Tell us truly, SF, is your atheism merely a formal affair as Bill suggests? That is, by holding your atheistic disbelief in theism, do you not mean �to make a positive claim about reality�? Does your disbelief �purport to show a correspondence between itself and the true state of affairs�? Can your atheism be expressed in the functionally positive statement: �God does not exist�? I think the answers to these questions are yes.

I believe that your disbelief in God is a functionally positive belief. It constitutes your world-view, not merely your unwillingness to accept theism�s unproven claims. If that is your case, then the burden of proof falls just as heavily upon your shoulders as on mine. � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

SecularFuture · 02-06-2003, 01:41 AM

Bill Snedden,

Quote:

� Of course. However, Jesus didn't write those. They are his alleged words/sayings that someone else wrote down. There is a definite difference between first person and third person point of view. It is therefore inaccurate to refer to "writings of Jesus Christ." One should more appropriately use "words of Jesus Christ", or simply "New Testament" if one also wants to include the document as a whole.�

Thank you for the correction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Albert Cipriani,
What threw me off, and eventually away, from this thread were your talks about cannibalism. My patience gave away; I began skimming through the thread until I eventually lost interest. I thought the conversation had been taken to a dumb place I did not feel like going.

Quote:

� Have you not noticed how couples who have been married forever tend to look the same? Even dogs, in shape or personality, tend to look like their masters.�

That is all in your head. A wonderful imagination you have.

Quote:

� No one is pure but God. Nothing is pure but God.�

And how do you know this? Why do you believe this?

Quote:

� They�re owned by no one, used by all, and misused by some such that some belong in the linguistic equivalent of debtor�s prison.�

You have an interesting way with words. I like your style.

Quote:

� If we can�t even get this world right�.

What is �right�? Do you define right? Does the God you have faith in define right?

Quote:

, which is right under our noses (as is our mouth and dog shit!) how audacious of us to think we can get God right on the basis of what �seems.��

Get �God right?� Before we try to get �God right�, we should first try to find out if He/She/It exists or not. Does God exist? Is there any reason, evidence for, or logic in any of the God concepts? No. God is nothing more than an ancient � religious faith based - concept.

Quote:

� I know from personal experience that they are the dumbest of the dumb, even my bees were smarter than sheep.�

They cannot be. Bees do not have brains.

Quote:

� the fact that theists all have different �views� of God speaks eloquently of God�s Triune nature and gives evidence of His claim that �the things which are not seen, are eternal.��

Your statement and the book that you *believe* was inspired by God is not evidence for God or anything of a supernatural nature. Your statement is nothing more than a religious faith based assumption without foundation or weight. I�m sorry, but this is the truth.

Quote:

� If you believe something, stating it negatively or positively doesn�t free you from the burden of supporting it.�

I do not believe in a God because there is no proof, reason, or logic in any of the God concepts. I will not believe in something on the basis of religious faith alone. I need a platform, something realistic, to base my beliefs on. Now, in saying this, the God concept has become your concept. Now you carry the burden of proof for your claim. You say there is a God. Okay � where is your proof?

Quote:

� That is, by holding your atheistic disbelief in theism, do you not mean �to make a positive claim about reality�?�

I am not making a positive claim about anything. As an atheist, I am only denying your claim for the existence of a deity.

Quote:

� Does your disbelief �purport to show a correspondence between itself and the true state of affairs�?�

No. You and I have *beliefs*, and nothing more. No facts � Just beliefs. However, the difference between my beliefs vs. yours is that I have reason to believe as I do. You can only believe in the unseen / supernatural through religious faith. You cannot believe in such concepts through logic.

Quote:

� Can your atheism be expressed in the functionally positive statement: �God does not exist�?�

No.

Quote:

� I believe that your disbelief in God is a functionally positive belief.�

By definition, atheism is a negation.

Quote:

� It constitutes your world-view�

Not really. Secular Humanism or Transhumanism does that a little better, but that is a different topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ganymede

Quote:

� What with the yelling?

Actually in one form or another I have. I just never put it all together into a single document, or chose to make it public. Is there some problem with that?�

Well � your comments seemed a bit cynical at the time. �I could have
written it myself"??? What was that statement about?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jobar

Quote:

� I have come to the conclusion that no two theists believe in exactly the same God- even twin brothers who attend the same church, if asked the proper questions, will disagree over some aspects of what God is, and means.�

This is proof of theism�s inconsistency. Each person, clearly, makes up their own God.

Quote:

� I find this to be a powerful argument for the non-existence of gods, because if there were one god who wanted human beings to know him, it seems that at a minimum he would reveal himself in the same way to the multitude�

Exactly! What a smart person you are! As secularists, I believe we should all catalog our philosophies in writing for others to read. We must help spread the new word, a better word for a secular future. Secularism will lead way to realism, progress, and order. Instead of relying on magical concept, we will use our own ingenuity to find solutions, and to develop the next innovations through analytical thinking.

NightWatchman · 02-06-2003, 02:41 AM

Dont you know how to read the bible, it says you live, move and have your being in him. So what is it?
come on. dont know?

SecularFuture · 02-06-2003, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NightWatchman
Dont you know how to read the bible, it says you live, move and have your being in him. So what is it?
come on. dont know?

"The" Bible? Every bible is *A" Bible. There is no definitive bible.

Every bible that refers to a God concept, including the one you probably read, is a book without foundation or rational merits. Without evidence for the supernatural, none of the bibles which contain claims for the supernatural are credible.

Do you believe in a bible? Do you believe your bible was inspired by a supernatural deity (God)? If so, why do you believe this, and can you provide any form of evidence, or reason, to support your beliefs?

NightWatchman · 02-06-2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture
"The" Bible? Every bible is *A" Bible. There is no definitive bible.

Every bible that refers to a God concept, including the one you probably read, is a book without foundation or rational merits. Without evidence for the supernatural, none of the bibles which contain claims for the supernatural are credible.

Do you believe in a bible? Do you believe your bible was inspired by a supernatural deity (God)? If so, why do you believe this, and can you provide any form of evidence, or reason, to support your beliefs?

absolutely

NightWatchman · 02-06-2003, 04:52 AM

just read lot433 post

theres only one thing that you live, move and have your being in, that can effect your brain.

SecularFuture · 02-06-2003, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NightWatchman
just read lot433 post

theres only one thing that you live, move and have your being in, that can effect your brain.

Ohh... Just what I've been looking for. Lost433! Thank you for letting me know of his post.

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

02-05-2003, 04:41 PM	#41
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Amos, I'm not going to always capitalize the word god- you certainly do not need to capitalize protestantism, or catholicism either. That's not insulting. Albert, note that I said 'treading very close'. My job as a mod requires me to try to keep the discussions here as civil as possible. Disagreements, even very heated ones, are the norm, and expected. You are both entirely welcome to disagree with any non-catholic theology you want. And if you think you can prove that Catholic theology is superior, we are all ears. But IMO you will both be well served if you avoid expressing your less than flattering opinions of non-catholics here; I repeat, it amuses all the atheists, and does not really further your points. Secular Future- I am at a loss as to why you seem upset. This is your thread, and lots of posts are being generated by it; if you feel it's gone off the topic you wanted to address, just say so, and tell us what you do want to talk about. Albert- theists posit that God exists, and attempt to describe what he is and what he wants. Thus, their claim is positive. Atheists- weak atheists in particular- make no claims, and only question the things theists say about God. (Strong atheists do make a positive assertion- that God as described by some theist or group of theists does not exist. For an excellent defense of that assertion, look no further than some of bd-from-kg's posts in the ongoing 'requires evidence' thread.)

02-05-2003, 09:53 PM	#44
Albert Cipriani Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 3,018	Dear Bill Snedden, Congratulations. I�ve only been back on this board for the past 5 days, but in that time frame, of all I�ve read, your prior post to me stands as the most well-reasoned. Thank you for that. It�s truly a delight to witness. I was starting to get frustrated and out of sorts here in reaction to a lot of the low brow stuff that goes on in place of reasoned argumentation. Tho I appreciate your fine distinction between a formally and functionally positive proposition, alas, I can not agree with your assertion that atheism is not a functionally positive proposition. You say, �there is no functionally positive claim in disbelief.� This is ostensibly true, but really false. My formal disbelief in the positive functional claim that 2 + 2 = 5, necessarily metastasizes into a belief in the functionally positive claim that 5 is not the sum of 2 + 2. You cannot pretend that formal disbelief stops at formal disbelief. As Nature abhors a vacuum, the human mind cannot hold long onto what it does not believe. It immediately casts its formal disbelief into a functionally positive formulation. But don�t take my word for it. Let SF be the judge. Using your own terminology, I put the question to SF. Tell us truly, SF, is your atheism merely a formal affair as Bill suggests? That is, by holding your atheistic disbelief in theism, do you not mean �to make a positive claim about reality�? Does your disbelief �purport to show a correspondence between itself and the true state of affairs�? Can your atheism be expressed in the functionally positive statement: �God does not exist�? I think the answers to these questions are yes. I believe that your disbelief in God is a functionally positive belief. It constitutes your world-view, not merely your unwillingness to accept theism�s unproven claims. If that is your case, then the burden of proof falls just as heavily upon your shoulders as on mine. � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

02-06-2003, 02:41 AM	#46
NightWatchman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 97	Dont you know how to read the bible, it says you live, move and have your being in him. So what is it? come on. dont know?

02-06-2003, 04:52 AM	#49
NightWatchman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 97	just read lot433 post theres only one thing that you live, move and have your being in, that can effect your brain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.