Freethought & Rationalism Archive

01-21-2003, 07:21 PM

Amos, as far as I can discern, your posts are devoid of intellectual content. But maybe you're talking over my head. In any case, have a nice day.

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
I think my distinction is that there is no such thing as absolutism in rational thought, and since language is always going to be an approximation anyway, we might as well use the simplest, clearest phrasing possible.

Obviously, but so what? The fact remains that to state "There is no god" implies to many that you are claiming omniscience on the subject. Is that what you want? If not, then why not avoid spouting such absolutist-sounding phrases and avoid the charge and the argument that you are an absolutist (to repeat, albeit your statement above is obvious).

Quote:

I will plainly announce that there are no invisible space monkeys nesting in the toes of my shoes, and will avoid the cautious circumlocutions that make explicit the possibility that such things are there. Let it just be understood that all anyone has to do is show me evidence, and I'll change my tune.

But that language is overkill. How do you KNOW for a fact there are no invisible space monkeys nestling in your shoe's toes? There might be, just like there might be a supreme invisible intelligence that created the universe. I don't BELIEVE for a second that either case holds, but I don't KNOW it, and neither do you.

It is a debate simply about semantics. You think I set myself up for being charged with agnosticism, or worse, by avoiding the word 'know', and I think you unnecessarily set yourself up for being falsely identified as a dogmatist, i.e, a fundamentalist atheist that's a mirror image of the dogmatic theist, BY using it unnecessarily.

We can debate this to the end of time :banghead: , or agree to disagree, and leave it go. I suppose each atheist, you and I included, will just continue to express our individual views in whatever phraseology that we each deem proper.

01-21-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Robert G. Ingersoll
Amos, as far as I can discern, your posts are devoid of intellectual content. But maybe you're talking over my head. In any case, have a nice day.

.

OK I'll make it simple. Man and God are synonyms and there is not argument here because realization is required for man to become God.

From this follows that not to believe in God is not to believe in Man.

Starboy · 01-21-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
OK I'll make it simple. Man and God are synonyms and there is not argument here because realization is required for man to become God.

From this follows that not to believe in God is not to believe in Man.

I Grok it. Thou art god! Amos, have you read any Robert A. Heinlein?

01-22-2003, 08:26 AM

Fucking weasel word games. And Robert A. Heinlein was certainly a wonderful science FICTION writer. I don't believe Stanger in a Strange Land was a documentary.

If god is "fill in the blank", then there is no intellectual discussion to be had. God = man? WTF? Silly weasel word games are not particularly fun - and I'm TRYING to have fun here.

God, whether imagined an anthromorphic person or a miasmic free-floating mind, whether theistic or deistic, whether in time or beyond time, IS a supreme entity or intelligence that intentionally and with malice of forethought created the universe, i.e., the universe is an artifact created by god. OR NOT.

I think NOT. It seems to me that god belief is myth taken as literal fact. That is all. Is there evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware? If so, then let's hear it - otherwise, 'How About Them Raiders', dudes?

01-22-2003, 10:09 AM

Slow down Robert because I have never read Heinlein and these are not silly word games. In fact, it is pure reason without emotion.

Much the same as time, the universe has no existence and is therefore not a created artifact.

God belief is myth and the reality behind this myth is either taken or denied as literal fact but recongnized by both to either accept or deny and therefore real.

01-22-2003, 04:40 PM

Apparently you are a schizophrenic or a Buddhist. In either case, you win the, ah, debate. Congratulations.

Koyaanisqatsi · 02-02-2003, 12:06 AM

Let me just jump in with a quick question to perhaps get this back on track (and away from Amos' colorful little world

): How is it either "weak" or "strong" to point out that fictional creatures from ancient mythologies do not factually exist (i.e., are non fictional)?

If I write a story about The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo sneezing the universe into existence and in that story I claim that the TGAPTRL factually exists, then how does that in any way impact upon other people who come along and conclude from my lack of evidence and fallacious arguments that my claim is without merit and therefore void?

What is either "strong" or "weak" about pointing out obvious even tautological facts?

schu · 02-02-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos

If man is created in the image of God, to "believe in God" would be equivalent to "believe in man." The missing link here is "realization" that man is God. The distance between God and "man as God" is our human condition and this is why realization is required for humans to become "man as God."

You certainly may do this if you realize that that mulberry bush is your equal and as such is it "the body of Christ" in Catholicism and "this is Buddha" in Buddhism. From this follows that the transubstantiation of that mulberry bush into God must take place in your own mind. [/B]

Amos! Is this your admission that god only exists in the heads of those who believe? If it is, you and I are getting on the same page here.

P.S. If you answer, please do so in English that even I can understand.

Thanks,
Schu

Mad Kally · 02-02-2003, 07:04 AM

There is no god/gods/Santa/Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny/Too RAH Loo

Quote:

posted by Koy:
If I write a story about The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo sneezing the universe into existence and in that story I claim that the TGAPTRL factually exists, then how does that in any way impact upon other people who come along and conclude from my lack of evidence and fallacious arguments that my claim is without merit and therefore void?

What is either "strong" or "weak" about pointing out obvious even tautological facts?

Quote:

"I certainly can't see any sensible position to assume aside from that of complete scepticism tempered by a leaning toward that which existing evidence makes most probable. All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world , or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

--H.P. Lovecraft

Starboy · 02-02-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Robert G. Ingersoll
Fucking weasel word games. And Robert A. Heinlein was certainly a wonderful science FICTION writer. I don't believe Stanger in a Strange Land was a documentary.

Sorry about that Robert. I have been trading posts with Amos for several months now, and I find him a facinating character. But it is not clear to me that his intent is to communicate and as such it is hard to take him seriously.

No offence Amos, I have come to enjoy your posts. Sort of an aquired taste I guess.

Starboy

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

01-22-2003, 08:26 AM	#34
Robert G. Ingersoll Guest Posts: n/a	Fucking weasel word games. And Robert A. Heinlein was certainly a wonderful science FICTION writer. I don't believe Stanger in a Strange Land was a documentary. If god is "fill in the blank", then there is no intellectual discussion to be had. God = man? WTF? Silly weasel word games are not particularly fun - and I'm TRYING to have fun here. God, whether imagined an anthromorphic person or a miasmic free-floating mind, whether theistic or deistic, whether in time or beyond time, IS a supreme entity or intelligence that intentionally and with malice of forethought created the universe, i.e., the universe is an artifact created by god. OR NOT. I think NOT. It seems to me that god belief is myth taken as literal fact. That is all. Is there evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware? If so, then let's hear it - otherwise, 'How About Them Raiders', dudes?

01-22-2003, 10:09 AM	#35
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Slow down Robert because I have never read Heinlein and these are not silly word games. In fact, it is pure reason without emotion. Much the same as time, the universe has no existence and is therefore not a created artifact. God belief is myth and the reality behind this myth is either taken or denied as literal fact but recongnized by both to either accept or deny and therefore real.

01-22-2003, 04:40 PM	#36
Robert G. Ingersoll Guest Posts: n/a	Apparently you are a schizophrenic or a Buddhist. In either case, you win the, ah, debate. Congratulations.

02-02-2003, 12:06 AM	#37
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Let me just jump in with a quick question to perhaps get this back on track (and away from Amos' colorful little world ): How is it either "weak" or "strong" to point out that fictional creatures from ancient mythologies do not factually exist (i.e., are non fictional)? If I write a story about The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo sneezing the universe into existence and in that story I claim that the TGAPTRL factually exists, then how does that in any way impact upon other people who come along and conclude from my lack of evidence and fallacious arguments that my claim is without merit and therefore void? What is either "strong" or "weak" about pointing out obvious even tautological facts?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.