seanie

In what way?

Koyaanisqatsi

As always, WJ, you're a supercilious, disingenuous touchhole in sheep's clothing, and that's me being generous.

<ol type="1">[*] "We" don't "discuss" God with each other; people of your low ilk come in here and challenge us with asinine proclamations and logically inconsistent claims and otherwise confused or misconstrued arguments as a result of the cognitive dissonance cult programming necessarily instills and we respond; primarily to demonstrate either the logical fallacy of their position or the reasons why their claims are not supported by the evidence (or lack thereof) they desperately cling to in order to maintain their cult conditioning[*] There is nothing "nonsensical" about discussing fictitious characters from ancient mythology/fiction (other than to claim they aren't fictional, of course); it is the basis for an entire field of artistic study known commonly as "Humanities"[*] For the ten billionth time, "logic" is nothing more than a tool of cognition; a means to apply the most objective standards possible to test a truth claim for soundness and validity[*] The truth claim that you have asserted regarding a fictional character from, I'll assume, a particular ancient cult mythology being the "first causal agent" and a "necessary Being" cannot be supported in any sense other than your personal say so, which means the only evidence that can be evaluated--"I believe this is true"--is worthless[*] Cult beliefs/dogmas were formed for many obvious reasons, primary of which were fear of the unknown, control and social order[*] The statement, "You can't prove something objectively" or derivations thereof, has no salient meaning in regard to whether or not you can establish a compelling argument to support your worthless claim, "I believe this is true"[/list=a]

YOU are making the claim that a "necessary Being" is the "first causal agent." What is your evidence for such a claim?

There is no other relevant, ultimate question being asked either directly or indirectly, tacitly or overtly by any other person on these boards and it is to this question that people such as yourself usually throw up the most elaborate and unjustifiable evasionary smokescreen as you will do with my post.

You will come up with every single redirectional fallacy on the books in order to avoid directly answering that question as evidenced by everything you've posted in this thread alone regarding your irrelevant and fallacious claims that "many" atheists don't apply reason and logic to their lack of belief in a god or gods.

Until you or anyone else can provide any compelling evidence at all that could possibly support the claim that a fictional character from a particular work of ancient mythology (or modern, for that matter) factually exists (i.e., is not a fictional character), then there is absolutely (yes, absolutely) nothing illogical about lacking a belief that such fictional creatures factually exist; indeed, precisely the opposite is the case.

You fool no one, but yourself, of course, and I would contend, not even that.

Prove me a liar.

seanie

Koyaanisqatsi

I'm impressed.

You appear to have been able to decipher what WJ was on about.

It seemed like incoherent drivel to me.

Thanks

Jayhawker Soule

Careful -- if you're challenging him to prove that he fools himself, be aware that such a task is far from insurmountable.

Malcolm_MacDohmnall

Hans

Well you appear not to understand the definition of agnostic.

Agnostic:

1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=agnostic" target="_blank">Dictionary.com for agnostic.</a>

Skeptical:

1) Marked by or given to doubt; questioning: a skeptical attitude; skeptical of political promises.

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=agnostic" target="_blank">Dictionary.com for skeptical.</a>

A wise man knows what he cannot explain. A fool will still assert it.

It has been asserted time and again that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God or Gods yet you're suggesting that everybody is on one side or the other.

P.S. Though one might be able to prove the existence or non-existence of a God if accurately defined as to what the belief holder asserted that God to be to begin with. When you begin with a God construct like the Christian God which asserts that God is "something that cannot be known" then it would be unrealistic to even bother considering it's existance and one might find it prudent to find other explanations for what we consider the causes for the effects we assign to such a construct.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Malcolm_MacDohmnall ]</p>

Dr S

(W) Again, its not germain to the thread [agnosticism v. atheism], but I know God exists.
(S) Actually you are doing me a favor because you are demonstrating why I call myself an Atheist instead of an Agnostic. You are demonstrating that the people who claim that they "know" don't really. And that their argument isn't worth the slight consideration that Agnostics give it. I've always thought that Agnostics were just more polite than we Atheists are.

(W) I know from pragmatic experience and I know from logical inference.
(S) According to my little pocket Webster's for something to be pragmatic it must be "tested by results." If you are now claiming that you have proof that is testable that would be great.
It would also make you the first person ever who had that. But I would be interested in what makes you think your inferences are logical.

(W) Unlike you, I don't use the apriori exclusively to guide this belief. IMO, only less intelligent people do.
(S) No, I don't think that it is my lack of intelligence that is the problem here. I actually am the Dr. I call myself, several times over in fact. And my IQ is comfortably in the one seventies so there is no problem there. It must be something else. Maybe it's my lack of hair.

(W) To that *sepecific* end, natural laws (mathematics) at some point will and have broken down. Any physicist will tell you that.
(S) ? Huh? Are you referring to Quantum Physics? You aren't trying to pass it off as being supernatural and magic now are you?

(W) Othwerwise, why is the cosmological argument still an argument?
(S) If you question is, "why don't we know everything?" Well our brains are only a few pounds of a jelly-like substance. We are doing pretty damn good when you consider what we've got to work with.
But if your question is, "why don't we know more than we do by now?" The answer to that is very, very, sad. Our civilization was taken over by religion, the people were enslaved (or rather enserfed), and most of our scientific knowledge was destroyed. The Church also saw to it that no new scientific study was permitted by murdering any would be scientists. We spent a thousand years in "dark ages" until religion fell apart from it's own corruption.
Since then we've been playing catch-up. The "natural sciences" as we know them only began in the mid-1800's.
Unfortunately religious "thinking" (if you can call it thinking) isn't quite dead. It still wants to wipe out science and return to the dark ages-the anti-evolutionists are a case in point. It still wants to replace scientific research with ghost stories.

(W) I don't know what else to tell you other than you've lost it.
(S) I've lost it because I'm not bowled over by your use of flim-flam? (I loved that "apriori" part, though. Sent me right to the dictionary and I still had no idea which definition you were using) Because I can't see the Emperors new clothes?
There is no "it" here to lose.

(W) Again, prove I'm wrong!
(S) Your argument so far has been that I should believe your claims because you have no presentable proof but you inexplicably "know" deep inside that you are right and I'm a big dumb-bell if I don't. Not what you would call a very persuasive stance.
Okay, I'll prove you wrong the same way I would prove there was no milk in the refrigerator. I'll put the claim to a simple test.
Your particular god is supposed to be everywhere (omnipresent). I'm somewhere, and everywhere is made up entirely of all the somewheres, therefore god must be here if he is everywhere. So I'll just check around here….hmmm, let me look under my desk…no...I'll try the coffee room…nope. No gods around here, but there were bagels.
The metaphoric refrigerator is empty.
You are wrong.

There is a great scene in Annie Hall where, to settle an argument in a movie line, Woody Allen steps off-screen and pulls on the scholar they are arguing about. This would be a good time for you to do that. Take god by the elbow and lead him on camera so that he can put me in my place. Boy, will I have egg on my face.
Barring that scenario; you are wrong.

WJ

(S)You are demonstrating that the people who claim that they "know" don't really. And that their argument isn't worth the slight consideration that Agnostics give it. I've always thought that Agnostics were just more polite than we Atheists are.
(W) I know because truth is subjectivity. Remember the blind person discussion? Otherwise, how do you come to know my consciousness, not to mention your own. You cannot look outside yourself to objectively verify anything. With regard to the consistency and use of logic, Atheists are simply shortsighted.


(S) If you are now claiming that you have proof that is testable that would be great.
It would also make you the first person ever who had that. But I would be interested in what makes you think your inferences are logical.
(W) You are demonstrating (sound familiar) that you are an agnostic by asking me that question. No? Otherwise why are you curious? And why should I feel compelled to share my experiences and inferences?

(S) No, I don't think that it is my lack of intelligence that is the problem here.
(W) Well, you could be right. I hesitated to use that word but felt like it fit. Intelligence seems to suggest the use of *all* available methods or tools of reasoning as found in the human intellect, which in turn is all part of the mystery known as consciousness. Maybe, ultimately, (regardless of the use of the intellect) the basic jist of existentialism might be at work here.



(S) ? Huh? Are you referring to Quantum Physics? You aren't trying to pass it off as being supernatural and magic now are you?
(W) I'm not sure, though that might be something to think about! Heisenburg, Godel and Bhor come to mind though. Do you think the laws of nature completely describe or account for human existence? I don't think you do. At some point, our logic(rules of) breaks down.

(W) Othwerwise, why is the cosmological argument still an argument?
(W/S) blah blah blah. You're dancing around the question Doc. Why don't you understand the question? Perhaps your faith lies in logic? Problem is, you seem to put all your eggs in that basket. I *know* conscious existence will remain a cosmological mystery. Is that faith, just like yours?

As far as the last response, I'm not sure you're in need of a response.



[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

WJ

Koy!

Thew only thing worth responding to would beyour question: YOU are making the claim that a "necessary Being" is the "first causal agent." What is your evidence for such a claim?

Do you not understand how one arrives at logically necessary truths? You should, because your atheism is soley based upon that type of logic, is it not?

Doc, give your fellow atheist some help. Hint: resolution of true/false self-reference propositions. Doc, Koy may in fact be blind and can't get up!

Dr S

(W) I know because truth is subjectivity.
(S) Hello?! Truth is one's emotions rather than facts? So god exists because you want him to? In that case, can I have a pony?

(W) You cannot look outside yourself to objectively verify anything. With regard to the consistency and use of logic, Atheists are simply shortsighted.
(S) I can't look outside myself to objectively verify anything? Not only can I, but I make a pretty good living doing precisely that.

(W) You are demonstrating (sound familiar) that you are an agnostic by asking me that question. No? Otherwise why are you curious?
(S) No. I'm demonstrating how science works. There are any number of things that I consider to be facts. If you can demonstrate that I am wrong about them I will change my thinking to incorporate this new information. I am not locked into any one way of thinking.

(W) And why should I feel compelled to share my experiences and inferences?
(S) Again how science works. Any new information must be independently verified. Not entirely fool proof but it's the best method we have. When somebody walks up and declares "I've got cold fusion. Trust me," you don't.

(W) Intelligence seems to suggest the use of *all* available methods or tools of reasoning as found in the human intellect,
(S) Here's the "rub." I have all the available methods and tools that are found in the human intellect. Unless you are claiming that you have "powers and abilities far beyond mortal men" or that by some accident of birth you have more than the standard issue sense organs, I can tell you are feeding me a bunch of baloney.

(W)...which in turn is all part of the mystery known as consciousness.
(S) There is a rather mean spirited joke I'm sorely tempted to write here. But I will spare everyone.

(W) Do you think the laws of nature completely describe or account for human existence? I don't think you do. At some point, our logic(rules of) breaks down.
(S) I don't recall my ever resorting to supernatural means to explain anything.
Don't let the conical hat I'm wearing with all the moons and stars on it fool you. It's only a fashion statement. Now where did I leave that wand?

(W) Perhaps your faith lies in logic? Problem is, you seem to put all your eggs in that basket.
(S) Why thank you, that's the nicest thing you've said. I try not to be illogical as much as I can.

(W) I *know* conscious existence will remain a cosmological mystery. Is that faith, just like yours?
(S) I just love it when we get to the part in these conversations where Theists try to condemn you for having "faith" and praise themselves for having "faith" in the same sentence. I can't wait till the "science is another religion" mantra comes up.

Dr S

Sure, now pay attention Koy. You need a "necessary being" to start the ball rolling for exactly the same reasons you need Thor if there is going to be lightning.