philechat

Sorry...2+2 = 4 is true because we humans define it so. It is just like the way we add little "s"es after third-person singular verbs. (Chinese, on the other hand, cares nothing about adding things after verbs)

It is consensual I will say. Just like the way we use the decimal system. (whereas Mayans would use eight as units instead of 10)

Samhain

Walrus:

As usual in this thread, you seem to miss points which have been explained to you over and over again. Perhaps you have some short-term memory loss?

Simple:

Person 1: I believe that I am a turnip.
Person 2: Based upon what I know of what is commonly known of as a turnip, I do not believe that you are a turnip.
Person 1: But I insist that I am a turnip.
Person 2: No amount of insisting will make it true.

As we can see, a negative statement is used to portray belief or lack therof of a positive statement, thereby defining our own existence. I do not believe in god, therefore, I am not a theist. I do not believe Person 1 is a turnip, therefore I am not a fool. If no one ever invoked a negative statement, we'd still be stuck in the same place we were thousands of years ago, in a hunter-gatherer sense, or perhaps worse. Faith can be a good thing, but doubt is what gives one an education.

To portray my own lack of belief based upon logic and reason. I am suggesting that god(s) do not exist, but that's all I am suggesting when I make a statement of my disbelief in god(s). Since "truth" is something created by man and our perceptions, there is always a possibility of exceptions, therefore I'd hesitate to say that anything is an absolute. I do not believe in god(s) for lack of scientific, reasonable, rational, and logical evidence, this is my position, I do not have to explain why this is my position, I do not attempt to violate Ockham's Razor, you do, explain to me why there is a god through logic, reason, science, etc. and I may change my position.

We aren't debating nothing, we are debating theistic delusions and illusions, which, I can assure you, are very real in the sense that THOSE exist.

Visit chruch-state separation forum, morality forum, philosophy forum, science skepticism forum, any thread having to do with the amount of harm religions have caused and you'll see why this forum exists. Destroying self-righteous delusions is a step towards equality and reasonable existence.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Theli

It's a true statement expressed in a system created by humans.
The statement is true weither humans exists or not. We just choose to express it through numbers.
You can express the statement in binary form aswell (10+10=100), it doesn't make the statement less true, does it?

philechat

Yes I think so. I mean we could talk about "absolute truth" in terms of man-made definitions, no matter what system (interpretation) we use.

Similarly we could express "Black is not white", and "square is not circle", since they have precise human definition.

In terms of its application to the natural world, it becomes an interpretation of the phenomena. Since "identical, unchanging things" are generalizations, we have induced some form of simplification upon the phenomena when we apply mathematics to the natural world.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Theli

Post deleted by aliens...

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

Hmmm... I might have missinterpreted your intentions here. I just jumped into the discussion.
I thought you meant that 2+2=4 is only true because mathematics was invented by humans.

Samhain

Walrus:

Yea, atheism is a belief system like anarchy is a system of government .

free12thinker

If you want to call atheism a belief system because I stated that "this belief cannot be absolute", than by all means, call it a belief system. While you're at it, call ebay a belief system since I believe it's a terrific website. And call Snapple a belief system since I believe it to be a terrific drink. If that's what you wish.

You ask me, "How does an atheists logic prove that which he thinks is absolute". Didn't we already go over the absolute part? I don't think atheism is absolute, you idiot. I've said that way too many times to count now.

And I will not be backpedaling. You are free to question atheism all you want. Just as I am free to question atheism if I choose. I don't choose to question it because there is enough "probability in it's validity" (not absolute truth) to warrant my belief in it.

But I do question God, because there is nary an iota of evidence suggesting his existence is real. What sort of validity do you have in your claim that god exists?

WJ

Snatch!

Well I think it is a start. Thanks. I think where you might be going with it is some sort of synthetic apriori propositional logic(?), but am not sure. That is because I think I can agree with all your statements based on face value. The question might be posed to other atheists to confirm the their own personal truth value (belief in this case), if that is what you are implying.

The last statement would not capture my argument. The only aspect where it might could, is when the atheist appears to be concerned over the non-belief, or belief of the non-existence of God (or however semantically you wish to frame it) subsequent to his 'invoking' of the default position. It becomes an oxymoron of sorts to choose to continue talking about a some thing that does not exist. Or as Ayer suggested, nonsenscical.

In the debate so far, it seems most of that has been used in a round about way (so-called analytical statements/arguments about a person's belief systems). And so in that regard, I would agree the atheist loses-out by thinking that that is the 'essence' of the phenomenon known as the human concept of God; a Being that is thought of as supernatural, metaphysical, creator of conscious existence, ex-nihilo, and so forth, existing outside the domain of FL. Half the puzzle, as it were.

And so as Free has just suggested, it appears that he is relying on only 'one' form of logic to justify his position. But since this is the first time I heard of his 'logic' argument as posted, I hope he responds with more detail and can prove me wrong and/or make his case...

Is that what you mean?

Walrus

free12thinker

I have posted by logic argument over and over again, you bufoon. You simply don't choose to recognize it.
But anyway; How many forms of logic does someone need to rely on to justify their position? And why won't you answer my question regarding what it is you rely on? You rely on blind trust.
What case would you like me to make? Once again, you are asking me questions, I am answering them, and you are claiming that I'm avoiding the question. What question am I avoiding?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />