Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 08-22-2002, 05:46 AM

One more analogy I forgot to add:

Recently, a group of Korean terrorists hijacked several airliners and crashed them into buildings. The reason cited by many: "America is losing respect for Far-Eastern products". Some stridently blame the aJapanIsGreatists for causing Japan to withdraw (imaginary) defences that would have stopped the attack. There is widespread sentiment that a loss of respect for Far-Eastern countries in general is a social malaise, and we should all show our respect for the Far East. Many insist that a fitting memorial to those killed by the Koreans should carry the emblems of all the nations of the Far East: this would "honor" the dead.

Chrestomathy · 08-22-2002, 06:35 AM

Although it's impossible (and useless) to try to follow any of WJ' s logico-spumen dribblings, here at least is a link to the pertinent AJ Ayer essay he keeps mining from:

<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/ayer_metaphysics.html" target="_blank">AJ Ayer</a>

kudos to hobbs, Jack the Bodiless, et al. for yet another attempt to get WJ to get at what he's getting on about.

D.

WJ · 08-22-2002, 06:48 AM

Hi Jack/all!

Please try to be patient as I will get to all the questions... . I think until we get past or thouroughly brow-beat 1 I won't be able to stay focused...imagine that. Anyway, Jack before I critique your analogy, I remember someone earlier responded to it thinking it was perfectly acceptable to debate a non-existent Being and them asked, I think, why *I* do. Well, *I* can, because it is logically consistent for a xian to do so. For you however, it isn't because you hold a no-god belief. Now if you were agnostic, that's a different matter. It makes perfect sense and would logically follow that you would engage in discussion, debate, queries, contemplation, concern about evidence, etc. etc. because you are undecided. Otherwise, it becomes a political, psychological and so forth type of debate, as there is no point it attempting to change one's no-god belief.

Ok now that we agree debating santa and/or God is logically inconsistent viz. atheism, on to your analogy. First, I'm not sure using 'Japan' in place of 'God' is apples and apples yet I'm trying to follow why you've constructed the argument. Perhaps the easiest parrallel/scenario you drew is the one where you asked:

"As a result, it is illegal in some states for non-Japan-worshippers [non-God-worshippers?]to seek public office: they are assumed to be moral degenerates.

What would your reaction be?"

Well, you being atheist, if you wanted to run for public office here in America, you could, as it would certainly be legal to do so. However, knowing that this country has placed a high value on the belief that God's existence [in concept for the sake of argument] has guided the general public's ethical, moral, utilitarian, pragmatic, or otherwise decision making thought processes, you might at some point be put to task as to how and why a no-god belief will make the country a better place. Since you are running for political office, the onus would be on you, in this case, to demonstrate your beliefs, customs, philosophy, and so on are consistent...in order to invoke change or a better way?

I'm not sure that was your point(?).

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

pug846 · 08-22-2002, 06:50 AM

WJ, you never answered me. Have you actually read any Ayer or did you just want to name drop to sound cool? Do you understand the context in which Ayer's quote comes from?

Jack the Bodiless · 08-22-2002, 07:05 AM

WJ: In at least one American state (Tennessee? Can't remember which), there is a law which states that atheists cannot seek public office.

Even if this law is not enforced, atheism would be electoral suicide: in polls, most Americans have indicated that they would not vote for an atheist. Atheists in America are more unpopular than women, blacks or gays as candidates: they are commonly regarded as a fair target for bigotry that would be unacceptable if directed at anyone else.

Quote:

However, knowing that this country has placed a high value on the belief that God's existence [in concept for the sake of argument] has guided the general public's ethical, moral, utilitarian, pragmatic, or otherwise decision making thought processes, you might at some point be put to task as to how and why a no-god belief will make the country a better place.

Hence the need to debate such issues. But a no-god belief doesn't have to "make the country a better place": the issue is that an unbeliever is at least as "worthy" as a believer.

To return to the analogy: you don't have to believe that Japanese products are superior. And those who don't believe are just as capable as those that do, just as moral, and deserve respect.

Vibr8gKiwi · 08-22-2002, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
<strong>Ok now that we agree debating santa and/or God is logically inconsistent viz. atheism, on to your analogy. </strong>

Why is anyone wasting their time talking with this guy?

WJ · 08-22-2002, 07:26 AM

Pug!

I've read Ayer. Would like to provide your interpretation of his particular critique of atheism [and loigic]? I'll be happy to debate your argument about 'context'.

Please share.

Walrus

Jobar · 08-22-2002, 07:38 AM

Kiwi, believe it or not, this thread gives me some hope that WJ stands a bit more of a chance than a snowball in hell, of actually seeing the reasonableness of skepticism towards god-belief. He has asked a few fairly reasonable questions instead of pure gobbletygook; he has responded directly to those who answered his questions. True enough, his responses have not met our standards of sensibility, but I am glad I cost WinAce five bucks, and did not put this in Rants&Raves as was my first impulse.

WJ. I want to ask you a very, very important question. Do you believe in Thor, the Norse God of thunder? A simple yes or no, please.

pug846 · 08-22-2002, 07:42 AM

No, by all means, since you brought up Mr. Ayer, I�d like to hear what you thought he meant when he said something like it�s nonsensical to discuss the concept of God.

I quite frankly don�t think you know what the hell you are talking about, so I�d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. In particular, I�d love to hear how you combine that understanding with your first question.

MrDarwin · 08-22-2002, 07:48 AM

What I find interesting about this discussion is that WJ was originally claiming that "God is a logically necessary being". Since he never backed up this statement in any way he apparently realized that it was unsupportable, so he turned it around by challenging atheists to prove that atheism is logically sound. It sure takes the pressure off of him to support his own asssertions!

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

08-22-2002, 05:46 AM	#31
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	One more analogy I forgot to add: Recently, a group of Korean terrorists hijacked several airliners and crashed them into buildings. The reason cited by many: "America is losing respect for Far-Eastern products". Some stridently blame the aJapanIsGreatists for causing Japan to withdraw (imaginary) defences that would have stopped the attack. There is widespread sentiment that a loss of respect for Far-Eastern countries in general is a social malaise, and we should all show our respect for the Far East. Many insist that a fitting memorial to those killed by the Koreans should carry the emblems of all the nations of the Far East: this would "honor" the dead.

08-22-2002, 06:35 AM	#32
Chrestomathy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA Posts: 104	Although it's impossible (and useless) to try to follow any of WJ' s logico-spumen dribblings, here at least is a link to the pertinent AJ Ayer essay he keeps mining from: <a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/ayer_metaphysics.html" target="_blank">AJ Ayer</a> kudos to hobbs, Jack the Bodiless, et al. for yet another attempt to get WJ to get at what he's getting on about. D.

08-22-2002, 06:48 AM	#33
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hi Jack/all! Please try to be patient as I will get to all the questions... . I think until we get past or thouroughly brow-beat 1 I won't be able to stay focused...imagine that. Anyway, Jack before I critique your analogy, I remember someone earlier responded to it thinking it was perfectly acceptable to debate a non-existent Being and them asked, I think, why I do. Well, I can, because it is logically consistent for a xian to do so. For you however, it isn't because you hold a no-god belief. Now if you were agnostic, that's a different matter. It makes perfect sense and would logically follow that you would engage in discussion, debate, queries, contemplation, concern about evidence, etc. etc. because you are undecided. Otherwise, it becomes a political, psychological and so forth type of debate, as there is no point it attempting to change one's no-god belief. Ok now that we agree debating santa and/or God is logically inconsistent viz. atheism, on to your analogy. First, I'm not sure using 'Japan' in place of 'God' is apples and apples yet I'm trying to follow why you've constructed the argument. Perhaps the easiest parrallel/scenario you drew is the one where you asked: "As a result, it is illegal in some states for non-Japan-worshippers [non-God-worshippers?]to seek public office: they are assumed to be moral degenerates. What would your reaction be?" Well, you being atheist, if you wanted to run for public office here in America, you could, as it would certainly be legal to do so. However, knowing that this country has placed a high value on the belief that God's existence [in concept for the sake of argument] has guided the general public's ethical, moral, utilitarian, pragmatic, or otherwise decision making thought processes, you might at some point be put to task as to how and why a no-god belief will make the country a better place. Since you are running for political office, the onus would be on you, in this case, to demonstrate your beliefs, customs, philosophy, and so on are consistent...in order to invoke change or a better way? I'm not sure that was your point(?). [ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

08-22-2002, 06:50 AM	#34
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	WJ, you never answered me. Have you actually read any Ayer or did you just want to name drop to sound cool? Do you understand the context in which Ayer's quote comes from?

08-22-2002, 07:26 AM	#37
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Pug! I've read Ayer. Would like to provide your interpretation of his particular critique of atheism [and loigic]? I'll be happy to debate your argument about 'context'. Please share. Walrus

08-22-2002, 07:38 AM	#38
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Kiwi, believe it or not, this thread gives me some hope that WJ stands a bit more of a chance than a snowball in hell, of actually seeing the reasonableness of skepticism towards god-belief. He has asked a few fairly reasonable questions instead of pure gobbletygook; he has responded directly to those who answered his questions. True enough, his responses have not met our standards of sensibility, but I am glad I cost WinAce five bucks, and did not put this in Rants&Raves as was my first impulse. WJ. I want to ask you a very, very important question. Do you believe in Thor, the Norse God of thunder? A simple yes or no, please.

08-22-2002, 07:42 AM	#39
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	No, by all means, since you brought up Mr. Ayer, I�d like to hear what you thought he meant when he said something like it�s nonsensical to discuss the concept of God. I quite frankly don�t think you know what the hell you are talking about, so I�d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. In particular, I�d love to hear how you combine that understanding with your first question.

08-22-2002, 07:48 AM	#40
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	What I find interesting about this discussion is that WJ was originally claiming that "God is a logically necessary being". Since he never backed up this statement in any way he apparently realized that it was unsupportable, so he turned it around by challenging atheists to prove that atheism is logically sound. It sure takes the pressure off of him to support his own asssertions!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.