Koyaanisqatsi

Well, at least you responded, I'll give you that much.

Unfortunately, most of what you've responded with is little more than an incoherent mish mash of random concepts and I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that quite literally.

Shall I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did this on purpose to prove a point?

Since I have nothing else to go on, why not...after all you do admit up front to being "a bit brain dead."

I will also assume that your "debate" challenge has been summarily discarded.

Ok.

Like my response post?

Still waiting...

Do you mean, what is or is not compelling evidence?

Why is this so difficult to address? This is precisely why mankind formed the scientific process as well as the rules of logic to begin with; to apply critical analysis to "mysterious" questions; the attempt to make the unknown known.

It works well and has a fantastic track record for just about any phenomenon so far encountered.

We know, for example, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Well, let's go back a bit, we know that there is a universe. We know that the Sun does not orbit the Earth. We know that demons (or humors, I think they were called) don't cause sickness...etc., etc., etc.

All of these discoveries were an example of applied critical thinking over superstitious beliefs. You can easily and simplistically extrapolate from there, unless you are (as I suspect) intent upon merely confusing the issues deliberately so that the general, vague concept of "mystical thinking" is simply kept as an open possibility (aka, my stalemate accusations) so that the snake oil of christianity, for example, can continue to be sold to ignorant, superstitious people who would have been the ones who thought things like the Sun revolved around the Earth because God so loved his creation and blah, blah, blah.

I use the term "snake oil" pointedly; it was usually nothing more than watered down whiskey, urine and snake venom, often times lethal, but it was purported to save mankind for all manner of what ails them! A grand story was told to get all of the otherwise superstitiously minded people's attention and linguistic plates were spun in the air saying nothing but signifying everything and then out came the cash.

Christianity is no different and far worse as history proves, so if this is the route you're taking, it will have to be far more specific than this.

Setting aside entirely the fact that such an argument boils down to solipsism, which negates God, not affirms it, but we'll get into that later I'm sure.

Well, there we go! Right off the bat you've pulled the solipsist reduction, which ultimately negates God as a possibility!

Did I call it or did I call it?

The question isn't whether or not consciousness is "objective," because there is no such thing as actual objectivity that can or cannot be proved in regard to consciousness (it's a cheat of both semantics and society; a mutually agreed upon cheat at that), which is the whole point! You're establishing that a god doesn't exist, since it is alleged that only with the existence of a god could objective reality actually exist as well as objective morality (note the qualifier "alleged that only with the existence of a god...").

This is such a common flip-flop that I don't understand why you're here attempting it. The arguments are that without a god, there can be no objective reality (and no objective morality), so for you to be affirming the fact that no objectivity exists outside of the human mind only proves atheism to be default in this regard.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't objective reality existing outside of the human mind, it's just that, when it is deconstructed to it's exploded extremes, there's no way to prove (as in the ultimate sense) that anything exists outside of your own head.

This fact, however, cannot then be "borrowed" in order to apply it to the fact that a claim of a god physically existing cannot also be ultimately factually proved in this manner, because the claim is that something exists outside the human mind! You defeat your own purpose in order to gain a god.

It's nice work if you can get it, but ultimately pointless, since some mutually agreed upon constructs are easy to grant, number one being that you exist outside of my head in order for you to type.

It doesn't collapse the spacetime continuum to do it, nor does it conversely prove a positive claim made without proof!

This is precisely why the scientific method and the rules of logic were established; a means for all of us subjectively experiencing brains to mutually agree upon a way to examine what's "out there" as opposed to what you're conflating; that which is "in here."

A division of philosophy.

Please stop using the word "exist" since it is clear you are here using the word's contextual meaning from a different context.

It is nonsensical to ask "Does metaphysics exist," since it is an abstract concept of philosophical musings.

What you mean to say is "Does a meta physical dimension exist in the same manner that our physical dimension is said to exist and if so, can we use the same tools of cognition and investigation we use on our dimension to discern the meta dimension?"

Unless, of course, as I suspect, you're just trying to muddy the waters with imprecise terminology and shifting contextual meanings in order to keep those snake oil plates spinning.

The same way we would know anything else; through the critical application of our God given intellectual abilities!

Keep those doubt plates spinning, though!

Monorail! What I say? MONORAIL!

Actually, none of it does. You've asked a deliberately nonsensical question in order to trigger cognitive dissonance and little else.

Here, let me deconstruct what you just asked into the proper terminology:

The answer to the question is painfully obvious. Fictional creatures don't factually exist and therefore do not appear before men, so to even ask the question is to deliberately engage in fraud and should be the very first clue to anybody who is on the recipient end that they are being conned.

For some bizarre reason, however, such an obvious answer continues to escape you. Why?

For that matter, many "reformed" christian cult members don't accept a 6000 year old Earth or stories of Hell from Revelations, or talking burning bushes, etc., etc., but they have no problem with Jesus being God incarnate and although they don't understand the trinity, they don't see it as evidence of fraud like they do all that "other" stuff...blah, blah, blah.

Why?

There is only one answer. You however, apparently, are trying to keep the possibility of the answer they've been programmed with alive any way you can.

So what does that serve? Truth? No. Fraud? Apparently so.

Why? Especially since, if a fictional creature from ancient Middle Eastern mythology ever actually, factually did appear as you ask us to contemplate, the proof would be the simplest thing in the world.

Create a man out of dirt. Boom! Instant proof that you're the fictional creature written about by anonymous ancient desert nomad cult members.

And do it for every single generation. Or just arrange the stars to say, "I love you all, God" so that every single night throughout all of our existences we look up and see it.

Simple, especially since he allegedly created us and knows that we won't believe unless something like that is presented to us for verification.

And don't give me any stupidity about "no signs" or he can't do this and that, he's done the dirt thing he can do it anytime he damn well pleases and since our belief is apparently so deathly important to him he should please every day of our existence or fuck off.

Again, he allegedly created us this way, so he's only got himself to blame.

Beg pardon? Here's where I think you were just brain dead, as you've simply forced several pivotal nuggets into one incoherent sentence as if we're all just supposed to accept all of this and move on.

We don't.

Pardon me, I shouldn't speak for others. I don't.

No, actually it doesn't. At least not yet as written.

As for "why should we care" what are you talking about? Care about each other? Ourselves? Existence?

What's your point?

Do you mean by this, why aren't we without emotions?

It's not something that can be so qualified. You're either "sentient" or you're not.

Well, then all you're doing is confusing philosophical musings with critical analysis.

Once again, the "scientific method" and "logic" are tools of cognition.

And here's the pinnacle. This is the ultimate question you are and probably always have been asking and I would suggest you focus entirely upon the word "cursed" with your therapist rather than waste everyone else's time here trying to take fallacious pot shots at logic and/or trying to merge the abstract metaphysical "realm" onto the physical realm.

They don't fit, which, in case you didn't get it, is why there is the prefix "meta" on the term.

It's like you're trying to use the thesaurus and the dictionary at the same time, but you're just too stoned to do it coherently. You've jumbled up so many different words and misapplied so many different meanings here that it's almost impossible to make anything coherent out of what you're here trying to say.

I guess you're trying to say that it's logical to state "it's not absolute" in reference to something that is not absolute. If that's it, then, yes, you're right, however tautologically so.

If, however, you're trying to say, "because nothing is absolute, it's not logical to use the phrase 'it's not absolute' in any absolute sense, because nothing is absolute" then you are just stoned.

Solipsistic deconstruction is not for the weak of mind, my friend, but it is ultimately a pointless dead end, since the proof that I exist outside of your own mind is literally right in front of your face this very instant.

Either accept it or go mad; your choice, but factor into it the inescapable fact that part and parcel to solipsism--indeed dependent upon it--is the notion that only you exist, which would necessarily exclude God and ultimately mean that you would therefore be your own God.

You can certainly argue it, but, again, it amounts to little more than pointless mental masturbation; Philosophy 101 was mind blowing for me the first time, too, but I put down my bong and moved on.

Actually, not really, since you haven't made any argument; just a jumbled confusion of incoherent mixtures of literal and abstract concepts.

Ok. I do wish you'd pick a "question," however, and stick with it for a change.

It doesn't, so there's you're first mistake.

And there's your second mistake. "Faith" and/or "hope" are improper terms used deliberately in an attempt to equivocate disparate contextual meanings once again.

You should stop doing that and you'll answer your own questions for a change.

The difference being, however, that the theist just declares (irrationally) Goddidit.

We don't.

Another thing that would help you is to never use "viz." when trying to clarify your arguments.

Non-sequitur and pointless.

The fact that we don't have all the answers does not have any bearing on whether or not creatures like gods factually exist or not, except to those superstitious, gullible, ignorant, innocent people who were convinced that the Sun revolves around the Earth and need to have all of the answers in order to sleep at night.

Fear is the basis of theism and fear sells the snake oil. That's all this is about, so a better question to ask you would be, what are you so afraid of that makes you blind to the obvious fraud?

What is solved? An even greater mystery is just forced upon the natural mystery!

Perhaps you'd better demonstrate some of this "solution" and see how that goes, yes?

Not that I can see; a confusion of it, perhaps, but I wouldn't really call it a summary.

Another question.

Again, I'll ask, how is using logic to explain another Being's existence (a non-sequitur all its own, by the way) dependent upon our lack of "absolute" knowledge?

Once again, you're illegitimately attempting to merge disparate concepts; the abstract and the literal. Why?

It can't be. And for the ten thousandth time, it doesn't need to be.

Gods are fictional creatures from ancient mythology that are only claimed to exist by the authors of those myths with the intention to decieve you into simply accepting that they do in fact exist.

There is no compelling evidence or reason to accept this claim and extremely compelling evidence and/or reasons to reject this claim.

Therefore, it is entirely logical as well as rational to conclude the obvious; atheism, the absence of belief in a god or gods.

See above.

(edited for clarification - Koy)

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

brighid

Eyewitness testimony is NOT enough to convict a man of something serious enough that he loses his life or liberty, as would be the case with believing in the “wrong” God. Therefore, I would require the actual evidence to construct the pieces of the puzzle/crime and tell the story of what happened. I think I may be watching too much CSI lately If you were accused of murder, which carries the penalty of loss of life and/or liberty – what sort of standard of evidence would YOU want to determine your guilt or innocence? Say 35 years after said crime was allegedly committed by you, do you think one should rely upon the testimony of an eye witness? Should testimony be allowed from people who weren’t actually there, but were told by someone else that this person saw you commit said acts? What if all the scientific evidence excluded you as the murderer – would you want that to be relied upon, or simply the testimony of eyewitnesses from decades before?

I don’t know about you, but I want evidence beyond a SHADOW of a doubt and in the instance of an all powerful being capable of such magnificent feats as creating and controlling and entire universe, that has omni max and illimitable qualities – well such a being should be able to conclusively convince even the staunches skeptic with out breaking a sweat.


Do you have any evidence like that?

B

free12thinker

You are thanking me for my candid response to there being no "absolute" in atheism, but you will not admit that the same lack of absolute lies in theism. That's okay though, for one without admittance, is one that's scared or too proud to admit.

But here's something else you stated: "In Christianity, logically, thru Jesus' existence, some of the mystery is solved."

Okay, can you tell me how much mystery is actually solved, just because/even if Jesus's existence is proven? When there are a million pieces to a puzzle, one piece does not make it complete, does it? For goodness sakes, the mystery of God, that being his powers, his landmark acheivements (earth in seven days, things like that) can't begin to be explained just because/if a man Jesus existed.

But anyway...moving right along.

You also ask: "If human's cannot completely figure out their own existence, how can we use logic to explain another Being's existence."

We cannot completely or absolutely figure anything out. We admit this. But that does not mean that we should be open to the unrational. We put thoughts, beliefs, definitions, facts etc... into play with what information we have, whether we gained it through logic, reasoning, identification.... We cannot abandon such for religion, we will not make that exception. Let me ask you a question though. If we use logic and reason to explain everything else in life, what makes god the exception? Don't answer that, you've already stated, he is beyond comprehension.

And by the way, I am an atheist through and through, whether or not I have an absolute proof regarding its validity. Remember: Not being absolute does nto equate to 'maybe', since there is no absolute in anything.

WJ

Koy!

Go ahead and start a new thread or let us go into the one-on-one debate area. I'm afraid I'm so high on life that any response here may take away from your 'because I said so' interpretation of my post. Really, thus far you've merely suggested that logic has failed yours and my very own logical belief system. Otherwise, what is the essence of your argument? How do you know that consciousness cannot be red and green all over (aka, sentient existence and rational existence, thoughts of mystical creatures,the existence of jesus and christianity, religious experiences, etc.)?

Or, how you know that the sun will rise tommorrow?
It may, or it may not. You made a big long post but proved no objective absolute about the origins of your own conscious existence.

Why are you irrational? What makes you that way? Why are you concerned with the way I use the word existence? Does this confuse you?


Walrus

Samhain

Walrus:

Fuckin' a, man! You need to learn to read, for shit's sake.

Here's Koy's reply AGAIN for your sack-of-horseshit-argument you've been trying to force us to accept.

I don't think any of us are accepting the idea that our existence must be proven "objectively" or "absolutely" through reason and logic for it to rational to embrace atheism. If you want to force feed your crap to someone, find someone who is weak-minded enough to accept what you say as truth, good luck. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

WJ

Free!

I didn't say that a belief sytem that comprises an unseen entity (consciousness in itself) did not require a faith.

The Christian Bible is not an objective science book; neither is the mind-body problem soley one.

Your entitled to your opinion on the absolute concept. The dichotomy in your use of reason though relates to 'if the guy's bad in one area, he's bad through and through and cannot be changed'.

Until science can discover the origins of consciousness, your truth is your very own; that which you experience and believe thru your sentient, volitional existence.

I don't know what you mean by using logic to explain 'everything else in life'? That doesn't make sense. For instance, what is love? You know, the thing that seems to motivate mostly all human's who hold these higher levels of consciousness? What is feeling if you were able to somehow separate it from thinking? Are you red and green all over too, yet you exist(?)

Walrus

WJ

Sam!

I'm not force-feeding anything. Go on believing that which you will to believe! I am making an inference.


Walrus

Samhain

Your "inference" means nothing. Koy said that it did not have to, that was the point, why do you insist making arguments to thin air? You say "can you objectively prove your existence?" Koy says "Logically, neither of us can, and we don't need to" you say "well, you can't objectively prove your existence through your lack of belief".

Does this in any way prove a point? Wouldn't it just be 100x easier for you just to come out and say what you wan't to instead of playing semantics games all the time? Your arguments prove nothing, establish nothing, debunk nothing, and are extremely irritating and annoying. Perhaps you might want to work on a little thing called substance the next time you post a message?

brighid

WJ -

SO .... do you have ANY evidence like that for YOUR God??

Brighid

WJ

Sam!

I think the essence of Koy's argument, (or at least my interpretation and recommendation within the context of our discussion about what it *means* for some thing to exist/nothing is absolute)would be raising the question:

Why I [you, Koy, et al as an atheist] choose to believe that the Being God does not exist(?). Make any sense here?

Perhaps we are back to Ayer's comments, but can't be certain. (ie, a nonsensical question?)

In other words, when faced with questions about beliefs concerning 'unknowns', [human]'Beings', 'mystery', 'consciousness', and so forth, one is forced to take a position and ultimately makes some sort of choice about it, which begs the question; which position is the correct one viz. our discussion? And, why take a position at all, if there is [exists] no correct one?

I hope that clarifies... . Otherwise we are back to the use of mere words as a sole means and method of understanding the meaning behind existence (and/or God's). To that end (using words), I think the closest one can get to any sort of 'discovery' or rational 'conclusion' would be thru synthetic propositional logic. Free mentioned a testing of sorts, kind of like a philosophic empiricist and/or physicist might do. But while in 'suspension' though, and in the alternative, it just might be true that all truth is subjectivity.

I suppose what we are then talking about are expectations. What does one expect to get out of their own personal subjective belief system?

Just some more brain dead thoughts

Walrus

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>