Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seanie · 08-12-2002, 08:05 AM

Quote:

1. What does it mean to 'enjoy it' in the face of atheism. Or, in theory, what kind of joy would an atheist get out of discussing the possibility of a God's existence?

'enjoy it' in the face of atheism means what 'enjoy it' means in the face of theism, republicanism, veganism or any other -ism. It means 'deriving pleasure' from something. Some people enjoy arguing (I'm one). They enjoy the cut and thrust, thinking up smart responses, and hopefully getting one up on their opponent. Some people enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and that's not confined to any particular group of people.

Quote:

2. Seanie, what you said about logic I don't think is correct. If you meant to say that our logic has not been able to answer the deepest questions of human existence, you would be correct.

I'm not sure what you thought I said about logic. I don't think I was saying anything about logic in itself. I was just pointing out that people are quite happy to discard logic or facts when they're inconvenient. And I have no idea what the deepest question of human existence are.

Quote:

3. Why should anyone feel compelled to convince someone that God exists? Obviously, there are those who do, but I agree with seanie that it is pointless viz. the atheist's belief. I'm an Xian of course and your questions beggs the obvious, why should I want to 'save' or convince an atheist? (Is that even possible?)

Why are you asking me? Go ask a minister who's trying to indoctrinate children into his belief system. Go ask a jehovah's witness or some other god botherer going round door to door trying to convince people they're privy to the word of god.

When was the last time an atheist came to your door asking if you'd heard the bad news?

tommyc · 08-12-2002, 08:12 AM

WJ, Seanie,

thankyou for your comments on the subject, I do not believe I am contradicting either of you directly, and I feel we share a lot of the same thoughts on the matter.

However, my point still stands that people who believe they will never change their stance on the existence of God, can be influenced. Even if you would not openly admit that you have been defeated in a debate, some of the ideas or arguments your opponent has presented could still plant seeds of doubt, or rather, seeds of enlightenment that you had not previously considered. I am sure this can occur in both directions.

Purely the fact that people do hold different beliefs on a particular point, (such as god belief), demonstrates that individuals are open to diverse opinions and conclusions. If you are presented with different evidence, your viewpoint can change. I am sure many on this board would agree with that, as many atheists here are former theists. Surely the best approach to take is to continue to discuss and debate even the most complex, or unknowable topics, so we never feel we have reached the "final answer", and are always open to new ideas.

Actually, now I'm sounding like an agnostic. Bollocks.

tommyc · 08-12-2002, 08:15 AM

Im off, till tomorrow....

WJ · 08-12-2002, 08:26 AM

Sean, hi!

In order;

1. Ok, you enjoy arguing for the sake of same. Why god? Can't you pick a topic that is consistent with your atheism? You were doing good until that one

I mean, is your intent based upon political activism? And if so, what is th ultimate goal per item 3 ?

2. Your answer strikes me as a bit odd, if not paradoxical. Perhaps answering the most basic question of 'why debate God at all' will uncover the fact that you must care about the topic of existence, otherwise, as we agreed, you would feel compelled to discuss whatchamacallit's instead.

3. Now, that is a consistent response, yet contradictory in light of this specific discussion per item 1.

Seane, which is it? I mean if you just enjoy debating, and you agree (which you have) that logic only gets you so far, what is your point?

Politics? So far, politics seems to be the closest conclusion or match as to this sense of 'enjoyment' or 'intent' behind choosing to debate a God. But there again, what kind of real 'means to an end' response is this when debating EOG? Perhaps it is more psychological than political?

Any thoughts to get this clarified would be appreciated...

Walrus

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

seanie · 08-12-2002, 08:42 AM

I don't understand your post.

Firstly I've said consistently that I don't think there's much point in arguing the God topic. I did say I enjoyed arguing but I didn't say I enjoyed arguing for the sake of arguing. Some of my relatives do but not me. I might get drawn into such a debate for the reasons I've given but I'm not keen.

As for my political beliefs they come into play when I discuss politics. There's no machiavellian intent on my part to tempt true believers away from the path of God so that they fall under the spell of my evil left wing dogma.

Sure that would be nice but it's not my intent.

As to the rest of your post you'd have to clarify what you think I meant because I don't quite follow your response.

No hurry though because like Tommy I'm off till tommorrow.

Cheery-bye...

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ]

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ]</p>

TerryTryon · 08-12-2002, 09:18 AM

I am a monist/naturalist/materialist because any explanation that depends on the supernatural is simply begging the question, has no heuristic value, and leads inevitably to paradox. Before I can debate the existence of god in a meaningful way, my debater must establish that the realm in which he is said to exist has validity.

If, on the other hand, you wish to argue, as the Mormons do, that Elohim and Jesus are beings of flesh and bone, and that "spirit" exists as part of the material world, then it's a whole new ball of wax with god existing on the plane of tooth fairies and Santa Claus. But then, these Mormon gods necessarily lose all the characteristics which theologians are so fond of attributing to their god, such attributes being totally incompatible with Jehovah as described in the bible. (But, of course, the god who beget Jesus in the New Testament cannot be reconciled with Jehovah either.)

The theologians' god is both incoherent and contra-biblical. The Mormons' gods are so absurd that even the Mormons themselves refuse to discuss their attributes beyond bald assertions.

I really don't see anything to be agnostic about.

WJ · 08-12-2002, 09:53 AM

Terry!

I have three quick ones:

I'm not too familar with monism, could you explain the 'metaphysics' a bit?

Also, in your judgement, if materialism suggests a sort of electrical 'force field' relative to consciousness, I assume you cannot make the leap to spirituality? Assuming there is a sort of disjunct between atheism/spirituality, I'm guessing it has something to do with the anthropic connection or logical inference of same.

Also, how do you rebute the theist's Revelation argument?

Walrus

Dr S · 08-12-2002, 09:57 AM

seanie

Quote:

If you can open someone's mind up at least to the possibilitythat they're wrong then I suppose it's worthwhile.

Actually seanie I think you've made the best point there. I've met very few people who were lucky enough to have been born in Atheist households. Most were saddled with Christianity from birth and only freed themselves from it through their own hard work.
I my case the first Atheist I ever met was in college and he challanged some people I was with (not me) to prove that there was a god. Their replies were so silly that I decided to prove it myself just to shut the arrogant Atheist up.
I was shocked to find that not only could I not find any proof but none of the "authorities" had any either.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dr S ]</p>

WJ · 08-12-2002, 10:52 AM

Dr.S!

I hear that one quite a bit from atheists... . What kind of proof is appropriate or, is substantial enough to meet a particular/specific criteria?

Walrus

Malcolm_MacDohmnall · 08-12-2002, 11:25 AM

An interesting note on the debate of Atheism vs. Agnosticism was put forth by Bertrand Russell.

Quote:

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist"..............if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.....................On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist.....................Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.............Therefore, I do not think we should go in for complete skepticism, but for a doctrine of degrees of probability.

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm" target="_blank">Bertrand Russell reference.</a>

Given this eloquent analysis of what an atheist is one must consider that All who profess to be such are communicating with whom they believe to be unable to grasp a philosophical interpretation. If they truly believed beyond a shadow of a doubt they would be philosophically speaking be totally barren and completely useless.

One could only conclude that the philosophical person would consider the possibility of God even though they considered the probability impractical to daily application and therefore be Agnostic.

One would also consider that one who professed 100% certainty to the actuality of a God would be philosophically mired in the same but opposite barren and completely useless position in reference to discussion.

Therefore I choose agnosticism over atheism or the absolute belief in God. Which of course also leaves me open to changing probabilities or impossibilities of such an existance and interested in the debate.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Malcolm_MacDohmnall ]</p>

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

08-12-2002, 08:12 AM	#32
tommyc Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: London, England Posts: 1,206	WJ, Seanie, thankyou for your comments on the subject, I do not believe I am contradicting either of you directly, and I feel we share a lot of the same thoughts on the matter. However, my point still stands that people who believe they will never change their stance on the existence of God, can be influenced. Even if you would not openly admit that you have been defeated in a debate, some of the ideas or arguments your opponent has presented could still plant seeds of doubt, or rather, seeds of enlightenment that you had not previously considered. I am sure this can occur in both directions. Purely the fact that people do hold different beliefs on a particular point, (such as god belief), demonstrates that individuals are open to diverse opinions and conclusions. If you are presented with different evidence, your viewpoint can change. I am sure many on this board would agree with that, as many atheists here are former theists. Surely the best approach to take is to continue to discuss and debate even the most complex, or unknowable topics, so we never feel we have reached the "final answer", and are always open to new ideas. Actually, now I'm sounding like an agnostic. Bollocks.

08-12-2002, 08:15 AM	#33
tommyc Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: London, England Posts: 1,206	Im off, till tomorrow....

08-12-2002, 08:26 AM	#34
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Sean, hi! In order; 1. Ok, you enjoy arguing for the sake of same. Why god? Can't you pick a topic that is consistent with your atheism? You were doing good until that one I mean, is your intent based upon political activism? And if so, what is th ultimate goal per item 3 ? 2. Your answer strikes me as a bit odd, if not paradoxical. Perhaps answering the most basic question of 'why debate God at all' will uncover the fact that you must care about the topic of existence, otherwise, as we agreed, you would feel compelled to discuss whatchamacallit's instead. 3. Now, that is a consistent response, yet contradictory in light of this specific discussion per item 1. Seane, which is it? I mean if you just enjoy debating, and you agree (which you have) that logic only gets you so far, what is your point? Politics? So far, politics seems to be the closest conclusion or match as to this sense of 'enjoyment' or 'intent' behind choosing to debate a God. But there again, what kind of real 'means to an end' response is this when debating EOG? Perhaps it is more psychological than political? Any thoughts to get this clarified would be appreciated... Walrus [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

08-12-2002, 08:42 AM	#35
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I don't understand your post. Firstly I've said consistently that I don't think there's much point in arguing the God topic. I did say I enjoyed arguing but I didn't say I enjoyed arguing for the sake of arguing. Some of my relatives do but not me. I might get drawn into such a debate for the reasons I've given but I'm not keen. As for my political beliefs they come into play when I discuss politics. There's no machiavellian intent on my part to tempt true believers away from the path of God so that they fall under the spell of my evil left wing dogma. Sure that would be nice but it's not my intent. As to the rest of your post you'd have to clarify what you think I meant because I don't quite follow your response. No hurry though because like Tommy I'm off till tommorrow. Cheery-bye... [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ] [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ]</p>

08-12-2002, 09:18 AM	#36
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	I am a monist/naturalist/materialist because any explanation that depends on the supernatural is simply begging the question, has no heuristic value, and leads inevitably to paradox. Before I can debate the existence of god in a meaningful way, my debater must establish that the realm in which he is said to exist has validity. If, on the other hand, you wish to argue, as the Mormons do, that Elohim and Jesus are beings of flesh and bone, and that "spirit" exists as part of the material world, then it's a whole new ball of wax with god existing on the plane of tooth fairies and Santa Claus. But then, these Mormon gods necessarily lose all the characteristics which theologians are so fond of attributing to their god, such attributes being totally incompatible with Jehovah as described in the bible. (But, of course, the god who beget Jesus in the New Testament cannot be reconciled with Jehovah either.) The theologians' god is both incoherent and contra-biblical. The Mormons' gods are so absurd that even the Mormons themselves refuse to discuss their attributes beyond bald assertions. I really don't see anything to be agnostic about.

08-12-2002, 09:53 AM	#37
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Terry! I have three quick ones: I'm not too familar with monism, could you explain the 'metaphysics' a bit? Also, in your judgement, if materialism suggests a sort of electrical 'force field' relative to consciousness, I assume you cannot make the leap to spirituality? Assuming there is a sort of disjunct between atheism/spirituality, I'm guessing it has something to do with the anthropic connection or logical inference of same. Also, how do you rebute the theist's Revelation argument? Walrus

08-12-2002, 10:52 AM	#39
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Dr.S! I hear that one quite a bit from atheists... . What kind of proof is appropriate or, is substantial enough to meet a particular/specific criteria? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.