The "Freethinking" Atheist

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The "Freethinking" Atheist

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinker" as the atheist defines it is a misnomer. The term literally means "FREE thinker." A free thinker can only be a free thinker if he truly exercises free choice in his thought-processes. "Robots with consciousness" are not free thinkers. And since the atheistic worldview basically depicts human beings as robots with consciousness, then the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron.

 

Paisley, (80 97 105 115 108 101 121 44)

13 83 105 110 99 101 32 121 111 117 32 116 104 105 110 107 32 119 101 32 97 114 101 32 110 111 116 104 105 110 103 32 98 117 116 32 114 111 98 111 116 115 32 119 105 116 104 32 99 111 110 115 99 105 111 117 115 110 101 115 115 32 73 32 115 112 101 97 107 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 32 105 110 32 116 104 101 32 108 97 110 103 117 97 103 101 32 111 102 32 99 111 109 112 117 116 101 114 115 46 32 89 111 117 32 97 103 97 105 110 32 97 114 101 32 119 97 114 112 105 110 103 32 100 101 102 105 110 105 116 105 111 110 115 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 114 32 101 110 100 115 32 97 110 100 32 102 97 105 108 101 100 46 32 71 111 111 100 32 76 117 99 107 33

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, you can state what

Paisley, you can state what you think Game Theory is about until the cows come home, but until your statement contains some truth, you're just looking like an ignorant twit.

What you may not realize is that several of us are very familiar with Game Theory, and there are some people reading this thread who are better than just familiar with it.  All this posturing you're doing doesn't make you appear smarter.   Maybe you can convince the folks on some Christian boards that you know what you're talking about, but here, you are just making an ass of yourself.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Oh if you like to add things don't forget this part from Wikipedia on that entry "While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument."

Agreed. The "freethinker" is dogmatic and his dogma is based on scientism.

Quote:

The term [scientism] is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism[9])

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

 

As science and reputable scientists don't hold inflexibly to its conclusions in the presence of new information, it's not a dogma  and the practitioners aren't dogmatic.

Is this another of your shifting definitions to fit again? That must be why you chose to use the perjorative definition instead of the neutral one:

"The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences."

Do those cherries you're picking taste good?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I do believe

Paisley wrote:
I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

That is not what a Freudian slip is at all.  Using 'god' in an expletive is not even a slip of any sort.  It is simply using a common expletive and it has no bearing on a person's belief in god.  Do you assume that in order to use 'god' in an expletive a person must believe they are offending god and thus believe?  If so, that's not how people use expletives.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Paisley, just for the

Ok, Paisley, just for the moment let's work with your framework:

You make the point that atheists cannot claim to think freely because atheism presupposes a lack of free will.

You further make the point that the lack of free will is mandated by materialist determinism.

But here's my question to you: What if you're not a material determinist? What if, instead, you're an agnostic who makes no claim of knowing anything about the fundamental mechanics of the universe?

You assert that atheism itself precludes what you call 'free thought'. So, if that's the case, then please demonstrate how a lack of surety precludes freedom of thought.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As science

jcgadfly wrote:
As science and reputable scientists don't hold inflexibly to its conclusions in the presence of new information, it's not a dogma  and the practitioners aren't dogmatic.

What is dogmatic is the rigid belief that the scientific method is the only valid avenue of inquiry. This is what is known as scientism (which is not to be confused with science itself).

jcgadfly wrote:
Is this another of your shifting definitions to fit again? That must be why you chose to use the perjorative definition instead of the neutral one:

"The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences."

Do those cherries you're picking taste good?

I wasn't cherry picking. Originally I quoted the neutral definition and only later included the pejorative definition in order to leave no doubt that scientism is a dogmatic ideology. In order to alleviate any further confusion, I will now post the entire introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article on "scientism."

Quote:
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has AUTHORITY over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

  1. The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
  2. The term is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism.[9])

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

The so-called atheistic definition of "freethinker" is inherently self-refuting because the freethought movement professes itself to be "free from all dogma" and yet holds the DOGMATIC belief that personal beliefs "should be formed on the basis of science" and that "science has authority over all other interpretations of life" and over all "other fields of inquiry." The conventional term to characterized such a dogmatic belief is "scientism."

The bottom line: The atheist is not a "freethinker," neither by my definition (which is the literally rendering of the term), nor by his.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Paisley wrote:

When an atheist stubs his little toe on the coffee table and curses God with a profusion of expletives, I can assure you that it is more than a mere colloquialism. He is in no uncertain terms blaming God for the incident.

In that context "God" is just a culturally learned thing to say. As a child the atheist has seen adults use the expression and imitated. For the atheist cursing God is just another cultural expression that has lost its original meaning.

How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

When someone stubs their toe they might say 'God dammit!' (Most often I say 'Ow!' because my toe hurts.)  This is a common expletive.  Even taken literally, the person is not blaming god, they'd be asking god to damn something. (Perhaps the thing they've walked into?)  The person is likely aware that the reason their toe was stubbed was through their own negligence in paying attention to where their toe was going.  There are numerous other occasions where anyone might say 'God dammit!' and to literally interpret that as the person asking god to damn something would make their statement incomprehensible.  It's a good thing, then, that no one is making such a statement; they're uttering an expletive.  Expletives don't usually refer to anything or have any meaning, they're just strings of sound used in instances where people are emotional. 

It is customary to use certain expletives in particular situations, this is a learnt trait, and thus they can carry connotations.  Sometimes expletives are used in place of other words or sentences and take over their meaning, for instance, 'Fuck off!' is understood to mean 'Go away!' or any other similar sentence, however, with the extra connotation that person uttering 'Fuck off!' is particular angry with whom they're telling to go away and has decided to convey all of that in their use of the expletive.  Of course, no one assumes that the person means for anyone to literally 'fuck' when they say that or else the intention of the expletive would have been lost.  It is likely, however, that even someone unfamiliar with the use of the expletive would get the hint.  In the same way does 'God dammit!' only show someone's dissatisfaction, anger, pain, awe or disappointment in a circumstance or situation and not that the person wishes god would damn something.  If, indeed, someone did mean that, I would wonder at what they wanted god to damn since the expletive doesn't actually point to anything but immaterial things.

Since you think that using god in an expletive means the person believes in god and is blaming god, in what way is a person blaming god for anything by uttering 'God dammit!'?  Or were you talking about a different expletive?  Perhaps, 'Jesus Christ!' or 'Jesus, Marry and Joseph!' or 'Marry, mother of god!' or 'Christ almighty!' or 'Merde' or... well, I think I've made my point. (In case you don't get it, none of the expletives actually intend to blame 'god' for anything, they're just that: expletives.'

Your whole argument, however, is more simply refuted by pointing out that just because you believe it's cursing god to use god in an expletive does not mean that anyone who utters an expletive that includes the word god believes they're doing the same thing.  An Atheist certainly doesn't think that she's cursing god, she in fact can't curse god because she doesn't believe in god.  What you're arguing requires that the person uttering the expletive means to curse god and, as I've pointed out, that's not how people use expletives.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
As science and reputable scientists don't hold inflexibly to its conclusions in the presence of new information, it's not a dogma  and the practitioners aren't dogmatic.

What is dogmatic is the rigid belief that the scientific method is the only valid avenue of inquiry. This is what is known as scientism (which is not to be confused with science itself).

jcgadfly wrote:
Is this another of your shifting definitions to fit again? That must be why you chose to use the perjorative definition instead of the neutral one:

"The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences."

Do those cherries you're picking taste good?

I wasn't cherry picking. Originally I quoted the neutral definition and only later included the pejorative definition in order to leave no doubt that scientism is a dogmatic ideology. In order to alleviate any further confusion, I will now post the entire introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article on "scientism."

Quote:
The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has AUTHORITY over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

  1. The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
  2. The term is also used to pejoratively refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[2] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience".[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism.[9])

source: Wikipedia "Scientism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

The so-called atheistic definition of "freethinker" is inherently self-refuting because the freethought movement professes itself to be "free from all dogma" and yet holds the DOGMATIC belief that personal beliefs "should be formed on the basis of science" and that "science has authority over all other interpretations of life" and over all "other fields of inquiry." The conventional term to characterized such a dogmatic belief is "scientism."

The bottom line: The atheist is not a "freethinker," neither by my definition (which is the literally rendering of the term), nor by his.

First, only the perjorative uses made it to the post I responded to. Glad to see you rectified it.

Second, where did you get that all atheists are followers of scientism? I'd never heard of it until you brought it up. I respect science for its contributions to the betterment of humanity (far more than religion) but I don't worship it. I tend to think that beliefs should be based in reality and not an invisible friend of whatever description you choose.

The bottom line is that you've found a definition of "freethinker" that fits your belief about freethinkers and you won't change it no matter how much contrary (and correct) information is shown to you. Who's dogmatic again?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Paisley,

Hambydammit wrote:

Paisley, you can state what you think Game Theory is about until the cows come home, but until your statement contains some truth, you're just looking like an ignorant twit.

Wow, I never thought the day would come where I got to correct Hamby, but come it has: you demonstrably used the wrong vowel in the last word of your last sentence above.

To everyone else:

Please heed this warning: it will only end in heartbreak and sorrow.

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wow, I never thought

Quote:
Wow, I never thought the day would come where I got to correct Hamby, but come it has: you demonstrably used the wrong vowel in the last word of your last sentence above.

Having discovered the following entry on wordnet (not what I consider a linguistic authority, but good enough for arguing over the internet), I accept your correction:

twat: 1. a man who is a stupid incompetent fool

Originally,  I avoided this word out of respect for the vulva.  I can say with certainty that I've never heard a vulva say anything as ignorant as Paisley's assessment of Game Theory.

The following definition for twit is applicable, but not nearly as precise:

twit: 1. an insignificant or bothersome person.

I have no idea of Paisley's significance, but I can attest to being slightly bothered by his comments.  Willful ignorance always bothers me.  In any case, I stand properly corrected.  Paisley is acting like a twat.

 

Oh, and Paisley, are you just going to keep blathering on even though your entire premise is based on ignorance of Game Theory?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Hambydammit

shikko wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Paisley, you can state what you think Game Theory is about until the cows come home, but until your statement contains some truth, you're just looking like an ignorant twit.

Wow, I never thought the day would come where I got to correct Hamby, but come it has: you demonstrably used the wrong vowel in the last word of your last sentence above.

To everyone else:

Please heed this warning: it will only end in heartbreak and sorrow.

 

I'm pretty sure he meant 'twit' and not ''twat', if that's what you meant.  Both are words, but Hambydammit likely meant twit and he has spelt it correctly.

Edit: Apparently Hamby and I were posting at the same time and I stand corrected, but couldn't Paisley be both a twit and a twat?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
In the end

Paisley is either being willfully ignorant, or truely is moronic in his understanding of term freethinker, as such and as stated before, with his vague and misconstrued defintion of free will, then freedom fighters must believe in free will, nor is there free press, or free agents, free market, free state, free fall, free throw, or in the end freedom of speech since every MUST believe in free will because ALL those words have free in them, as such using his method, if it contains free it HAS to be free will or nothing. Nice going Paisley, you lost the debate right from the beginning, your just to dogmatic to understand where you lost it at.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 A wise person doesn't

 A wise person doesn't believe the science fiction of their own imagination regarding the vast unknown. Everyone is in AWE.

If dogma was water the religious hypocrites are drowning, while the science practitioners walk on top of the water .... There is no way to completely escape dogma, so being aware of it makes one the wiser ..... Some say story Jesus was such a wise man, walking above the sea of humanities average reasoning ....    

   The religious are ALL wet ! Scientists only get their feet wet. No one is perfect !

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Curiously coherent....Are

Curiously coherent....

Are you still out of rum?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   lol hamby .... to

   lol hamby .... to early for rum yet, still drinking coffee ....

   Everyone needs Beer and Rum to read that other me,  I suppose  ??? 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm going for sake

Well, I'm going for sake tonight... we'll see how sake for me and rum for you works out.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
A grand experiment indeed

A grand experiment indeed ..... I luv the oriental things ....


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisly wrote:How has it lost

Paisly wrote:


How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.


Such things are not intellectual endeavors and you're quite simply elevating the issue to absurd heights. Its clear that these things have become common spur of the moment verbal reactions that express negative feelings such as 'pain', 'anger', or even 'frustration'.....etc.... Nothing more. There is no rhetorical victory to be had here.

For example: dictionary.com:
Goddamnit –interjection (sometimes initial capital letter) Informal: Sometimes Offensive.
(used to express anger, perplexity, amazement, etc.)

The words(phrases) contribute nothing more than a thoughtless emotive reaction and aren't lending themselves to be interpreted literally. You're clearly being thick and pedantic.
 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Paisley,

Hambydammit wrote:
Paisley, you can state what you think Game Theory is about until the cows come home, but until your statement contains some truth, you're just looking like an ignorant twit.

What you may not realize is that several of us are very familiar with Game Theory, and there are some people reading this thread who are better than just familiar with it.  All this posturing you're doing doesn't make you appear smarter.   Maybe you can convince the folks on some Christian boards that you know what you're talking about, but here, you are just making an ass of yourself.

I have given you and your cohorts ample opportunity to explain how "Game Theory" refutes my argument. To date, no such explanation has been forthcoming. I'm afraid my patience is beginning to run a little thin. Simply spouting off how brilliant you and your fellow atheists are will no longer do. Unless you demonstrate the ability in the near future to actually formulate some kind of argument, I will not feel obligated to respond to any comments you may feel compelled to post and direct my way.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
This debate is not a CONTEST

This debate is not a CONTEST ..... ( ummm? , but it IS , wait that makes no sense

                                                        


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:Free will

lieutenant24 wrote:
Free will simply is not defined as a necessary prerequisite to freethought.

"Robots with consciousness" are not capable of free thought. No further commentary is necessary.

lieutenant24 wrote:
You are hung up on an idea that struct you as clever and are understandably reluctant to lay it to rest. You may still argue that the term "freethinker" should be redefined to include free will, but your current line of reasoning is exhausted. Exercise a degree of humility and preserve what is left of your dignity, good sir.

You and your fellow atheists are understandably upset that the worldview you share relegates yourselves to the status of "robots with consciousness."  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting.

No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.

It was a rhetorical question. I'm quite aware that Dawkins is clueless concerning the concept of pantheism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
SEE ---->  

SEE ---->  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting.

No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.

It was a rhetorical question. I'm quite aware that Dawkins is clueless concerning the concept of pantheism.

Or he sees through it for what it is... a way to claim a deity but not take it seiously by making it meaningless.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Eloise

jcgadfly wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Dawkins equates atheism with the belief in a universal mind that is both immanent and transcendent? Interesting.

No I think the point is to suggest Pantheism is reducible to atheism, not equal.

Thank you.

I don't know why you are saying "thank you." Clearly, you are just as misinformed about the nature of pantheism as is Dawkins. If you had a clue, you never would have conflated pantheism (actually panentheism) with atheism.

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, putting your deity in everything or everything in your deity makes him less worth having. That's why I think Dawkins calls what you appear to follow "sexed up atheism."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
FEEL THE ATHEIST LOVE , MR.

FEEL THE ATHEIST LOVE , MR. P ?????????    


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Focus Paisley, Focus

Paisley wrote:

lieutenant24 wrote:
Free will simply is not defined as a necessary prerequisite to freethought.

"Robots with consciousness" are not capable of free thought. No further commentary is necessary.

Oh Paisley, at least have the decency to actually respond to my arguments. "Robots with consciousness" may or may not be capable of free thought, but that is not the question at hand. We are discussing freethought not free thought. How many times must I explain that the two are different?

Paisley wrote:

You and your fellow atheists are understandably upset that the worldview you share relegates yourselves to the status of "robots with consciousness."  

Firstly, that doesn't upset me at all. Secondly, you are shifting the focus of the argument from freethought to the nature of free will. Once again, if you wish to discuss a new topic, start a new thread. This one is too messy as is.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So every

jcgadfly wrote:
So every "curse word" needs to be aimed at a God for it to be a "real" curse word? If someone does something nice for me and I thank them for it, did I really thank them or did God step in and take it? I called it "cursing" because that's how I was raised. Nobody's God was involved (unless you worship my parents). This what I mean when I say you cheapen your deity.If your God is so pathetic that he can't allow for common dealings with othe human beings or allow people to have self-expression, is he really worth having. let alone worshipping?

curse 1: to use profanely insolent language against : blaspheme <curse God and die — Job 2:9(REB)>2 a: to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon (source: Merriam-Webster Online)

bless : to invoke divine care for (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Anytime an atheist employs the term "God damn it," he is literally calling upon God to curse somebody or something. And anytime an atheist says "God bless you," he is literally calling upon God to bless somebody. Now, what aren't you getting?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
So when I say "Crap, I

So when I say to someone "Crap, I forgot my keys" I am really telling that person to take a crap?  Or is this different?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley, (80 97 105 115 108 101 121 44)

13 83 105 110 99 101 32 121 111 117 32 116 104 105 110 107 32 119 101 32 97 114 101 32 110 111 116 104 105 110 103 32 98 117 116 32 114 111 98 111 116 115 32 119 105 116 104 32 99 111 110 115 99 105 111 117 115 110 101 115 115 32 73 32 115 112 101 97 107 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 32 105 110 32 116 104 101 32 108 97 110 103 117 97 103 101 32 111 102 32 99 111 109 112 117 116 101 114 115 46 32 89 111 117 32 97 103 97 105 110 32 97 114 101 32 119 97 114 112 105 110 103 32 100 101 102 105 110 105 116 105 111 110 115 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 114 32 101 110 100 115 32 97 110 100 32 102 97 105 108 101 100 46 32 71 111 111 100 32 76 117 99 107 33

Apparently, what we have here is a "robot with consciousness" taking a fatal error. Sorry for the meltdown. You have my condolences and sympathy.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley, (80 97 105 115 108 101 121 44)

13 83 105 110 99 101 32 121 111 117 32 116 104 105 110 107 32 119 101 32 97 114 101 32 110 111 116 104 105 110 103 32 98 117 116 32 114 111 98 111 116 115 32 119 105 116 104 32 99 111 110 115 99 105 111 117 115 110 101 115 115 32 73 32 115 112 101 97 107 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 32 105 110 32 116 104 101 32 108 97 110 103 117 97 103 101 32 111 102 32 99 111 109 112 117 116 101 114 115 46 32 89 111 117 32 97 103 97 105 110 32 97 114 101 32 119 97 114 112 105 110 103 32 100 101 102 105 110 105 116 105 111 110 115 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 114 32 101 110 100 115 32 97 110 100 32 102 97 105 108 101 100 46 32 71 111 111 100 32 76 117 99 107 33

Apparently, what we have here is a "robot with consciousness" taking a fatal error. Sorry for the meltdown. You have my condolences and sympathy.

Shows what you know. Take a programming class.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
!@#$%^&*()_ Nothing or

!@#$%^&*()_

   Nothing or everything .... Paisley you are a sick FEAR MONGER , fuck you SATAN .....


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Paisley

Thomathy wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

That is not what a Freudian slip is at all.  Using 'god' in an expletive is not even a slip of any sort.  It is simply using a common expletive and it has no bearing on a person's belief in god.  Do you assume that in order to use 'god' in an expletive a person must believe they are offending god and thus believe?  If so, that's not how people use expletives.

You're probably right. This isn't a Freudian slip. It's a blatant display of blasphemy. When anyone yells "Jesus F***** Christ" after stubbing his toe, I will assume that he is blaming Christ for his mishap. There is no other rational explanation to account for such behavior.

The facts are that it is the tendency of human beings to cry out to a higher power (God) in a crisis situation. And by the same token, it is the tendency of human beings to curse "the powers that be" (God) when misfortune comes their way. That an atheist would curse the name of God over something so trivial as stubbing one's toe speaks volumes.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Motley Crue - Shout At The

Motley Crue - Shout At The Devil '97

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3CNZ7iod9s

                                                      LOUDER


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

!@#$%^&*()_

   Nothing or everything .... Paisley you are a sick FEAR MONGER , fuck you SATAN .....

I am,

Paisley is not the devil as there is not such entity. He is a lost sheep that is looking for the way. It is unfortunate he wastes his effort as he does in what appears to be a vendetta against atheists. He could make better use of his intelligence in finding a cure for cancer or an alternative fuel source.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
INDEED, I have trouble with

INDEED, I have trouble with words , dang me  


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So every "curse word" needs to be aimed at a God for it to be a "real" curse word? If someone does something nice for me and I thank them for it, did I really thank them or did God step in and take it? I called it "cursing" because that's how I was raised. Nobody's God was involved (unless you worship my parents). This what I mean when I say you cheapen your deity.If your God is so pathetic that he can't allow for common dealings with othe human beings or allow people to have self-expression, is he really worth having. let alone worshipping?

curse 1: to use profanely insolent language against : blaspheme <curse God and die — Job 2:9(REB)>2 a: to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon (source: Merriam-Webster Online)

bless : to invoke divine care for (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Anytime an atheist employs the term "God damn it," he is literally calling upon God to curse somebody or something. And anytime an atheist says "God bless you," he is literally calling upon God to bless somebody. Now, what aren't you getting?

 

Yet here we go again, you omit parts of the defintion which don't agree with you. Such as the following your forgot to add:

2 a: to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon <was cursed and fears he will die> b: to execrate in fervent and often profane terms <cursed by future generations unless we act now>3: to bring great evil upon : afflict <a land cursed with famine>intransitive verb: to utter imprecations : swear <cursing loudly>

or as a noun

1 : a prayer or invocation for harm or injury to come upon one : imprecation 2 : something that is cursed or accursed 3 : evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation or as retribution 4 : a cause of great harm or misfortune : torment 5 : menstruation —used with the  Now of course we could look at it another way, such as:
  • profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger; "expletives were deleted"
  • execration: an appeal to some supernatural power to inflict evil on someone or some group
  • utter obscenities or profanities; "The drunken men were cursing loudly in the street"
  • hex: an evil spell; "a witch put a curse on his whole family"; "he put the whammy on me"
  • heap obscenities upon; "The taxi driver who felt he didn't get a high enough tip cursed the passenger"
  • wish harm upon; invoke evil upon; "The bad witch cursed the child"
  • bane: something causes misery or death; "the bane of my life"
  • a severe affliction
  • excommunicate: exclude from a church or a religious community; "The gay priest was excommunicated when he married his partner"

Which many of us in our society, when we injure ourself we curse as in profanity form or cathartic form which is simply to express to those around us, or to express negative emotions (which occurs when you injure yourself) which is far different than the blasphemous form (which you are trying to associate with) which is a direct attack on sacred religous figures or objects....which last time I checked injuring your toe is not a direct attack on religion.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Ok, Paisley, just

BMcD wrote:
Ok, Paisley, just for the moment let's work with your framework:

You make the point that atheists cannot claim to think freely because atheism presupposes a lack of free will.

Agreed.

BMcD wrote:
You further make the point that the lack of free will is mandated by materialist determinism.

Exactly.

BMcD wrote:
But here's my question to you: What if you're not a material determinist? What if, instead, you're an agnostic who makes no claim of knowing anything about the fundamental mechanics of the universe?

Then you're not an atheist materialist, but an agnostic.

BMcD wrote:
You assert that atheism itself precludes what you call 'free thought'. So, if that's the case, then please demonstrate how a lack of surety precludes freedom of thought.

I never said that an atheist does not have free will. I simply stated that the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism does not permit him the luxury of calling himself a free thinker.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Okay P you win , now what

Okay P you win , now what ?    


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: Then you're

Paisley wrote:

Then you're not an atheist materialist, but an agnostic.

No, I'm an agnostic atheist. I still have no belief in any form of God. I simply also have no disbelief. We've covered this ground before, and you know it.

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
You assert that atheism itself precludes what you call 'free thought'. So, if that's the case, then please demonstrate how a lack of surety precludes freedom of thought.

I never said that an atheist does not have free will. I simply stated that the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism does not permit him the luxury of calling himself a free thinker.  

Actually, while you do begin with atheistic materialism in order to establish 'no free will', you then turn around and paint all atheists with that brush. Allow me to refer you to:

Paisley wrote:

In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

and:

Paisley wrote:

That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Note: Not 'I will kindly ask the materialistic determinist atheists on this forum...'

I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist, but I am still an atheist. I may also be slightly unhinged, as I maintain no clear trust in the reality of reality (but you knew that), and so, I would have to say that 'freethinking atheists' are possible.

So, I ask you now:

 

If we stipulate your usage of 'freethinker', as 'one able to made decisions without prior causes, completely free of stimulus-response relationships', or 'one possesed of free will', as opposed to Webster's definition of: 'one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma' would technically mean that materialist determinist atheists cannot claim 'free thought' under your definition, then would you be willing to stipulate that a)under Webster's definition of 'freethinker', this is not the case, and b)even under your own definition, atheists who make no assertion of materialist determinism are also exempted?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: A

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 A wise person doesn't believe the science fiction of their own imagination regarding the vast unknown. Everyone is in AWE.

Careful there, I AM, you're getting dangerously close to my position of 'interact however you must, but know only that you exist'. Eye-wink

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM indeed   

I AM indeed   


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So every "curse word" needs to be aimed at a God for it to be a "real" curse word? If someone does something nice for me and I thank them for it, did I really thank them or did God step in and take it? I called it "cursing" because that's how I was raised. Nobody's God was involved (unless you worship my parents). This what I mean when I say you cheapen your deity.If your God is so pathetic that he can't allow for common dealings with othe human beings or allow people to have self-expression, is he really worth having. let alone worshipping?

curse 1: to use profanely insolent language against : blaspheme <curse God and die — Job 2:9(REB)>2 a: to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon (source: Merriam-Webster Online)

bless : to invoke divine care for (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Anytime an atheist employs the term "God damn it," he is literally calling upon God to curse somebody or something. And anytime an atheist says "God bless you," he is literally calling upon God to bless somebody. Now, what aren't you getting?

Are you saying yo do have a god named "FUCK"? You keep glossing over the example I used and putting in your own to fit your arguments.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Not all atheists are

Not all atheists are determinists. Determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. Intellectual honesty demands that you study more before making asinine assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

 

Thank you. Smiling

 

ETA: I obviously got in on this thread belatedly. My apologies for not reading all 5 pages first.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:Not all

kellym78 wrote:

Not all atheists are determinists. Determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. Intellectual honesty demands that you study more before making asinine assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

 

Thank you. Smiling

 

ETA: I obviously got in on this thread belatedly. My apologies for not reading all 5 pages first.

It's OK - we've been going over the same ground with Mr./Mrs./?? "god in everything" for a while now. he/she/it has his/her/its definition that fits his/her/its beliefs and that's all that matters to him/her/it.

Good summary. Thank you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Paisley

Thomathy wrote:
Paisley wrote:
How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

When someone stubs their toe they might say 'God dammit!' (Most often I say 'Ow!' because my toe hurts.)  This is a common expletive.  Even taken literally, the person is not blaming god, they'd be asking god to damn something.

Agreed. The expression "God damn it" literally suggests that an individual is calling upon God to punish somebody (actually something..."it" is generally considered to be impersonal). This is why such an expression is called cursing. The individual is literally asking that someone or something be justly punished or condemned (i.e. cursed).

So, let's place this in proper context. The so-called unbeliever stubs his toe on the bottom leg of a coffee table and screams "God F****** damn it!!!" Now, what are we to make of such behavior? 

Well, the individual is clearly angry (a present state of "rage" is probably a better description). But if he is angry, then he must be angry with someone or something? So, with "whom" is he directing his anger? Or, at "what" is he directing his anger?

1) Is he angry with the coffee table? Does he actually believe that an inanimate object deliberately had the intention to bring him pain? Maybe? But what does this reveal about the unbeliever's beliefs? Whenever you're angry, you're angry with an intelligent agent, not with an inanimate object or an impersonal situation. Inanimate objects or impersonal situations cannot be held morally responsible for unpleasant experiences. So we can easily dismiss this explanation; it's simply absurd.

2) Is he angry with himself? Possibly. But when you consider the worldview of atheistic materialism, then this doesn't really make any rational sense. Why? Because in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, every action an individual performs "could not have been otherwise." In other words, each and every event that one experiences was predetermined by the blind, pitiless forces of nature playing themselves out. So why is he blaming and cursing himself for something he had absolutely no control over? It's completely absurd. Besides, are we to really believe that the unbeliever is demanding that he be punished for being such a bumbling idiot? This will only compound his pain and will not alleviate his sense of righteous indignation.

3) Is he upset with the "universe" itself? Does he actually believe that the forces of nature are conspiring argainst him? Perhaps. But, how can you be angry at something that is not intelligent and therefore cannot held morally responsible? This is no different than being angry with an inanimate object (e.g. the coffee table). It's absurd.

4) Is he upset with a higher power or intelligence (i.e. God) whom he believes is deliberately against him? Most definitely. This is the only thing that makes a smattering of rational sense.

Thomathy wrote:
It is customary to use certain expletives in particular situations, this is a learnt trait, and thus they can carry connotations.  Sometimes expletives are used in place of other words or sentences and take over their meaning, for instance, 'Fuck off!' is understood to mean 'Go away!' or any other similar sentence, however, with the extra connotation that person uttering 'Fuck off!' is particular angry with whom they're telling to go away and has decided to convey all of that in their use of the expletive.
 

Agreed. An individual will curse another human being because he (the individual) is expressing righteous indignation and believes the other is guilty and deserving of retribution.

Thomathy wrote:
Your whole argument, however, is more simply refuted by pointing out that just because you believe it's cursing god to use god in an expletive does not mean that anyone who utters an expletive that includes the word god believes they're doing the same thing.  An Atheist certainly doesn't think that she's cursing god, she in fact can't curse god because she doesn't believe in god.  What you're arguing requires that the person uttering the expletive means to curse god and, as I've pointed out, that's not how people use expletives.

I have made a bullet-proof argument earlier in this post why the atheist does indeed exhibit anger directed towards God. The evidence for this behavior is played out everyday by such trivial mishaps as stubbing one's toe.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: ETA: I

kellym78 wrote:
 

ETA: I obviously got in on this thread belatedly. My apologies for not reading all 5 pages first.

Paisley has been around for awhile and has generated quite a reputation for himself. See his last thread of 1033 posts for background on his ideas. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045

 

JC,

Paisley is a he.

 

Thanks

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley,I know you are fond

Paisley,

I know you are fond of the NT based on your previous usage so consider your statements in light of Mark 11:12-14.

"12 And the next day when they came out from Bethania, he was hungry. 13 And when he had seen afar off a fig tree having leaves, he came if perhaps he might find any thing on it. And when he was come to it, he found nothing but leaves. For it was not the time for figs. 14 And answering he said to it: May no man hereafter eat fruit of thee any more for ever. And his disciples heard it." Douay-Rheims Version

Paisley wrote:

1) Is he angry with the coffee table? Does he actually believe that an inanimate object deliberately had the intention to bring him pain? Maybe? But what does this reveal about the unbeliever's beliefs? Whenever you're angry, you're angry with an intelligent agent, not with an inanimate object or an impersonal situation. Inanimate objects or impersonal situations cannot be held morally responsible for unpleasant experiences. So we can easily dismiss this explanation; it's simply absurd.

-snip-

3) Is he upset with the "universe" itself? Does he actually believe that the forces of nature are conspiring argainst him? Perhaps. But, how can you be angry at something that is not intelligent and therefore cannot held morally responsible? This is no different than being angry with an inanimate object (e.g. the coffee table). It's absurd.

4) Is he upset with a higher power or intelligence (i.e. God) whom he believes is deliberately against him? Most definitely. This is the only thing that makes a smattering of rational sense.

So when you consider this, Jesus the son of God cursed an inanimate object because it didn't feed him. What that says according to you is Jesus is absurd for blaming the object. So as you say is the Universe conspiring against him so he cannot eat.  Your answer is it can't that is absurd. So that only leaves the possibility that Jesus is angry with God for not feeding him figs. Or himself. Granted I think Jesus was a spaced out desert prophet but this is about what you claim.

Paisley wrote:

I have made a bullet-proof argument earlier in this post why the atheist does indeed exhibit anger directed towards God. The evidence for this behavior is played out everyday by such trivial mishaps as stubbing one's toe.

So it appears from your logic that God can also be angry with himself for his own absurdities.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

kellym78 wrote:
 

ETA: I obviously got in on this thread belatedly. My apologies for not reading all 5 pages first.

Paisley has been around for awhile and has generated quite a reputation for himself. See his last thread of 1033 posts for background on his ideas. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045

 

JC,

Paisley is a he.

 

Thanks

Thank you PJTS. Just trying to cover all the baaes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:Not all

kellym78 wrote:
Not all atheists are determinists.

Agreed. I know atheists who claim to be practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism. Materialism is a deterministic worldview.  Anytime an atheist refuses to acknowledge a materialistic postion, then I know I am confronting an individual who has some kind of spiritual or lurking god-belief.

kellym78 wrote:
Determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. Intellectual honesty demands that you study more before making asinine assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

I am fully aware of the philosophical terms associated with the "free will" debate. What you are referring to is what is called "compatibilist free will." Compatibilism is the attempt to redefine free will as it is conventionally understood to make it "compatible" with determinism.  However, the only rational agent who can really be characterized has having compatible free will is a pantheistic God because only such an agent would be completely free from any external influence.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead