Arrogance and smug self-satisfaction.

GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Arrogance and smug self-satisfaction.

Wanna know what has been really pissing me off lately?  This argument for theism:

"I don't see how all of this could have happened without a creator."

Really?  YOU can't see it, huh?  Well, I suppose since YOU are so F*****G super intelligent and your enormous brain can't encompass it, it can't possibly be true?  A fact cannot exist outside YOUR immensely extensive experience in this universe?

GODDAM it!  Get your ego under control already!  Just admit that you're fallible!  Admit that there IS a possibility that there may not be a creator!  You have not been right about everything in your life, so you are not an authority on reality!  I fully admit I don't know everything, and I would NEVER claim to KNOW (with a capital "K-N-O-W" ) if there was a god or not. 

It's amazing to me how most major religions teach humility in word, but not in practice.

Now, if you'd like to join us in the imperfect human race, I'd like to talk to you.  Otherwise, you risk a verbal H-bomb from me. 

 

Robb

 

P.S. Atheists who claim absolute knowledge on the subject irritate the crap out of me too.

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Godless

 

I think the best riposte for this argument is to cite the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Wanna know

GodlessMonk wrote:

Wanna know what has been really pissing me off lately?  This argument for theism:

"I don't see how all of this could have happened without a creator."

Really?  YOU can't see it, huh?  Well, I suppose since YOU are so F*****G super intelligent and your enormous brain can't encompass it, it can't possibly be true?  A fact cannot exist outside YOUR immensely extensive experience in this universe?

GODDAM it!  Get your ego under control already!  Just admit that you're fallible!  Admit that there IS a possibility that there may not be a creator!  You have not been right about everything in your life, so you are not an authority on reality!  I fully admit I don't know everything, and I would NEVER claim to KNOW (with a capital "K-N-O-W" ) if there was a god or not. 

It's amazing to me how most major religions teach humility in word, but not in practice.

Now, if you'd like to join us in the imperfect human race, I'd like to talk to you.  Otherwise, you risk a verbal H-bomb from me. 

 

Robb

 

P.S. Atheists who claim absolute knowledge on the subject irritate the crap out of me too.

As an aside, "******" replacing cuss words doesn't change the meaning. You are pissed, so why sugar coat it? If one were posting at a Disney website, I'd find it appropriate. Here, I don't don't think you need to cuss in every post, but if you spell out a word instead of dancing around it, it doesn't change the meaning.

And as far as your P.S.

Why? I think you confuse the fact when atheists state that not every utterance in human history is automatically a 50/50 proposition with claiming  "absolute knowledge".

FOR EXAMPLE:

If person A claims: "I can fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass"

Is that automatically a 50/50 proposition because Lamborghini's exist and human's have sphincters?

So the problem becomes when person A claims this and person B claims something else and person C claims yet another thing, HOW DO WE as a species get beyond those different claims?

I don't think it would be arrogant of you to scoff at someone claiming that the sun was a thinking being. Yet for over 3,000 years the Ancient Egyptians would have punished you, if not executed you for stating otherwise. Is the sun a thinking being? No.

So why would it be "arrogant" to go further and scoff at claims of brains with no brains, no cerebellum, no neurons with magical powers that floats out in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

You might as well call Galileo "arrogant" for telling the ignorant people of his time that the earth rotated around the sun and was not flat.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 This, by the way, is what

 This, by the way, is what annoys me most about the "irreducible complexity" argument for Creationism, i.e. "I don't have a good enough imagination to conceive how it could happen, so that means it can't be true." It's the Argument from Stupity, in my opinion.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: This, by

smartypants wrote:

 This, by the way, is what annoys me most about the "irreducible complexity" argument for Creationism, i.e. "I don't have a good enough imagination to conceive how it could happen, so that means it can't be true." It's the Argument from Stupity, in my opinion.

Actually, what the pragmatist/skeptic would call "imagination" the theist uses the same word but doesn't understand when they use it, credulity is fueling their imagination.

Evolution "cant be true" because they cant "imagine" which really should be replaced with "comprehend" that myth doesn't compete with reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
the theist does what?

the theist does what?


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
AtheistExtremist- Holy

AtheistExtremist- Holy crap!  I'd never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect before.  It explains SO much of my frustration!  Thanks for pointing me toward that!

 

Brian37-  I replace cuss words with asterixes (asterices?) for one simple reason.  My 7 year-old comes over to my computer just about every time I start typing to see what I'm doing.  If I fill the screen with expletives, I'm just giving him an excuse to try them out at unfortunate times.  Rest assured, I don't think you all can't take the odd nasty phrase as it may occur to me.

As for my P.S. Eye-wink I cannot say for certain that the sun is not a thinking being.  Just because I haven't communicated with it doesn't mean it isn't possible.  Not that I BELIEVE it's possible, but I will allow that I cannot know with complete certainty.  The only statement I CAN hold to unequivocally is this:  Nobody can know anything at all with 100% certainty because reality itself is changing constantly along with the perspective of the viewer and any "fact" is only a fact until it is disproven or it changes.

Therefore, my arrogance is in knowing that I know nothing.

 

Now, if I can only get more people to move over to my religion...

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As for my P.S.  I

Quote:
As for my P.S. Eye-wink I cannot say for certain that the sun is not a thinking being.  Just because I haven't communicated with it doesn't mean it isn't possible.  Not that I BELIEVE it's possible, but I will allow that I cannot know with complete certainty.

Yea, ok "technically speaking" it is possible since we don't know everything, but how likely is it to you if I claimed that Cindi Crawford is milking my shlong right now?

I think there is a HUGE difference between when a skeptic/scientist says "I don't know" and when a myth lover tries to make that equal to their "I don't know".

I don't think humanity has lost much by treating Thor or Isis as trash they rightfully have discarded.

Admitting that one doesn't know is VITAL to admitting when one might be wrong. But I don't think humanity has to let their brains fall out in the process.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
My religion is better.

My religion is better.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Simply put I don't think it

Simply put I don't think it is "arrogant" to use the trash can anymore than it is "arrogant" to tell a child that Santa isn't real.

Otherwise if we are going to get "technical" about "never say never" than I can fart a Lamborghini out my ass because it is "technically" possible since we don't know everything.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:P.S.

GodlessMonk wrote:

P.S. Atheists who claim absolute knowledge on the subject irritate the crap out of me too.

 

Insofar as the logically contradictory nature of the definition/proposition in question is clearly demonstrated, it is arrogant *not* to claim absolute knowledge as to its non-existence.  Not only arrogant, but profoundly closed-minded-- the most closed minded one can possibly be, in fact:

The acceptance of possible dialetheism is the flaccid-minded acceptance of all fact, contradictory or not, and the subsequent slamming shut of the mind to logic, reason, and all falsifiability.

 

So long as you are ignorant of logical disproofs, you get a pass.  So long as you are uncertain about *only* definitions of a 'god' which have not been disproven, you get a pass.

 

 

Sorry: Lacking certainty about the non-existence of a particular god for which the very assumed nature is impossible is just idiotic.  It's not "open-minded", it's not "humble", it's just plain mindless irrationality.

 

Those who go around pretending to be rational, free-thinkers, while copping out with that kind of absurdity and refusing to acknowledge logical disproofs 'irritate the crap out of me'.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Okay, kids are in bed.

Well, fuck me with a silver tea tray.

 

okay.  i admit i uh stoopit maroon wis no edmukashun.  i think alls you iz bedder den me.  fergive mah ingernse.

 

Or, fuck you.  Funny that you'd just attack me because I refuse to acknowledge that I or ANYONE can know exactly what the absolute truth is on any subject.  You think I have no balls for not taking a stance. 

All right then, how's this.  YOU are fuckin' wrong.  I guaran-fucking-TEE it.  Good enough stance?

Now...  If you wish to discuss my beliefs, that's a different subject.  I don't believe there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.  I believe that over the course of billions of years, complex life, through natural selection is not just possible, bt that we are the living proof.  I believe that is there IS a god, is sure a feck AIN'T the x-tian one, and that the bible has way too many problems with it to be believed by any rational person.  I believe that religion has caused more harm than good in human history.  I believe that there are more constructive modes of belief than x-tianity and it's bretheren (judaism, islam, etc.).  I believe that humanity is going to cause it's own extinction because of it's ignorance and that my grandchildren may not have a chance to exist.  (My kids are 7 and 5 right now.)

I also believe, Blake,  that calling someone that keeps their mind open to ALL possibilities "profoundly closed-minded-- the most closed minded one can possibly be, in fact" is, if fact, the stupidest thing I've heard all week.

Oh, and thanks for the passes, Blake.  You are too kind. 

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin - In my religion, you

Ciarin - In my religion, you get to sleep in on Sundays. 

Hmm?  Hmm?

 

Robb


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Ciarin -

GodlessMonk wrote:

Ciarin - In my religion, you get to sleep in on Sundays. 

Hmm?  Hmm?

 

Robb

 

In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
"In my religion you get to

"In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead."

 

Mead?  You ARE a goth, aren't you?  Cool.

All right, send me a pamphlet, although I'm not promising anything.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Or, fuck

GodlessMonk wrote:

Or, fuck you.  Funny that you'd just attack me because I refuse to acknowledge that I or ANYONE can know exactly what the absolute truth is on any subject.  You think I have no balls for not taking a stance.

No, I suspect that you are ignorant on the matter, or didn't think through what you said before saying it.

 

Quote:
I believe that is[if] there IS a god, is sure a feck AIN'T the x-tian one...

 

This was pretty clear, but you might choose to go back on that later, so I'll restate more clearly:

 

You have effectively said that you *do* know for certain that the Christian god does not exist, due to fundamental problems with the definition of that god- namely its reliance on the perfection of the bible, by way of the standard interpretation/definition.

 

Is this correct?

 

If so, you have said nothing that most positive atheists haven't: that impossible gods do not exist.  Insofar as the definition of a god makes that god possible (such as the seemingly possible proposition of Russel's teapot), that assertion isn't made.

I generally submit, though, that any definition that isn't logically impossible is so extraordinary as to not fall into common usage, and as such, the statement "gods are impossible, and as such do not exist" (in the context of the definition being referred to) is true.


Quote:
I also believe, Blake,  that calling someone that keeps their mind open to ALL possibilities "profoundly closed-minded-- the most closed minded one can possibly be, in fact" is, if fact, the stupidest thing I've heard all week.

 

I have not said this; you are mis-applying what I said by framing it incorrectly, and completely misunderstanding it.

 

 

A person who keeps his or her mind open to all possibilities is open-minded.

A person who also keeps his or her mind "open" to impossibilities, still marking them possibilities, has rejected falsifiability, and as such, has accepted all things with the exception of one: logic- something the person has consequentially rejected.  Throwing everything casually "in" and throwing logic "out", and then slamming the door shut on the matter is the mark not of an open mind, but a closed one.  More stead-fast in its closure than the most ardent of fundamentalists- they, at least, can still accept reason where it does not seem to directly affect their faiths.

 

Quote:
Oh, and thanks for the passes, Blake.  You are too kind.

 

You are quite welcome.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:"In my

GodlessMonk wrote:

"In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead."

 

Mead?  You ARE a goth, aren't you?  Cool.

 

No, I'm heathen. Goth would be absynthe.

 

Quote:

All right, send me a pamphlet, although I'm not promising anything.

 

Robb

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BBy5exUMXs


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
All right.

So you want to play that way, huh?  Okay.

 

Let me start by saying that it was not my intention to be drawn into semantics and exacting, binding language.  You, Blake, I believe are acting an ass for dragging it out like this.  Now, if it please the court, allow me to be as crystal clear on the subject as I possibly can, without actually coming to your house and drawing you pretty pictures.

I have thought this argument out quite extensively and, although I do not have access to as much education and literature as I'm sure most of our illustrious philosophers do, I'm convinced that it is a valid and considerable point of view.  Not having taken many years of Philosophy courses in university does not invalidate my beliefs, any more than Blake's ignorance of social grace keeps him from being a valid human being.

I am practiced in the arts of logic.  I can see how a premise can be validated or invalidated by sourced studies and experiments, whether they have been performed by me, or someone I trust not to falsify their "facts".  I hear arguments from as many sources as practical and form an opinion based on those arguments, filtered through my own experiences and, yes, beliefs.  This is what I believe it is to be "rational". 

It has been proven to my satisfaction that my own ability to encompass the enormity of the entire universe is nearly negligible.  As I don't BELIEVE myself to be stupid, on a human scale, I tend to believe, also, that even the best and brightest of us is also not able to envelope a significant percentage of all possible knowledge.

Also, it has been proven to my satisfaction that humankind, as a whole, can be wrong about it's "facts".  The world is flat?  The universe is terracentric?  There are only 4 basic elements?  None of these questions have been proven by me to be false.  However, there are many people I have come to trust whom HAVE proven them to be false, and I'm content to take their words for it.  I BELIEVE that the world is round, even though I have not taken the time to physically prove it to myself.

Now... Possibilities.  Is it POSSIBLE that I have been lied to all my life and the world IS flat?  Yes.  Do I think it's likely?  No. 

I'll give you an example of why I think it's POSSIBLE, though.

All throughout my upbringing, I have been interested in how things work.  I like to know "why".  So, when I asked, "why does and airplane stay in the air?", I was told about the Bernoulli Effect en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle.  I was told that it was what kept planes in the air.  Now, since I never took an aeronautics course, I took the words of several "experts" and accepted them as "fact".  It was well after I turned 30 years old that I was told (by Bill Nye, in case you're curious) that a wing's "angle of attack" has much more to do with an aircraft's air worthiness than the Bernoulli Effect, although it does play a roll.  Now, I like Bill Nye, but his is only one voice, so I looked further into it, and my reality changed.  I could no longer accept at face value ANY "facts" given me.  "Facts" change with the point of view.  "Facts" change with new information.  "Facts" are used by people for their own agendas.  "Facts" are not fallible, but the humans who present them are.

Now, you're going to point out that, perhaps, I don't understand the meaning of the word, "fact".  I do not concur with this statement.  I understand that through scientific process, a "fact" is independant of the observer and is verifiable by any other observer by following the scientific process as well.  I simply posit that, since I am in no position to personally verify every single fact I've ever been presented with, that I must, through pragmatism, accept what "experts" tell me.  And since "experts", told me of the Bernoulli Effect, although I was not precisely lied to, they misled me on a fairly fundamental building block in my worldview.

Therefore, I look with some skepticism upon ALL new information, as well as all OLD information.  I, essentially live in a world of possibilities and likelyhoods.  Did the Big Bang occur?  Likely, according to the information I have been exposed to and absorbed.  Is the current Judeo-Christian god watching over us and guiding our lives?  Likely not, although I am unable to say, unequivocally, that "He" cannot POSSIBLY be, as I would be lying to myself

 

Blake, I'm sorry if I offended your ridgid mindset of absolutism, but I would have thought that, as a "science-freak" you would be more open to possibilites than you have let on, and not so damning of my imprecise use of the Queen's english.  My advice?  Lighten the hell up.

Oh, and screw your passes.  If you want to teach someone something, I suggest you don't start by calling them ignorant, flaccid-minded and mindlessly irrational.  I enjoy hearing constructive criticism, but if all you're going to do is sit on your pedestal and throw feces like a monkey, then I have no use for you.

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote: if all

GodlessMonk wrote:

 if all you're going to do is sit on your pedestal and throw feces like a monkey, 

I'm afraid that may be all he can do Robb, Sorry if you're disappointed, but maybe sharing my experience will save you the time waste of trying to have civil conversation with, Blake.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Seems to me that the

Seems to me that the original post is a pretty good argument from the theist position.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:I am

GodlessMonk wrote:
I am practiced in the arts of logic.

Good for you; then you might understand the following:

 

Quote:
I BELIEVE that the world is round, even though I have not taken the time to physically prove it to myself.

Now... Possibilities.  Is it POSSIBLE that I have been lied to all my life and the world IS flat?  Yes.  Do I think it's likely?  No.

 

Yes, it is possible that the world is flat.  Do you know why?  Because the notion of a flat Earth and conspiracy theorists, while far out and extremely unlikely, is not logically self-contradictory.

 

This cannot be said for the dominant interpretations of 'god'.

 

Quote:
I like to know "why".  So, when I asked, "why does and airplane stay in the air?", I was told about the Bernoulli Effect ....

 

This is a marginally popular topic of debate among those who have studied these fields.  It turns out, as I understand, that they're all reconciled by being mathematically equivalent.  There's even a way to do it using the angular momentum of wind coming off behind the wings.  So, in a way, they're all correct- what they all simultaneously failed to realize was that none of them were really contradicting the others.

That said, this really has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand.

 

These are empirical observations; empiricism is known to be imperfect- that's really the point of science, as attempting correct for at least part of it (human observation bias). 

We could very well be in "the matrix" with everything we see patently false.

 

If, as you suggest, you *are* practiced in the "arts" of logic, then you should know not only that conclusions that depend on empirical premises being true may not be true if those premises turn out not to be, but also that conclusions made from reasoning alone is not subject to this potential flaw.

A primary conclusion that can be reached from logic alone is demonstrating the impossibility of a proposition based on internal logical contradiction.  This requires only clear, unambiguous statement of the proposition to do (that's why we can only disprove the common definitions, and not necessarily every way the word could be interpreted).

If you really don't understand that after I've stated it in every post, please let me know how I can explain this for you to help you do so.

 

Quote:
Therefore, I look with some skepticism upon ALL new information, as well as all OLD information.  I, essentially live in a world of possibilities and likelyhoods.  Did the Big Bang occur?  Likely, according to the information I have been exposed to and absorbed.

 

I have no problem with this.  I have no problem with you saying a flat earth is possible.  Or that mice actually rule the planet, which was made by a large machine.  I have no problem with any proposition that has not been logically demonstrated to be false through internal contradiction- as long as it is only acknowledged as possible, and not insisted upon as probable or factual (in which case there are considerations for evidence).

 

Quote:
Is the current Judeo-Christian god watching over us and guiding our lives?  Likely not, although I am unable to say, unequivocally, that "He" cannot POSSIBLY be, as I would be lying to myself

 

The reason you are unable to do so is likely for ignorance of logical disproofs.  Would you like me to present you with some, or link you to some?

 

Quote:
Oh, and screw your passes.  If you want to teach someone something, I suggest you don't start by calling them ignorant, flaccid-minded and mindlessly irrational.

 

Sorry, but if you're ignorant of the facts, you get a pass on irrationality whether you like it or not.

 

Assuming you have read and understood what I wrote, and are as open-minded as you claim to be, that ignorance has been slightly diminished.  Otherwise, perhaps it has been replaced by willful ignorance for the sake of pride.

 

Either way you put it, though, you're the one who came around to fling the first hand full of grade-A monkey poo at all of the positive atheists here.

I'm fully willing to forgive that action, however, if you're willing to wise up and be a little more considerate of us- and recognize that you don't know everything about how knowledge is gained, and that we very well may have good reason to believe, positively, that particular gods can not possibly exist.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Just a bit of Irony: Your

Just a bit of Irony:

 

Your argument.

GodlessMonk wrote:

Wanna know what has been really pissing me off lately?  This argument for theism:

"I don't see how all of this could have happened without a creator."

Really?  YOU can't see it, huh?  Well, I suppose since YOU are so F*****G super intelligent and your enormous brain can't encompass it, it can't possibly be true?  A fact cannot exist outside YOUR immensely extensive experience in this universe?

 

My argument:

My argument wrote:

Wanna know what has been really pissing me off lately?  This argument for 'agnosticism':

"I don't see how anybody could know anything for sure, therefore, you don't."

Really?  YOU can't see it, huh?  Well, I suppose since YOU are so F*****G super intelligent and your enormous brain can't encompass the idea of a logical proof, it can't possibly be true?  A valid proof cannot exist outside YOUR concept of human ignorance?

 

Of course, I'm a little more eloquent, and ever so slightly less profane.

I just found that interesting.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Blake.  You win.  I'm

Yes, Blake.  You win.  I'm ever so sorry I DARED step on your land of superiority.

Hope you don't talk to your friends this way.  You're gonna be a lonely, lonely person.

 

Robb.

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Yes,

GodlessMonk wrote:

Yes, Blake.  You win.  I'm ever so sorry I DARED step on your land of superiority.

 

Apology accepted.  Although it could have been phrased with less sarcasm.

 

I don't have anything against people who make humble mistakes.  I don't have anything against agnostics who say they don't know, but don't arrogantly insist that nobody can know.

It's just when people feel that it is appropriate to profanely insult a group of people on their doorstep- particularly the group of people who have created and support this community- I'm not inclined to sit idly by and allow them to spew hateful rhetoric without challenge.

 

Quote:
Hope you don't talk to your friends this way.

 

No, because my friends aren't profane idiots.  Ignorance is perfectly tolerable, and even excusable in some cases, and arrogance is benign in itself- it is the combination of the two I usually cannot abide.

 

Most of my friends are atheists, and I rarely have cause to call them out on anything.  I do have theist friends- *humble* theist friends.  We argue sometimes, and they think their god (or gods) talks to them.  I think they're a bit nutty and they know that, but it's not really a problem.

 

Ciarin is a good example of the general attitude and belief of some theists I'm friends with "IRL".  Original beliefs (not boring like some), not arrogant about having proof of her gods (she recognizes that it's all anecdotal and personal, and acknowledges that is isn't any kind of absolute proof), also a gamer and a pretty talented artist.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Well, whaddya know.  You do

Well, whaddya know.  You do understand sarcasm.

Next step?  Humility...

 

Robb


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The reason no one knows for

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

Everyone is agnostic on that matter.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:The reason no

Ciarin wrote:

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

Everyone is agnostic on that matter.

No not exactly.

What you don't take into account, and many atheists don't as well is "time frame in regards to past, present and future"

The only thing that my "agnostic atheism" refers to is the future because I dont know the future I cant say for certain that my position won't change. But as far as the past and right now, the present I am an outright atheist. The past and current utterances throughout humanity, in regards to claiming a brain with no brain, are patently absurd and cannot logically exist.

But just because the future is uncertain doesn't mean my brains have to fall out and allow all utterances an equal 50/50 proposition. Good use of logic and reason do not default to that.

The future is uncertain, but the trash can of bad claims ON ALL ISSUES, has been used and should be used. And the wise discard bad ideas once debunked. You don't know the future, but yet you don't dwell on claims of volcano gods or Ouija boards actually working.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ciarin

Brian37 wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

Everyone is agnostic on that matter.

No not exactly.

 

Actually, yes exactly.

 

Quote:

What you don't take into account, and many atheists don't as well is "time frame in regards to past, present and future"

The only thing that my "agnostic atheism" refers to is the future because I dont know the future I cant say for certain that my position won't change. But as far as the past and right now, the present I am an outright atheist. The past and current utterances throughout humanity, in regards to claiming a brain with no brain, are patently absurd and cannot logically exist.

But just because the future is uncertain doesn't mean my brains have to fall out and allow all utterances an equal 50/50 proposition. Good use of logic and reason do not default to that.

The future is uncertain, but the trash can of bad claims ON ALL ISSUES, has been used and should be used. And the wise discard bad ideas once debunked. You don't know the future, but yet you don't dwell on claims of volcano gods or Ouija boards actually working.

 

Not really. what you don't take into account is that none of that has anything to do with knowing there is or isn't a god. Believing and knowing are not the same thing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:GodlessMonk

Ciarin wrote:

GodlessMonk wrote:

Ciarin - In my religion, you get to sleep in on Sundays. 

Hmm?  Hmm?

 

Robb


In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead.

Why do you need a religion to do that? I have no god or religion and I work on Sundays although I would like the day off so I can drink beer and wallow in the misery that I call my Redskins. But it doesn't take a religion or a god/s to do that.

There is nothing special about a 24 hour period other than what the individual wants it to be.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ciarin

Brian37 wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead.

Why do you need a religion to do that?

 

Why do you think I said you need a religion to do that?

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:The reason no

Ciarin wrote:

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

It depends on the particular god's definition- the exact wording of the proposition.

If that contains an internal contradiction, then we can know it is false.

 

Otherwise, lacking a contradiction, you are correct.

I am technically 'agnostic' to all non-contradictory gods.  The definitions in common usage, however, make non-contradictory gods an extreme minority of belief.

 

Quote:
Not really. what you don't take into account is that none of that has anything to do with knowing there is or isn't a god. Believing and knowing are not the same thing.

 

If not the same, 'knowing' can only be gained from strict logical proof. 

In this case, a god can be proved false (through demonstrating contradiction)- and be known not to exist.  That is only if that god is contradictory, though.

 

Any evidence that relies on perception or experience- no matter the type- is subject to some marginal uncertainty.  So any god, no matter how unlikely given the evidence, can not be proved false unless its definition expresses a self-contradiction.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
"Any evidence that relies on

"Any evidence that relies on perception or experience- no matter the type- is subject to some marginal uncertainty.  So any god, no matter how unlikely given the evidence, can not be proved false unless its definition expresses a self-contradiction."  -Blake

Yeah.  What I said.  I simply added that if all information is filtered through fallible grey matter, there adds the possibility of more uncertainty.  Self-contradiction?  I believe that quantum physics deals with multiple simultaneous possibilities, all of them equally true.

 

My other point was simply this:  People who close their minds to any possibilites, no matter how remote (I didn't say DWELL on them) make me sad.  I wasn't attacking this community at all, by the way.  I was attacking closed-minded people.  Apparently you decided I was attacking you, Blake.  I find THAT interesting.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:The reason no

Ciarin wrote:

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

Everyone is agnostic on that matter.

 

Thankyou.  My beliefs, exactly.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Brian37

Ciarin wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

The reason no one knows for sure if there's a god or not is because the existence of gods is unprovable. People who claim to know there are no gods, or there are gods(especially their special little god) don't really know, they just strongly believe.

 

Everyone is agnostic on that matter.

No not exactly.

 

Actually, yes exactly.

 

Quote:

What you don't take into account, and many atheists don't as well is "time frame in regards to past, present and future"

The only thing that my "agnostic atheism" refers to is the future because I dont know the future I cant say for certain that my position won't change. But as far as the past and right now, the present I am an outright atheist. The past and current utterances throughout humanity, in regards to claiming a brain with no brain, are patently absurd and cannot logically exist.

But just because the future is uncertain doesn't mean my brains have to fall out and allow all utterances an equal 50/50 proposition. Good use of logic and reason do not default to that.

The future is uncertain, but the trash can of bad claims ON ALL ISSUES, has been used and should be used. And the wise discard bad ideas once debunked. You don't know the future, but yet you don't dwell on claims of volcano gods or Ouija boards actually working.

 

Not really. what you don't take into account is that none of that has anything to do with knowing there is or isn't a god. Believing and knowing are not the same thing.

Ok since we don't know everything that defaults to brains with no brains existing?

I KNOW the current and past claims are BUNK, bumbkiss, nadda, nothing. You might as as well claim you can fart a Lamborghini out of your ass, and it would "technically" be just as possible since we don't know everything.

We know what a human brain looks like. We can dissect one. Show me an immaterial equivalent with no material or DNA or neurons and get it medically peer reviewed and independently falsified, then you will have something.

I think the REAL answer is that people make this up because it sounds good to them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Yeah. 

GodlessMonk wrote:

Yeah.  What I said.

No, it isn't, because you ignored logical contradiction as an avenue of proof that does not rely on empiricism.  This is something I have been consistently clear on.

 

Quote:
I simply added that if all information is filtered through fallible grey matter, there adds the possibility of more uncertainty.

 

No, you left things out, and added insults.

 

Quote:
Self-contradiction?  I believe that quantum physics deals with multiple simultaneous possibilities, all of them equally true.

 

Quantum physics is not self-contradictory; those possibilities are divergent as per many-worlds.  They do not negate each other because of this.

And even if you reject many-worlds and accept Copenhagen, wave collapse is a matter of statistics, and still does not allow contradiction in the reality formed upon that.

As little respect I have for Eloise's grasp of reasoning, even she seems to understand non-contradiction (although I wouldn't be surprised if she waffles on it).

 

The bottom line:

Falsifiability through internal-contradiction is the very cornerstone of logic.  If you knew the first thing about it, you would know that. 

Without non-contradiction and the falsifiability it provides, logic means jack-shit, and we get logical explosion, where any and all propositions are proved from contradiction.

Non-contradiction is the one and only place where Pascal's wager actually and unequivocally works.  Observe:

 

If non-contradiction:  Self-contradictory things are falsifiable to the degree of absolute disproof.

If contradiction: Square[circle] / monkey + (hat! : beans - (yellow/0) * (hello * plum)) ^ goose = true.

 

Decision theory analysis:

                                             Non-contradiction                             Contradiction

Things can be known  |                 True.                                  |     True.  And false.  And flue.

If logically proven        |   You can benefit from reason.          |    Also Monkey.  You are a meat popsicle.

                                   |                                                           |   Everything benefits you!  Everything kills you!

                                   |                                                           |  Submarines are made from cauliflower shoes.

_________________|______________________________|_________________________

                                   |                 False.                                |    False.  Also Trueeeeee! 

Nothing is knowable   |  You go through life as a nutter.       |   You can has square circle! 

                                   |  You do not benefit from reason.       |  Nose bleeds form mountains of paste.  Cinnamon!

                                   |                                                           |  You will also melt if you touch mice. 

                                   |                                                           |  The floor is mice.

 

 

Make of that what you will.

 

Quote:
My other point was simply this:  People who close their minds to any possibilites, no matter how remote (I didn't say DWELL on them) make me sad.

 

Absolutely, but this is not what you said.  Being closed minded to possibilities is a mark of closed-mindedness.  Being 'closed minded' to impossibilities is a mark of sanity and rationality.

Accepting the impossible as possible- and when I say impossible, I mean logically impossible, and not just improbable- IS closed minded, because it is rejection of falsifiability.

 

Quote:
I wasn't attacking this community at all, by the way.

 

With what you said, you were attacking all positive atheists.  This community is founded largely on positive atheism.

 

Look- if you want to admit you were mistaken, that's GREAT.  Open minded people can change their mineds- they can usually admit that they over-reacted, or misunderstood something, too.

I'm not going to call you ignorant if you admit that, because that would obviously indicate that any temporary case of ignorance you may have suffered has been cured.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of as long as you're willing to learn.

 

What I do not suggest is waffling around the issue out of pride. 

I won't think any less of you if you can admit you made a mistake- and I suspect on that, at least, I speak for most of us here.  The majority of us will think *more* of you for it.  Rationalizing it, though, and playing it down to make it look like you weren't mistaken... not a good move.

 

Quote:
I was attacking closed-minded people.

 

You were attacking open minded people as being closed minded because you didn't understand the principle of logical falsifiability and mistakenly believed that all "disproofs" were based on empirical premises (some atheists may have led you to believe this by only making empirical-based arguments). 

If it were true that all of our disproofs were based on empirical premises, then you would have been right- but that is not the case.  Those are the most common arguments you may hear, but they are not the only ones.

 

 

 

A simple "Sorry, my bad; I didn't realize that you guys were talking about logical disproofs too." would be more than sufficient.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
You are determined to be

You are determined to be obtuse and refuse to understand what I said, so I'm done responding to you.  You are not a teacher, you are a bully.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:You are

GodlessMonk wrote:

You are determined to be obtuse and refuse to understand what I said, so I'm done responding to you.  You are not a teacher, you are a bully.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I can only explain to you what you said, not what you were thinking while you were saying it.

So much for your supposed "open-mindedness"; you evidently didn't read or understand my post- and I simplified the concepts as much as I could for you.  Was the formatting broken in the table I made?

 

 

I should make a visual of a diagram like that, though.  It could be beneficial to dialetheists like yourself.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Well...

Eloise , I see what you mean.  I've now read a bunch of other posts by him and I see the pattern emerging.  A man with a bit of education with an enormous sense of self importance, minoring in mysogeny.  He is much more likely to argue with somebody than "debate", as he claims to want to do.

Been here a week, and gets mad at me for (paraphrase) "attacking his community"? 

Heh heh heh.  I'm gonna be chuckling all week.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
GodlessMonk wrote:Been here

GodlessMonk wrote:
Been here a week, and gets mad at me for (paraphrase) "attacking his community"?

 

Paraphrasing incorrectly.  I have persistently said "this" community. 

I'm not angry at you, but critical of your actions- particularly as you have come here, seemingly, expressly for the purpose of telling people off.  One of your first actions is to start a thread issuing an insult to a large portion of this community- the one upon which it was founded.

 

Quote:
Heh heh heh.  I'm gonna be chuckling all week.

 

I don't find you funny at all; this is a sad thing that you are displaying this behavior.  I make jokes, but it's always disturbing to see dogmatic, willfully ignorant "agnostics".

Why would you even care if god is proven false?  You don't even believe in it. 

 

I do at least understand why Eloise is delusional; she has particular supernatural beliefs about a pantheistic deity concept and "free will" she's trying to justify, and infect other people with, because she's afraid of a world in which it isn't true, or is for some reason pleased by a world where it is.

 

But you- you have no reason to care.  That lends me to believe that it's strictly an issue of your pride, which is so overwhelming as to induce delusions, and push you into a position of willful ignorance in order for you to validate your own tirades against knowledge. 

 

Pride?  Could you really be that arrogant?  It seems almost inconceivable, but it is possible.  I'll second guess myself by saying you may just not be smart enough to understand the concepts, but these are things a seven-year-old could easily grasp... more likely than not, it's pride.

 

 

In the case that this is a matter of your pride, I certainly prefer Christians' mindsets to ideologies like yours- at least the motivations for their delusions are less arrogant.  And insofar as the Christians in question accept logic (which you have persistently denied on the basis of your pride), their world views are even more realistic than yours are.

 

David Henson is a good example of one such- he even rejects illogical qualities of YHWH, such as omni-qualities usually ascribed to YHWH by modern Christians (those "omni-" and "ultimate" qualities are the primary sources of logical impossibility in the standard definition of 'God'). 

If he would just use a more honest definition of "god" when referring to the context of the positive atheist's proposition [he defines it trivially as including Rock-stars and fictional characters], I would have very little contention with him.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Absolute knowledge about gods...

GodlessMonk, having absolute knowledge about a god's existence is possible, if the claims made to defend it's existence make it a logical impossibility. Stating that is not arrogant, it's realistic. I know that you can never find absolute proof that Russel's teapot isn't there, or that there aren't fairies or hobgoblins, but we know that they do not exist and that being agnostic as to their possible existence is silly. Understanding our mental limitations is fine, but diminishing the power of logic to help us understand the realm of reality is just playing into the hands of the "soul" peddlers. To say that you have to be agnostic about everything, at all times, is completely bogus. Just because we don't know something, doesn't make it ultimately unknowable.

 

P.S. I always want to pull out an irony meter when someone tells me that I am being arrogant for dismissing the "TRUTH" of their religion, when they are telling me that out of the entire universe, only they, a small subset of one species on one planet, know the truth and are the ones that the cosmic deity loves the most. I'm the arrogant one for pointing out that we as humans are not the center of the universe?

 

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


StevoMuso
StevoMuso's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The burden of proof is with Believers

 I don't think it's arrogant of a skeptic to ask someone to substantiate their claims. If a person tells me he has exclusive and life-changing information, I would ask that person for proof. I will then assess his proof-claiming arguments using the skills of critical analysis I have gained over my life. If the proofs are found wanting I will reject that person's claims as false.

I do not see where the arrogance is in this ... seriously. My view is that the onus is on Believers to prove to the rest of us reprobates that their claims are true. So far, none have done so. I don't think this makes me "arrogantly certain" of my views - it just makes Believers "ignorantly uncertain" of theirs.

Atheism is not anti-religion, it is the absence of religion.


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
"GodlessMonk, having

"GodlessMonk, having absolute knowledge about a god's existence is possible, if the claims made to defend it's existence make it a logical impossibility." - B166ER

Something I want to say here is that I do happen to agree that logic is the best tool we have in understanding this universe. 

"Stating that is not arrogant, it's realistic." - B166ER

"Stating" that is NOT arrogant.  What I have a problem with is the WAY people state it.  Like it's the only way to see life, and anyone else is stupid or delusional for believing otherwise.  Even if that's what one thinks, I believe a little bit of empathy is necessary for people to get along.  While I think that the likelyhood of the judeo-christian god is negligible, I am willing to concede that I may be wrong.  While I believe that 2+2=4, I am willing to admit that I do not know ALL the facts, and therefore am willing to concede that I may be wrong.

Okay, I came off badly in my OP.  I ran in with both guns drawn and wasn't watching where I aimed.  I'll try to be more careful in the future.  But closed-mindedness still pisses me off.

 

Robb

 

edit: formatting

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


GodlessMonk
atheist
GodlessMonk's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2009-11-23
User is offlineOffline
" I don't think it's

" I don't think it's arrogant of a skeptic to ask someone to substantiate their claims. If a person tells me he has exclusive and life-changing information, I would ask that person for proof. I will then assess his proof-claiming arguments using the skills of critical analysis I have gained over my life. If the proofs are found wanting I will reject that person's claims as false." - SteveMuso

This is exacly what I would do.  I have no problem with asking for proof.  I'm simply saying that, sometimes, proof may not be available, and that just because somebody can't prove something doesn't conclusively mean they're lying, or wrong.

"I do not see where the arrogance is in this ... seriously. My view is that the onus is on Believers to prove to the rest of us reprobates that their claims are true. So far, none have done so. I don't think this makes me "arrogantly certain" of my views - it just makes Believers "ignorantly uncertain" of theirs." - SteveMuso (Bold mine)

This is the case for me also.  Just because someone may believe they are right (even, paradoxically, with all available evidence stacked up against them) doesn't mean I'll necessarily believe them.  I will, however, allow the possibility (howvever slim) that they aren't totally wrong.

 

Robb

"The general opinion is not always the perfect truth..."
- Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:Stating that

B166ER wrote:

Stating that [having absolute [negative] knowledge about a god's existence] is not arrogant, it's realistic.


This is nothing that I have not already said, and yet GodlessMonk now replies:

GodlessMonk wrote:
"Stating" that is NOT arrogant.  What I have a problem with is the WAY people state it.


So, you're deferring to "it's not what you said, it's how you said it"?

This not at all what you seem to have said in your prior posts.

Selected quotes from the all-knowing GodlessMonk:

GodlessMonk, at various times wrote:

Atheists who claim absolute knowledge on the subject irritate the crap out of me too.

Nobody can know anything at all with 100% certainty[...]

[...]I refuse to acknowledge that I or ANYONE can know exactly what the absolute truth is on any subject.

YOU are fuckin' wrong.  I guaran-fucking-TEE it. [with regards to absolute knowledge]


Nope, whatever you were off on, it *definitely* had to do with the claim of absolute knowlege.  You even "guaran-ficking-TEE"d it.

I expected you to waffle on this eventually.  I'm surprised it was so soon- you are either less prideful than I anticipated, or have a frightfully short memory and poor reading comprehension.

The former, at least, is more generous.


Or maybe you are still on a tirade against knowledge:

GodlessMonk wrote:
While I believe that 2+2=4, I am willing to admit that I do not know ALL the facts, and therefore am willing to concede that I may be wrong.


So you should very well go about telling math teachers that they are being arrogant for asserting this and giving children who disagree bad grades, right?


You can admit to your own ignorance as you wish, but don't seek to impose your own ignorance on others.


Just because you don't understand why 2+2=4 doesn't mean *nobody* else could possibly understand it.  Your assertion that *nobody* could possibly understand and know that 2+2=4 is simply arrogant- and, in this case, also very ignorant.


Maybe, just *maybe* somebody, somewhere, understands the concept of 2+2=4 (as incredibly troubling and difficult a concept it very well may be for you), and is, in fact, NOT even  the least bit arrogant in asserting it.




GodlessMonk wrote:
Okay, I came off badly in my OP.  I ran in with both guns drawn and wasn't watching where I aimed.  I'll try to be more careful in the future.



Well, look at that.  Maybe he *can* give a half-assed apology.  Perhaps his pride is waning after all.


GodlessMonk wrote:
But closed-mindedness still pisses me off.


Oh, wait, no.  Called that too early.  Still as arrogant, prideful, and closed-mindedly hypocritical as always.

Maybe he'll figure out one of these days that acknowledging reason isn't closed-minded, but rather failing to do so is being closed minded to the most important principle of all- logical falsifiability.

Good luck with that, sport.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:the logically

Blake wrote:

the logically contradictory nature of the definition/proposition in question is clearly demonstrated

 

Logic is just another clever mindfuck that clever people use in order to appear clever.

I could punch you on the nose and no amount of logic in this world would explain that to you. But you wouldn't feel clever.

My rejection of religion as valid ethical parameter has got fuck all to do with logic, this is war. Or, in a reverse von Clausewitz: The continuation of war into politics, i.e. it is a political standpoint that in and of itself requires no "logic". And the strategy at hand is to isolate and reject all political ramifications of having faith, whilst leaving the issue of "faith" to remain a personal choice of perversion du jour. Let people believe what the fuck they want - but don't let them get away with creating politics that are based in irrational concepts.

 


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:And the strategy

Blake wrote:
And the strategy at hand is to isolate and reject all political ramifications of having faith, whilst leaving the issue of "faith" to remain a personal choice of perversion du jour. Let people believe what the fuck they want - but don't let them get away with creating politics that are based in irrational concepts.

But Blake, as I'm reminded time after time in discussions here, our actions are informed by our beliefs.  Try separating how you act in daily life from what you believe and you'll find yourself capable of doing very little.  Politics is the moral exercise by which we determine how we ought to order our lives together, I can no more participate in that exercise without my beliefs than I can travel to the moon without a rocket. 

That being said then, the only option left to those who see my beliefs as so dreadfully harmful is to outlaw those beliefs.  But even then, how would you know whether I was acting in the political sphere on the basis of my religious beliefs since most of the political views I hold have non-religious arguments to spport them.  The way I see it, you're pretty much stuck with us, so why not make the best of it?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Politics is

totus_tuus wrote:
Politics is the moral exercise by which we determine how we ought to order our lives together

We are not going to live our lives together, because you people are going to die.

And "politics" is the polite name for how I am at any given point in time and space ready to crush any Christian skull with my battle axe, quite without feeling any need to explain or justify myself other than stating that "we need to rid the earth of these vermin". No, I am not kidding. I mean that most seriously and literally. You people will never be forgiven, much less forgotten. So what do you expect? To be forgiven? Yeah dream on...

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
marquis wrote:We are not

marquis wrote:
We are not going to live our lives together, because you people are going to die.

And "politics" is the polite name for how I am at any given point in time and space ready to crush any Christian skull with my battle axe, quite without feeling any need to explain or justify myself other than stating that "we need to rid the earth of these vermin". No, I am not kidding. I mean that most seriously and literally. You people will never be forgiven, much less forgotten. So what do you expect? To be forgiven? Yeah dream on...

First off, let me apologize for misaddressing my last post to Blake as opposed to Marquis (mostly to Blake).

Marquis, once you decide whether you're going to allow me to live with my beliefs as long as I don't exercise them or kill me because of them get back to me.  Your dual personalities need to sit down and "order their lives together".  In the meantime remember that violence and the threat of violence is a nasty and dirty business.  If there is one human endeavour where the law of unintended consequences pertains, it is that endeavour known as war. 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:that

totus_tuus wrote:
that endeavour known as war. 

 

I did not bring it - but I am ready.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ummmmm.....yeah, sure.

Ummmmm.....yeah, sure.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Did you notice how our

Did you notice how our avatars are kind of opposites?