Precept #1?

Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Why? I mean, I understand creationism, I understand Robertson and Falwell, but why "Theism?"

I mean, why the number one too? Irrational? What is rational? Anything theistic is irrational, automatically? What is the justification for this? Is there a justification for this?

Please don't tell me "There is no god, and believing in something that doesn't exist is not rational," although I doubt you are that ... limited.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

At it's simplest form there is no proof for any god, even a deistic god. This one's tough as some of our own closest loved ones fit this brand of theism (some are Christian). While Christianity is leaps and bounds more irrational than deism, it is not rational to make up an imaginary object to explain away what we don't fully understand.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

I would add it's also irrational to believe in something just because it's written in an old book, or considering as evidence what people "feel in their heart."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Yes, but some things there just isn't evidence for. Evidence requires a scope to be materialized in and anything pertaining to some god obviously is not going to be evidence. I'd actually say that evidence can not exist for the common monotheistic gods, and if there was then they are not a god.

A god is a being that can create beyond itself. It may be irrational to be gnostic without any actual knowledge and claim to know certain things about gods, sure. - That is also to say, it is irrational to guess that god is an answer to what we do not know, an explanation to what we cannot understand. Understand this, some things we do not understand yet, ultimately the person that understands the most looks down upon everyone else, looks down upon them as you look down upon people less understanding than you. There is no limit, no complete understanding, we will never know the answers to everything. Science can only go so far before becomes metaphysics again, and metaphysics in time often becomes physics- that is just the way it is. I doubt metaphysics will ever disappear, because our knowledge of the universe is cutting itself thin, there is no "god" galaxy out there that can answer the questions we naturally ask as humans. Thus philosophy will always be inescapable.

But theism irrational? I still do not get why it is a "precept." Why, automatically when you hear someone is theistic, they are irrational? Pantheists, deists, monotheists, polytheists, all alike, clumped together- dubbed irrational. Theism- madness? Maybe. I'd say so. Sometimes mad thoughts are more rational, however. Maybe... higher than rational? But to presume, all theists are irrational, just because you disagree with them,

... this seems to be a little irrational, doesn't it?

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Why? I mean, I understand creationism, I understand Robertson and Falwell, but why "Theism?"

I mean, why the number one too? Irrational? What is rational? Anything theistic is irrational, automatically? What is the justification for this? Is there a justification for this?

Please don't tell me "There is no god, and believing in something that doesn't exist is not rational," although I doubt you are that ... limited.

I think, we have to define rationality in order to discuss this. Because, like all things, rationality may in fact be a subjective matter. I believe I speak for most of us here on RR that rationality is defined by the fact that in order for something to be rational, it has to be tested, it has to have reason, conform to reason.... God cannot be tested, it does not conform to reason based on the fact that god is used to control society, it can go any which way, used any which way. Rationality uses logic, there is no logic in god because there are so many unanswered questions, that are unanswereable. Rationality is not "faith" based. Therefore is irrational. I also think that the problem is indeed fundamentalists who believe that religion must rule and control everyone....to attack this problem, we attack it at it's fundamental core...god. You disprove god, through logic and reason, you have killed a societal cancer.

I always try to approach the matter from a political standpoint. Church/State issues to control the fundies...I have my "personal" views why I don't have faith and don't believe. But to me, the most important battle right now needs to be fought on the political level, because our constituion clearly bans the u_nion of church and state. Education here is the key. Fundies want to control your life through legislating your bedroom, your doctor, your body, and your pursuit of happiness based on religios moral reasons. This is unconstitutional adn I will fight THAT to the end.

Some people here want to attack religion at it's core, and I have no problem with that because I too think that reliogion and theism is a cancer in society, sometiems a benign tumor but most of the time a malignant one. If faith and theism would be kept to oneself for personal well-being, you would not see any of us trying to fight it. But it is the intrinsic nature of the relious to spread his/her theism, spilling over on OUR lives. This is where I've had enough. Enough of the killing, the hypocrisy, the lies all in the name of god...no...that is indeed irrational. And god, is the foundation of this irrationality so...we attack it as na irrational precept. So theism, the belief of a god that supposedly goes against human nature, is indeed irrational.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:

But theism irrational? I still do not get why it is a "precept." Why, automatically when you hear someone is theistic, they are irrational?

Gravity I respect your right to a difference of opinion. "Still not getting it" is like you however, and I have to go back to previously made statement (edited slightly for you):

At it's simplest form there is no proof for any god, even a deistic god. While Christianity is leaps and bounds more irrational than deism, it is not rational to make up an imaginary being and believe it exists in reality.

Quote:
But to presume, all theists are irrational, just because you disagree with them... this seems to be a little irrational, doesn't it?

There you go making up something imaginary and believing in it. Where did I say that I call someone irrational just because I disagree with them?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Believing in something without evidence is pretty much the definition of irrational!


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

LeftofLarry wrote:

I think, we have to define rationality in order to discuss this. Because, like all things, rationality may in fact be a subjective matter. I believe I speak for most of us here on RR that rationality is defined by the fact that in order for something to be rational, it has to be tested, it has to have reason, conform to reason.... God cannot be tested, it does not conform to reason based on the fact that god is used to control society, it can go any which way, used any which way. Rationality uses logic, there is no logic in god because there are so many unanswered questions, that are unanswereable. Rationality is not "faith" based. Therefore is irrational. I also think that the problem is indeed fundamentalists who believe that religion must rule and control everyone....to attack this problem, we attack it at it's fundamental core...god. You disprove god, through logic and reason, you have killed a societal cancer.

You can't disprove a god and you shouldn't be trying to... for one it is not logically possible and for two you are going to get people thinking you think there is a god that is to disproven. Same goes with people who try to prove god, although they have a more justified reason in needing to do so, they cannot do it. There are countless reasons, beyond the obvious- there is no scope to prove or disprove of a god in. (I mean, you can prove something is a chemical with chemistry or physics, you can prove a rock is a million years old with math, you can prove a person guilty if the glove fits (ignore skepticism for a moment), with a god, and metaphysics, there is no scope to understand it in- Kant made this his most famous mistake). That said, rationality has to be reason. Okay... what is reason? The abiltiy to think? If you want to limit rationality only to that which is testable- then sure, you got me. Metaphysics is utterly not rational. In doing so, I won't think to high of rational though. There are many untested theories awaiting to be confirmed, it is still reasonable to find these theoretical toys.
Rationality is faith based, every judgement is faith based. Be careful on the equivocation of words if you reply, let me define faith now, faith: trust in beliefs or perceptions. Any judgement requires faith, unless of course you are a dirty little objectivist who thinks perception is completely sound and there is no possible way for you to pick up error in judging something. Eh, I've just been going at it on an Ayn Rand board all week.

P.S. Religion isn't about god, if you haven't noticed. Kill the god, still got the religion. Look at it now, very few people believe in a god, they believe in books, and believe in "believing." You can pick out some of them, usually it's the most idiotic religious fanatics and the more intelligent ones that believe in a god. Few of them come to conclusions about a god themselves, they name him god, they make him a him, but deep down inside, at the core, they are essentially atheistic. Their god exists in a church somewhere, in a heaven somewhere. If a god came down and said, "What up," they'd shit their pants, because they truly would be surprised that a god exists. Religion supresses this, religion isn't about god anymore. Religion is about control, comfort, and did I say control?

Quote:
I always try to approach the matter from a political standpoint. Church/State issues to control the fundies...I have my "personal" views why I don't have faith and don't believe. But to me, the most important battle right now needs to be fought on the political level, because our constituion clearly bans the u_nion of church and state. Education here is the key. Fundies want to control your life through legislating your bedroom, your doctor, your body, and your pursuit of happiness based on religios moral reasons. This is unconstitutional adn I will fight THAT to the end.

Good. Here's a tip, fight religion, not theism. God isn't what keeps them connected, I trust most of us have come from that path. The path out of fundamentalism or even Christianity itself, we realize, we still want to believe in god, and then we also realized, we always wanted to believe in god. The want was never quenched, and the hope dissipates. We end with a quick feeling of guilt, this guilt places the matter on our minds, and then the self-reflection happens. Few people actually leave their religious tendencies behind, some think they've killed the god but the god was only the beginning.

I know you are thinking right now, what about those liberal Christians, the ones that don't care too much about church, don't abide by the bible so much and just believe Jesus was endowed by a god? They are not so religious, they are more theistic than anything though? Well, look at them. They've centralized their religion on one point, in an essence, god is their religion. They worship all the things in religion, place it all in a ball and toss it into the sun and call it "god." God is not a lifestyle though. God is a subject of a belief. Take Kahalachan for instance (I don't know if you know, he posts on myspace and is one of these liberal christians). The deity is more prominent than the lifestyle, so he does worship a god, however, what keeps him connected to this god? Nothing. In his religious freedom, he thinks, "what do I know of this god, I know nothing! I can choose new ways to interpret the bible, but what is this bible afterall?!" One thing keeps him hooked, that small piece of religion he put in god. - Quite possibly my reason for theism- however I've made it my goal to become atheist. And when I am atheist, it will be my goal to be theist, and so on.

Quote:
Some people here want to attack religion at it's core, and I have no problem with that because I too think that reliogion and theism is a cancer in society, sometiems a benign tumor but most of the time a malignant one. If faith and theism would be kept to oneself for personal well-being, you would not see any of us trying to fight it. But it is the intrinsic nature of the relious to spread his/her theism, spilling over on OUR lives. This is where I've had enough. Enough of the killing, the hypocrisy, the lies all in the name of god...no...that is indeed irrational. And god, is the foundation of this irrationality so...we attack it as na irrational precept. So theism, the belief of a god that supposedly goes against human nature, is indeed irrational.

If religion was kept to oneself than it would not be religion but a belief. Religions are plagues, they are herds and flocks. Organized thought, this is part of the definition of religion.

You want to fight religion at the core, but I tell you, become religious again or remember as hard as you can, just so you know the core. If the more you learn about something, the more you can detest it- then you are good.

Irrational? I still say no. Not hardly, there are countless reasons for theism. Dogmatism? Yes, irrational. Perhaps that is what you all mean by 'theism.'

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Sapient wrote:

Gravity I respect your right to a difference of opinion. "Still not getting it" is like you however, and I have to go back to previously made statement (edited slightly for you):

At it's simplest form there is no proof for any god, even a deistic god. While Christianity is leaps and bounds more irrational than deism, it is not rational to make up an imaginary being and believe it exists in reality.


Generally when you must refer to phrases such as 'still not getting it,' you may not want to repeat yourself...

That is begging the question. Sure, making up an imaginary being and believing it exists is irrational, but I guarantee the only person you are convincing here is the atheist. Theism is more than "making up imaginary beings."

Here, you even bolded it for me, what I asked you not to do in my very first post:
"There you go making up something imaginary and believing in it. "

Quote:
Where did I say that I call someone irrational just because I disagree with them?

Anyone who is theist is irrational. You disagree with theism. It isn't a because, causally speaking. It is a disagreement issue, however. I disagree, however I don't think you are irrational based on your position, rather more for how you come to that position.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

MattShizzle wrote:
Believing in something without evidence is pretty much the definition of irrational!

Prove you exist.

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
there are countless reasons for theism.

I'd be interested to hear what these are.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:
Gravity wrote:
there are countless reasons for theism.

I'd be interested to hear what these are.

I know I criticize it very strongly, but intelligent design is one. Teleogical purposes. Transcendantalism (similar to what Kant talked about). Pantheism/panentheism for natural law. Objectivism (not a strong point). Skepticism. Not a reason, but I like this quote, "the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody" - Chesterton. I can't think of anymore on the top of my head.

Note, I said reason as in purpose, not reason as in deduce or induct [?]. Even then, Some things can not be reasoned. That doesn't make them irrational in the sense that they are stupid, rather irrational as they go beyond our abilities to reason. And to go beyond our ability to reason is one thing we naturally do as human, "push the envelope, watch it bend."

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Creationism (the phrase Intelligent Design is insulting) makes swiss cheese look solid, the kind of stuff these bible thumpers spit out (like the grand canyon being evidence for the flood) is demeaning to human intelligence.

The Teleological argument has flaws in all three of its premises. The first premise is illicit redefinition where they infer that just because complex objects in our world today were constructed, the universe must have been created. The word create in context implies ex nihilo, where complex objects in our world are shaped using existing natural resources. The question stands, who created God?
Third premise - saying that God is that designer/creator is a claim to absolute knowledge, it could be an infinite being, or it could be finite aliens, or it could be cosmic evolution (which science supports), ad nauseum.

When I studied transcendental phenomenology, it stated that the only way we can truly have knowledge is if we limit our view to what we perceive (the penny-in-experience). To me, the idea says that God is beyond our comprehension and thus we can't have a logical conversation about her, this is biting a bullet and would refute any attempt to apply the concept of God to our lives, even with just faith.

I've never heard Pantheism and Natural law used together. Natural law implies that humans are naturally good, but that this was put in us by God. Aquinas didn't give much reason behind this, and most political philosophies would disagree with him, especially the social contract.

Objectivism? There are no absolutes in morality. Even if there were, it would get us out of a trend of thinking and into a trend of taking things for granted.

Martin Gardner is assuming that the universe was constructed.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:
Creationism (the phrase Intelligent Design is insulting) makes swiss cheese look solid, the kind of stuff these bible thumpers spit out (like the grand canyon being evidence for the flood) is demeaning to human intelligence.

See, there has to be a god, because I don't think we are truly worthy to hear such a beautifully blatant straw man argument. Hehe. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

Quote:
The Teleological argument has flaws in all three of its premises. The first premise is illicit redefinition where they infer that just because complex objects in our world today were constructed, the universe must have been created. The word create in context implies ex nihilo, where complex objects in our world are shaped using existing natural resources. The question stands, who created God?

God's dad! And, I don't know what the teleological argument I didn't give is. Care to enlighten us?

Quote:
Third premise - saying that God is that designer/creator is a claim to absolute knowledge, it could be an infinite being, or it could be finite aliens, or it could be cosmic evolution (which science supports), ad nauseum.

You're right. I was just eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich right now and got a stomach-ache and lost my appetite. God dammit.

Quote:
When I studied transcendental phenomenology, it stated that the only way we can truly have knowledge is if we limit our view to what we perceive (the penny-in-experience). To me, the idea says that God is beyond our comprehension and thus we can't have a logical conversation about her, this is biting a bullet and would refute any attempt to apply the concept of God to our lives, even with just faith.

Aw, but surely you don't want to deny my ability to think outside the box?

Quote:
I've never heard Pantheism and Natural law used together. Natural law implies that humans are naturally good, but that this was put in us by God. Aquinas didn't give much reason behind this, and most political philosophies would disagree with him, especially the social contract.

I meant Natural physical law. My fault.

Quote:
Objectivism? There are no absolutes in morality. Even if there were, it would get us out of a trend of thinking and into a trend of taking things for granted.

I don't agree with it but there may be an objective right or wrong, despite our insistent urge to create right or wrong. There may have been a god that dubbed that which is right, right, and that which is wrong, wrong, but I seriously doubt this and laugh at people in this position. Regardless, it is an arguable position, and completely possible.

Quote:
Martin Gardner is assuming that the universe was constructed.

It's just a fun phrase. I think he actually advocated something like pantheism, in which god simply defined physical law and left it be (like Einstein's position).

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

I hope you don't mind if I try to broaden your horizons a bit... I know I am your ass.

There is a point in every philosophy when the philosopher's "conviction" appears on the stage - or to use the language of an ancient mystery:

Adventavit asinus,
Pulcher et fortissimus.

- Nietzsche, BGE 8

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:
Creationism (the phrase Intelligent Design is insulting) makes swiss cheese look solid, the kind of stuff these bible thumpers spit out (like the grand canyon being evidence for the flood) is demeaning to human intelligence.

See, there has to be a god, because I don't think we are truly worthy to hear such a beautifully blatant straw man argument. Hehe. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

Intelligent design is the trojan horse of creationism, they still call it creation science, don't tell me they are different. The funny thing is, everyone's referring to the Christian God when arguing for it, little do they know that by their own arguments, it's equally likely that Zeus created the universe.

It's unbelievable the shit that I hear, they say that one single flood caused the grand canyon, they try to argue that millions of species fit on one boat, they say that carbon dating and evolution isn't scientific. Stephen Jay Gould should boot stomp them.

Quote:
The Teleological argument has flaws in all three of its premises. The first premise is illicit redefinition where they infer that just because complex objects in our world today were constructed, the universe must have been created. The word create in context implies ex nihilo, where complex objects in our world are shaped using existing natural resources. The question stands, who created God?

God's dad! And, I don't know what the teleological argument I didn't give is. Care to enlighten us?

You mentioned Teleogical, that's not a word i've heard used in philosophy. I assumed you meant the Teleological argument which is an old argument for God. It was also refuted several thousand years ago along with the Cosmological argument, yet people are still using both :shock:

Quote:
Third premise - saying that God is that designer/creator is a claim to absolute knowledge, it could be an infinite being, or it could be finite aliens, or it could be cosmic evolution (which science supports), ad nauseum.

You're right. I was just eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich right now and got a stomach-ache and lost my appetite. God dammit.

Ad nauseum in context means repetition, there are countless possibilities.

Quote:
When I studied transcendental phenomenology, it stated that the only way we can truly have knowledge is if we limit our view to what we perceive (the penny-in-experience). To me, the idea says that God is beyond our comprehension and thus we can't have a logical conversation about her, this is biting a bullet and would refute any attempt to apply the concept of God to our lives, even with just faith.

Aw, but surely you don't want to deny my ability to think outside the box?

Even thinking outside the box has evidence to it. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Quote:
I've never heard Pantheism and Natural law used together. Natural law implies that humans are naturally good, but that this was put in us by God. Aquinas didn't give much reason behind this, and most political philosophies would disagree with him, especially the social contract.

I meant Natural physical law. My fault.

I'll research it later. I found Pantheism interesting, and it seems like the majority of pantheists have adopted an atheistic standpoint. The idea that the universe is the greatest thing we know (thus it is God, Pan-Theism, All-God). It seems on the same lines as Humanism, but with tree hugging.

Quote:
Objectivism? There are no absolutes in morality. Even if there were, it would get us out of a trend of thinking and into a trend of taking things for granted.

I don't agree with it but there may be an objective right or wrong, despite our insistent urge to create right or wrong. There may have been a god that dubbed that which is right, right, and that which is wrong, wrong, but I seriously doubt this and laugh at people in this position. Regardless, it is an arguable position, and completely possible.

Even Aquinas argued against Divine Command, it doesn't stand up to logic.
Today I argued with a few ethics classmates about absolutes. If we can take a moral absolute (lying, killing, etc) we will always come up with at least one situation where following the absolute is illogical.

Quote:
Martin Gardner is assuming that the universe was constructed.

It's just a fun phrase. I think he actually advocated something like pantheism, in which god simply defined physical law and left it be (like Einstein's position).

Einstein was not a theist.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


doubledoh
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Believing in something without evidence is pretty much the definition of irrational!

Prove you exist.

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

More to the point: you make the mistake of believing that it is our burden of proof to disprove god. Rather theists are the ones that make the assertion that god(s) exist. Atheists make no such assertions. We tend to only assert that something is true if there is incontravertible evidence to support the assertion. Just because someone says "invisible pink elephants live on the dark side of the moon" doesn't mean that I or any other rational person has to disprove it for it to be untrue.

Similarly, the burden of proof on the subject of god(s) existence is clearly on the shoulders of theists since they are making the irrational assertion apparently without any replicatable evidence. Until a theist can provide actual verifiable evidence that god exists, we atheists need not prove a damn thing.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

Intelligent design is the trojan horse of creationism, they still call it creation science, don't tell me they are different. The funny thing is, everyone's referring to the Christian God when arguing for it, little do they know that by their own arguments, it's equally likely that Zeus created the universe.

I think it is clear I am not arguing for a Christian creationism with intelligent design, but more a first unmoved mover, in an Aristotelean point.

Quote:

You mentioned Teleogical, that's not a word i've heard used in philosophy. I assumed you meant the Teleological argument which is an old argument for God. It was also refuted several thousand years ago along with the Cosmological argument, yet people are still using both :shock:

Some people consider a god the purpose of existence, while religion at times dwindles down to nihilism, this form of theism asserts that a divine being has given purpose to existing. Who knows, there might be an old man with a beard up there laughing his ass off as we bomb the shit out of each other- or try to build towers to reach him and shoot arrows from it.

Quote:
Even thinking outside the box has evidence to it. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I think the whole point of thinking outside the box is that you think about what there isn't evidence for... I know it seems right to deify evidence but some things are just not evident. You can't bottle up some things and expect to have the world figured out. You can't have an equation that tells you the ways of quantum gravity and the best way to bake cookies

Quote:
I'll research it later. I found Pantheism interesting, and it seems like the majority of pantheists have adopted an atheistic standpoint. The idea that the universe is the greatest thing we know (thus it is God, Pan-Theism, All-God). It seems on the same lines as Humanism, but with tree hugging.

It is natural for people to understand positions only in relation to their own. They have few strings on their instruments and must make do with them.

Quote:
Even Aquinas argued against Divine Command, it doesn't stand up to logic.
Today I argued with a few ethics classmates about absolutes. If we can take a moral absolute (lying, killing, etc) we will always come up with at least one situation where following the absolute is illogical.

Even then one can argue that the absolutes intertwine. Objectivists are sneaky sneaky.

Quote:

Einstein was not a theist.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein


I find it funny that so many atheists are so quick to label him atheist when so many theists are quick to label him theists, and they flaunt it about like it is some great revelation of the 20th century.

Firstly, the sentence is "personal God" - pantheism has no personal god. Even if he became atheist in the very late part of his life (when he wrote this), he was pantheist beforehand.

If this hurts you, then you are a dumbass. Enough said there.

Besides, Einstein was not great philosophical revelation. He was rather stubborn, single-minded, and wasted the last 30 or so years of his life. His artistic and imaginative abilities are what is respectable about him.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

doubledoh wrote:

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

I asked you to prove you exist. You said believing in something you can't prove exists is irrational- Prove to me, (that is beyond a doubt), that you exist. I am asking you to.

Quote:
More to the point: you make the mistake of believing that it is our burden of proof to disprove god.

Please do not play folly and bullshit with me. I have never told any atheist on this board that they must disprove of god, nor have I tried shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:
Rather theists are the ones that make the assertion that god(s) exist. Atheists make no such assertions. We tend to only assert that something is true if there is incontravertible evidence to support the assertion. Just because someone says "invisible pink elephants live on the dark side of the moon" doesn't mean that I or any other rational person has to disprove it for it to be untrue.

Why are straw men so popular this week?

Quote:
Similarly, the burden of proof on the subject of god(s) existence is clearly on the shoulders of theists since they are making the irrational assertion apparently without any replicatable evidence. Until a theist can provide actual verifiable evidence that god exists, we atheists need not prove a damn thing.

REALLY?!

See, this is where I normally pass people off as frauds for having, 'prepared answers.' They hear it somewhere else, and they go, "hey, that's pretty smart, I'mma use it!" - Please, don't dwindle down to using stupid techniques. When I assert you need to assert, then you can criticize me.

I'm wondering what I am going to get in reply. Perhaps I'll get refuted for having no proof in god. Gah!

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:

Intelligent design is the trojan horse of creationism, they still call it creation science, don't tell me they are different. The funny thing is, everyone's referring to the Christian God when arguing for it, little do they know that by their own arguments, it's equally likely that Zeus created the universe.

I think it is clear I am not arguing for a Christian creationism with intelligent design, but more a first unmoved mover, in an Aristotelean point.

Intelligent Design is too recent to be Aristotlean. Intelligent Design IS Christian Creationism. Even the ID people will tell you that the movement was started very recently.
I suppose that begs another question then, what was God doing before he created us?

Quote:
Quote:

You mentioned Teleogical, that's not a word i've heard used in philosophy. I assumed you meant the Teleological argument which is an old argument for God. It was also refuted several thousand years ago along with the Cosmological argument, yet people are still using both :shock:

Some people consider a god the purpose of existence, while religion at times dwindles down to nihilism, this form of theism asserts that a divine being has given purpose to existing. Who knows, there might be an old man with a beard up there laughing his ass off as we bomb the shit out of each other- or try to build towers to reach him and shoot arrows from it.

I'm not claiming there's not, but it's not something I take seriously.

Quote:
Quote:
Even thinking outside the box has evidence to it. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I think the whole point of thinking outside the box is that you think about what there isn't evidence for... I know it seems right to deify evidence but some things are just not evident. You can't bottle up some things and expect to have the world figured out. You can't have an equation that tells you the ways of quantum gravity and the best way to bake cookies

That makes no sense, I think you're defining speculation, not thinking outside the box.
Contrary to popular belief, i'm actually very happy with not knowing exactly how the universe works. When that knowledge becomes available, i'll be sure to examine it critically.

Quote:
Quote:

Einstein was not a theist.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein


I find it funny that so many atheists are so quick to label him atheist when so many theists are quick to label him theists, and they flaunt it about like it is some great revelation of the 20th century.

Firstly, the sentence is "personal God" - pantheism has no personal god. Even if he became atheist in the very late part of his life (when he wrote this), he was pantheist beforehand.

If this hurts you, then you are a dumbass. Enough said there.

Besides, Einstein was not great philosophical revelation. He was rather stubborn, single-minded, and wasted the last 30 or so years of his life. His artistic and imaginative abilities are what is respectable about him.

I said he was not a Theist (which implies faith more than actual thought), I didn't say he was an Atheist. He might have been a Pantheist, might have been a Deist, in fact the phrase you stated (creating physical law and leaving it) is part of Deism. Einstein was a genius, but perhaps not as rational as people think, I was merely pointing something out. Nice ad hominem.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Isn't posting in this forum pretty much proving I exist? If that's not good enough for you, you could always come down this way and see for yourself! Good luck trying that with God! Laughing out loud

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

There is no difference - one's just a front for the other.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

MattShizzle wrote:
Isn't posting in this forum pretty much proving I exist? If that's not good enough for you, you could always come down this way and see for yourself! Good luck trying that with God! :lol:

You mean you're not a figment of my imagination? Damn it..the drugs are kickin' in.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

I asked you to prove you exist.

Thus proving that you know nothing about the concept of defense through retortion...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

I asked you to prove you exist.

Thus proving that you know nothing about the concept of defense through retortion...

We don't even claim that we exist, but somehow we must prove it Laughing out loud

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Why is an omnipotent 'god' having such a tough time proving to his own creation that he exists? This 'creator' would be perfectly responsible for his own creation's ability to comprehend or accept his 'existence', so the problem is quite odd... almost makes me think that maybe there is no such creator.....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

Similarly, the burden of proof on the subject of god(s) existence is clearly on the shoulders of theists since they are making the irrational assertion apparently without any replicatable evidence. Until a theist can provide actual verifiable evidence that god exists, we atheists need not prove a damn thing.

REALLY?!

See, this is where I normally pass people off as frauds for having, 'prepared answers.' They hear it somewhere else, and they go, "hey, that's pretty smart, I'mma use it!" - Please, don't dwindle down to using stupid techniques. When I assert you need to assert, then you can criticize me.

I'm wondering what I am going to get in reply. Perhaps I'll get refuted for having no proof in god. Gah!

I'm wondering why you think this is a response at all... you didn't actually address his point, you just attempted to write it off...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

There is no difference - one's just a front for the other.

There is a fucking difference, and personally I'm appalled nobody here has the brains to look it up.

Intelligent Design- A being created us. Does not exclude big bang, evolution, yadda yadda. etc.
Creationism- Genesis account of the bible.

Please, kick back on the damn ignorance.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

I asked you to prove you exist.

Thus proving that you know nothing about the concept of defense through retortion...

Thus you come to conclusions with single posts?

Seriously, oh great psychologist, psychologize yourself.

Now you are thinking, "oh look, here he goes at it again!" But I would rather you think, "Is he fooling me on purpose?"

Now with that said, I was going to "retort" all the way down to the simple human understanding that we cannot prove existence one way or another.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

We don't even claim that we exist, but somehow we must prove it :lol:

It wasn't a refutation, it was more of a challenge.

My god people, you've got to learn to be a bit more open-minded, I am probably your most important poster on this board because I am the only one who disagrees with you on nearly every issue. - If you cannot understand this, then feel free to ask.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

Similarly, the burden of proof on the subject of god(s) existence is clearly on the shoulders of theists since they are making the irrational assertion apparently without any replicatable evidence. Until a theist can provide actual verifiable evidence that god exists, we atheists need not prove a damn thing.

REALLY?!

See, this is where I normally pass people off as frauds for having, 'prepared answers.' They hear it somewhere else, and they go, "hey, that's pretty smart, I'mma use it!" - Please, don't dwindle down to using stupid techniques. When I assert you need to assert, then you can criticize me.

I'm wondering what I am going to get in reply. Perhaps I'll get refuted for having no proof in god. Gah!

I'm wondering why you think this is a response at all... you didn't actually address his point, you just attempted to write it off...


I did adress his point, the point being that:

I DIDN'T SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

You are right, I did write it off. Probably because I understand atheism more thoroughly than him (and most of the people in here), and I already know the atheist has no burden to prove.

It was a straw man, you see, that he made of me, and it is still a straw man, you see, that you are tossing rocks at.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Why is an omnipotent 'god' having such a tough time proving to his own creation that he exists? This 'creator' would be perfectly responsible for his own creation's ability to comprehend or accept his 'existence', so the problem is quite odd... almost makes me think that maybe there is no such creator.....

Omnipotence? I don't even think we understand what omnipotence means, if it exists, and let alone how to reason with it...

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

There is no difference - one's just a front for the other.

There is a fucking difference, and personally I'm appalled nobody here has the brains to look it up.

Intelligent Design- A being created us. Does not exclude big bang, evolution, yadda yadda. etc.
Creationism- Genesis account of the bible.

Please, kick back on the damn ignorance.

It doesn't matter what people think it is, it's purpose was to sneak Creationism into the scientific realm. People are using the same arguments for both, they even admit that they are only using the phrase Intelligent Design because it's supposed to take Creationism out of a religious context. The emperor has no clothes.

For all intents and purposes, their meanings are the same.

Don't give yourself too much credit, no amount of red herring logic will account for the fact that there is no reasonable evidence for a God.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

Intelligent Design is too recent to be Aristotlean. Intelligent Design IS Christian Creationism. Even the ID people will tell you that the movement was started very recently.
I suppose that begs another question then, what was God doing before he created us?

Whatever. The term I meant was Demiurge or unmoved mover but I figured more would be unfamiliar with them.

And don't ask me to defend them.

Quote:

That makes no sense, I think you're defining speculation, not thinking outside the box.
Contrary to popular belief, i'm actually very happy with not knowing exactly how the universe works. When that knowledge becomes available, i'll be sure to examine it critically.

Have no TOEs? I admire your curiosity, not your deification or defecation. I like your signature, a quote by Nietzsche, here's a another one, "And science itself, our science?indeed, what is the significance of all science, viewed as a symptom of life? For what?worse yet, whence?all science? How now? Is the resolve to be so scientific about everything perhaps a kind of fear of, an escape from, pessimism? A subtle last resort against?truth? And, morally speaking, a sort of cowardice and falseness? Amorally speaking, a ruse? O Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? O enigmatic ironist, was that perhaps your?irony?" - Attempt at A self-criticism 1 (BT).

Quote:

Einstein was not a theist.

I said he was not a Theist (which implies faith more than actual thought), I didn't say he was an Atheist. He might have been a Pantheist, might have been a Deist, in fact the phrase you stated (creating physical law and leaving it) is part of Deism. Einstein was a genius, but perhaps not as rational as people think, I was merely pointing something out. Nice ad hominem.

My god, I say one thing with the word dumbass in it and I am a talking admonition of ad hominem. Heh. I think it is true, if you are hurt by some old scientist because you wished he agreed with you and he didn't, than you sir are a dumbass. Of course this is a conditional statement, if this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. I don't feel the need to defend myself on this one. I think such a person is a dumbass.

And pantheist is theist. If you disagree than pantheist is atheist (apparently on this board!) since it is only theist or atheist! (ignore this if you do not abide by immature games of labels).

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

It doesn't matter what people think it is, it's purpose was to sneak Creationism into the scientific realm. People are using the same arguments for both, they even admit that they are only using the phrase Intelligent Design because it's supposed to take Creationism out of a religious context. The emperor has no clothes.

For all intents and purposes, their meanings are the same.

Don't give yourself too much credit, no amount of red herring logic will account for the fact that there is no reasonable evidence for a God.


Give up the straw man already. It is very clear that I am not a creationist, and it is also very clear that I do not intend on defending intelligent design (the way I defined it- not the way you defined it).

"For all intents and purposes, their meanings are the same."

- No, it is very clear that I introduced the words and defined as being different. Creationists may be a subset of intelligent design (the way I defined it!) as well as the people who worship the Ahura Mazda with the Vohu Mano, they have there own theory of creation and it isn't Creationism the way I defined it (as only being in the bible).

That is just one of the perks of introducing terms into a conversation, you can define them however you like. If you wanted to get me with semantics, you would show how I am equivocating terms (which would be seriously hard to do considering I'm not arguing for them) or show how they are mutually exclusive (also- don't try this).

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Quote:

That makes no sense, I think you're defining speculation, not thinking outside the box.
Contrary to popular belief, i'm actually very happy with not knowing exactly how the universe works. When that knowledge becomes available, i'll be sure to examine it critically.

Have no TOEs? I admire your curiosity, not your deification or defecation. I like your signature, a quote by Nietzsche, here's a another one, "And science itself, our science?indeed, what is the significance of all science, viewed as a symptom of life? For what?worse yet, whence?all science? How now? Is the resolve to be so scientific about everything perhaps a kind of fear of, an escape from, pessimism? A subtle last resort against?truth? And, morally speaking, a sort of cowardice and falseness? Amorally speaking, a ruse? O Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? O enigmatic ironist, was that perhaps your?irony?" - Attempt at A self-criticism 1 (BT).

Ok

Quote:
Quote:

Einstein was not a theist.

I said he was not a Theist (which implies faith more than actual thought), I didn't say he was an Atheist. He might have been a Pantheist, might have been a Deist, in fact the phrase you stated (creating physical law and leaving it) is part of Deism. Einstein was a genius, but perhaps not as rational as people think, I was merely pointing something out. Nice ad hominem.

My god, I say one thing with the word dumbass in it and I am a talking admonition of ad hominem. Heh. I think it is true, if you are hurt by some old scientist because you wished he agreed with you and he didn't, than you sir are a dumbass. Of course this is a conditional statement, if this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. I don't feel the need to defend myself on this one. I think such a person is a dumbass.

And pantheist is theist. If you disagree than pantheist is atheist (apparently on this board!) since it is only theist or atheist! (ignore this if you do not abide by immature games of labels).

Instead of showing your reasoning behind your "conditional statement", your conclusion was to simply call the other person a dumbass. You were ready to call your opponent a dumbass, conditional or not, that would damage your credibility in a public debate.

I think you've overestimated my ability to care.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:

It doesn't matter what people think it is, it's purpose was to sneak Creationism into the scientific realm. People are using the same arguments for both, they even admit that they are only using the phrase Intelligent Design because it's supposed to take Creationism out of a religious context. The emperor has no clothes.

For all intents and purposes, their meanings are the same.

Don't give yourself too much credit, no amount of red herring logic will account for the fact that there is no reasonable evidence for a God.


Give up the straw man already. It is very clear that I am not a creationist, and it is also very clear that I do not intend on defending intelligent design (the way I defined it- not the way you defined it).

"For all intents and purposes, their meanings are the same."

- No, it is very clear that I introduced the words and defined as being different. Creationists may be a subset of intelligent design (the way I defined it!) as well as the people who worship the Ahura Mazda with the Vohu Mano, they have there own theory of creation and it isn't Creationism the way I defined it (as only being in the bible).

That is just one of the perks of introducing terms into a conversation, you can define them however you like. If you wanted to get me with semantics, you would show how I am equivocating terms (which would be seriously hard to do considering I'm not arguing for them) or show how they are mutually exclusive (also- don't try this).

Don't premises have to be facts accepted by both sides? That includes definitions.

Since you aren't defending the term, we can shut up about this.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

Instead of showing your reasoning behind your "conditional statement", your conclusion was to simply call the other person a dumbass. You were ready to call your opponent a dumbass, conditional or not, that would damage your credibility in a public debate.

I think you've overestimated my ability to care.


Dude, what the fuck? Is this not casual speaking? Do you truly believe we should be emotionally moved by dead scientists's beliefs and choose ours based on theirs? It was a figure of speech, that if a person really cared so much, then they are a dumbass. I don't really feel the need to defend myself and I find it absolutely vindicating that you should attack me on this as if you had nothing else to do.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

Don't premises have to be facts accepted by both sides? That includes definitions.

Yes. For example if somebody says, "faith" and defines it, and then another person comes in and attacks their "faith" with a different definition, they're in no-no-zone and deserve to be slapped by omnipotent beings whether they exist or not.

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:

Instead of showing your reasoning behind your "conditional statement", your conclusion was to simply call the other person a dumbass. You were ready to call your opponent a dumbass, conditional or not, that would damage your credibility in a public debate.

I think you've overestimated my ability to care.


Dude, what the fuck? Is this not casual speaking? Do you truly believe we should be emotionally moved by dead scientists's beliefs and choose ours based on theirs? It was a figure of speech, that if a person really cared so much, then they are a dumbass. I don't really feel the need to defend myself and I find it absolutely vindicating that you should attack me on this as if you had nothing else to do.

Quote:
I think you've overestimated my ability to care.

I don't call people dumbasses (or imply it, conditionally, whatever) in casual speaking either.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

Quote:
I think you've overestimated my ability to care.

I don't call people dumbasses (or imply it, conditionally, whatever) in casual speaking either.


If you do not care so much, why do you feel the need to criticize me for it?

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:

Quote:
I think you've overestimated my ability to care.

I don't call people dumbasses (or imply it, conditionally, whatever) in casual speaking either.


If you do not care so much, why do you feel the need to criticize me for it?

I was referring to your original statement about "old scientists"

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:

I was referring to your original statement about "old scientists"

If you want to refer, do you also want to elaborate? What about my original statement is so... detestable? My word dumbass? Is dumbass now a word not worth using? Are insults devoid of all reason, therefore meaningless? Immature maybe? Then perhaps you would like to elaborate on the implications of what we should view maturely and immaturely? Perhaps you would like to elaboratge anything at all, because, to be honest, I have no idea what your problem is? Or do you simply not care enough, so that you may give me one-liners and respond to my replies to these one-liners with one-liners in which one simply inconclusive conclusion is met without a doubt: that I said that bad word, dumbass, and that now I am a patron of that sunny land called ad hominem?

Behold my mouth is full of bullets and blanks, choose wisely which ones you want to shoot at me, and be weary of which direction you shoot at too!

I'm a dipshit.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

There is no difference - one's just a front for the other.

There is a fucking difference,

No, there is not.

.

Quote:

Please, kick back on the damn ignorance.

Please follow your own advice. Intelligent design is an argument used primarly by christians, ergo they are creationists.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

No one here has said "I exist" and therefore no one needs to argue it unless they want to as a completely seperate issue having little to do with this discussion.

I asked you to prove you exist.

Thus proving that you know nothing about the concept of defense through retortion...

Thus you come to conclusions with single posts?

Yes - and this is appropriate with epiphany type learning. You evidenced no ability to recognize that your very question implies his existence.

Quote:

Seriously, oh great psychologist, psychologize yourself.

First you incorrectly take someone to task for making a judgement, then you make a global judgement from a single post.... do you ever give anyone else a chance to refute you? You seem to do all our work for us...

Quote:

Now you are thinking, "oh look, here he goes at it again!"

Yep.

Quote:

But I would rather you think, "Is he fooling me on purpose?"

Sorry, this is too transparent. The reality is that you realized that you just contradicted yourself regarding making snap judgements but you still want to toss out an insult.... so you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by pretending it was intentional self refutation....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
doubledoh wrote:

Similarly, the burden of proof on the subject of god(s) existence is clearly on the shoulders of theists since they are making the irrational assertion apparently without any replicatable evidence. Until a theist can provide actual verifiable evidence that god exists, we atheists need not prove a damn thing.

REALLY?!

See, this is where I normally pass people off as frauds for having, 'prepared answers.' They hear it somewhere else, and they go, "hey, that's pretty smart, I'mma use it!" - Please, don't dwindle down to using stupid techniques. When I assert you need to assert, then you can criticize me.

I'm wondering what I am going to get in reply. Perhaps I'll get refuted for having no proof in god. Gah!

I'm wondering why you think this is a response at all... you didn't actually address his point, you just attempted to write it off...


I did adress his point

No, you did not.

Quote:

, the point being that:

I DIDN'T SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

This did not address his point.

Quote:

You are right, I did write it off.

Do you ever, ever, at any point, stop refuting yourself?

Quote:
It was a straw man, you see,

You have not demonstrated this, nor have you dealt with his point.

You suck at the internet.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Equilibrium wrote:
Gravity wrote:
todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:
. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.

There is no difference - one's just a front for the other.

There is a fucking difference, and personally I'm appalled nobody here has the brains to look it up.

Intelligent Design- A being created us. Does not exclude big bang, evolution, yadda yadda. etc.
Creationism- Genesis account of the bible.

Please, kick back on the damn ignorance.

It doesn't matter what people think it is, it's purpose was to sneak Creationism into the scientific realm.

Precisely. It's akin to AA's use of a "higher power' instead of saying "god'....

Quote:

People are using the same arguments for both, they even admit that they are only using the phrase Intelligent Design because it's supposed to take Creationism out of a religious context. The emperor has no clothes.

Precisely.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

todangst wrote:
Gravity wrote:

There is a fucking difference,

No, there is not.

Please follow your own advice. Intelligent design is an argument used primarly by christians, ergo they are creationists.


Yes, there is. Why? Because I say there is. Learn to play. Don't believe me? Well, I introduced the term, I am the one that has the privelage (responsibility) to define it.

Besides, don't be an idiot. Christians are not the only ones to use intelligent design arguments, lots of other religions do it too. Intelligent design is to creationism is as mammal to cat, or reptile to iguana.

All creationism is intelligent design, however, not all intelligent design is creationism.

And if you still are so feeble to not understand this, drop the word. I've already made it clear I am not arguing for creationism. So use your wits and assign whichever word you want, but do not expect to make a valid point if it is just going to be a straw man.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:

Yes - and this is appropriate with epiphany type learning. You evidenced no ability to recognize that your very question implies his existence.

Did it? Does it imply my existence, or is the implication also an assumption? I'd say inferrence, do I believe he is real? Yes. Do I know he is real, beyond a single shred of doubt? No. I had intended on directing the conversation back to its original origin and to come to the basic understanding that human understanding is an intricate system of beliefs, all resting on axiomatic inferences like the one you've set up here.

Quote:
First you incorrectly take someone to task for making a judgement, then you make a global judgement from a single post.... do you ever give anyone else a chance to refute you? You seem to do all our work for us...

Global judgement? Elaborate.

And as I've said, my mouth is full of bullets and blanks. Be careful what you shoot at me.

Quote:
Sorry, this is too transparent. The reality is that you realized that you just contradicted yourself regarding making snap judgements but you still want to toss out an insult.... so you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by pretending it was intentional self refutation....

I am not here to convince you, that you are right. I am here to convince you, that you are wrong. Having said that, do I believe I am wrong? Probably. I can't count how many times I've looked back upon myself and writhed with embarassment, and one thing I've learned is not to insist on being right now. What does this give me? The natural ability to completely destroy myself, better than you can. The uncanny ability to criticize myself- but I need not dwindle into darkness and insanity in my self-loathing. That is why I need my enemies, my opponents. My perfect enemy disagrees with me, and I him. However, you will not see me, "refute myself" because I am not two people unless I am myself, and you are not myself, so to you I shall be one. What you saw, was not my uncanny ability, my gift, but rather my irony.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

todangst wrote:

No, you did not.

This did not address his point.

Do you ever, ever, at any point, stop refuting yourself?

You have not demonstrated this, nor have you dealt with his point.

You suck at the internet.


You are quickly becoming my favorite fool!

His point: I am shifting the burden of proof.

My point: I never did a thing.

Oh, knower of burdens of proofs? Who has the burden and who has not the proof? I am simply negative, I have presumption, where as he, you, who says I did such a thing, must be the demonstrating demon! Affirmative has burden of proof... prove that I am shifting the burden of proof. Cite it, so that I may elaborate on your misinterpetation?

Or would you rather serve me as an archetype? A generalization even? A paradigmatic experience into theism and the self-affirming stance that you are right through my projected wrongs? Tell me, you know of projection... why am I your straw king?

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

todangst wrote:

Precisely. It's akin to AA's use of a "higher power' instead of saying "god'....

Precisely, it's akin to saying AA's are all Christian, when the only underpinning of the system is a spirituality.

Quote:
Quote:

People are using the same arguments for both, they even admit that they are only using the phrase Intelligent Design because it's supposed to take Creationism out of a religious context. The emperor has no clothes.

Precisely.

Hasty Generalization.

Some atheists have stupid arguments too, but I am not tying you up and relinqueshing no quarter...

Let me define what I meant by intelligent design (I think for the first time): A being that created (or set forth the chain of causality) the universe (or whatever other universes there may be).

I'm a dipshit.