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: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:

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).

You even see the word "creation" denoting "creationism" in your own explanation of intelligent design, and you're going to refuse to admit they're one and the same? :shock: Man, you're really thick headed and stubborn. :roll:

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Sapient wrote:
Gravity wrote:

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).

You even see the word "creation" denoting "creationism" in your own explanation of intelligent design, and you're going to refuse to admit they're one and the same? :shock: Man, you're really thick headed and stubborn. :roll:

Let me define "Creationism" again: The stance that the account given in the Bible by Genesis is fundamentally correct.

I'm beginning to feel hopeless here.

I'm a dipshit.


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

I find it actually kind of sad that you few should put so much interest in attacking on definitions and words. I think this has taken a page worth already. There is no point to make.

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.
The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.
The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to.

- Chuang Tzu

I'm a dipshit.


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

I lied.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
On a further point, I recently realized my connections to religion are still in tact. This is the only reason why I've believed in god. While I still do not consider theism "irrational," I consider myself, "atheist."

Wow, just wow. I'm floored. (waiting for you to say belated April Fools)

Does this mean you don't believe in intelligent design now?

FYI it was really hard for me to drop deism for atheism, I too had religion and god ingrained deep in my core. It took someone asking me why I was making something up to explain away what I don't know, to finally get it.

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Sapient wrote:

Does this mean you don't believe in intelligent design now?

I never believed in intelligent design.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:
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.

I notice now you say you criticize it, but aren't you muddying the waters when you present it as a reason for theism. If you don't believe it yet present it as a reason, couldn't one present any reason? (ie. it makes you feel gooey inside)

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Sapient wrote:

I notice now you say you criticize it, but aren't you muddying the waters when you present it as a reason for theism. If you don't believe it yet present it as a reason, couldn't one present any reason? (ie. it makes you feel gooey inside)

It is human nature to want to make all things thinkable, but to make all things thinkable is impossible. It is like a house with infinite rooms, once you open one door, there is another door on the far side of the room. Some things we simply do not know, nor can we know, nor can we be meant to know, but human nature comes along and says, "I do want to think, and know." Thus we take what we cannot know, and make it what we want to know, and define in our terms of thinking. When we view the universe, we view it in contrast to nothingness, with that nothingness in the background. We cannot imagine "nothingness" however, because when we try to envision it we already do it injustice. The human mind, with its drive for knowledge and also its feebleness, thinks about time and the universe in the same way. They wonder, when was the universe created? And then, how was the universe created? And they naturally place the background of nothingness, the background that doesn't exist and contrast it.

It is beyond our deepest logic and ability to reason that something should come out of nothing, or that something should exist forever and never be created (think about this). But only one of these two are possible. Humans must know, they strive for truth, Aristotle and Plato were the firsts to write it out, so they created a god, or whatever you want to call it, that has the ability to create something out of nothing.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Precept #1?

Gravity wrote:

It is human nature to want to make all things thinkable, but to make all things thinkable is impossible. It is like a house with infinite rooms, once you open one door, there is another door on the far side of the room. Some things we simply do not know, nor can we know, nor can we be meant to know, but human nature comes along and says, "I do want to think, and know." Thus we take what we cannot know, and make it what we want to know, and define in our terms of thinking. When we view the universe, we view it in contrast to nothingness, with that nothingness in the background. We cannot imagine "nothingness" however, because when we try to envision it we already do it injustice. The human mind, with its drive for knowledge and also its feebleness, thinks about time and the universe in the same way. They wonder, when was the universe created? And then, how was the universe created? And they naturally place the background of nothingness, the background that doesn't exist and contrast it.

I agree.

Quote:
It is beyond our deepest logic and ability to reason that something should come out of nothing, or that something should exist forever and never be created (think about this). But only one of these two are possible. Humans must know, they strive for truth, Aristotle and Plato were the firsts to write it out, so they created a god, or whatever you want to call it, that has the ability to create something out of nothing.

This argument I've found to be an important one and an easily refutable one to the average theist. One must ask, if God is the one who created everything, then who created God? If God doesn't need a creator because he is infinite, then why can't the Universe be infinite? If the rules don't apply to God, they shouldn't have to apply to the Universe. At first glance people tend to think well, but it's different for God. Ans why is that? Because he's pretend? Because we can speculate with no proof? If the answer to those or similar questions resembles a yes, then Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters become just as valid as any god, even a deistic one.

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Yes, but applying spaghetti and pink unicorn attributes to god would make you guilty of the same crime. The only thing that can come out of this theory and still be considered a theory is nothing. Who created that God? They answer: he always existed (and also ignore the fact that they used a "he" - saying a "she" is crazy though). But if you think about, it is just as inane to apply the same logic to such a god. Either it existed forever, or it also sporadically went "poof" one day.

I'm a dipshit.