Favourite Atheist arguments

[tarasan]

Dude, you were the one that brought up the logical arguments for God nonsense.

You are the one that made the claim not me receipts please.

Also again how was the statement I made about the not believing in a false thing backward?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one that made the claim not me receipts please.

Also again how was the statement I made about the not believing in a false thing backward?

No, you made the first claim when you stated that there were logical arguments for God.

Now please try to pay attention. I stated the obvious, and gave an example, and explained its failure. I said that there were no logical arguments for God that I was aware of. I explained how the Kalam argument was not an argument for God. If you did not understand the explanation you should have asked questions then.

Please state a supposed logical argument for God. ***MOD EDIT***

 

[tarasan]

No, you made the first claim when you stated that there were logical arguments for God.

Now please try to pay attention. I stated the obvious, and gave an example, and explained its failure. I said that there were no logical arguments for God that I was aware of. I explained how the Kalam argument was not an argument for God. If you did not understand the explanation you should have asked questions then.

Please state a supposed logical argument for God. ***MOD EDIT***

Again don't assume my intent.

I made the claim that there were logical arguments yes. You said that

No, you made the first claim when you stated that there were logical arguments for God.

Now please try to pay attention. I stated the obvious, and gave an example, and explained its failure. I said that there were no logical arguments for God that I was aware of. I explained how the Kalam argument was not an argument for God. If you did not understand the explanation you should have asked questions then.

Please state a supposed logical argument for God. Your ducking and dodging tells us that you know that they don't exist either.

Again do not assume why people do things mate I am merely asking for receipts. It it was that easy you would tell me.

You have claimed that when an argument fails it is no longer an argument you have not shown how they have failed. Even by your own reasoning u have to show why. U have said the kalam failed and that Craig is a laughing stock u have not spoken about why. U made the presupposition that argument are no longer arguments if they fail show me how

 

[Willamena]

You're level-mixing. We're discussing from and about waking-state. Bringing up features from other realities confuses everything.

I'm not familiar with the terminology.

But that's what a default setting is; the original, 'factory' setting. "Steady state?" This sounds like astronomy or physics.

My current steady state is not what it was when I was born.

That's what you took to be my point? I was comparing new-from-the-box operating systems with new-from-the-box organic operating systems.

Oh, whew. I thought you might be talking about human beliefs.

These aren't what I mean by "beliefs."

Nevertheless.

Huh?

Definition.

Belief often has little to do with evidence. There are evidenced beliefs, and a whole lot of contradictory unevidenced beliefs.

That's where we differ.

As I said. People believe in all sorts of things without evidence. Often the belief comes first, and evidence is compiled later.

That's trust.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not familiar with the terminology.

There are multiple 'realities'; a nested hierarchy. Each is perceived from a different level of consciousness, and a statement or perception from one level may be completely wrong or impossible from another.
Ordinarily we discuss things only from our own, 3rd-state reality. Bringing up alternate facts from a different reality and things get really confusing.

You said:
"Everything exists. Whether actually, imaginatively, extrapolatively, reductively, deductively, or inductively, everything exists."
This struck me as a metaphysical statement; true at a level other than the one we were discussing. I may have misunderstood here, though. Clarify?

I said: "Belief often has little to do with evidence. There are evidenced beliefs, and a whole lot of contradictory unevidenced beliefs."
You replied:

That's where we differ.

How so? Aren't there people whose beliefs are based on teaching, emotion or culture, rather than facts and empirical testing? Don't different peoples have widely varying beliefs? How can they all be right?

That's trust.

Explain, please. Trust, faith, belief, knowledge -- how do you see them as like or unlike?

 

[Willamena]

There are multiple 'realities'; a nested hierarchy. Each is perceived from a different level of consciousness, and a statement or perception from one level may be completely wrong or impossible from another.
Ordinarily we discuss things only from our own, 3rd-state reality. Bringing up alternate facts from a different reality and things get really confusing.

You said:
"Everything exists. Whether actually, imaginatively, extrapolatively, reductively, deductively, or inductively, everything exists."
This struck me as a metaphysical statement; true at a level other than the one we were discussing. I may have misunderstood here, though. Clarify?

I said: "Belief often has little to do with evidence. There are evidenced beliefs, and a whole lot of contradictory unevidenced beliefs."
You replied:
How so? Aren't there people whose beliefs are based on teaching, emotion or culture, rather than facts and empirical testing? Don't different peoples have widely varying beliefs? How can they all be right?
Explain, please. Trust, faith, belief, knowledge -- how do you see them as like or unlike?

There is only reality.

I guess we differ.

As much as I disagree with it fundamentally, objectivism got one thing right: "things exist" (i.e. to be an existent is to be a thing). Every thing exists. There is only reality, and it exists. We apply states to it (actual, imaginative, physical, mental, etc... oh, and "real") in order to express contexts for it.

Belief is an investment in things of a particular state: true (or actual). A person who sees the truth of racial conformity is no less right or wrong than a person who sees the truth of racism. It's not a case of right and wrong, but of varying viewpoints. Differing humanity.

Trust is similar to belief, but where belief is an investment in truth, trust is an investment in expectation, and faith is an investment in an ideal. None of them exist in a vacuum. We understand a thing and say, "That is true." We anticipate a way the world is to be and say, "That is expected." We hold the world to particular standards, and say, "This is how it's going to be."

Knowledge, on the other hand, is a justified belief that happens to be true.

 

[Valjean]

There is only reality.

Deep sleep, dreaming (REM) sleep, waking state? Three realities -- and waking state perception is known to be an abstraction, assembled and existing only in your head.

 

[Willamena]

Deep sleep, dreaming (REM) sleep, waking state? Three realities -- and waking state perception is known to be an abstraction, assembled and existing only in your head.

Dream is a context for reality: dreams really happen.

To divide reality from what goes on "in your head" is to deny that what happens in your head happens in reality.

 

[Valjean]

Dream is a context for reality: dreams really happen.

To divide reality from what goes on "in your head" is to deny that what happens in your head happens in reality.

Exactly! But they're subjective realities.
Multiple levels of subjective reality, one Objective reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have no clue what you are on about.

The point is that atheism is a label used for when specific beliefs of theism aren't present.
That's it. It doesn't include any positive beliefs in anything.

I understand that a label is put onto an object giving information about the stuff that exists say inside a box, please. Right?
It is weird to put a label that has nothing inside it, please. Right?
Isn't "Atheism" a useless and senseless label for an ism , please? Right?

Regards

 

[osgart]

Logic is a good game with some truth value so long as you are dealing with physical knowns.
Otherwise human logic and human reasoning is highly subjective.

Something other than logic, and reasoning is needed to acquire knowledge where none knowledge was known before.

Whether something is a sequitur, or non sequitur is highly subjective opinion.

Logic only works with the tangible world. Arriving at a God conclusion takes leaps of personal rationale. One can easily come to the conclusion that there is no God, and that would be perfectly reasonable, and strongly convincing. Why? Proving that God exists is a hunch. It's not based on tangible evidence. Otherwise everybody would know there is a God and no one would have any confidence that there isn't a God.

I am convinced that there is an eternal, intelligent source existence. I am convinced it is far less then a God. I rely heavily on intuition to get me to this point.

Obviously not all intuitions are the same. Everyone has different intuitions. That's why a lot of logic and philosophy is mostly a game of rules set in opinion.

An apple can be known. God is an intuition of many people. God requires belief and an overly idealistic intuition. It is not knowable.

The realm of experience is a valid starting point to get to truth. God is not experienced as God. Nowhere in nature is God identified with know certainty.

 

[night912]

I understand that a label is put onto an object giving information about the stuff that exists say inside a box, please. Right?
It is weird to put a label that has nothing inside it, please. Right?
Isn't "Atheism" a useless and senseless label for an ism , please? Right?

Regards

The word, "nothing" is also a label. Is "nothing" a useless and senseless label for an "-ing" as well?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that a label is put onto an object giving information about the stuff that exists say inside a box, please. Right?
It is weird to put a label that has nothing inside it, please. Right?
Isn't "Atheism" a useless and senseless label for an ism , please? Right?

Regards

Yes, it is a useless label in that sense.

The only reason it exists, is because a majority is theist and tribal mentality wants to "label" those not part of the club.

If the majority of the world's population would be Trekkies (= star trek fans), we'ld likely also have a word for people who aren't trekkies.


But indeed, it is a meaningless label by itself.
It doesn't tell you anything about me nor does it say anything about what I do believe.
Instead, it only tells you one thing: what I do NOT believe.


That's it.


Glad we sorted that out.

 

[paarsurrey]

I understand that a label is put onto an object giving information about the stuff that exists say inside a box, please. Right?
It is weird to put a label that has nothing inside it, please. Right?
Isn't "Atheism" a useless and senseless label for an ism , please? Right?

Friend poster @ #493
The label "it only tells you one thing: what I do NOT believe."

One is wrong again here , it is weird as I understand to put such a label (Atheism) in the first place. Right?
if some oxymoron, puts it, it is better one should not waste the label putting there. Right?
The right approach is to make a search/research by applying "Religious Method" and sort it out , once for all. Right?

Regards

 

[McBell]

I understand that a label is put onto an object giving information about the stuff that exists say inside a box, please. Right?
It is weird to put a label that has nothing inside it, please. Right?
Isn't "Atheism" a useless and senseless label for an ism , please? Right?

Regards

As "useless" as any other label, right?
Take the term Muslim for example.
Which kind of Muslim are they?

just like with the term Christian, the term Muslim merely narrows down the theology from non-Muslims.
Given there are numerous types of Muslims, the label of Muslim merely eliminates non-Muslim beliefs.

So I really fail to see why you think the label atheist is so much more special than the label of Muslim.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly! But they're subjective realities.
Multiple levels of subjective reality, one Objective reality.

They are reality.

"Objective" and "subjective" are simply ways of interpreting reality.

 

[Valjean]

They are reality.

"Objective" and "subjective" are simply ways of interpreting reality.

No!
There is a "Real" Reality -- most closely described by theoretical physicists and mystics, that is utterly unlike the perceived reality we experience with our senses and in our minds. -- neurology 101.
Our perceived, subjective reality is assembled in our brains. This can be illustrated easily enough, even without advanced imaging, by the ease by which the mind can be fooled by optical or audio illusions.

I mentioned REM sleep. Would you say dreams were real, or not?
Dreams are also abstractions created in your mind. They're equally at odds with the reality of physics. But, whilst dreaming, they are your 'reality'. You're not aware of any other, nor of the disconnect between dream state and objective reality. From dream state, waking state would seem anti-intuitive and nonsensical, just as relativity and quantum mechanics seem from waking state.

Dreams, and waking-state, are subjective realities; abstractions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Doesn't Vedanta belong to Hinduism, please? Why relate it to Atheism, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Doesn't Vedanta belong to Hinduism, please? Why relate it to Atheism, please?

Regards

Why not?

 

[Willamena]

No!
There is a "Real" Reality -- most closely described by theoretical physicists and mystics, that is utterly unlike the perceived reality we experience with our senses and in our minds. -- neurology 101.
Our perceived, subjective reality is assembled in our brains. This can be illustrated easily enough, even without advanced imaging, by the ease by which the mind can be fooled by optical or audio illusions.

I mentioned REM sleep. Would you say dreams were real, or not?
Dreams are also abstractions created in your mind. They're equally at odds with the reality of physics. But, whilst dreaming, they are your 'reality'. You're not aware of any other, nor of the disconnect between dream state and objective reality. From dream state, waking state would seem anti-intuitive and nonsensical, just as relativity and quantum mechanics seem from waking state.

Dreams, and waking-state, are subjective realities; abstractions.

We differ, philosophically.