Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    I will agree with this to an extent in that the general population are either theists, (and thus vastly misguided), or those that incorrectly find the distinction in the words atheist and agnostic. Unfortunately it is a common misconception. I don't argue against you that it's common understanding, but it is a misconception.

    As an example I will state that I am not an agnostic. I am of the view that if a god entity exists that it is, or will be, possible to know that it exists. If for instance the OT is an accurate depiction of history then it is safe to say that many humans - Noah, Moses etc actually "knew" god existed because they apparently had conversations directly with it. Many modern day christians claim the same thing - that they have knowledge of this entity in that they communicate with each other. In saying I cannot be labelled an agnostic.

    The problem is that the "common understanding" is that an agnostic is what we call weak atheism.

    I concur with common definition, my argument number 1 states that those common definitions are misguided.

    This seems to be an identical argument to number 1. I will not argue commonality with you, but commonality does not mean accurate.

    Your argument number 3 contains a contradiction in the form of "definitely" and being open to alternate possibility.

    As for one other statement: "Any rational individual is reasonable enough to be open to the possibility that they can be proven wrong and admit it."

    Needless to say, the world is not full of rational individuals. There must, and is, a line that distinguishes the differences in views.

    It need to be said that if you're half human, half fish you can be called neither a fish or a human. A term must exist to distinguish you from the other two. It is commonly held that the term is agnostic, but as explained that is inaccurate.

    Seemingly it is a contention of disagreement between the strong atheists, the theists and those that are ultimately neither. Strong and weak atheism is not a new thing, indeed it stretches back decades - albeit under different terms, (negative/positive atheism).

    Dawkins actually disagrees with the strong/weak terminology but still categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" and not a strong atheist - thus a distinction in itself. That such a distinction exists and needs to exist is undeniable, but yes... we can argue over what specific words would please you and the general population best.

    You use the term "non theist", but that applies to everyone, yourself included that is not a theist even though we have our differences. It is simply insufficient.

    Not at all - and it also seems a tad unfair to blame infidel when the distinction between atheists has been in use since 1949.

    If you read my first post you'll see I stated this has all been done before. A search would have saved time and hassle.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    *pause*.. I'm not the one doing the showing, that's what you are supposed to be doing. You can do it by whatever standard or method you see fit - even by direct psychic brain download.

    For the last year I have watched my youngest grow and learn. Aside from prompting her to avoid plug sockets and similar things, there's very little I can currently teach her about the ways of the world, or the ways of the world as I see them. She is ultimately on her own. How do you think she goes about gaining knowledge? Messages from the stars is not the correct answer. And the thing is it works. It becomes accepted because it works not because it's "fundamentally believed". It has worked my entire life, and yours.. All that trying to move the tea cup with your mind has never actually got you anywhere. As stated earlier though, I am open to whatever method you would like to use. Please, continue..

    Utter tosh. The question asked of what ultimate value something is if it resides solely in your mind. Kindly answer that question.

    I see. Yes or no question... Are you free from lust, wrath and envy? Yes or no please.

    Your question, (in response to my question... ergo: rude), is of no relevance to what was asked. Let me try again:

    "so something outside of your senses is testable.. how"

    Don't ask a question, make a statement.

    I'm aware that people can agree with each other - especially in community settings. For example, my wife and I both think you're an idiot, but.. giving the context of "idiot" here, is it an ultimate truth and not a mental concept because we agree?

    Makes no sense whatsoever. I lack a belief in god. I lack that belief no more so than any other weak atheist. You can think I'm a fundamental empiricist but it is of no relation to the other.

    I still don't follow. What has this got to do with my question?

    Honestly? Such a shame.

    Art, (photography, music, painting, etc), display mental concepts to you. Yes it differs from person to person - such is the nature of mental concepts. Where you see a work of brilliance that images oppression I simply see an upturned toilet bowl, (example). I am an avid photographer and often try to convey a message, a mental concept in my images.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is one of my photos that tries to convey leadership, superiority, class difference and well.. perhaps one of thousands of different words and terms to different people. It is however a mental concept, not an object. If you want to actually see it, (as an object), you're out of luck... because it isn't an object. Once again I find it extremely humourous that you liken your god to a mental concept.

    Speak when qualified. You of all people understand that you making statements while not being qualified in the subject is wrong and meaningless.. I smell your hypocrisy from here.


    -----

    I know lg well, he basically just likes to disagree while avoiding all questions and using irrelevant statements. I do know that if I came on this forum and said "god exists", lg would be one of the first telling me I was wrong and not qualified to say so while believing he is free from these same limits he imposes upon everyone else. I've had him on ignore several times but I guess I'm just a sucker for punishment.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Let us hope he never gets to hear of Descartes Ontological Argument.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I think God people are confusing their own subconscious mind for a supernatural entity. We identify ourselves with our conscious mind, but in some circumstances, this "self" can take a back seat while we still go on functioning without knowing how.
     
  8. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    I have recently read of some research which suggests that a lot of processing takes place in the sub-conscious. uncouncious ,or whatever you want to call it, part of the brain. It seems to act as a filter by only allowing important information to enter consciousness. I can imagine this having some survival value, as we cannot consciously attend to everything in our surroundings at once.

    I can provide a reference
     
  9. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Hi SnakeLord,

    I forgot to mention how stunningly beautiful your image is. Do you do a lot of such stuff ?
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I think that's how most animals are. The conscious mind is a new invention, not necessarily more intelligent, just suited for different things. I think it's the original state that is realized when we talk of enlightenment. Imagine an ancient person that is suddenly thrust into this state, it's as if there were another independent person there. We can't be aware of it because awareness is a secondary information translation mechanism.
     
  11. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Its always interesting to me that even theists have notions of how God should... Oh, you know what I mean.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Do they mirror the atheists?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
  14. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Thanks. Aye, it's kinda my thing.

    Thanks also. Uhh, I guess so

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    That's a beautiful pic, kudos to you SnakeLord
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    what else can you use to physically indicate a "justice"?
    gee - you mean there are somethings that defy empirical standards of definition?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    if you examine it closely, you will see that I am not disagreeing with you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    hey I am still waiting for you to show me a justice

    interesting
    so you are trying to argue that your daughter has no fundamental beliefs?

    You must have performed some wild Skinner type experiments on her to prevent her from spontaneously calling out you or her mother when she accidentally hurts herself ....
    a question that suffers from presupposition answers the question it already asks in a fallacious manner

    an example would be like asking a man who never beats his wife "Do you feel happier or more stressed now that you are no longer beating your wife"

    in your case the fallacy is that you assume we are talking about something that "solely resides" in my mind

    well if you want an answer, No, something that exists solely in my mind has no ultimate value, but I can't see what this has to do with the topic at hand
    :shrug:


    to a degree, yes

    If it wasn't testable, there would be no reason to especially call upon a forensic detective while the janitor is in the next room -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    then your previous statements suffer from critical reflexivity
    that lack of belief can be traced to a belief in the absolute authority of your senses - needless to say, in the course of examining this belief of yours, many problems have raised themselves, outside of any specific issues of god or religion ....
    it has to do with you making an ass of yourself by arguing on the authority of empiricism and then slipping in "we are all the same"
    I think you miss the point
    if you can't empirically discern even mental concepts, why on earth do you think it is the truth, the light and the way?
    (I wasn't arguing that god is a mental concept - I was arguing that even a mere mental concept is beyond your fundamental abilities of comprehension, since you clearly admit that you can't photograph a justice)
    its an issue of logic
    If I say X is made of A and B yet I am unable to produce X with A and B, I am simply talking about some mental concept that solely exists in my mind
    surely even you can understand this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Hi LG.

    I have finaly come round to your way of thinking. Your logic did the trick.

    I know that a best-selling novel is made by writing words on paper or a screen. I have a large vocubulary plus access to a large number of reference works but ,despite this , I cannot write a best seller.

    It follows that the concept of a best seller only exists in my mind. My problem is that I cannot understand how people can buy something which exists only in my mind.

    I once saw a copy of Gone With the Wind and became very disappointed when I found it only consists of words on paper which previously existed in the mind of M. M. The book contained nothing that showed it to be a best seller. ergo people who believe that best sellers exist are deluded.

    You and I know better.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2007
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if your novel was about the sexual spontaneous attraction that old amish farmers draw from teenage american girls, it could perhaps explain why it is not a best seller (although if you dressed it up as comedy, you might be able to ply it as a concept that doesn't exist solely in your mind and thereby sell a few copies)
     
  20. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Attraction is only a concept because you cannot show it to me.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    once we settle on its qualities it can be discerned however.
    For instance once we settle on what constitutes sexual attraction amongst teenage girls, we can determine on which end of the scale elderly amish farmers stand ... and thus provide a whole framework of reference
     
  22. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    They build their own frameworks. I saw Harrison Ford helping them .
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    did you see any elderly amish farmers also helping?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page