The Creation

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Buffalo Roam, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    quite the opposite actually.

    If god has always been in existence you would expect that his contingent potencies would also be in existence (much like if a sun has always been in existence you would expect that its sunlight etc would also have always been in existence)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Lots of atheistic philosophies. None of them relevant to "atheism" "having an argument".
    And when babbling, dishonesty - once again, quote rather than lie, eh? Those changes are deliberate.
    Deflection gambit 53 refused.
    Deflection 54 refused

    The topic is your continual attempts to get the consequent assumed in a discussion, and the necessity of your desisting from such rhetorical flim flam.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Philosophy without an argument?
    I guess we can place that gem next to your other assertions such as discussion without ideas or terms ...
    anyone can scroll down three or four posts and see for themself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your continual attempts to balk at the point of discussion by saying nonsense such as philosophy doesn't have an argument kind of kills anything from the onset

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The apology for that kind of dishonesty should be addressed to me, however, not just them.

    And you should stop. This is not stopping:
    Quote rather than lie. It works better, if you have an actual argument or point to make.
    "Atheism" does not "have a philosophy", either.

    Back to the topic: discussion involving the possible existence of a god without assumption of the existence of yours.
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Well I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of atheism not having a philosophy (but hey, what's the point ... in 6 or 7 posts you will probably try and convince me that you never made the assertion anyway)
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Simple: Atheism. Check for a philosophy that it has - none.

    Your point?

    The topic?
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned


    Now what?
  11. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately His existence and place of being would not have God as a cause. Those two wonderful creations would have to be something else's. Since life and realm were not of His doing then God did not create them. Impossible for Him to have done so since they are not contingent on Him. No potency.

    No star as far I know has always been in existence. Too bad theists can't see the light.
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Then once again, it appears you insist on discussing a god that is not omnipotent

    ditto above
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's a list of a bunch of different philosophies espoused by different atheists. None of them are espoused by all atheists, and there are many atheists who espouse none of them.

    So none of them is a philosophy that "atheism", itself, has - if in fact atheism is the sort of entity that can, in any way, "have a philosophy". I don't think it is, but regardless it would be none of those.

    And we note that your original demand - that I present "an example" of atheism - atheism itself, the entity or category, not someone's atheistic view - not having a philosophy, is gibberish. You might as well ask for an example of colorlessness, the entity or category, not having a size.
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    hence there are several philosophies within atheism ... as (you espoused in an attempt to avoid a philosophical discussion) opposed to none

    you could use such an intellectually dishonest means of reasoning to avoid a philosophical discussion on just about any issue and the parties that represent it. I mean there are several different (and sometimes opposing) philosophical camps within theism, so theism also has no philosophy/

    Of course this is a nonsense argument.

    When all else fails, consult wiki :

    Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[7] rationalism, and naturalism,[8] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is also largely true - although there is the premise that there is at least one god, a sort of rudimentary philosophy, that theism has by definition and atheism (being negatively defined) does not have.

    There's no argument there, though - so there isn't even that for an argument, returning to your original assertion (that "atheism" "has an argument").

    That is why attempts to attack theism by objecting to its argument are empty. Attempts to deal with atheism by discussing its argument are likewise bootless.
    You have consulted wiki about atheists, and it presents you with common behaviors of ( a certain kind of) atheists, and arguments those atheists who do you the favor of bothering to argue with you frequently employ.

    Atheism itself is not arguing with you, and wiki there does not address the matter at hand here.
    No, you couldn't. Well, you probably could, and would try, but if you notice I am specifically invoking the relevance of actual arguments that exist, and the parties employing them.
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    similarly there is one dominant antithesis within atheism - namely that there is no god ... and its from this that all the values, arguments and ideology stems
    If there is no argument, there are no values, ideologies or even social communities that can be identified.

    Obviously this is not the case.


    Actually when you happen to encounter two diametrically opposed ideologies, a conflict ensues.
    Even Sci is testament to that.

    If other types of atheists happen to come along and garner enough social or ideological merit, I'm sure they will also get a mention.
    no "-ism" argues with anyone.

    Its the "-ists" who do
    What I have noticed is that you are feathering your cap by trying to establish the ground rules for discussion in your favour (by trying to play atheism as some sort of meta-narrative)
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Backwards, as well as muddled with the usual misused vocabulary.

    That is not an "antithesis within atheism", and most atheistic arguments, values, etc, lead to it rather than stem from it.
    Identified as what? No values, ideologies, or social communities are "atheism".

    Hold that thought.
    That's not what "feathering one's cap" means.

    But If we are agreed that refusing to allow the assumption of the existence of a particular deity to frame discussions of the existence of deity establishes the ground rules in my favor, I'm satisfied with my feather, over and out.
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    atheism is an antithesis
    I don't know why you find that a controversial point since you paraphrase it in your posts (indeed you find in practically any summary of atheism, regardless of the values of the speaker)

    fine then

    Discuss atheism (or any "ism") divorced from the arguments, values or communities of it.

    well duh
    yet for some funny reason the act of placing an "ism" to the end of any word is to suggest a host of values, ideologies and/or social communities that back it.

    I mean if you seriously want to continue with such grammatical anal douche baggery, one could say that communism never took political hold in russia

    I'ld rather not.
    it smells like a douche bag

    Then I must have got the wrong impression that you were setting the scene to present yourself as victorious

    we agree to house your assumptions?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The difficulty of discussing atheism in general is undoubtedly great. The Taoists apparently do it by rejecting discussion in the matter. The Buddhists likewise, although they go a bit further and identify that entire arena of thought as "thought", therefore delusion.
    No, it isn't. That's like calling "miscellaneous" an antithesis to "car expenses". And if it were, it would not be an "antithesis within atheism".

    Probably one of the motives behind the word - the Catholic Church wanted to set up a target. It's not a coherent concept, otherwise - negatively defined, catchall category.

    Hard to attack. One can sympathize. But not pretend, eh?
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Its got nothing to do with the difficulty of atheism.

    The difficulty is simply discussing an "ism" as if it is some how inextricably divorced from the "ists" who represent it.
    Hardly, since the bulk of the arguments, values and communities of atheism are primarily an antithesis of theism.

    By your own logic, catholicism doesn't have an argument or values to attack. Its merely some catholics that one might have a disagreement with.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which in the case of a negatively defined catchall category like "atheism" would be the situation in fact.

    So you do have a serious difficulty. But that is no reason to pretend to success.
    Now we are imagining "communities of atheism" and so forth as "an antithesis" of theism? This is getting more bizarre by the post.
    By my logic, Roman Catholicism has "an argument" (accepting your off-key misuse of vocabulary) and values. I can even tell you how to find out what they are - ask the Pope.

    Catholicism is a positively defined entity, you see - it has characteristics, not an absence of characteristics.
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    actually you could lay the same line on any -ism

    Its no difficulty.
    There's nothing particularly challenging in determining the nature of atheism
    never occurred to you that atheism has a historical continuum?

    I'll say
    too which we can adroitly point out that Catholicism is one thing and catholics are something else.
    See how clever I am?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So for some reason you can figure out a category based on what it has yet fail to do the same for another based on what it doesn't have?

    Tell me do you also have the same problem determining demographic issues for people who don't have cars or houses too?
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member


    And you are in the same boat.
    In general, yes. I have to narrow things down to geographic area, etc, to get a handle on them. At least, some info about which continent they are on helps - carlessness in Antarctica has entirely different implications from carlessness in the Amazon rain forest, or New York City.

    And of course I don't mistake such correlations for the state of carlessness having an argument or philosophy, assume there is a car present and available when discussing the nature of the choice of carlessness, and so forth.

Share This Page