Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Yes, that's what I was doing, informing you of an irrelevant, non-sensical phrase that keeps appearing in your narrative.
Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that's what I was doing, informing you of an irrelevant, non-sensical phrase that keeps appearing in your narrative.
Good on you... well done!
You have informed all readers how little you understand your own beliefs
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Fuck atheists, thats what it says. A view long held by theists and often followed by murderous action against the apostate, all in the name of god. i.e. playing Proxy for God.
The hubris is astounding. Carlin puts this proxy god in proper perspective.
Last edited:
I am recommending thread closure as it is obvious that moderation is unavailable at this time.
He's suggesting that if an atheist falls into the fatalism/determinism category, that could lead to belief in a god, by default. But, I'd imagine that secular determinism/fatalism fits somewhere on the spectrum. I tend to view determinism from a spiritual/supernatural view, but did so even when I identified as an atheist. It seems only logical to assume that a pre-determined universe has an ''intelligent'' designer. That seems to be the inference of the OP, but considering that QQ is an atheist, it would seem unlikely that he's calling you a liar.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
He is not an atheist.
I'm unaware of this news. I could have sworn he posted that he is an atheist, within this thread.
Anyway. That's all you got out of my post? lol
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I saw that too, but he started this thread in the Religion sub-forum, not general Philosophy.
As an atheist, I would never start a thread on any subject in a religous forum. I am an atheist and I resent being compared with some form of god worship or religious practice.
IMO, religion has proven to be the enemy of atheism, over and over again.
I am approaching the question from a religious perspective and that has nothing to do with determinism or free will.
In fact religion argues the exact opposite of Free Will. God's Will be done, no? So what does that mean? Anybody wants to take a stab at guessing what God wants?
I always thought that indoctrination was "special" people making people do what they think God wants them to do, not what free will they can exercise. That's what the Inquisition was for, to stifle free thought.
If anything FW is in the arena of atheism.
=======
I read and understood your post. But my point is that discussion does not belong in this forum. I would respond to it in the philosophy forum. It's a philosophical question.
Last edited:
I started this thread in philosophy and it was moved by a moderator to this forum.
The above is a very good example of extreme atheism.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Right....I'll be extreme if you force me, short of being violent. That's the pervue of extreme Theism playing proxy for god.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Of course. The title was dishonest to begin with. This thread has been duplicitous from the gitgo.
Your "co-determinism" assumes at the outset a deterministic universe. It aims to resolve how freewill and self-determination (with non-trivial freedom) CN exist in such a universe. It is thus compatibility, whether you understand that or not.
Compatibility arguments do not leave themselves open to indeterminism because they are only relevant as part of the freewill/determinism debate. To think that they thus leave themselves open to indeterminism is to look at those arguments where they have no place. Like saying that the argument about whether or not to find a man guilty of murder leaves itself open to preference of icecream flavour.
The rest of your post is just as irrelevant as ever, given that you're just rewording the notion of a cog in a watch in a way that has convinced you it is something different.
How you manage to incorrectly interpret what people have said to suit your own ends is enlightening.
"pretense of gravity"? You'll have to explain how you think anyone is pretending what gravity is, please?
As to the rest, until you start quoting where I have said what you think I have said, yoJr claims as to what people have said will be ignored for the strawmen they appear to be.
Cog in a watch. When you can show how your co-determinism is more than that, feel free to actually do so. Until then, though...
Ah I see you finally got round to reading the thread you have been criticizing... well done.
I can understand why you may consider it to be just another form of compatibilit-ism. Sure ... no problemo but it isn't.
If you have concerns and wish to discuss them and I am still a member of this forum you can take them to that particular thread and post them there. That is why I created that thread to begin with.
ahh sorry about that auto fill problem with mobile device... any one know how to turn auto correct/fill off?
What word do you think I meant to use?
Guess go on...
have done so in the other thread... go for it...
Last edited:
I am recommending this thread be closed as it appears to be un-moderated.
are you threatening me?
Just to clarify the main issue this discussion faces:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
I was quite clear in my response what I was saying. Either you lack the ability to comprehend what I said or you are being deliberately dishonest in how you interpret it.
In a deterministic universe, if one uses the words "freewill" and "self-determination" with the understanding that they have non-trivial freedoms, then I do not think they exist as anything other than illusion.
If one uses the terms, however, as purely descriptors of a process, with no claim as to the notion of freedom within those processes, then these processes do exist.
Is that simple enough for you to understand? Or are you going to continue to misinterpret it?
If you had any demonstrable ability to comprehend what people say, you'd have known this was my position long ago in the other thread. But you simply don't listen. Or can't understand. Or deliberately misunderstand for sake of supporting your own agenda.
Your interpretation of my position is increasingly meaningless, since you can't help yourself but to make up what you want about it, given your inability/unwillingness to understand it.
I have. Numerous times, across numerous threads. But feel free to continue to make it my fault that you can't comprehend it. And that you've never been open to having any sensible discussion about it, instead preferring to play your petty games that result in you insulting and flaming those you don't understand.
The only insanity on these forums is from those who repeatedly discuss with you expecting something different than the illogic and ignorance that you come up with.
Yet you are the one saying those games, as evidence by this very thread. You are the one lying about what people have said, changing their quotes, even, to suit you. You are the one that ignores every bit of criticism except for those snippets you think you can score points from.
Yep, it's insanity to keep talking with you expecting anything else.
So back on ignore you go.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Are you playing the victim now? Read the words . Are you an atheist or a theist?
It is the theist who pose the threat of violence as proxies of god. I, the atheist, am the one who is afraid of theists, they have the historical record of being violent.
To accuse me of inevitably being led to a proxy god IS AN AD HOMINEM!
I have personally been the victim of theist violence, do you understand? Have you?
Or are you going to assert that I am lying. Do you have another ad hominem in your bag?
All atheists have a habit of lying about god, don't they? They're always secretly acting as proxy for god. Its an inevitable result of being an extreme atheist.
Wait let's invent a new word.
An azealot, yeahhhhh, that's it . Extreme Azealots are acting as proxy for the devil by default. After all they don't believe in god, then it must be the devil!
Jeeeez, I'm half convincing myself now. On second thought; Naaaah, gods don't exist.
Or was that on first thought? This proxy thing has me really confused now.
Typical of azealot atheists, so confused about their non-belief in god.
I am glad you asked for this thread to be closed. Then I don't have to be exposed to the dishonest ducking and dodging by a closet theist any longer.
Another atheist would never accuse me of having a proxy god. You're a theist, but don't dare admit it. In your zeal, you have created a false-proxy-god.
There you have it.
So, my advice, keep thy religion to thyself. Accusing me is doing violence to my mind, so stop it, or suffer my mental wrath, an azealot atheist's wrath....hehe.
Last edited:
- Status