|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
#17790208 - 02/12/13 03:44 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Well, being objectively wrong is not something people like to admit, especially if there is an ego in the way.
You are comparing a baby to an atheist. Right? Or how to you determine if a baby fits into that category?
I'm not comparing a baby to an atheist. I'm saying that a baby is an atheist. It's not an analogy. A baby is an atheist, even if it doesn't know what an atheist is. It is always possible that a baby comes out of it's mother's womb with a coherent understanding of what "god" is. However, that would fly in the face of everything we know about human development. Just like a newborn baby doesn't know what an apple is. You can say that god is different and that we have an innate belief in god. But of course, this is something that people only think about when they are older. How much older? I don't know, but surely now a newborn baby. Maybe I'm wrong.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17790218 - 02/12/13 03:46 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
To disbelieve something requires conceptualization, which the baby in question, is aparently incapable of. The baby can't define god or even begin to grasp any idea of god. Notice the similarities are more coincidental with agnosticism over atheism?
Edited by teknix (02/12/13 04:06 PM)
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: SeaShrooms]
#17790230 - 02/12/13 03:47 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Troll, even your image is of a troll, and I have made it quite clear the holes in your arguments you REFUSE to address out of the INABILITY to do so without actually considering you may be wrong.
You haven't made clear anything. I asked you multiple times to point out the holes in my argument, and you keep claiming that I haven't addressed them. Why don't you take this opportunity to just point to the holes. I assure you, I have read everything you said and addressed it. So you should tell me what I haven't addressed.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (02/12/13 03:47 PM)
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
#17790248 - 02/12/13 03:49 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: To not believe something requires conceptualization which the baby is incapable of. The baby can't even define god. Notice any similarities>?
Thank you. That's why it's an atheist. Technically speaking, it's more of an ignostic. But I don't see those as being mutually exclusive.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17790267 - 02/12/13 03:53 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
To analyze both a baby and it's relation to atheism, how do you suppose to go about it without comparing them?
You are giving the baby the label of atheist, you haven't shown it is and how would you ever without a legitimate comparison?
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: SeaShrooms]
#17790268 - 02/12/13 03:53 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Troll, even your image is of a troll, and I have made it quite clear the holes in your arguments you REFUSE to address out of the INABILITY to do so without actually considering you may be wrong.
Besides, your statement that I take issue with the most is the one about atheists being dogmatic. Go back and read the thread. When I told you the burden is on you to show that I'm being dogmatic, the subject was quickly dropped. If you want to make claims and not back them up, and then accuse me of being a troll, then you sir are an idiot.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
#17790351 - 02/12/13 04:05 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: The op is the worst troll in this conversation honestly.
Quote:
teknix said: To analyze both a baby and it's relation to atheism, how do you suppose to go about it without comparing them?
You are giving the baby the label of atheist, you haven't shown it is and how would you ever without a legitimate comparison?
How can you compare a baby to atheism? I don't even understand what's being asked.
I'll just say this. If someone is not a theist specifically, then they are an atheist. That's what atheism means - non-theism. So unless the baby is actively a theist, it's appropriate to call it an atheist. It's a default position.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
SeaShrooms
The dude



Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 1,989
Loc: Hitchhiking
Last seen: 3 years, 9 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17790355 - 02/12/13 04:05 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Again, this is your burden, why would I go back through all these pages for something you did, I told you almost as soon as we started talking your ignoring what I say, maybe your not a troll, just incapable of understanding the process of rational discourse.
-------------------- The life of a condemned soul is hatred.
|
GilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Does]
#17790378 - 02/12/13 04:08 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does said:
Quote:
GilbertC06 said:Survival is not solely dependent on IQ. Don't know where you got that from. It's dependent on physical ability more.
we wouldnt be where we are today if we were a bunch a retards walking around smashing shit at 10 foot 2 tons
We are here because we are both physically and mentally able to thrive. Just being smart won't cut it. Hence the computer that can't move analogy.
Edited by GilbertC06 (02/12/13 05:50 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17790391 - 02/12/13 04:10 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: The op is the worst troll in this conversation honestly.
Quote:
teknix said: To analyze both a baby and it's relation to atheism, how do you suppose to go about it without comparing them?
You are giving the baby the label of atheist, you haven't shown it is and how would you ever without a legitimate comparison?
How can you compare a baby to atheism? I don't even understand what's being asked.
I'll just say this. If someone is not a theist specifically, then they are an atheist. That's what atheism means - non-theism. So unless the baby is actively a theist, it's appropriate to call it an atheist. It's a default position.
You can't proclaim it if it isn't true, maybe if you took all the -1 to 0 agnostics on the scale, but then the theist would take over 0 to 1 and then there would be no room for agnosticism which is currently more statistically probable. Then it might as well be a -1 or a 1 without any further consideration.
There is a big area in between -1 and 1 in reality.
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: SeaShrooms]
#17790396 - 02/12/13 04:10 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: The op is the worst troll in this conversation honestly.
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Again, this is your burden, why would I go back through all these pages for something you did, I told you almost as soon as we started talking your ignoring what I say, maybe your not a troll, just incapable of understanding the process of rational discourse.
You are ridiculous. If you call me dogmatic, the burden is on you to show why my beliefs are dogmatic. You have not done so. I don't really care what you think, but hopefully other people reading this will see that it's not dogmatic to have views that can change in a heart beat, depending on the evidence.
I have examined the different definitions of dogmatic and tried to come to agreement with you on a definition. At that point, you dropped the subject. But you continue to call me dogmatic. Go back and read the thread, or stop using that misleading word.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
Does

Registered: 02/12/12
Posts: 2,846
Loc:
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
#17790405 - 02/12/13 04:12 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
the answer is both are important, how important is a matter of opinion
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
#17790488 - 02/12/13 04:24 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GilbertC06 said:
Quote:
Does said:
Quote:
GilbertC06 said:Survival is not dependent on IQ. Don't know where you got that from. It's dependent on physical ability more.
we wouldnt be where we are today if we were a bunch a retards walking around smashing shit at 10 foot 2 tons
We are here because we are both physically and mentally able to thrive. Just being smart won't cut it. Hence the computer that can't move analogy.
Of course they can move.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
#17790857 - 02/12/13 05:28 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
GilbertC06,
If you can't debate without resorting to calling people names, don't post in PS&P. Go debate in the OTD forum where calling each other names is how they debate there.
Read the rest of the rules before you post again. They are sticky at the top of the post list.
Consider this your warning.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: SeaShrooms]
#17790900 - 02/12/13 05:34 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
SeaShrooms,
The same goes for you. Debate the topic. Stop calling people trolls. A troll and a non-troll can both make valid arguments, so calling them a troll does not advance your position. Instead it undermines it because it shows that you're running out of rational debate and have to resort to insults.
If that's how you want to debate, we have a forum for it. It's the OTD forum. They debate by one-upping insults. You're free to post all the name calling you like there. If you want to continue posting here, confine your posts to the topic, not the people.
Consider this your warning.
|
GilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Diploid]
#17790956 - 02/12/13 05:41 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: GilbertC06,
If you can't debate without resorting to calling people names, don't post in PS&P. Go debate in the OTD forum where calling each other names is how they debate there.
Read the rest of the rules before you post again. They are sticky at the top of the post list.
Consider this your warning.
I'm sorry. It actually is my fault. That user would never listen no matter what I said. Thats why I just disregarded him and ended up calling him a name. I should have just blocked him. I have done so now. It won't happen again.
|
GilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17790998 - 02/12/13 05:47 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: The op is the worst troll in this conversation honestly.
How can you compare a baby to atheism? I don't even understand what's being asked.
I'll just say this. If someone is not a theist specifically, then they are an atheist. That's what atheism means - non-theism. So unless the baby is actively a theist, it's appropriate to call it an atheist. It's a default position.
So let's be clear. Thiest=belief there is a deity. and atheist is=belief there is no deity.
?
|
GilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Does]
#17791014 - 02/12/13 05:49 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does said: the answer is both are important, how important is a matter of opinion
Yup. Just like my original statement.
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
#17791023 - 02/12/13 05:50 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said: It's like you didn't read anything I wrote.
Jesus Christ, that's some nerve, saying I didn't address your points when I specifically did and then you go and ignore key bits of evidence for mine such as the gospel of john.
Quote:
In your second sentence you say "God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though." Did you understand what I said about the concept of the apple? An apple is not a concept. Neither is a fish or a dog. And neither is god. A concept of an apple is a concept. A concept of god is a concept. But god is not a concept. The sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
It is a grammatically correct sentence - please tell me what rules of grammar I've supposedly broken.
Quote:
You're confusing things with the concepts of them.
Absolutely not. I'll address this shortly.
Quote:
You say "The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief."
i never stated that lack of evidence constituted disbelief.
Do you understand what the word "necessary" means? If you lack something necessary for belief, then it's impossible by the definition of necessary to believe.
Quote:
Also, it's pretty convenient to just state that "god" is an exception to the fact that concepts of things are not the things themselves. You state "God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined. "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not?"
Again, that's not grammatically correct to state that "god is a concept."
What type of crazy grammar do you subscribe to? "X is a concept" is a syntactically well-formed sentence.
Here's another metaphor, because you seem really confused in these posts: "America" is a concept. I can also have a concept of America, but the America itself is a still concept - it is an abstraction, in the same way that peace is an abstraction, or numbers. Here is the wiki on "concept" if you need some reference. God is an abstract idea as well. There are also conceptions of God, but they are not what I was referring to, and I made it perfectly clear that I was avoiding such confusion.
Quote:
If someone says "god is love," well I too believe in love, so I guess I believe in god.
No - only if you also think that god is love would you then believe in god. But you don't - you're an atheist. Saying "God is love" for you is on the level of saying "Ghosts are love" or "The tooth fairy is love". You're under no rational obligation to believe logical consequences from statements you specifically deny or hold as nonsensical.
Quote:
I just don't think that's an appropriate use for the word "god."
Most deists do.
Quote:
But just for the sake of argument, if "god is love," then god is just a concept and not a being - because love is just a concept. You keep conflating things with concepts.
Did you at all read the passage from the Gospel of John? I'm not conflating ideas here - I'm specifically arguing that God as concept and God as being are the same thing - a property which almost all deists hold as fundamental to the idea of God. As Christians put it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I'm not conflating the "concept of God" with God at all, because "the concept of God" is not God, while "God as concept" is. In the same way, my concept of America is not the same thing as the buildings, people, land, etc. that compose America - my concept of America is not America. However, the nation of America - which is only a concept - is the same thing as the physical incarnation of America - the people, the land, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice. Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism. Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture. "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood. I don't think I've ever met one.
Again I completely disagree. We don't necessarily choose to become atheists. A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents. Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist. A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever. If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.
We're obviously at a dead end here, but I would like to point out that no one I know has ever described a baby as an atheist - it is not the common language usage of the word.
--------------------
|
GilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#17791044 - 02/12/13 05:53 PM (10 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:
clam_dude said: It's like you didn't read anything I wrote.
Jesus Christ, that's some nerve, saying I didn't address your points when I specifically did and then you go and ignore key bits of evidence for mine such as the gospel of john.
Quote:
In your second sentence you say "God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though." Did you understand what I said about the concept of the apple? An apple is not a concept. Neither is a fish or a dog. And neither is god. A concept of an apple is a concept. A concept of god is a concept. But god is not a concept. The sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
It is a grammatically correct sentence - please tell me what rules of grammar I've supposedly broken.
Quote:
You're confusing things with the concepts of them.
Absolutely not. I'll address this shortly.
Quote:
You say "The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief."
i never stated that lack of evidence constituted disbelief.
Do you understand what the word "necessary" means? If you lack something necessary for belief, then it's impossible by the definition of necessary to believe.
Quote:
Also, it's pretty convenient to just state that "god" is an exception to the fact that concepts of things are not the things themselves. You state "God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined. "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not?"
Again, that's not grammatically correct to state that "god is a concept."
What type of crazy grammar do you subscribe to? "X is a concept" is a syntactically well-formed sentence.
Here's another metaphor, because you seem really confused in these posts: "America" is a concept. I can also have a concept of America, but the America itself is a still concept - it is an abstraction, in the same way that peace is an abstraction, or numbers. Here is the wiki on "concept" if you need some reference. God is an abstract idea as well. There are also conceptions of God, but they are not what I was referring to, and I made it perfectly clear that I was avoiding such confusion.
Quote:
If someone says "god is love," well I too believe in love, so I guess I believe in god.
No - only if you also think that god is love would you then believe in god. But you don't - you're an atheist. Saying "God is love" for you is on the level of saying "Ghosts are love" or "The tooth fairy is love". You're under no rational obligation to believe logical consequences from statements you specifically deny or hold as nonsensical.
Quote:
I just don't think that's an appropriate use for the word "god."
Most deists do.
Quote:
But just for the sake of argument, if "god is love," then god is just a concept and not a being - because love is just a concept. You keep conflating things with concepts.
Did you at all read the passage from the Gospel of John? I'm not conflating ideas here - I'm specifically arguing that God as concept and God as being are the same thing - a property which almost all deists hold as fundamental to the idea of God. As Christians put it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I'm not conflating the "concept of God" with God at all, because "the concept of God" is not God, while "God as concept" is. In the same way, my concept of America is not the same thing as the buildings, people, land, etc. that compose America - my concept of America is not America. However, the nation of America - which is only a concept - is the same thing as the physical incarnation of America - the people, the land, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said: We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice. Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism. Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture. "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood. I don't think I've ever met one.
Again I completely disagree. We don't necessarily choose to become atheists. A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents. Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist. A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever. If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.
We're obviously at a dead end here, but I would like to point out that no one I know has ever described a baby as an atheist - it is not the common language usage of the word.
I agree. People are ACTIVELY Atheist. It's not like being human. We aren't actively human, we just are. But I don't think anyone is by default an atheist.
|
|