Atheism is the only rational position to take
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2017, 11:36 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(11-08-2017 10:09 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, a theist could always respond that God does not violate "primacy of existence", because his (God's) existence and consciousness are simultaneous -- neither can exist without the other. So there is no "primacy" issue. The whole "primacy of existence" argument depends on the assumption that consciousness can only arise as an emergent property of something material -- i.e., that there can be no such thing as an immaterial consciousness. Another way to express this is that existence can only be attributed to material things. And that's a whole other can of worms. I don't see any metaphysical reason why you can't posit an immaterial consciousness. Good luck demonstrating its existence, though (or any mechanism by which it can "cause" any material objects or effects)!
Sure you can posit anything you want, but that's not the same as substantiating it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
11-08-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(11-08-2017 11:36 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 10:09 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, a theist could always respond that God does not violate "primacy of existence", because his (God's) existence and consciousness are simultaneous -- neither can exist without the other. So there is no "primacy" issue. The whole "primacy of existence" argument depends on the assumption that consciousness can only arise as an emergent property of something material -- i.e., that there can be no such thing as an immaterial consciousness. Another way to express this is that existence can only be attributed to material things. And that's a whole other can of worms. I don't see any metaphysical reason why you can't posit an immaterial consciousness. Good luck demonstrating its existence, though (or any mechanism by which it can "cause" any material objects or effects)!
Sure you can posit anything you want, but that's not the same as substantiating it.

That's where faith comes in.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Grasshopper's post
12-08-2017, 06:33 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 07:42 PM)natachan Wrote:  If you can't define a god then why should I give it any consideration? The same principal would apply. If it can't be defined then there is no reason to think it exists because sufficient evidence for its existence cannot be presented. I don't believe in any vague and unsubstantiated claim simply because it "can't be defined."


Well people have hard time defining a chair, but that doesn’t seem to be much of a reason to believe chairs don’t exist.

People don’t tend to go through life trying to define in dictionary terms every thing they believe in, and we don’t have as much trouble understanding what they mean

Atheists such as yourself seem bizarre, because it seems rather easy to me to understand what someone who believes in God means by God, even if not the God that I believe in. Either though I might struggle with trying to express that in words to someone who doesn’t understand it at all.


The only people who seem puzzled by the very meaning of God, seem to be atheists. Everyone seems to be okay. I don’t have trouble communicating about what’s meant by the term God, with my Muslim, or Hindu friends.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 07:31 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
The chair is the form of the idea of the thing... I hardly see a world where it's hard to define when the idea of defining a form like that goes 2000 years back even as a philosophical notion

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(12-08-2017 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only people who seem puzzled by the very meaning of God, seem to be atheists.

Maybe it's because we think about it rather than assuming that "God" means the same thing to everybody.

For this thread you can thank Nosferatu323, who made some fairly peculiar claims that people who don't believe something bear a "burden of definition" for providing a clear and concise definition of what they don't believe. I think that's a hilarious double standard given some of the contradictory and incoherent rot that theists believe.

Let's be clear about this:

- The claimant bears the burden of proof. He who makes the claim provides the evidence.

- The burden of proof begins with defining any terms that are not common usage. One can hardly provide evidence to support a claim that is undefined.

So all this talk of "burden of definition" is just another shameless attempt to shift the burden of proof.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Paleophyte's post
12-08-2017, 02:22 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(12-08-2017 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only people who seem puzzled by the very meaning of God, seem to be atheists.

That's because the term "god" is virtually meaningless.

If I invent the word "Hasionite" to describe a being that creates graffiti on strange quarks, would you have any idea what a "Hasionite" is ?

I'll answer for you. The answer is Nope.

I've given properties to something that doesn't exist and if other people begin to use the term Hasionite, they could be referring to something very small, something artistic that you can't see, something strange or maybe something that is extremely rare.

The term is so vague, it becomes useless as a point of conversation, so that's why people ask "What do mean when you say the word - god ?"

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
13-08-2017, 12:25 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
It also shows how utterly irrelevant it is as a concept. It's a placeholder for unknown information, at best.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
13-08-2017, 05:46 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(13-08-2017 12:25 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It also shows how utterly irrelevant it is as a concept. It's a placeholder for unknown information, at best.

Sadly the concept of sky daddy is relevant even today - it's so relevant that clowns try to dictate how others should live their life.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 06:46 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(12-08-2017 02:22 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  That's because the term "god" is virtually meaningless.

If I invent the word "Hasionite" to describe a being that creates graffiti on strange quarks, would you have any idea what a "Hasionite" is ?

I'll answer for you. The answer is Nope.

I've given properties to something that doesn't exist and if other people begin to use the term Hasionite, they could be referring to something very small, something artistic that you can't see, something strange or maybe something that is extremely rare.

The term is so vague, it becomes useless as a point of conversation, so that's why people ask "What do mean when you say the word - god ?"

Like I said I understand what people mean when they say God, regardless of which religion they belong to. Just like I understand what they mean by chair.

You don’t understand what they mean.

So it’s more like a term belonging to some foreign language which contains a great deal of meaning, but in which you don’t understand.


It’s not that the term God is meaningless, and just that’s its expansive, it’s a term entailing a condition of possibility.

God as opposed to little g- gods, as belief shared by pretty much all of the main religions, entails a belief in a created order, a teleological view of life, that life has a moral order, than men have a moral purpose and obligation. So when someone ask me if I believe in a non-specific god, not attached to a single religion, I understand that question entails such a description.

You’re the one who doesn’t. But just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it contain no meaning.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 06:54 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(12-08-2017 12:11 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only people who seem puzzled by the very meaning of God, seem to be atheists.

Maybe it's because we think about it rather than assuming that "God" means the same thing to everybody.

For this thread you can thank Nosferatu323, who made some fairly peculiar claims that people who don't believe something bear a "burden of definition" for providing a clear and concise definition of what they don't believe. I think that's a hilarious double standard given some of the contradictory and incoherent rot that theists believe.

Let's be clear about this:

- The claimant bears the burden of proof. He who makes the claim provides the evidence.

- The burden of proof begins with defining any terms that are not common usage. One can hardly provide evidence to support a claim that is undefined.

So all this talk of "burden of definition" is just another shameless attempt to shift the burden of proof.


The term God not specific to a particular religion, but used in the common question “do you believe in God”.

Is a term thar entail primarily a question about a belief in a created order, a moral, and meaningful order, that life contains a purpose, as opposed to view of life an inherently nihilistic.

I understand that when people ask me such a question, that this a significant part of what that entails, by what they mean by “God”.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: