Atheism is the only rational position to take
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2017, 11:14 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 07:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Your argument is mostly semantical, an attempt to contort the meaning being conveyed, to fit your argument, which is the farthest from any of the points I raised.

As an atheist I have presented an atheistic position which directly contradicts your generalization about atheistic positions. You may disagree with my assessment, but you lose regardless. The point is that you can't accurately speak for atheists. That has now been clearly established by multiple posters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
15-08-2017, 11:42 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 11:14 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  As an atheist I have presented an atheistic position which directly contradicts your generalization about atheistic positions. You may disagree with my assessment, but you lose regardless. The point is that you can't accurately speak for atheists. That has now been clearly established by multiple posters.

No you just attempted to hijack the terms in question, and redefine them in a way that has nothing to do with how it’s being used.

Clearly when people talk about meaning and purpose when it comes to their own life’s, they’re not particularallt talking about their biological desire to eat, to seek shelter, regardless if the meaning and purpose they ascribe to life is subjective or inherent to life itself.

If you don’t particularly understand what I’m getting at by inherent meaning, an analogy would be that of a novel, composed with narrative meaning and purpose, by its author.

It’s to view life as part of a story, or an unfolding of that story. It’s to attribute to life, what we might commonly attribute to a film, or book, a work of art, or a song.

It’s a designed view of life.

I’m pretty sure you don’t hold an actual view of life like this. If you did you’re just a theist, suffering an identity crisis.







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
15-08-2017, 11:46 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 10:42 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  My inherent purpose is to mock the stupid among us.

Tomasia - consider yourself mocked.


And consider me unfazed by your mockery. But if that’s the sort of stuff you get a kick out of, by all means continue on.


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
15-08-2017, 12:31 PM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 08:31 AM)mordant Wrote:  I agree that you can't be both, but you are bringing in issues that don't determine which you are. Teleological beliefs don't define those categories. [/auote]

No, they do define those categories. My teleological beliefs define my belief in God, in fact they define what I mean by God.

In your view it’s a two step process, you hold a teleological view, and then attribute this to God. What I’m arguing is that these are one and the same, for many theists, including myself.

Whatever sort of definition of God you appear to be working with here, that can be annexed from questions of inherent meaning, is not any type of God that I or many other theists believe in. It’s one based primarily around your own misunderstanding.

Consider a common theistic counter thought to atheism, “how can you look at all the richness of life, and believe it wasn’t created”.

In your imagination this a two step process, one would have agree that we’re a part of a created order, and then attribute this created order to God.

Where as for those pondering this question the question of God, and a teleological order are one and the same.

If you were to respond to such a question by asking “how do you go from conceding that we’re part of a created order, to attributing this to God”, the theists will likely look at you bewilderingly, because you didn’t understand that the question is not the two parts you think it is.

[quote]Frankly I very much doubt most people even know what "teleological" means, or hold to a purely teleological position. "God helps those who help themselves" is not particularly teleological, but rather an attempt to handle the cognitive dissonance between the help god promises in most interpretations of Christianity vs what people experience.[/auote]

People don’t need to know what “teleological” means to hold teleological beliefs. Attributing design to nature, attributing inherent purpose and aims, attributing a transcendent moral order, a moral arc to the universe, to human existence, would qualify as holding teleological views. As well holding to a belief in a universe in which the faithful are rewarded, and the unfaithful punished.

And no, a belief that God helps those that help themselves doesn’t negate teleology.

[quote]
They are far too dour and While your god-concept may be centered on the need for purpose and meaning to be externally bestowed, I dispute that it's that front-and-center for most Christians. It's more of an afterthought apologetic that they're parroting than a real belief that they're embracing and living.

And I’d wager that you can gather any group of theists, and express your take on what they believe as opposed to what i state about their beliefs, and I have little doubt that they’ll agree with my take, and not yours.

Atheists such as yourself might be quite confident about your take on theism, perhaps appealing to their own experiences as theists. But I’ve been among your type for over a decade, hearing you tell me what my conservative evangelical friends believe, what theists believe. What I recognize is that the view among folks like yourself rarely ever passes beyond the superficial, that it appears as a requirement. That in order to be a typical atheists, one has to possess a very shallow understanding of religion and god, to sustain it.

I’m sure you believe otherwise, but I can honestly tell you, your attempts to convey what folks like myself, the typical conservative evangelical community I belong to, historical theism, is shallow to the point of cringe. But go head, huff and protest otherwise, in your little vacuum chambers.







(15-08-2017 06:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well I’ve been among folks like yourself for over a decade, and no matter how much time they’ve spent with theists, one thing remains constant that they do a shitty job trying to convey what they believe. Your example of comparing a belief in God to big foot, is one example.

I’m telling you as a theist, a conservative evangelical one at that, your confidence in being able to speak about beliefs such as my own, are not warranted. They are more or less

If you believe in one or more gods, you're a theist, and if you're a theist, you're likely to hold teleological notions, particularly if your position is at all considered. If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist, and unlikely to hold teleological notions, particularly if your position is at all considered. Those are definitionally correct statements about god belief and one of the many reasons FOR god belief and I don't see any need to conflate them. Or any reason to argue it any further.





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
15-08-2017, 12:38 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 12:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or any reason to argue it any further.



Yet still...

I believe that we're all kinda lonely. Writing messages on the wall.

You don't really hafta believe in my Gwynnies.

You dont hafta hate me either.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2017, 04:26 PM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 08:09 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What inherent purpose? If things truly had an "inherent" meaning and purpose, you wouldn't need any god to give them one, now would you? If you assume that this "inherent" purpose necessarily implies god, then it isn't really inherent. Make up your mind.


Plenty of things have an inherent purpose. A watch has an inherent or intrinsic purpose of telling time, one endowed upon it by its creator, made into a property of the object itself.


A novel, or story may contain intrinsic meaning, endowed upon it by its author, ascribing to it moral, or purpose to be learned of by his readers. It’s property of the novel itself, a part of its very fabric






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
16-08-2017, 07:52 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(15-08-2017 04:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-08-2017 08:09 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What inherent purpose? If things truly had an "inherent" meaning and purpose, you wouldn't need any god to give them one, now would you? If you assume that this "inherent" purpose necessarily implies god, then it isn't really inherent. Make up your mind.


Plenty of things have an inherent purpose. A watch has an inherent or intrinsic purpose of telling time, one endowed upon it by its creator, made into a property of the object itself.


A novel, or story may contain intrinsic meaning, endowed upon it by its author, ascribing to it moral, or purpose to be learned of by his readers. It’s property of the novel itself, a part of its very fabric






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't see "deliberately put there by someone" as a good definition of "inherent". Your mileage may vary. A watch doesn't have an inherent purpose. It has the purpose its designer/maker wanted it to have. Not the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2017, 08:00 AM
Atheism is the only rational position to take
(16-08-2017 07:52 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't see "deliberately put there by someone" as a good definition of "inherent". Your mileage may vary. A watch doesn't have an inherent purpose. It has the purpose its designer/maker wanted it to have. Not the same thing.

Watches( a timepiece) has an intrinsic/inherent purpose, and that is to tell time. A watch that doesn’t tell time is either broken, or not a watch. It’s designed and formed with this purpose in mind. That purpose is a property of object itself. You can say that it acquires this intrinsic purpose by its designer, but that’s beside the point.


This is different than what we might say of a rock I used to hit someone in the head with. I can’t particularly accuse the rock of being broken if it missed its mark.

"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
16-08-2017, 08:20 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
Hello! Big Grin

Actually, a watch (Or clock etc) does not tell time.

It is the inerant motions of the device which are interpreted as moments of/in time.

So... the poor, maligned, rock also given in your example also has the intrinsic abilty to have time inferred from it (Via the motions of the Earth, the Sun etc). A 'Sun-dial' if you will. Yes

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
16-08-2017, 08:28 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(16-08-2017 08:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 07:52 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't see "deliberately put there by someone" as a good definition of "inherent". Your mileage may vary. A watch doesn't have an inherent purpose. It has the purpose its designer/maker wanted it to have. Not the same thing.
Watches( a timepiece) has an intrinsic/inherent purpose, and that is to tell time. A watch that doesn’t tell time is either broken, or not a watch. It’s designed and formed with this purpose in mind. That purpose is a property of object itself. You can say that it acquires this intrinsic purpose by its designer, but that’s beside the point.

This is different than what we might say of a rock I used to hit someone in the head with. I can’t particularly accuse the rock of being broken if it missed its mark.

Something (such as a watch) can have an inherent purpose that was designed into it, but "inherent" and "designed" are not synonyms. When I look for a definition of "inherent", the example given is "Any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers." Mountaineering was not designed to be dangerous.

You can infer "purpose" only by assuming that something was designed. To try to go the other way is begging the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: