Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2011, 05:19 PM
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
(05-09-2011 12:52 PM)The_observer Wrote:  You step into the same philosophical trap twice NotSoVacous, Only now you came from an other direction...

Trying to argue for the definition of heaven is like trying to argue for the definition of a folagropation.

A what?
A folagropation.
What the fuck is a folagropa...
Oh... I saw what you did there...


Anyone with enough fantasy can go and try to define something alike. That doesn't make it more plausible though. It only taps into your brain that thinks something is more plausible when you can imagine it. (A trick sometimes called "the rule of typical things" and used by insurances salespersons, lotteries, -and yes- religions around the world)

Are you into philosophy?

What don't you get? I know heaven isn't plausible, practical, possible. I GET THAT. My point is people are trying to argue the definition. The definition has been created, set in stone. You can argue the practicality all day long, but the definition you can't. Just like my previous example, if they there will be 72 virgins you don't get to argue that there might be less than that.

So someone, please, use another word like practical, plausible, possible, likely, etc... so I can fucking freak out.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2011 05:45 PM by BGrambo.)
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
(05-09-2011 12:18 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(04-09-2011 10:45 PM)BGrambo Wrote:  So if I don't believe in being massaged, I wont be massaged? Also, if you're not god, how can you state whether or not I will go to heaven if I don't believe in god. I've never stated that the holy spirit doesn't exist, so perhaps this God will make an exception for me. Man wrote what god said, perhaps man made a few mistakes.

The point is, you are arguing the definition that people have created. You are not arguing the definition that god has created, because he doesn't exist. simply put, you are arguing a definition that someone has stated is X.

Now if you want to talk about how boring heaven would be, please state the heaven that you created in your mind will be boring. By definition arguing that you will get bored in the christian heaven is about at wrong as arguing you won't really get 72 virgins in islamic heaven, you will just get 56, or some stupid shit like that.

As for the Observer, we aren't arguing the practicality of heaven or possibility, just the definition. So to say infinity or X can't happen, lets revert back to the definition, magic...

For the bearded dude, revert back to Islamic heaven and arguing the definition. I'm arguing the definition people, not the possibility/practicality.

A wise woman once told me, rule the definition, don't let it rule you. A definition is capable of being changed, views are different from person to person. Some peoples heavan is not like other peoples. If god was going to make "eternal happiness" then it would have to be different for each and every person.
(05-09-2011 05:19 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(05-09-2011 12:52 PM)The_observer Wrote:  You step into the same philosophical trap twice NotSoVacous, Only now you came from an other direction...

Trying to argue for the definition of heaven is like trying to argue for the definition of a folagropation.

A what?
A folagropation.
What the fuck is a folagropa...
Oh... I saw what you did there...


Anyone with enough fantasy can go and try to define something alike. That doesn't make it more plausible though. It only taps into your brain that thinks something is more plausible when you can imagine it. (A trick sometimes called "the rule of typical things" and used by insurances salespersons, lotteries, -and yes- religions around the world)

Are you into philosophy?

What don't you get? I know heaven isn't plausible, practical, possible. I GET THAT. My point is people are trying to argue the definition. The definition has been created, set in stone. You can argue the practicality all day long, but the definition you can't. Just like my previous example, if they there will be 72 virgins you don't get to argue that there might be less than that.

So someone, please, use another word like practical, plausible, possible, likely, etc... so I can fucking freak out.

No definition, known to man, has ever been set in stone. Every word changes from generation to generation. For example. The word GAY. Gay used to mean happy, then it went to referring to a homosexual, now it usualls refers to something unenjoyable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 06:10 PM
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
(04-09-2011 04:37 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I haven't seen this argument from an atheist anywhere else but here. That is why I am going to direct this "bitching" at you, and you know who you are.(I probably know that the person isn't really the person that browses here, so don't post about it.)

The argument that you will be bored in heaven after an allotted amount of time is an argument that could be equal in scale to the arguments creationist use. It's stupid, the whole concept of heaven is to leave this fleshy, emotional, pain-prone body for the highest happiness. You will not get bored, end of fucking discussion. Stop making us intelligent atheist look stupid.

Let me be clear, the idea that you can't be bored, sad, etc... is a huge problem for them to explain and I think it's a stupid man made idea. But when man made ideas state 'B', no matter how stupid they are, you don't pull one from the creationist book and say it will turn into 'C'.

I should have probably necro'd my "Things I hate about atheist" thread for this, but I hate to necro.

You calling yourself an intelligent atheist is what I find insulting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 07:07 PM
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
This whole thread irritates me, and it's entirely because of the responses by Notso. Calm down dude.

Not only that but it is pointless. Completely pointless. The problem presented I believe was that Notso has some problem with people stating that they would be bored suffering an eternity of happiness. That it would be impossible by the definition of heaven presented within the bible. I agree that fundamentally if we were to believe that god does exist as stated in the bible it would be impossible to actually become bored or unhappy while under his command. I still don't know why this would bother him. The thing about it is, however it is defined within the bibles pages, we as atheists are critical thinkers. It comes with the territory.

So having the argument on whether while within the definition of heaven we can feel sadness or really anything other than happiness, is silly. Let's say none of us believe in heaven, and one of the reasons why is probably because the idea of eternal happiness seems ridiculous, but let us also all agree that within the written definition of heaven it would be impossible to feel anything other than happiness. I think deep down we all feel that way. No reason to get all flustered about it.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
06-09-2011, 04:59 PM
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
I will say this one last thing, and then leave the flaming to the others.

The argument in the OP is actually quite good for disproving the existence of heaven, or the very least detailing another inconsistency within the bible.

The idea of infinite is hard for the human mind to comprehend, and therefore, an eternal existence is really beyond the scope of our thought. However, we can comment on time frames of our life span, a few decades. And with that knowledge, one could argue the ability to extrapolate the results of eternal life.

In other words, we can use our life experiences on earth to determine whether "eternal Happiness" is possible. And throughout all the experiences, the stories, the autobiographies, etc...there has never been a single account of a life without sadness, never mind happiness through their entire life. The whole of human life proves to us that happiness cannot last for a single lifetime, never mind an eternity.

Of course, a theists will respond with the same tried and true argument they use every time they get backed into a corner, "Its magic". I am paraphrasing of course, but you should all get the idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 05:15 PM
RE: Caller on The Atheist Experience 724
(05-09-2011 12:02 PM)The_observer Wrote:  You are fools! Both of you!

The fallacy of afterlife as a place where you have an unlimited amount of happy experiences does not only come from the failure do conceptualize happy, but also from the fallacy of defining infinite as an quantity.

For once and for all! Infinity is not a quantity. Infinity is not "a lot", it is not "a whole lot", it is not "a fucking whole lot". Infinity is just that! Infinite! 1% of infinity is just as infinite as 100%. You'll never reach the middle of infinity. Taking infinity as a quantity is like taking oranges for apples. No wait! It's like taking oranges for purple and apples for a fucking strategic nuclear bomber! It doesn't make any sense! (Ever gentle and intelligent 3vid3nce has a good video about that)

As for happiness...
If you take happiness as defined by the ancient Greek philosophers you'll get the following: Light is the absence of darkness, war is the absence of peace and happiness is the absence of unhappiness. There you go! When your death, you truly ARE happy for infinity simply because you cease to be unhappy! Yeah! Like if that's what pastor meant when he talks about infinite happiness. What a quibble!

But this it what it boils down to with religion isn't it? Half truths, undefined concepts that people can quibble about all they like without getting to an agreement, and philosophical non-issues.

Discussions like this on atheist sites really piss me off since it's just this kind of shit religious folks seem to be happy about.

Define your shit before starting a discussion and cut the crap! Unless your ambition is to be the laughing stock of theists.

Hi Observer
You are quite right percentages cannot apply to infinity.
My initial argument was that any god would have to occupy a finite space and that space would limit the virtues religious people attribute that god. As believers construct gods to suit their limited cognitive values their gods share the same limitations. As for "happiness",less clear cut but certainly ambivilant.
As for defining one's initial position, we are all only human and crap at least sometimes leads to better, or less nauseous crap........
Ad fidem, ad hominem, and fallacies of eqivocation, do not alter my original contention and the purveyors of such add little to these discussions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: