I can't rationalize atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 11:10 AM)Anjele Wrote:  *we need a yawning/bored emoticon*

^This.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 11:47 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Exactly, diddo97 must first decide that he wants to sort his life out.

Either that or face up to the fact that he doesn't want to and instead wants to continue being miserable.

It's a choice that anyone who has cured themselves of depression has had to face.

Hobo Well, that's what I would do if I were depressed and wallowing in a fit of self-loathing -- go find a forum for folks who don't buy into my delusional superstitions and troll it all day with "I don't underSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND..."

Facepalm

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 04:30 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(13-04-2014 02:42 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Also, random thought. If you'd much rather not believe in a God, doesn't that totally destroy Plantinga's modal ontological argument? Wouldn't a maximal God necessarily be something that everyone wanted to believe in? Chalk that up as failure #19468 of that argument.

If we're talking about the silly Christian God, sure.

Which God were you talking about, when you said that you'd prefer if it didn't exist? Apply this logic to that one. Whichever God you'd rather did not exist? Either it does not, or Plantina's modal ontological argument is crap and proves nothing. (Or both.)

Actually, you know what? Let's expand on this. Some other things that a maximally great being would be:

SENSIBLE. It would not be some vague maybe in some invisible realm or dusty old book. It would be as real and in-your-face as the sun on a cloudless day. Everyone could see it was there and bask in its presence, clear as, well, day. Would those beings be flawed and incapable of noticing it? Well too-the-fuck-bad! Because the maximally great being is sensible in SPITE of the flaws in the lesser beings' senses (which, after all, would be greater than not being sensible because of those flaws). Hey, if it can somehow hop from one universe to every universe, then this is nothing in comparison.

UNAMBIGUOUS. Meaning, everyone who looks at it sees pretty much the same thing. There's none of that blind-men-and-an-elephant crap, because it would be greater if that didn't happen.

DESIRABLE. Everyone who saw it would want it to be true, because isn't that greater than a being whose existence is undesirable to even one person? Everyone would rejoice in it, no one who saw it would wish to deny it. Wouldn't a maximally great being be wanted by everyone, rather than everyone less one person?

But if such a sensible, unambiguous, desirable being did exist, why do we have people who claim it doesn't, or that they have no reason to believe that it does? If it's perfectly sensible, how could I not have noticed it? If it's perfectly unambiguous, how could I have I have mistaken it for something else, or have a false conception of it? If it's perfectly desirable, what motive would I have to deny it or lie about it? The simple fact that I AM here, saying that I have no evidence that this thing exists and considerable evidence that it does not exist, is itself proof that it does not exist, at least not as Plantinga describes it.

So you know what? It's not proven. There's a higher standard for "proof" than "Someone threw together an argument that kinda feels logical, and a bunch of people bought into it, even as a bunch of critical thinkers pointed out that the argument was flawed." That doesn't pass the bar of proof. You know what? Check out the following.

Code:
Let x = y    (Given).
x*x = x*y     (Multiplied both sides by y)
x*x-y*y = x*y - y*y    (subtracted y*y from both sides).
(x - y)*(x + y) = (x - y)*y    (Factored)
x + y = y    (Canceled out x - y)
y + y = y     (Substituted x = y, Given from line 1.)
2y = y    (Combined like terms)
2 = 1    (Divided both sides by y.  Conclusion.)

There! Proof that 2 = 1!

You now have a choice. Either accept that it is mathematically proven that 2 = 1, or accept that the facsimile of a proof is not the same thing as a proof... meaning, roll up your sleeves and dig into the guts of it until you find where it went wrong. And if you can see that the facsimile of proof is not the same thing as a proof here, then it's easy to apply that same understanding to Plantinga. This. Is. Not. Proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
13-04-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 11:33 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It sounds like a cry of help from someone who is depressed and somehow being a theist gives him an excuse to think that he can't help any of his problems.

This is pretty much spot on. Whatever the OP had in mind when he posted, it was not the inexorable persuasiveness of the Ontological argument.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like John's post
13-04-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 12:25 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
Code:
Let x = y    (Given).
x*x = x*y     (Multiplied both sides by y)
x*x-y*y = x*y - y*y    (subtracted y*y from both sides).
(x - y)*(x + y) = (x - y)*y    (Factored)
x + y = y    (Canceled out x - y)
y + y = y     (Substituted x = y, Given from line 1.)
2y = y    (Combined like terms)
2 = 1    (Divided both sides by y.  Conclusion.)

There! Proof that 2 = 1!

This one is used way too much. You devided by zero in line 4.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 04:54 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I would much rather not believe in a god, but there are a few things that I cannot escape.

1. The ontological argument, which shifts the burden of proof onto atheists
2. The cosmological argument
3. The fact that I'm a pathetic piece of shit. Who am I to question the really smart people who believe?
4. The idea that materialism is self refuting/argument from solipsism

My replies to your list:

1) I feel no 'burden' to prove that a god doesn't exist. You have no such burden, either. Relax.

2) I'm unsure as to what you mean here, why this is an issue?

3) You're not a pathetic POS. Sad There are smart people who believe, and you can let them be. Doesn't change who you are one bit.

4) Materialism isn't self refuting. I should read through the thread to see how this has been addressed before I go into it in great length. Laugh out load

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 03:56 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(13-04-2014 12:25 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
Code:
Let x = y    (Given).
x*x = x*y     (Multiplied both sides by y)
x*x-y*y = x*y - y*y    (subtracted y*y from both sides).
(x - y)*(x + y) = (x - y)*y    (Factored)
x + y = y    (Canceled out x - y)
y + y = y     (Substituted x = y, Given from line 1.)
2y = y    (Combined like terms)
2 = 1    (Divided both sides by y.  Conclusion.)

There! Proof that 2 = 1!

This one is used way too much. You devided by zero in line 4.

*divided, D-Wreck.

Your whole fucking OP, and indeed everything you have said in this fucking forum, has been dividing by zero.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 05:53 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 05:04 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 05:00 PM)natachan Wrote:  1) no, sweety, it doesn't. There is no link between physical reality and thought. You say there is? Provide evidence.
2) The existence of the universe is evidence for nothing but the universe. "I don't know" doesn't mean God did it.
3) I've written a long piece on sin. Search if you want. Short version: being a normal human does not count as a crime.
4) Explain. This looks like word salad to me.

1. No no. The ontological argument proves that if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, a maximally great being MUST exist. So, nonbeliever must now prove that a maximally great being cannot exist.
2. Everything that exists has a cause. Do you disagree with that statement
3. I am lower than a normal person
4. http://carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

1. I love the ISLAND refutation of the ontological argument. Let's say I tell you to imagine the most perfect island ( An island that has NO FLAW WHATSOEVER), and place that island somewhere on this planet. If you can conceive of it, it must exist... Right? Well, after you have done that, please check the most recent google earth and see if your perfect island is there. Also, why must something exist in order to be perfect? Is existence a trait that adds or detracts from it being perfect? Just because you can conceive it, doesn't mean it exists, dude.

2. We have never seen anything "come into existence." Argument relies of false assumptions.

3. That seems like a personal problem. Also (not that this is a good argument), but the majority of scientists (you know, smart people) are atheists/agnostics. Also, arguments from majority/authority are fallacious.

4. .... What?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
13-04-2014, 06:16 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 05:53 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 05:04 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  1. No no. The ontological argument proves that if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, a maximally great being MUST exist. So, nonbeliever must now prove that a maximally great being cannot exist.
2. Everything that exists has a cause. Do you disagree with that statement
3. I am lower than a normal person
4. http://carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

1. I love the ISLAND refutation of the ontological argument. Let's say I tell you to imagine the most perfect island ( An island that has NO FLAW WHATSOEVER), and place that island somewhere on this planet. If you can conceive of it, it must exist... Right? Well, after you have done that, please check the most recent google earth and see if your perfect island is there. Also, why must something exist in order to be perfect? Is existence a trait that adds or detracts from it being perfect? Just because you can conceive it, doesn't mean it exists, dude.

2. We have never seen anything "come into existence." Argument relies of false assumptions.

3. That seems like a personal problem. Also (not that this is a good argument), but the majority of scientists (you know, smart people) are atheists/agnostics. Also, arguments from majority/authority are fallacious.

4. .... What?

1. Islands, by definition, are not perfect. They are material. Material has flaws.
2. There still has to be a first cause
3. It would be wrong for someone like me to make assertions. I don't have very much knowledge
4. That's what I thought at first, too. But it is inescapable.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2014, 06:23 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2014 06:29 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(13-04-2014 06:16 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  1. Islands, by definition, are not perfect. They are material. Material has flaws.
2. There still has to be a first cause
3. It would be wrong for someone like me to make assertions. I don't have very much knowledge
4. That's what I thought at first, too. But it is inescapable.

1. Neither are gods. Perfection is a completely subjective term and nobody agrees on just WHAT subjects actually fall under its realm. Your idea of a maximally perfect being may completely differ from someone else's. There is also nothing saying that the maximally perfect being is even conceivable from the standpoint of a human mind, in which case arguing for gods is pointless since they are conceivable.
2. False, we don't even know whether the universe was created via standard processes of linear causality since quantum mechanics revealed that not even everything within this universe seems to operate on the standard causal model. In addition, even if a first cause is necessary, there is nothing pointing to standard conceptions of the label "god" as the culprit.
3. You have made multiple assertions throughout this thread. Multiple
4. You have yet to explain what the fuck you meant by it. Please enlighten us.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: