Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2016, 02:29 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(22-09-2016 11:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If it claims that god created a single grain of sand by an act of conscious will then it assumes the primacy of consciousness. It just moves the issue to which consciousness does, while still affirming the primacy of consciousness.
I really don't get this issue that you have.

I have never heard anyone decree what their god is made of or what mechanism their god acts via. I've never seen anyone who has ever tested the capabilities of a god in order to find out what its boundaries are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:46 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:29 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have never heard anyone decree what their god is made of or what mechanism their god acts via. I've never seen anyone who has ever tested the capabilities of a god in order to find out what its boundaries are.

That'd make their God too easy to disprove. And you can't test the limits of something which you don't know how to even tell if it's there.

My God is made of potato chips. He acts via the crunch sound when you eat them. His boundaries are producing delicious flavours.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-09-2016, 03:29 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:29 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have never heard anyone decree what their god is made of or what mechanism their god acts via. I've never seen anyone who has ever tested the capabilities of a god in order to find out what its boundaries are.

That'd make their God too easy to disprove. And you can't test the limits of something which you don't know how to even tell if it's there.

My God is made of potato chips. He acts via the crunch sound when you eat them. His boundaries are producing delicious flavours.

Now favor is supernatural? Shocking

IS NOTHING NOT SACRED!? Angry

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-09-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:29 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 11:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If it claims that god created a single grain of sand by an act of conscious will then it assumes the primacy of consciousness. It just moves the issue to which consciousness does, while still affirming the primacy of consciousness.
I really don't get this issue that you have.

I have never heard anyone decree what their god is made of or what mechanism their god acts via. I've never seen anyone who has ever tested the capabilities of a god in order to find out what its boundaries are.


Its the most fundamental issue in philosophy. In the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects which has primacy. Do the objects of consciousness exist independently of consciousness or do they depend on consciousness for their existence. does consciousness conform to its objects or is it the other way around? Does "wishing make it so" or does "wishing not make things so".

When we look at the world we find, without exception, that consciousness does not have primacy. We also know that consciousness is consciousness of something as opposed to nothing. You can't be conscious and be conscious of nothing. It always requires something to be conscious of. The concept of consciousness presupposes existence.

Theism reverses this and gives consciousness primacy over existence. It proposes that everything was created by a form of consciousness, is maintained by this consciousness and can be altered by this consciousness. It also affirms that Human consciousness has primacy through prayer and faith. If one has the faith of a mustard seed anything is possible to him. So there is no question that theism in general assumes subjectivism. This is a fatal flaw at the very starting point of theism. It renders the rest of it invalid. This is because starting with consciousness instead of existence commits a fallacy known as the fallacy of the stolen concept. This occurs when one accepts and uses a higher level concept while denying or calling into question the validity of a concept that is in its genetic root.

Since we know that existence does have primacy, without exception, we know that theism is false. They try to get out of this problem by saying well, sure God's consciousness has primacy over existence but ours does not. This does not solve the problem because this attempts to integrate two contradictory notions. It embraces a contradiction. It says that reality has one nature for one form of consciousness and another, contradictory nature for other consciousness. You might as well lump Kangaroo consciousness and Lion consciousness and turtle consciousness in there with Human. In every case we find that consciousness does not have primacy.

Since every theist I've ever encountered is blind to the fundamental nature of what they believe, they have no idea that they are making this error. That's because they have accepted their belief without considering the hidden premises at its base. I make it my business to point it out to them. They don't like it.

This error has devastating implications for theism. It means that any argument for gods commits the fallacy of the stolen concept because logic rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. Deny it and logic has no meaning or purpose. So when they argue for their god they are using logic to prove something that negates logic. So no argument, regardless of its premises, can succeed.

Stevil, we could literally chase theism into the shadows where it belongs if we all brought up this issue in every public forum and in every debate. If every time we asked the question that I asked TheBorg: Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness), on what basis does a theist distinguish between the real and the imaginary? They can't make this distinction on their own premises. Instead we argue about the big bang and evolution and interpretations of the Bible, all the while this bomb sits in the basement of theism waiting to explode when the light of day is shown on it. There's no sense in discussing these other things until this issue is resolved.

Sorry to be so wordy but I really want this issue to get out there and to be understood.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
23-09-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Stevil, we could literally chase theism into the shadows where it belongs if we all brought up this issue in every public forum and in every debate. If every time we asked the question that I asked TheBorg: Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness), on what basis does a theist distinguish between the real and the imaginary? They can't make this distinction on their own premises. Instead we argue about the big bang and evolution and interpretations of the Bible, all the while this bomb sits in the basement of theism waiting to explode when the light of day is shown on it. There's no sense in discussing these other things until this issue is resolved.
Too abstruse old bean. Imagine asking what's his face - banana man - this question. Either he's going to pretend to understand you, and answer in similarly abstruse terms (i.e. pretend it's a learned debate for the audience's benefit and go ever more abstruse as you at first answer him honestly and then with increasing rage as you realise his tactic) or he's going to go "hunh?" or even worse, he could accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. You naively assume that your theist debate opponent is going to play fair and actually think about what you say. A sincere one might, but the rest - they'll dismiss it without a care in the world. They play to their audience, not to you, the person they are ostensibly debating.

Quote:Sorry to be so wordy but I really want this issue to get out there and to be understood.
Hehehehe Smile We don't get what we want always, and you won't get this. Objective truth Tongue The average guy doesn't want to think deeply about philosophy and IMO rightly so.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 01:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Stevil, we could literally chase theism into the shadows where it belongs if we all brought up this issue in every public forum and in every debate. If every time we asked the question that I asked TheBorg: Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness), on what basis does a theist distinguish between the real and the imaginary? They can't make this distinction on their own premises. Instead we argue about the big bang and evolution and interpretations of the Bible, all the while this bomb sits in the basement of theism waiting to explode when the light of day is shown on it. There's no sense in discussing these other things until this issue is resolved.
Too abstruse old bean. Imagine asking what's his face - banana man - this question. Either he's going to pretend to understand you, and answer in similarly abstruse terms (i.e. pretend it's a learned debate for the audience's benefit and go ever more abstruse as you at first answer him honestly and then with increasing rage as you realise his tactic) or he's going to go "hunh?" or even worse, he could accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. You naively assume that your theist debate opponent is going to play fair and actually think about what you say. A sincere one might, but the rest - they'll dismiss it without a care in the world. They play to their audience, not to you, the person they are ostensibly debating.

Quote:Sorry to be so wordy but I really want this issue to get out there and to be understood.
Hehehehe Smile We don't get what we want always, and you won't get this. Objective truth Tongue The average guy doesn't want to think deeply about philosophy and IMO rightly so.

I would add that even those who do think deeply about philosophy tend to disagree with each other. And in this case, I disagree with True Scotsman. I have gone into some detail on this in another thread, but we continue to disagree. I don't wish to re-open that discussion (and it was going nowhere anyway), but I did want to point out that things are not necessarily as neat and simple as he says they are. "If you think philosophy is easy, you're not doing it." (I forget who said this, but I fully agree with it.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 01:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Stevil, we could literally chase theism into the shadows where it belongs if we all brought up this issue in every public forum and in every debate. If every time we asked the question that I asked TheBorg: Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness), on what basis does a theist distinguish between the real and the imaginary? They can't make this distinction on their own premises. Instead we argue about the big bang and evolution and interpretations of the Bible, all the while this bomb sits in the basement of theism waiting to explode when the light of day is shown on it. There's no sense in discussing these other things until this issue is resolved.
Too abstruse old bean. Imagine asking what's his face - banana man - this question. Either he's going to pretend to understand you, and answer in similarly abstruse terms (i.e. pretend it's a learned debate for the audience's benefit and go ever more abstruse as you at first answer him honestly and then with increasing rage as you realise his tactic) or he's going to go "hunh?" or even worse, he could accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. You naively assume that your theist debate opponent is going to play fair and actually think about what you say. A sincere one might, but the rest - they'll dismiss it without a care in the world. They play to their audience, not to you, the person they are ostensibly debating.

Quote:Sorry to be so wordy but I really want this issue to get out there and to be understood.
Hehehehe Smile We don't get what we want always, and you won't get this. Objective truth Tongue The average guy doesn't want to think deeply about philosophy and IMO rightly so.

It's really sad that these ideas seem to be abstruse. They are really very simple to grasp. If you want abstruse read Kant. I realize that the average person doesn't want to think deeply but this is the thinking atheist and I have come to think of most here as a cut above the average guy. Quite a cut above.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 01:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  Too abstruse old bean. Imagine asking what's his face - banana man - this question. Either he's going to pretend to understand you, and answer in similarly abstruse terms (i.e. pretend it's a learned debate for the audience's benefit and go ever more abstruse as you at first answer him honestly and then with increasing rage as you realise his tactic) or he's going to go "hunh?" or even worse, he could accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. You naively assume that your theist debate opponent is going to play fair and actually think about what you say. A sincere one might, but the rest - they'll dismiss it without a care in the world. They play to their audience, not to you, the person they are ostensibly debating.

Hehehehe Smile We don't get what we want always, and you won't get this. Objective truth Tongue The average guy doesn't want to think deeply about philosophy and IMO rightly so.

I would add that even those who do think deeply about philosophy tend to disagree with each other. And in this case, I disagree with True Scotsman. I have gone into some detail on this in another thread, but we continue to disagree. I don't wish to re-open that discussion (and it was going nowhere anyway), but I did want to point out that things are not necessarily as neat and simple as he says they are. "If you think philosophy is easy, you're not doing it." (I forget who said this, but I fully agree with it.)

I never said it was easy. But it is not all that difficult either. Heck I understand it and I'm not some genius. It just takes effort and thinking.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would add that even those who do think deeply about philosophy tend to disagree with each other. And in this case, I disagree with True Scotsman.

Eish. You guys are too hectic. If you're looking for solipsism it's in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-09-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It's really sad that these ideas seem to be abstruse. They are really very simple to grasp. If you want abstruse read Kant. I realize that the average person doesn't want to think deeply but this is the thinking atheist and I have come to think of most here as a cut above the average guy. Quite a cut above.

Hehehe. Lemme polish my halo Tongue Well, I read it and I thought I understood it and I even found it convincing. But I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of this. If you're debating a theist they're gonna come with a lot of baggage, chief among which is the idea that you are of the devil and are seeking actively to bamboozle them. Anything which starts with the words "Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness)" is definitely doomed.

Also, I had to read a lot before I even got what the heck you were talking about. That's why the debate tends to be rather more concrete. The Bible says X, we observe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive. And *still* the real twits manage to find ways to convince themselves that they're right in the face of all contradictory evidence.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: