Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2014, 04:34 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-ba
(17-08-2014 04:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 03:17 PM)phil.a Wrote:  E.g. left and right wing political perspectives. Anyone who is stuck inside one or other of these as a relative perspective will see the opposite perspective as "wrong" or "bad".

But actually - it's just simple fact that human reality does contain both of these political perspectives, and it's also true that in terms of numbers, the supporters of each political perspective are split pretty much down the middle. There's a reason for that, they create each other.

The absolute perspective is that both left and right wing political perspectives contain truth.

No, that's a golden mean fallacy.

False, I'll explain why.

A true absolute perspective does not sit somewhere in between two opposites, it fully integrates the full extremes of either perspective. It does this by adding a new conceptual dimension of meaning-making to the situation.

A concrete example: there are 2 opposite sides to a coin, "heads" and "tails". Looking at these sides completely in isolation e.g. from a 2D spatial perspective, each side is fundamentally different in design. Some people in this 2D world can only see "heads", the others can only see "tails", and they are arguing about which is the true description of a side of a coin. Welll, which side is the true side and which side is the false side?

Sounds a stupid question, but that's because you possess the required 3rd dimension of cognitive complexity that's needed integrate the two opposites via the concept of "coin".

The concept of "coin" integrates the concepts of "heads" and "tails" into a single overriding entity. The opposites themselves remain fully intact, e.g. the fundamentally different design of each side of the coin is preserved.

Notice that each "side" of the coin is just 2D, whereas a "coin" needs to be 3D, an integration of opposites always requires the addition of a new conceptual dimension in which to perform the integration.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 03:01 PM)One Above All Wrote:  Regardless, there's no such thing as "perfect in an absolute sense", unless you define "absolute sense" in this situation as being what everyone agrees on.

What if there were a person who was so good at taking other people's perspectives that he could actually see the truth of what everyone in the room was saying, even apparently contradictory perspectives.

Would such a person effectively have an absolute perspective?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(18-08-2014 04:34 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 04:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that's a golden mean fallacy.

False, I'll explain why.

A true absolute perspective does not sit somewhere in between two opposites, it fully integrates the full extremes of either perspective. It does this by adding a new conceptual dimension of meaning-making to the situation.

A concrete example: there are 2 opposite sides to a coin, "heads" and "tails". Looking at these sides completely in isolation e.g. from a 2D spatial perspective, each side is fundamentally different in design. Some people in this 2D world can only see "heads", the others can only see "tails", and they are arguing about which is the true description of a side of a coin. Welll, which side is the true side and which side is the false side?

Sounds a stupid question, but that's because you possess the required 3rd dimension of cognitive complexity that's needed integrate the two opposites via the concept of "coin".

The concept of "coin" integrates the concepts of "heads" and "tails" into a single overriding entity. The opposites themselves remain fully intact, e.g. the fundamentally different design of each side of the coin is preserved.

Notice that each "side" of the coin is just 2D, whereas a "coin" needs to be 3D, an integration of opposites always requires the addition of a new conceptual dimension in which to perform the integration.

Phil

Amusing, but in no sense do the two sides of the coin 'create each other', so it's not a great analogy.

And the two sides of coins are 3-D, not 2-D.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-08-2014, 06:51 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
In the most technical sense of the word, I am agnostic in that I can't prove some invisible, hidden god doesn't exist. Granted, I don't see any proof that it does exist, and it seems extremely unlikely that it does exist. A lot of theists will make their god increasingly vague and distant in order to shield it from scrutiny. These are the types of gods that are harder to disprove, yet, they also seem like the most meaningless sort. Once your god gets sufficiently vague and distant, it's functionally identical to not existing at all.

So, I've discovered that the difference between me and a gnostic/strong atheist really only comes out in a debate. I don't technically think I can make the claim "there are no gods", yet I find it extremely unlikely, and I find the idea of assuming there are any gods to be quite ridiculous. So, for all intents and purposes, once we stop debating, my life and views are virtually identical to a strong/gnostic atheist. Belief in gods have no bearing on my decision-making, so they might as well not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
18-08-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
The belief in a god is no different than believing that an infinitely large invisible planet with no mass orbits the sun and it dislikes two men having sex.

And then you come along and want someone to explain to you why this is highly improbable.

Really ?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
18-08-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-ba
(18-08-2014 04:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Amusing, but in no sense do the two sides of the coin 'create each other', so it's not a great analogy.

Can you then show me a coin which only has a single side? I think both are required for the other's existence to be possible.

Quote:And the two sides of coins are 3-D, not 2-D.

In practice this is true because they are embossed. However I think that conceptually, a circle is a 2D entity, not a 3D entity and I'd say that mathematically, a "single side" of a coin is a circle.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 07:40 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(18-08-2014 07:17 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 04:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Amusing, but in no sense do the two sides of the coin 'create each other', so it's not a great analogy.

Can you then show me a coin which only has a single side? I think both are required for the other's existence to be possible.

They don't create each other. And even if one face is a circular, planar surface, the other isn't necessarily one.

Quote:
Quote:And the two sides of coins are 3-D, not 2-D.

In practice this is true because they are embossed. However I think that conceptually, a circle is a 2D entity, not a 3D entity and I'd say that mathematically, a "single side" of a coin is a circle.

Phil

It's still a lousy analogy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(18-08-2014 07:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's still a lousy analogy.

I know, right?

"Coins have two faces in one object, therefore everything else does too."

wut.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 07:53 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
Quote:Can you then show me a coin which only has a single side? I think both are required for the other's existence to be possible.

A coin with only one side is not a coin, there is no spoon. Because the coin needs two sides to be a coin does not mean that one side created the other.

Quote:In practice this is true because they are embossed. However I think that conceptually, a circle is a 2D entity, not a 3D entity and I'd say that mathematically, a "single side" of a coin is a circle.

A picture or drawing of a circle or coin is 2D.
A physical representation of a circle or coin are 3D, they have depth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(18-08-2014 07:53 AM)pablo Wrote:  
Quote:Can you then show me a coin which only has a single side? I think both are required for the other's existence to be possible.

A coin with only one side is not a coin, there is no spoon. Because the coin needs two sides to be a coin does not mean that one side created the other.

Quote:In practice this is true because they are embossed. However I think that conceptually, a circle is a 2D entity, not a 3D entity and I'd say that mathematically, a "single side" of a coin is a circle.

A picture or drawing of a circle or coin is 2D.
A physical representation of a circle or coin are 3D, they have depth.

A coin also has duration, which makes it 4D.
Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: