Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 03:00 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  These are both Theological concepts of God that fit in religion.
That is where the concept of God, the word and the commonly used definition come from, yes.

Quote:I reject both the idea of God as a "person" (the sorta old man in the sky type bugger as defined by the religions) and God as a list of abstract qualities (a Omniscient < Omnipotent < Omnibenevolent ...whatever)

Does that by your definition make me an Atheist or Theist?
Atheist.

Quote:By your definition is a Pantheist a Theist?
I thought a panti-heist was where you nick... oh you said pantheist. I dunno. What's a pantheist? A deist? Someone who believes in some sorta "grand cosmic intelligence" who sets the whole universe in motion? That's still a theist. Weak form though. Only quibble with that is there's no *reason* to make such an assumption.

Quote:...why would we assume that the highest level of awareness possible would have to be defined in terms of a "person"?
Why would we?

Quote:I am not arguing that God exist. But I am arguing that if God does exist it is absurd to assume what is meant by God is a "person".
Who does the meaning? Is the meaning in the mind of the person saying "God" or intrinsic in the word. 'Cos when a theist says "God" he means invisible-dick-who-hides-in-the-sky 99% of the time and invisible-non-dick-who-never-interacts 1% of the time. Are you claiming to know what *they* mean when they say God?

It's perfectly OK if that's what *you* mean by God. But unless you can communicate your meaning, you're stuck. Call it something other than God. Call it Gizmo.

You are saying that Gizmo, a not-well-defined-concept, exists or has the possibility of existing? Sure, I'll grant you that. Not-well-defined-concepts are boring though.

Quote:So if this type of being did exist we would not refer to this being as a person.
I have no idea what you were going on about there.

Fuck, you managed to get me to play your wall-o-text quoting game Dodgy

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
25-07-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
So basically, thespiritualanarchist, you're an atheist, only you have better reasons for being an atheist than anybody else.

Btw, pantheism is the idea that universe is THE God, which makes creation or God (not) interacting with the universe moot. It's one and the same thing. Most philosophers lean that way because of Occam's razor. We may think of the universe as a giant brain that really does think, that is, it passes around some kind of signals in orderly interconnected way. Maybe it's stellar wind, maybe it's EM radiation, maybe it's gravity waves in spacetime, who knows. But it must include the undiscovered universe which we don't know yet.

But there's a theory that the universe (or anything) qualifies as conscious if it's a big enough network, it's called panpsychism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 03:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Btw, pantheism is the idea that universe is THE God, which makes creation or God (not) interacting with the universe moot. It's one and the same thing.

That's what makes it meaningless. It's a tautological deepity.

(25-07-2014 03:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Most philosophers lean that way because of Occam's razor. We may think of the universe as a giant brain that really does think, that is, it passes around some kind of signals in orderly interconnected way. Maybe it's stellar wind, maybe it's EM radiation, maybe it's gravity waves in spacetime, who knows.

If you're positing something unknown there's no reason to presuppose it requires anything analogous to our own brain activity.

(25-07-2014 03:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But there's a theory that the universe (or anything) qualifies as conscious if it's a big enough network.

There's also a theory that the Queen of Canada is a shapeshifting reptiloid alien who dines on human flesh.

There are lots of theories out there.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
25-07-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 03:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But there's a theory that the universe (or anything) qualifies as conscious if it's a big enough network, it's called panpsychism.

A theory (in the scientific sense) has to be backed up by facts, evidence, that sort of thing. What you're talking about sounds a lot more like "woo".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
25-07-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There's also a theory that the Queen of Canada is a shapeshifting reptiloid alien who dines on human flesh.

... Shape-shifting reptiloid aliens for some reason adhere to human political boundaries?

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
25-07-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 03:49 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-07-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There's also a theory that the Queen of Canada is a shapeshifting reptiloid alien who dines on human flesh.

... Shape-shifting reptiloid aliens for some reason adhere to human political boundaries?

They created the boundaries as a sideshow. That's part of the conspiracy.

Keep up, dude.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
25-07-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:thespiritualanarchist Wrote:
non sequitur is a fallacy of using premises that are irrelevant to a conclusion.

No. It may refer to fallacy, but it also refers to things which make no sense in and of themselves.

No you are wrong. Fallacies have to be part of an argument. And an argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion.

You can not refer to a statement as a fallacy.

If I make the statement "All Gods are Pickles" this could not be challenged as a fallacy let alone as non sequitur.

Although the statement "All Gods are Pickles" makes no sense there is no context to make this statement into an argument from the statement itself.

If you want to make a statement an argument then you must make the statement into argument form.

Example

No statement by itself is an argument.

(This is just a statement of fact)

To make the statement "No statement by itself is an argument." into an argument you would have to reveal any hidden premise. In this case the hidden premise is the actual definition of the word "argument" Once you reveal this premise you have the argument below.


1. An Argument must be defined as at least one premise plus a conclusion
2. Therefore a statement can not be an argument taken by itself


But you can not simply take the statement in premise 1 and say that it does not make sense to you ...so is therefore a non sequitur.

Your original argument however is itself a form of non sequitur

1. Any statement that makes no sense to me can not be true and is devoid of meaning
2.Therefore any statement that makes no sense to me is a form of non sequitur

The conclusion stated in 2 does not logically follow from premise 1

First of all your first premise is false. It is possible for someone to make a statement with meaning that makes no sense to you. And it is possible that a statement can be true even if you do not understand the meaning of that statement.

But even if the statement is completely devoid of meaning you can not draw the conclusion in 2. This is because there is no definition of non sequitur that includes anything about whether a statement is meaningful.

In fact you are so wrong that what you have said is the opposite of the definition of non sequitur.

First you said that you can apply non sequitur to statements and this is not only false but to do so would be meaningless.

So by your own definition your statement " It may refer to fallacy, but it also refers to things which make no sense in and of themselves" doesn't make sense in or of itself so would be a form of non sequitur.

But the more important point is that in order for an argument to meet the definition of
non sequitur it has to be an argument not a statement.

So you are wrong there.

And the argument by definition would have to consist of at least one premise and a conclusion. And you would have to show that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

You can not do this with a statement devoid of meaning as one of the premises.

If I argue that

1. All P are G
2. Therefore all G are P

You can call this a circular argument because I have simply reworded my conclusion to prove my premise.

But you still can not say that there is a fallacy of non sequitur.

So if I make the argument that

1. All Pickles are Gods
2. Therefore all Gods are Pickles

Even though both statements "make no sense in and of themselves" this argument does not commit the fallacy of non sequitur.

Because if premise one was correct then premise 2 would in fact follow.

If

1. All P(s) are G(s)
it would follow that
2. All G(s) are P(s)

A better example is
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

But it does not matter what the property M is

The property M could mean Mortality or it could mean something totally absurd as in this example

1. All men are milkshakes
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is a milkshake

This argument makes no sense because the premise 1. All men are milkshakes is not only not true but can not be true.

Now suppose you do not know how I defined M?

1. All men are M
2. Socrates is a man
3.Therefore Socrates is M

Well then you can not know if my argument is true.

But you can establish that this is not a non sequitur because the conclusion does follow from the premises if the premises are true.

But you are arguing that simply making the statement "All men are Milkshakes" is a form of non sequitur.

And I am telling you that you are wrong.

Non sequitur has nothing to do with nonsense and everything to do with relevance. And there can not be a question of relevance in a statement by itself. Relevance must be established with context. A statement by itself has no context. If you are willing to put that statement in context of what I said before then that statement now has meaning. But this does not mean you have identified an argument I am making.

And if you say that a statement I made has no meaning in the context of what I am saying then you can not even bring up relevance. So again you can not conclude that a statement is non sequitur unless the statement does have meaning in the context of what I am saying. You can use this context to establish the relevance of what I am saying.

So if you want to say that I am making an argument about God and QM you must make clear what you think my argument is. And if I agree that is my argument you can then proceed to see if my premises are relevant to my conclusion.

So if you say that my argument is

Because of X it can be concluded that God is an aspect of Quantum Reality.

But you must first establish what you think I am arguing that X is.
The best way to do this is to ask me what I think X is.

Before you do this you can not make the argument that I am using the fallacy of non sequitur.

If you define God as Supernatural and Reality as Natural then your argument is this

1. God in all cases denotes something Supernatural
2.Reality in all cases denotes something natural
3. QM is a study of the nature of Reality on the Subatomic level
4.Since Reality on every level denotes something natural QM is not related to God in anyway

As long as you assume that premise 1 is true your argument is air tight.
If I tell you that God is an aspect of Reality (Quantum or otherwise) ...I would lose by default.

But what many Atheist ignore is the fact that I do not accept premise 1 as true. So you can not assume that any arguments I make about God being part of Reality must be a form of non sequitur.

An example of non sequitur would be this

1.All people drink water
2.All murderers are people
3.Therefore all people are murderers

If I simply make the statement
"All people are murderers" this is not a non sequitur
It is simply a false statement

To say that make that the statement "All people are murderers" make no sense in and of itself is a value judgement.

If you define every false statement as nonsense you yourself are making a non sequitur.

You are making the argument

1. All statements with the property of F are not true
2. Any statement that are not true use words in a pattern that have no meaning and therefore make no sense.
3. No statements with the property of F make any sense because they do not have the property of meaning

It does not follow that if a statement is false then the words in that statement have no meaning. And it is not true therefore that false statements have no meaning.

When you made the statement

Quote:"It may refer to fallacy, but it also refers to things which make no sense in and of themselves."

I knew you were making a false statement. But your statement does have meaning.

And even though I know exactly what you mean by your statement I still know that it is false.

To say that "water is dry" is a false statement
To say that "water is an equilibrium library" is a statement totally devoid of meaning.

You can not conclude that therefore the statement "water is dry" must be totally devoid of meaning..

1." Water is dry." is a false statement
2. Water is an equilibrium library is a statement totally devoid of meaning
3. Therefore " Water is dry." is a statement totally devoid of meaning

That is an example of non sequitur using your premise that all false statements are devoid of meaning.

But are you claiming that even a statement that is false can be seen as a form of non sequitur because it is false?

Or are you claiming that any statement that is devoid of meaning is non sequitur?

Either way you are wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 06:08 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
I am not arguing that God exist. But I am arguing that if God does exist it is absurd to assume what is meant by God is a "person".
Who does the meaning? Is the meaning in the mind of the person saying "God" or intrinsic in the word. 'Cos when a theist says "God" he means invisible-dick-who-hides-in-the-sky 99% of the time and invisible-non-dick-who-never-interacts 1% of the time. Are you claiming to know what *they* mean when they say God?

No I do not know what these idiot Theists means. I am not a Theist so I do not think God is a person. How many times must I explain this???
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 04:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-07-2014 03:49 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... Shape-shifting reptiloid aliens for some reason adhere to human political boundaries?

They created the boundaries as a sideshow. That's part of the conspiracy.

Keep up, dude.

Canada has conspiracies?
Cool story bro

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
25-07-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 05:21 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:thespiritualanarchist Wrote:
non sequitur is a fallacy of using premises that are irrelevant to a conclusion.

No. It may refer to fallacy, but it also refers to things which make no sense in and of themselves.

No you are wrong. Fallacies have to be part of an argument. And an argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion.

You can not refer to a statement as a fallacy.

And I didn't. Can you read? I guess not.

The rest of your post is simply business as usual: long, incoherent, rambling drivel.

You've completely failed to coherently define anything you're talking about. I award you no points, and may Deepak Chopra have mercy on your quantum woo-woo soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: