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, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2014 11:38 AM by WitchSabrina.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:19 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  [quote]

You would no that Pauli


You" know"...
Not
"No"

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, 11:52 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:That is only because I do not see God as a "person" and I am not a Theist. So I do not try to define God like a Theist so Atheist can argue that I am talking about a supernatural "person".

Obviously if there is a such thing as God then the description can not be like describing an object.

So even I could not describe God I could not do this better than Einstein. This does not prove that I am quote mining.

If I make an attempt to define God then I only have two choices.

1.I can describe God as The Source of All that IS. And I can describe that Source as Awareness itself. And then you will say I am too vague.

or

2. I could describe God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality in which case I would need a degree in Quantum Physics in order to even begin.

... is completely incoherent drivel. Deal with it. It is a vacuous, pointless, undefined deepity cesspit.

"God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality" is one of the best non sequiturs I've ever seen. Good for you.

You don't even know what non sequitur means.

non sequitur is a fallacy of using premises that are irrelevant to a conclusion.

Since I was not making an argument for God being an aspect of QM you can not say I was using non sequitur.

If God exist even you would have to agree that would mean that God was an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

1. If Consciousness exist then consciousness is an aspect of reality or at the very least a aspect in Reality.
2. Consciousness does exist
3. Consciousness does exist in relation to Reality

Quote:The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

Since QM is about the Fundamental Nature of Reality I include the possibility of God as either an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

To me aspect "of" Reality is me likely then an aspect in Reality because of QM.

A Theist would claim that God is a person that exist in our Universe. So to them not only is God "in" Reality but is a "he" or person.

Theologians can claim that their God Person is outside of space and time but they have no idea what space or time is. And they are only making that claim because it allows them to make excuses for why their Arguments fail in Apologetics.

To a Theologian God is either "in" our Reality or "outside" our Reality.

To me the idea of "outside of Reality" is an incoherent mess. So I will not accept a God outside of space and time.

There is no "outside" of spacetime.

QM has come close to showing the appearance of spacetime as an illusion. Meaning that although space time does exist... like a rainbow the nature of that Reality is not what it appears to be.

So if time is not what we think it is and time and space have a different relationship on the Quantum Level this could effect the nature of God if God exist.

But this still does not support a God person that knows about us and sees a linear future for each one of us or that this God has "a plan" based on this knowledge.

To be clear...and this is exhausting to have to keep reminding people of this.

1. I am not claiming certainty or even that I have proof or evidence that God does exist
2. I am not claiming that QM provides any evidence for God existing

My whole argument is that Theist have no understanding of what can be said about the nature of God or the nature of Reality based on Physics or QM.

I am making this Argument only to support the obvious fact that I am not a Theist.

I agree with 99.9 % of what most Atheist say and about .1% of what most Theist say.

That is why I refer to my position on God as that of a Spiritual Atheist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 11:52 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:That is only because I do not see God as a "person" and I am not a Theist. So I do not try to define God like a Theist so Atheist can argue that I am talking about a supernatural "person".

Obviously if there is a such thing as God then the description can not be like describing an object.

So even I could not describe God I could not do this better than Einstein. This does not prove that I am quote mining.

If I make an attempt to define God then I only have two choices.

1.I can describe God as The Source of All that IS. And I can describe that Source as Awareness itself. And then you will say I am too vague.

or

2. I could describe God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality in which case I would need a degree in Quantum Physics in order to even begin.

... is completely incoherent drivel. Deal with it. It is a vacuous, pointless, undefined deepity cesspit.

"God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality" is one of the best non sequiturs I've ever seen. Good for you.

You don't even know what non sequitur means.

non sequitur is a fallacy of using premises that are irrelevant to a conclusion.

Since I was not making an argument for God being an aspect of QM you can not say I was using non sequitur.

If God exist even you would have to agree that would mean that God was an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

1. If Consciousness exist then consciousness is an aspect of reality or at the very least a aspect in Reality.
2. Consciousness does exist
3. Consciousness does exist in relation to Reality

Quote:The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

Since QM is about the Fundamental Nature of Reality I include the possibility of God as either an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

To me aspect "of" Reality is me likely then an aspect in Reality because of QM.

A Theist would claim that God is a person that exist in our Universe. So to them not only is God "in" Reality but is a "he" or person.

Theologians can claim that their God Person is outside of space and time but they have no idea what space or time is. And they are only making that claim because it allows them to make excuses for why their Arguments fail in Apologetics.

To a Theologian God is either "in" our Reality or "outside" our Reality.

To me the idea of "outside of Reality" is an incoherent mess. So I will not accept a God outside of space and time.

There is no "outside" of spacetime.

QM has come close to showing the appearance of spacetime as an illusion. Meaning that although space time does exist... like a rainbow the nature of that Reality is not what it appears to be.

So if time is not what we think it is and time and space have a different relationship on the Quantum Level this could effect the nature of God if God exist.

But this still does not support a God person that knows about us and sees a linear future for each one of us or that this God has "a plan" based on this knowledge.

To be clear...and this is exhausting to have to keep reminding people of this.

1. I am not claiming certainty or even that I have proof or evidence that God does exist
2. I am not claiming that QM provides any evidence for God existing

My whole argument is that Theist have no understanding of what can be said about the nature of God or the nature of Reality based on Physics or QM.

I am making this Argument only to support the obvious fact that I am not a Theist.

I agree with 99.9 % of what most Atheist say and about .1% of what most Theist say.

That is why I refer to my position on God as that of a Spiritual Atheist.


I'm a spiritual person. Don't need Quantum physics nor God.
SOunds like you're working really hard to 're route some definitions. Why?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2014 01:13 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:I'm a spiritual person. Don't need Quantum physics nor God.
SOunds like you're working really hard to 're route some definitions. Why?

It is not about needing God or QM.

It is about honest Philosophical Inquiry.

I am pissed that Theist get to define Metaphysical Terms.

Theology is not a Branch of Philosophy and does not show any understanding of Metaphysical questions.

As an Atheist myself it bothers me that so many Atheists allow Theologians to define anything.

Do I think there is a benefit to knowing that God exist?

That depends on whether God exist or not.

If there is something we could call God that exist then we could legitimately ask if that something was a benefit to us like gravity is or if that something was not related to anything we care about.

But we can not ask the question "Does God exist?" or look for evidence for or against this God ...let alone decide if this would somehow benefit us one way or the other because of Theist.

If you do not care one way or the other that is fine with me. But many scientist and philosophers do want to know the ultimate nature of Reality and what that means in relation to us.

Thanks to ahole Theologians most Atheist throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose all interest in Metaphysical ideas of the soul or God or freewill.

Theist make shitty arguments for Free Will based on Moral Arguments or Biblical Arguments.

So what happens as a result? Many Atheist take the opposite position by default.And even worse this is often done not as science or even philosophy but as a political move.

Sam Harris for instance makes clear that he hates the Theist Arguments for Free Will based on Moral Responsibility that support the Religious Right's positions in politics.

So Sam has decided that Determinism supports his Liberal beliefs. This creates a confirmation bias in his ability to draw conclusions from scientific evidence.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

And he was right. To me when any Atheist accepts a Theologians attempt to define Metaphysical Terms they are "Drinking the Kool-Aid"

Quote:"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a figure of speech commonly used in the United States that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. It could also refer to knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure.
Drinking the Kool-Aid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of Atheists do not bother to question whether Religion deserves to own Metaphysics by defining a lot of it's terms.

Most Atheist do not see any possible benefit to having Free Will or finding out if we have Souls because they accept the idea that Theologians have the exclusive right to define these terms.

If the Soul or Free Will did exist but only in the way that Religion describes would I want them ?

Hell No!

But if I do have a Soul or Free Will and I found that evidence or experience supported this would this have a possible positive effect on my well being?

Maybe.

But according to religion only their version of the Soul or Free Will does or can exist.

So when an Atheist gives them this point does it piss me off? Yes!

As you can see if you are following this debate it is very rare that an Atheist on here will give me any of my points as being possible let alone true or accurate.

So why do Atheist give Theologians their exclusive right to define Metaphysical Terms?

Yes Atheist on here have asked me to define Soul and God.

So it would seem that they are offering me a chance to define those terms better than a Theist.

But my answer is that any definition of those terms would be better than a Theist!

Also there is a scientific definition of water because water something that every person experiences on the basic level of existence. You do not have to know the subatomic nature of water on the quantum level in order to define water. And to my knowledge the definition of water is in no way related to the hard problem of consciousness. Even if it was you could still define water without it.

The idea of God is more like the idea of Time. Much harder to define. But it does not mean that it can not be done. And it definitely does not mean that we should let Theologians make Moral Arguments for time's existence or Biblical Arguments about Relativity!

So my Argument is if the word God denotes anything Theologians should stay out of it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes thespiritualanarchist's post
25-07-2014, 01:09 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 11:52 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  You don't even know what non sequitur means.

It's Latin for "[that] will not follow". You were saying?

(25-07-2014 11:52 AM)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.

(25-07-2014 11:52 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Since I was not making an argument for God being an aspect of QM you can not say I was using non sequitur.

What you said made no sense and had nothing to do with anything.

(25-07-2014 11:52 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  If God exist even you would have to agree that would mean that God was an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

1. If Consciousness exist then consciousness is an aspect of reality or at the very least a aspect in Reality.
2. Consciousness does exist
3. Consciousness does exist in relation to Reality

Quote:The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

Since QM is about the Fundamental Nature of Reality I include the possibility of God as either an aspect of Reality or an aspect in Reality.

To me aspect "of" Reality is me likely then an aspect in Reality because of QM.

A Theist would claim that God is a person that exist in our Universe. So to them not only is God "in" Reality but is a "he" or person.

Theologians can claim that their God Person is outside of space and time but they have no idea what space or time is. And they are only making that claim because it allows them to make excuses for why their Arguments fail in Apologetics.

To a Theologian God is either "in" our Reality or "outside" our Reality.

To me the idea of "outside of Reality" is an incoherent mess. So I will not accept a God outside of space and time.

There is no "outside" of spacetime.

QM has come close to showing the appearance of spacetime as an illusion. Meaning that although space time does exist... like a rainbow the nature of that Reality is not what it appears to be.

So if time is not what we think it is and time and space have a different relationship on the Quantum Level this could effect the nature of God if God exist.

But this still does not support a God person that knows about us and sees a linear future for each one of us or that this God has "a plan" based on this knowledge.

To be clear...and this is exhausting to have to keep reminding people of this.

1. I am not claiming certainty or even that I have proof or evidence that God does exist
2. I am not claiming that QM provides any evidence for God existing

My whole argument is that Theist have no understanding of what can be said about the nature of God or the nature of Reality based on Physics or QM.

I am making this Argument only to support the obvious fact that I am not a Theist.

I agree with 99.9 % of what most Atheist say and about .1% of what most Theist say.

That is why I refer to my position on God as that of a Spiritual Atheist.

Do you have a single coherent meaningful point to make?

I'm seriously doubting it. None of the above has any meaning, because you have not and cannot define your terms.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Wall o text mode engaged Facepalm

Dude, I know you put a lot of effort into your stuff but *no one* (aside from cjlr, who moves in mysterious ways) is gonna read that shit.

Just a few lines.

Say it concisely.

Then we'll read it.

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
25-07-2014, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2014 02:49 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
I have read through spiritualanarchist's posts in the thread and I agree with everything he says. He does not get ahead of himself. I have reasoned along the same lines and he's on a good path to get basic definitions for example, what are other universes and what are their contents and relationship to this universe. If there are any, they must be potentially knowable, that is an absolute.

Just for the record, looks like nobody here has a practice in metaphysics or knows the difference between science and metaphysics. Metaphysics is not science, it's not the thing that makes iPads. It's making of a conceptual framework for the whole universe, both discovered and yet undiscovered. Only such a framework can then be fleshed out by science. Without metaphysics scientists generate many mutually contradictory theories of everythings.

Philosophical insight is gained by removing superfluous labels of phenomena and uniting them. Pointing out a logical possibility does not need material evidence or scientific definitions.
"If there is a God or soul, these have to be of physical, material nature." Such a statement does not need proof (or definition of matter), metaphysics stops here. At most, it can help formulate a scientific hypothesis for future testing.

It's fine for philosophers to talk about already defined scientific concepts without defining them, unless proven otherwise. The default position is, we know what we are talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 02:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The default position is, we know what we are talking about.

LaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughatLaughat

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, 02:54 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 02:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I have read through spiritualanarchist's posts in the thread and I agree with everything he says.

Yes, but you would endorse patent nonsense, wouldn't you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
or anyone interested let's try a little experiment. I am calling all the Atheist who read this post to list every idea,though. or concept that they have encountered with Theist that they reject. Please do not waste time explaining why you reject these ideas or thoughts. I will then tell you out of every idea or thought you have listed what I also reject. You might be surprised. If you wa...[SNIP]...l you out of every idea or thought you have listed what I also accept. At this point I think you will have to agree that I am also an Atheist. I will even expand on the little details that I do not agree with most Atheist on. And I promise you that you will see that even if I do not fit your definition of an Atheist 100% ...that I am so close that no Theist would ever accept me as one of them.

Most of your stuff is TL; DR but I'll repsond to this.
Quote:To be an atheist I just gotta reject *one* idea. Ain't no damn thing such as a God, where God is the sorta old man in the sky type bugger as defined by the religions I have encountered. That is the *definition* of atheist and that's all... so if you also reject the idea of God (not necessarily *know* there is no God, because that requires omniscience blah blah etc), then you are an atheist. If you *don't* reject the idea of a God then you're not an atheist. Finish and klaar.

If one wants to go into semantics it's fine, but hardly edifying.

1. God as "the sorta old man in the sky type bugger as defined by the religions"
2. God as a Omniscient < Omnipotent < Omnibenevolent ...whatever

These are the two concepts you give me

These are both Theological concepts of God that fit in religion.
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?

By your definition is a Pantheist a Theist?

Yes I know the word theist is in the word Pantheist. But does what a Pantheist believes about our Universe make them Theist by your definition?

By the way I find it almost comical how Theist claim that God must be a "person" in order to be possible.

Rocks are not "persons" and they are not only possible but can be proven conclusively to exist.

So the Theist would respond that rocks do not have minds so they can be said to exist without consciousness.

But there are plenty of living beings that do have consciousness of some sort and are not "persons"

Are Ants or Slugs "person(s)"?

How low down the food chain can we go and still claim that the animal in question is conscious let alone a "person"?

Is all consciousness the same?

Is your dog or cat conscious on the same level you are? Is an ant the same level of consciousness as a dog or cat? Is bacteria the same level of consciousness as an ant?

Which one of these would we consider "person(s)?

The whole argument fails because of the assumption that all levels of awareness of any being can be treated as a "person".

There are higher levels of awareness and lower levels of awareness.

If we do not consider the lowest level of awareness possible as a "person"

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

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".

Suppose a Physicist was looking for a new particle in physics. Now for the sake of the argument let us assume that they have been looking for this particular particle for a long time. So it is becoming more and more likely that this particle does not exist.

Now comes along some idiot Theologian that argues that not only does this particle exist but that when scientist find it they will also be able to verify that this particle is actually a "person".

Suppose there was some breakthrough and all the scientist that had been building up evidence in favor of this new particle were now getting verifiable results and evidence for this particle possibly existing?

Would that prove the Theologian right on this particle being a "person"? No . If they actually found this particle and proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt would this in anyway substantiate the Theologians idea that this particle was a "person"?
No

More appropriately if we found evidence of a new biological life form and we found that this life form met our definition of being conscious would we then automatically conclude that this new life form was a "person"?

The definition of "person" is ...

1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>

I might be willing to weaken the definition to a human being or any animal or living being that can relate to a human being on a personal level.

By this definition a cat or a dog is technically a person. Because their consciousness is not on the same level as mine I wouldn't be willing to give them all the legal rights of a person.

But because their levels of consciousness and ability to relate to human beings on a personal level are somewhat close to another human being's ability to relate to me on a personal level ...

I might be willing to give them some rights that we enjoy.

But I am not making a legal argument here.

I am saying that the word person indicates a level of consciousness or awareness and that a "person" by definition must have an ego or understanding of "self" .

It stands to reason that any living being that does not a sufficient level of awareness to be self aware or lacks the ability to form an identity in anyway are not "persons"

So I must conclude that if the highest level of awareness a being could have does not require an identity or self then if this being did exist this being could not be called a "person".

Person must only be applied to beings that are somewhere in the middle of being and nonbeing.

As far as I know a rock is non aware so has no being. To me if there is even a tiny amount of awareness in a rock it could not be said to be self aware in any sense of the word. Regardless of which view of a rock is right the rock meets my definition of
nonbeing.

Are there levels of consciousness or awareness higher than human beings? Maybe. If these beings exist would we consider them persons?

It depends on how much higher the consciousness or awareness of this being actually is.

If we met an alien species that had a much higher form of consciousness then we have would we be able to communicate with them? Would we be able to relate to them as human beings do to each other?

If there were a being that had a higher form of consciousness then any possible conscious being we could imagine would we be able to relate to this being on any level close to how we relate to each other?

The answer is no.

So if this type of being did exist we would not refer to this being as a person.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: