What is up with Atheists? - Page 15 - Political Forum

Ygorl · 12-12-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

(Wow, that argument doesn't work very well, does it )

By the way, thousands of books on the subject of entertainment still don't prove a negative. You have no valid frame of reference to "prove" that dragons don't exist somewhere in the universe.

Again, bad judgement. God is a hypothesized being that by definition is beyond our direct observation. A hypothesized being that is directly tied to the existence of this universe and that which resides in it. When ANYONE can explain the existence of the universe beyond saying "It just is." That just leads to another simple question: "Why ?" Which can be answered by "It just is."

Your dependance on "You can't prove a negative." to point out that I can't prove dragons don't exist somewhere in the universe (Or my 23 hot horny babes waiting for me in the moon) is ... well, it's silly. I'll assume you have judgement enough to KNOW that. But, I'm assuming :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

(1) You can't "disprove" the existence of dragons (or any other silly creature) in the technical sense of the word. Logically, proving a negative isn't possible. Obviously, we can state, for all practical purposes that dragons do not exist, but we can't prove it.

(2) You are correct that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but the exact same logic could be applied to the existence of dragons. You are biased toward the existence of God because many other people believe in it, which fallaciously lends it credibility in your eyes,

No, the exact same "logic" can NOT "be applied to dragons, or hobbits or rumplestiltskin". You're poor judgement allows you make this judgement make sense in your mind.

I am NOT "biased toward the existence of God because many other people believe in it". Most people are fools who don't know the difference between their ass or their elbow. I beleive there is likely to be some kind of "God" because the universe is here and there are no explanations for it's existence beyond "It just IS." We understand this universe and even ourselves and our own existence very poorly TOO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

...and because it is more personally appealing to you. If you step back and examine the situation with cold-hearted objectivity, the only difference between dragons and God is that one is commonly accepted and one is commonly rejected.

That is good advice I'd advise you to try out. Of course your judgement will cause you to make a statement like "...and because it is more personally appealing to you."

This has not one thing to do with what is personally appealiing to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

(3) An interesting side note that could lead to a whole new thread - you state that belief in dragons is absurd because men created them as figments of imagination for entertainment purposes. What leads you to believe that God is any different?

Ok, so I see I have zero chance of getting your judgement upgraded in any way(s). I think time is what will do this for you.

God .. Dragons. No comparison.

Quote:
This boils down to an issue of judgement. You're judgement is poor or "off" or misguided in some respect(s). That you beleive this comparison can be soundly and logically applied shows a lack of judgement in ONE way or another. It doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Meh... this "judgement" argument sounds like you trying to make an end-run around logical discourse. You're selling, but I ain't buying.

I know :-) It is what it is though. Someones making an end-run around logical discourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Remarkable! Your argument loses none of its effect when applied to dragons, instead of God. The bad news for you is that this effectively demonsrates that your arguments are not logically viable.

What is remarkable (to me at least), is that you are not seeing what is so very obviously wrong with your "application of logic"

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Judgement is exactly what you've got, instead of logical arguments. Judgement is inherently subjective and not applicable to any objective arguments. So, I'll concede that point - you have your judgement.

And you have yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

And, your

And yours..

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

judgement is exactly what is preventing you from making logical and objective arguments, and exactly what is compelling you to make arguments with no more substance than your own personal superstitions.

Exactly. So our different judgements have led us to a stalemate :-)

King_Crusader · 12-12-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by US Viking
I agree the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven,
and that He might be beyond human analysis.

WRONG. I believe that God has proven himself to us in many different ways, but many do not want to see the truth. Many extremely brilliant people, (e.g. Einstein) became went from atheist to agnostic because there was no possible way for God not to exist.

Indeed sometimes it takes more faith to believe in no God.

Troianii · 12-12-2006, 08:50 PM

People, people...

"Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God--experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you or I are likely to get on our own way are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map... [This] is just why a vague religion--all about feeling God in nature, and so on--is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map." - C.S. Lewis

I've got my own little twist to what he has said, and I've used it before: "Faith is like the ocean. Some have drowned, many have immersed themselves in it, many have swam in it, many have seen it but not swam, and some have never seen.

Two things must I note. First, just because you have never swam in the water does not mean that it is not there, that the notion of swimming in water is a fantasy. Second, I must note that no matter how well you know that water, you can't get to Britain without a map and proper navigational devices."

USViking · 12-12-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King_Crusader

WRONG. I believe that God has proven himself to us in many different ways, but many do not want to see the truth. Many extremely brilliant people, (e.g. Einstein) became went from atheist to agnostic because there was no possible way for God not to exist.

Indeed sometimes it takes more faith to believe in no God.

The only way for God to "prove" Himself would be to
rearrange the stars in the form of a cross, or some
such thing. As far as I am concerned He has not done
a damn thing, and even if He had, He would still have
some answers to make before the Bar of Moral Justice.

Eistein believed in a God who created Nature and its laws.
However, he forcefully opposed the idea of a personal God
who played any part in human affairs, for such a God would
in judging us, in effect be judging Himself.

superbug · 12-12-2006, 10:05 PM

Right now Einstein is finding out that he was a bit short sighted in this life, and that God is quite a bit more than he gave Him credit for.

Troianii · 12-12-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USViking

The only way for God to "prove" Himself would be to
rearrange the stars in the form of a cross, or some
such thing. As far as I am concerned He has not done
a damn thing, and even if He had, He would still have
some answers to make before the Bar of Moral Justice.

Eistein believed in a God who created Nature and its laws.
However, he forcefully opposed the idea of a personal God
who played any part in human affairs, for such a God would
in judging us, in effect be judging Himself.

God would not be judging himself. To say that by judging man God judges himself is like saying that by judging criminals the law judges the law.

USViking · 12-12-2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

God would not be judging himself. To say that by judging man God judges himself is like saying that by judging criminals the law judges the law.

This is not accurate. The distinction is that where rule of law
prevails human judges are in no way creators of the defendants,
and have no control over the defendants' prior behavior.

An omnipotent, omniscient God is both creator of all defendants,
and able to control every human act.

USViking · 12-12-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

Right now Einstein is finding out that he was a bit short sighted in this life, and that God is quite a bit more than he gave Him credit for.

I think I'll wait for Einstein to pass that information along himself.

Or for God to pass it along. For someone as smart as Einstein to
be misled should be ample sign that something is amiss with the
efficacy of God's revelation to date.

Oh yeah, I'm not supposed to say that. God had His own reasons
for what He does, which are in many cases beyond my simple
abilities to understand, and Einstein's much greater abilities.

drgoodtrips · 12-12-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

Again, bad judgement. God is a hypothesized being that by definition is beyond our direct observation. A hypothesized being that is directly tied to the existence of this universe and that which resides in it. When ANYONE can explain the existence of the universe beyond saying "It just is." That just leads to another simple question: "Why ?" Which can be answered by "It just is."

Your dependance on "You can't prove a negative." to point out that I can't prove dragons don't exist somewhere in the universe (Or my 23 hot horny babes waiting for me in the moon) is ... well, it's silly. I'll assume you have judgement enough to KNOW that. But, I'm assuming :-)

No, the exact same "logic" can NOT "be applied to dragons, or hobbits or rumplestiltskin". You're poor judgement allows you make this judgement make sense in your mind.

I am NOT "biased toward the existence of God because many other people believe in it". Most people are fools who don't know the difference between their ass or their elbow. I beleive there is likely to be some kind of "God" because the universe is here and there are no explanations for it's existence beyond "It just IS." We understand this universe and even ourselves and our own existence very poorly TOO.

That is good advice I'd advise you to try out. Of course your judgement will cause you to make a statement like "...and because it is more personally appealing to you."

This has not one thing to do with what is personally appealiing to me.

Ok, so I see I have zero chance of getting your judgement upgraded in any way(s). I think time is what will do this for you.

God .. Dragons. No comparison.

Quote:
This boils down to an issue of judgement. You're judgement is poor or "off" or misguided in some respect(s). That you beleive this comparison can be soundly and logically applied shows a lack of judgement in ONE way or another. It doesn't work.

I know :-) It is what it is though. Someones making an end-run around logical discourse.

What is remarkable (to me at least), is that you are not seeing what is so very obviously wrong with your "application of logic"

And you have yours.

And yours..

Exactly. So our different judgements have led us to a stalemate :-)

{shrug} This isn't very interesting to me.

drgoodtrips · 12-12-2006, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USViking

I believe the evidence of human history, and the impact of
natural history on humans (e.g. smallpox, the plague, famine,
etc.) provide more than a guess. There is no escape for God
except through the one device of asserting His transcendence.

I mentioned earlier that I do not think this approach
is satisfactory in dealing with the gratuitous nature of
suffering. It is just another escape hatch provided for
God under the heading of transcendence.

Well, I guess that's the central question of "faith". It takes faith to believe in God, and it takes a bit more faith to believe that He's not making everyone suffer because He can. I suppose there'll be no more resolution from us on the matter here.

Quote:

This position necessitates some good somehow arising from
Auschwitz and Gulag, certainly not within the realm of human
comprehension. Opponents may in fairness ridicule the notion
of the Great God of concentration camps, while conceding:
Well, no, there is no way of disproving God might still be good.

True enough, just as atheists may ridicule people for believing in God in the first place. I'm certainly not stating that a malevolent deity is beyond the realm of possibility, but rather that I don't believe it to be any kind of logical certainty.

Quote:

I realize there might be two billion people in the world who hold so
in some form. It may be, it may not be. It is yet another way of
expressing the transcendence argument.

Yes, the "transcendence" argument is a good way of putting it. I think that people, whether right or wrong, feel comforted by thinking there is some higher power at play, and that this power is not actively screwing them. Of course, if you give the Old Testament a good read, there is certainly a case for a malevolent God - slaughtering children, drowning just about everyone on Earth, including infants and such...

But, I guess that's all "old news".

I think an interesting philisophical question might be whether having the power to stop suffering and electing not to act is malevolent or simply neutral.

Quote:

You gonna hit the books tonight, or hit the juice and the Bears game?

I caught the Bears game, but I was watching it with books in front of me the whole time