Celebrating Atheism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s a philosophical stance, not a religious one. That’s what folks are missing. There is no ‘deist’ faith. It’s philosophical proposition.[/quote]For Christians, the two cannot be separated. That’s what YOU’RE missing. You display the most anti-systematic thinking I have ever seen in a smart guy Pat. The compartments in your delightfully entertaining mind are hermetically sealed from one another. God bless the internet. Oh the people I do meet.
[/quote]Incorrect.[/quote]Well hello Pat. Long time no… oh nevermind lol. Yes… you do manage to keep utterly incompatible concepts in apparently segregated ares of your mind. Not trying to get back off on the wrong foot here buddy. I’m telling you honestly what I see. If you did take me off ignore you touched my heart man. I mean that. Maybe we’ll do Pittypat’s Porch one day after all. =D

82

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< WE are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. >>>[/quote]You steal reason and knowledge from my bank in so doing and I have demonstrated why in the epistemology and metaphysics thread among others. Check those please.
[/quote]

My statement stands. We are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. From an A priori standpoint there is no evidence for a God, AT ALL.

From an A priori standpoint, there is reason to be agnostic.

From an A priori standpoint, there is no reason to be Atheist. (have the positive belief that there is no god) [/quote]

Religion is based upon emotion (fear) and is therefore outside the province of Reason. Religion is based upon the fear of thinking and wishing to evade the responsibility of judgment.

Pure atheism is based on ignorance of logic, that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.

However, since we deal with high degrees of probability all the time, it WOULD be proper to say, “I am an atheist until indisputable proof shows me otherwise.” Just put a fuzzy line between atheism and agnosticism.

83

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, I wish there was one word for someone who despises religion but believes in God. Furthermore, that God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any individual but does things for some inscrutible reasons of his own.

Is there a God at all or one who has some goal in mind and couldn’t care less about you, me, or anyone?

No one knows. But I do know that I exist, THAT is certain. And since God doesn’t give a shit , then I’ll behave as if he doesn’t exist anyway. Why try to please some entity that doesn’t care about you?[/quote]

I swear there’s a name for that, I just can’t place it.[/quote]

In most cases, “a deist” would work.
BUt, in this specific case, i think the name is “a troll”.
[/quote]

LOL! Nailed it.[/quote]

When one has no answer and the other guy hasn’t either, then I am ‘a troll’?

Yeah…okay…makes perfect sense…

84

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s a philosophical stance, not a religious one. That’s what folks are missing. There is no ‘deist’ faith. It’s philosophical proposition.[/quote]For Christians, the two cannot be separated. That’s what YOU’RE missing. You display the most anti-systematic thinking I have ever seen in a smart guy Pat. The compartments in your delightfully entertaining mind are hermetically sealed from one another. God bless the internet. Oh the people I do meet.
[/quote]Incorrect.[/quote]Well hello Pat. Long time no… oh nevermind lol. Yes… you do manage to keep utterly incompatible concepts in apparently segregated ares of your mind. Not trying to get back off on the wrong foot here buddy. I’m telling you honestly what I see. If you did take me off ignore you touched my heart man. I mean that. Maybe we’ll do Pittypat’s Porch one day after all. =D
[/quote]

Sorry, thought I was responding to orion. Please disregard.

85

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Religion is based upon emotion (fear) and is therefore outside the province of Reason. Religion is based upon the fear of thinking and wishing to evade the responsibility of judgment.

[/quote]

In part, yes, but in sane communities that part is negligible.

It is much more rooted in sense of tradition and community and shared values.

I would at least toy with the idea that shared mass delusions can be a healthy thing for both individuals and society as a whole.

The things that replace religion when it looses its uniting power are usually very unpleasant.

Ghastly even.

86

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s a philosophical stance, not a religious one. That’s what folks are missing. There is no ‘deist’ faith. It’s philosophical proposition.[/quote]For Christians, the two cannot be separated. That’s what YOU’RE missing. You display the most anti-systematic thinking I have ever seen in a smart guy Pat. The compartments in your delightfully entertaining mind are hermetically sealed from one another. God bless the internet. Oh the people I do meet.
[/quote]Incorrect.[/quote]Well hello Pat. Long time no… oh nevermind lol. Yes… you do manage to keep utterly incompatible concepts in apparently segregated ares of your mind. Not trying to get back off on the wrong foot here buddy. I’m telling you honestly what I see. If you did take me off ignore you touched my heart man. I mean that. Maybe we’ll do Pittypat’s Porch one day after all. =D
[/quote]

Sorry, thought I was responding to orion. Please disregard.[/quote]

¿ Que ?

87

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, I wish there was one word for someone who despises religion but believes in God. Furthermore, that God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any individual but does things for some inscrutible reasons of his own.

Is there a God at all or one who has some goal in mind and couldn’t care less about you, me, or anyone?

No one knows. But I do know that I exist, THAT is certain. And since God doesn’t give a shit , then I’ll behave as if he doesn’t exist anyway. Why try to please some entity that doesn’t care about you?[/quote]

I swear there’s a name for that, I just can’t place it.[/quote]

In most cases, “a deist” would work.
BUt, in this specific case, i think the name is “a troll”.
[/quote]

LOL! Nailed it.[/quote]

When one has no answer and the other guy hasn’t either, then I am ‘a troll’?

Yeah…okay…makes perfect sense…

[/quote]

no answer to which question exactly ? it changes constantly.

Someone who believes in an inscrutable God but reject all religion is a deist.
Someone who believes in a spinozist God is a pantheist

Someone who
-do not believe in a personnal, active God but
-hear His Voice from time to time
-and make numerous inconsistent posts about it on an internet board
-has studied philosophy for more than 30 years but
-don’t know what a deist or a pantheist is …
… is certainly a troll

88

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, I wish there was one word for someone who despises religion but believes in God. Furthermore, that God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any individual but does things for some inscrutible reasons of his own.

Is there a God at all or one who has some goal in mind and couldn’t care less about you, me, or anyone?

No one knows. But I do know that I exist, THAT is certain. And since God doesn’t give a shit , then I’ll behave as if he doesn’t exist anyway. Why try to please some entity that doesn’t care about you?[/quote]

I swear there’s a name for that, I just can’t place it.[/quote]

In most cases, “a deist” would work.
BUt, in this specific case, i think the name is “a troll”.
[/quote]

LOL! Nailed it.[/quote]

When one has no answer and the other guy hasn’t either, then I am ‘a troll’?

Yeah…okay…makes perfect sense…

[/quote]

no answer to which question exactly ? it changes constantly.

Someone who believes in an inscrutable God but reject all religion is a deist.
Someone who believes in a spinozist God is a pantheist

Someone who
-do not believe in a personnal, active God but
-hear His Voice from time to time
-and make numerous inconsistent posts about it on an internet board
-has studied philosophy for more than 30 years but
-don’t know what a deist or a pantheist is …
… is certainly a troll

[/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

89

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! >>>[/quote]Look pal, don’t come barging into people’s threads like this tryin to spread your godless heathenism. Go start a thread celebrating atheism or sumthin… oh wait… whoops.

90

[quote]pat wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]pat wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s a philosophical stance, not a religious one. That’s what folks are missing. There is no ‘deist’ faith. It’s philosophical proposition.[/quote]For Christians, the two cannot be separated. That’s what YOU’RE missing. You display the most anti-systematic thinking I have ever seen in a smart guy Pat. The compartments in your delightfully entertaining mind are hermetically sealed from one another. God bless the internet. Oh the people I do meet.[/quote]Incorrect.[/quote]Well hello Pat. Long time no… oh nevermind lol. Yes… you do manage to keep utterly incompatible concepts in apparently segregated ares of your mind. Not trying to get back off on the wrong foot here buddy. I’m telling you honestly what I see. If you did take me off ignore you touched my heart man. I mean that. Maybe we’ll do Pittypat’s Porch one day after all. =D [/quote]Sorry, thought I was responding to orion. Please disregard.[/quote]No need to be sorry and fair enough. I really did miss you Pat. I said so several times though you couldn’t see.

91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

secular spirituality…?[/quote]

Deepak Chopra is one of the biggest modern day fraudsters out there.[/quote]

In what sense?

Is he any more of a fraud than a religious priest?[/quote]

Now Lifty, I did say modern fraudsters. I consider religious priests to be a most ancient and noble method of swindling people of their money.

92

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< To me this makes absolutely no sense at all. You claim to be a metaphysics man, but then you follow none of the rules or that even Plantinga follows, who is THE Philosophical mental giant as far as Catholicism goes. If you don’t agree with him, we are playing on different ball fields. Completely different. To me, it looks like you are making excuses to hold your position, but I could be wrong. I’m saying it just does not follow (in my mind). [/quote]My dear friend? You n I are gonna get along. =] This is brilliant and ABSOLUTELY right on. We are on COMPLETELY different ball fields. AND, the EXACT same one at the EXACT same time. Yes, not only does that make total sense, but it is the ONLY thing that does. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about. I pray you will do some reading. It’s all there.
[/quote]

From what I gather, you buy into an ideology that isn’t falsifiable. I’m pretty open minded when it comes to this sort of stuff, but you play ball where round circles and logically impossible things are logically possible. How are we supposed to even have a discussion and sway minds if you aren’t at all open to having your mind changed, short of God coming down and saying, “Your doing it wrong!” I’m halfway playing around, I’m just sort of stunned we don’t buy into the same logic.

93

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< To me this makes absolutely no sense at all. You claim to be a metaphysics man, but then you follow none of the rules or that even Plantinga follows, who is THE Philosophical mental giant as far as Catholicism goes. If you don’t agree with him, we are playing on different ball fields. Completely different. To me, it looks like you are making excuses to hold your position, but I could be wrong. I’m saying it just does not follow (in my mind). [/quote]My dear friend? You n I are gonna get along. =] This is brilliant and ABSOLUTELY right on. We are on COMPLETELY different ball fields. AND, the EXACT same one at the EXACT same time. Yes, not only does that make total sense, but it is the ONLY thing that does. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about. I pray you will do some reading. It’s all there.
[/quote]

From what I gather, you buy into an ideology that isn’t falsifiable. I’m pretty open minded when it comes to this sort of stuff, but you play ball where round circles and logically impossible things are logically possible. How are we supposed to even have a discussion?
[/quote]

You’re meant to just sit there quietly and let his God take you in the ass with no lube.

94

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< To me this makes absolutely no sense at all. You claim to be a metaphysics man, but then you follow none of the rules or that even Plantinga follows, who is THE Philosophical mental giant as far as Catholicism goes. If you don’t agree with him, we are playing on different ball fields. Completely different. To me, it looks like you are making excuses to hold your position, but I could be wrong. I’m saying it just does not follow (in my mind). [/quote]My dear friend? You n I are gonna get along. =] This is brilliant and ABSOLUTELY right on. We are on COMPLETELY different ball fields. AND, the EXACT same one at the EXACT same time. Yes, not only does that make total sense, but it is the ONLY thing that does. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely RIGHT about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it. This has led him to utterly corrupt and perverse conclusions even from the things he’s right about. I pray you will do some reading. It’s all there.
[/quote]

From what I gather, you buy into an ideology that isn’t falsifiable. I’m pretty open minded when it comes to this sort of stuff, but you play ball where round circles and logically impossible things are logically possible. How are we supposed to even have a discussion?
[/quote]

You’re meant to just sit there quietly and let his God take you in the ass with no lube.[/quote]

Yeah, but I used to go to the same sort of Church he did yet we are so completely different. I still respect the religious, because I agree with Tirib in part. The thing is I don’t thing he understands that he doesn’t need to adopt a unique logic to make sense of his faith. Plantinga acknowledges regular logic and defends his faith brilliantly. I’m very surprised people weren’t taken in by the video I posted. Very disappointing considering how many big time Christians are on these forums, he is a very soft-spoken man who has shown so strongly in debates with atheists…

It almost makes me sad that I’m the only guy who appreciates him here, and I’m not even Catholic.

95

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< WE are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. >>>[/quote]You steal reason and knowledge from my bank in so doing and I have demonstrated why in the epistemology and metaphysics thread among others. Check those please.
[/quote]

My statement stands. We are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. From an A priori standpoint there is no evidence for a God, AT ALL.

From an A priori standpoint, there is reason to be agnostic.

From an A priori standpoint, there is no reason to be Atheist. (have the positive belief that there is no god) [/quote]

Religion is based upon emotion (fear) and is therefore outside the province of Reason. Religion is based upon the fear of thinking and wishing to evade the responsibility of judgment.

Pure atheism is based on ignorance of logic, that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.

However, since we deal with high degrees of probability all the time, it WOULD be proper to say, “I am an atheist until indisputable proof shows me otherwise.” Just put a fuzzy line between atheism and agnosticism.
[/quote]

It all really depends on what sort of hegemony you buy into.

A newer way of understanding Atheism, Agnosticism, and theism is by sort of mixing them together. Agnostic has sometimes been adopted to represent the, “I don’t proclaim to have knowledge”

So an Agnostic Theist would be someone who has faith in God, but doesn’t claim to know there is a God, or have a proof for God’s existence. This is how most people are of faith, including Plantinga. (But this categorizes the majority of theists as agnostics, bad)

A hard theist is someone who claims to know there is a God, they are considered lucky or crazy.

An Agnostic atheist is someone like me, I don’t know if there is a God or not, I’m cagetorized the same as Dawkins even though I don’t believe the degree of certainty of NO god is even really measurable. (which is another reason I don’t buy into this hegemony)

And then there is the hard atheist, who claims to know there is no God. This person is generally considered a little crazy (imo).

I don’t buy into this hegemony, but it’s one of the newest scholastic ways of categorizing peoples beliefs.

96

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< short of God coming down and saying, “Your doing it wrong!” >>>[/quote]He already came down and said I was doing it right.[quote]Severiano wrote:<<<I’m halfway playing around, I’m just sort of stunned we don’t buy into the same logic. >>>[/quote]We DO use the same logic as I have said 100 times. 2+2 is just as much 4 for me as it is for you. We operate it from different epistemological foundations. Mine is the omniscient comprehensively sovereign God who is the source of both man’s existence AND logic and yours is you. Don’t make any more assumptions. Please read. I sent you a PM btw.

97

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< You’re meant to just sit there quietly and let his God take you in the ass with no lube.[/quote]And no discussion of God would be complete without the penetrating insight and towering goose bump inducing profundity of Makavali. Than you sir. You’ve humbled me again. You are an instrument of righteousness unawares.

98

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Yeah that’s Craig’s assement of that particular work.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

btw, I think the statement I made to Sevariano in the post with the picture of the two boys is about the best swirl of cogency and concision I have been thus far capable of and maybe ever will be. These types of topics simply do not allow for quick short statements. I know you weren’t criticizing me per se, I’m just explaining.[/quote]
Lol if only what I did was that lucrative however its enough to support me for the summer so I thank God for it; your right these topics need to be thought out carefully.

99

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< You’re meant to just sit there quietly and let his God take you in the ass with no lube.[/quote]And no discussion of God would be complete without the penetrating insight and towering goose bump inducing profundity of Makavali. Than you sir. You’ve humbled me again. You are an instrument of righteousness unawares.
[/quote]

You got all that out of what he said?

… I just thought he was making an ass-fucking joke.

100

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< WE are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. >>>[/quote]You steal reason and knowledge from my bank in so doing and I have demonstrated why in the epistemology and metaphysics thread among others. Check those please.
[/quote]

My statement stands. We are the ones who utilize reason and knowledge. From an A priori standpoint there is no evidence for a God, AT ALL.

From an A priori standpoint, there is reason to be agnostic.

From an A priori standpoint, there is no reason to be Atheist. (have the positive belief that there is no god) [/quote]

Religion is based upon emotion (fear) and is therefore outside the province of Reason. Religion is based upon the fear of thinking and wishing to evade the responsibility of judgment.

Pure atheism is based on ignorance of logic, that one cannot prove a universal negative conclusively.

However, since we deal with high degrees of probability all the time, it WOULD be proper to say, “I am an atheist until indisputable proof shows me otherwise.” Just put a fuzzy line between atheism and agnosticism.
[/quote]

It all really depends on what sort of hegemony you buy into.

A newer way of understanding Atheism, Agnosticism, and theism is by sort of mixing them together. Agnostic has sometimes been adopted to represent the, “I don’t proclaim to have knowledge”

So an Agnostic Theist would be someone who has faith in God, but doesn’t claim to know there is a God, or have a proof for God’s existence. This is how most people are of faith, including Plantinga. (But this categorizes the majority of theists as agnostics, bad)

A hard theist is someone who claims to know there is a God, they are considered lucky or crazy.

An Agnostic atheist is someone like me, I don’t know if there is a God or not, I’m cagetorized the same as Dawkins even though I don’t believe the degree of certainty of NO god is even really measurable. (which is another reason I don’t buy into this hegemony)

And then there is the hard atheist, who claims to know there is no God. This person is generally considered a little crazy (imo).

I don’t buy into this hegemony, but it’s one of the newest scholastic ways of categorizing peoples beliefs. [/quote]

An extremely intelligent post! Kudos!

It is troublesome when there’s no single term for what one’s trying to say. The best example is Jesus – some kind hearted alien uses technology to cure these simple people and the people, in trying to describe him, call him ‘God’.