Ihedinobi:

I'm fine, man. How you been?

Cool. Relaxed. Settled. I hope you get my drift. Thanks anyways.. ;-)

Ihedinobi:
Also, you have conferred infallibility and immutability on science (the red statement in your comment, particularly the words, "true" and "valid". These two qualities belong exclusively to that which is God.

By the two foregoing paragraphs, it is perfectly right to say that Science is your God.

I disagree completely - the law of gravity is 'true' and 'valid'; Radioactive decay laws are 'true' and 'valid' - does that make them gods?

The statement that 'I am male' is valid and true and I trust that it is true - it doesn't make it a god. I can believe a certain principle/idea/law as true without it being a 'god'.

I think that some of the definitions of 'god' that you posted have gone beyond what atheists believe - let's take the example of 'science'. That an atheist 'believes' science is best placed to explain how we got here on this planet in the year 2012 AD doesn't mean he/she 'believes' science is the 'cause'/'originator' of us being here. Do you see a distinction?

The fact that I can describe how an U-238 decays into Thorium doesn't mean I am the 'cause' of that decay.

In the most sweeping and generalised form of 'god' I guess you may be right, but, in strictly atheist/deist terms, I don't think your argument is valid.

debosky:

I disagree completely - the law of gravity is 'true' and 'valid'; Radioactive decay laws are 'true' and 'valid' - does that make them gods?

The statement that 'I am male' is valid and true and I trust that it is true - it doesn't make it a god. I can believe a certain principle/idea/law as true without it being a 'god'.

I think that some of the definitions of 'god' that you posted have gone beyond what atheists believe - let's take the example of 'science'. That an atheist 'believes' science is best placed to explain how we got here on this planet in the year 2012 AD doesn't mean he/she 'believes' science is the 'cause'/'originator' of us being here. Do you see a distinction?

The fact that I can describe how an U-238 decays into Thorium doesn't mean I am the 'cause' of that decay.

In the most sweeping and generalised form of 'god' I guess you may be right, but, in strictly atheist/deist terms, I don't think your argument is valid.

There is really only one definition for God, philosophically speaking. And, you probably missed the point of my response to cyrexx. Only one thing can be completely unchanging and always true. Do you think it's science?

musKeeto:
Cool. Relaxed. Settled. I hope you get my drift. Thanks anyways.. ;-)

That's great, man.

Ihedinobi:

There is really only one definition for God, philosophically speaking. And, you probably missed the point of my response to cyrexx. Only one thing can be completely unchanging and always true.

Who made this rule? Philosophically, why can't there be a group of 'things' completely unchanging and always true?

Do you think it's science?

I don't think science is 'unchanging' - definition it changes as it progresses in its systematic studies and as it understands new phenomena.

debosky:

Who made this rule? Philosophically, why can't there be a group of 'things' completely unchanging and always true?

I'm not sure who did. Is it false? And, if a group of things can be completely unchanging and always true, wouldn't they necessarily be the same thing? Or are there multiple truths?

I don't think science is 'unchanging' - definition it changes as it progresses in its systematic studies and as it understands new phenomena.

I agree.

Ihedinobi:

I'm not sure who did. Is it false?

I don't know - you made the assertion so that's why I'm asking you.

And, if a group of things can be completely unchanging and always true, wouldn't they necessarily be the same thing? Or are there multiple truths?

Being unchanging and true are attributes - I see no reason why those attributes can, in principle, only be held by one 'thing'.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by 'truths' - being true is different from being 'the truth' - I don't know if you follow?

If there is just one 'truth' - what is this 'truth'? I'm not too fond of abstractly philosophical questions you see.

debosky:

I don't know - you made the assertion so that's why I'm asking you.

Oh. For a moment there, I wondered if it was indeed false.

Being unchanging and true are attributes - I see no reason why those attributes can, in principle, only be held by one 'thing'.

Well, you answered this below.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by 'truths' - being true is different from being 'the truth' - I don't know if you follow?

Frankly, I'm mostly puzzled. But, would you say that 'the truth' is always true?

If there is just one 'truth' - what is this 'truth'? I'm not too fond of abstractly philosophical questions you see.

Well, atheism is a philosophical position as is theism, so it's kinda hard to escape those "abstractly philosophical questions" in discussions involving them. In any case, the pursuit of this truth you just intimated me of is not the goal of this thread. The question here is, am I right? Is atheism really a lie?

Ihedinobi:
Frankly, I'm mostly puzzled. But, would you say that 'the truth' is always true?

I guess. . . .but that has little or nothing to do with atheist belief in my view.

Well, atheism is a philosophical position as is theism, so it's kinda hard to escape those "abstractly philosophical questions" in discussions involving them. In any case, the pursuit of this truth you just intimated me of is not the goal of this thread. The question here is, am I right? Is atheism really a lie?

While it might be philosophical at some level, the 'distilled' nature of atheism is simply a view that there is no deity/a deity's existence is implausible, based on available information.

In that regard, I do not think atheism is a lie, it is simply a viewpoint - it may have trusted methodologies/principles that shape its worldview (e.g. science) but I do not think atheists regard them as gods, unless you choose to apply some of the overly generalist/simplistic definitions of what a god is.

A theist might regard them as gods because those 'tools' as it were serve for the basis of the atheist 'rejection' of the existence of gods, but I do not think atheists see things the same way.

debosky:

I guess. . . .but that has little or nothing to do with atheist belief in my view.

Well, your view is the reason we're debating, I think, and I doubt it's right. I mean, atheists believe that religion hoodwinks believers and they know the truth. That is only consistent with an existential philosophy. Each existential philosophy lays claim to possession of the truth or else they're not a philosophy.

While it might be philosophical at some level, the 'distilled' nature of atheism is simply a view that there is no deity/a deity's existence is implausible, based on available information.

In that regard, I do not think atheism is a lie, it is simply a viewpoint - it may have trusted methodologies/principles that shape its worldview (e.g. science) but I do not think atheists regard them as gods, unless you choose to apply some of the overly generalist/simplistic definitions of what a god is.

A theist might regard them as gods because those 'tools' as it were serve for the basis of the atheist 'rejection' of the existence of gods, but I do not think atheists see things the same way.

Do you think then that atheism is true?

Ihedinobi:



The above was your definition of self-sufficiency. You may stop wasting my time now.

PS: I'm getting off the merry-go-round, that's why I'm ignoring the rest of your post.

Edited

I was expanding my argument, I'm not contradicting myself

Ihedinobi:

Well, your view is the reason we're debating, I think, and I doubt it's right. I mean, atheists believe that religion hoodwinks believers and they know the truth. That is only consistent with an existential philosophy. Each existential philosophy lays claim to possession of the truth or else they're not a philosophy.



Do you think then that atheism is true?

What truth damned you? I hope you're not going to win by confusing me again...

Ihedinobi:

Well, your view is the reason we're debating, I think, and I doubt it's right. I mean, atheists believe that religion hoodwinks believers and they know the truth. That is only consistent with an existential philosophy. Each existential philosophy lays claim to possession of the truth or else they're not a philosophy.

I don't think the atheist viewpoint it's that 'absolute' - it's simply a case of, on the balance of probabilities/evidence available, there is no deity, as the evidence (as they view it) isn't indicative of the existence of a deity. They believe religion is man-made because of evidence that they interpret as suggesting it is man-made.

Do you think then that atheism is true?

Yes I do - it is true as a viewpoint that does not require belief in a 'god' of any shape or form.

debosky:

I don't think the atheist viewpoint it's that 'absolute' - it's simply a case of, on the balance of probabilities/evidence available, there is no deity, as the evidence (as they view it) isn't indicative of the existence of a deity. They believe religion is man-made because of evidence that they interpret as suggesting it is man-made.

Well, if it isn't absolute but a position of study, why do atheists go on missions to liberate religious people from their 'ignorance'?

Yes I do - it is true as a viewpoint that does not require belief in a 'god' of any shape or form.

Man, half the time I have to read you over and over to understand what you're saying and I don't always succeed. Anyway, if atheism is not a false position, why do atheists who aren't supposed to believe in God counter arguments made for various religions' candidates for the position of God with arguments for other candidates for the same position? Shouldn't their effort be spent on showing that there is no such thing as Godhood at all?

wiegraf:

What truth damned you? I hope you're not going to win by confusing me again...

Wiegraf, man, how you been?

Now, why'd you post this comment, to confuse or tickle me? I am both like 'hahaha' and 'huh?' right now.

Kay 17:

I was expanding my argument, I'm not contradicting myself

Sure, whatever you say, man.

Ihedinobi:

Well, if it isn't absolute but a position of study, why do atheists go on missions to liberate religious people from their 'ignorance'?

People try to convince others to adopt their positions/opinions even where absolutes are not involved/cannot be determined so I don't expect atheists to be any different in that regard.

It has little/nothing to do with the absolutes but more of human nature that takes the view of 'I am right and I'll convince you to adopt my position'.

Man, half the time I have to read you over and over to understand what you're saying and I don't always succeed. Anyway, if atheism is not a false position, why do atheists who aren't supposed to believe in God counter arguments made for various religions' candidates for the position of God with arguments for other candidates for the same position?

Apologies - my views are often not communicated as lucidly as I would wish.

Can you give an example of what you mean in bold above?

For example, giving 'evolution' as the process by which humans exist today (argument against creation by God) isn't the same as offering another candidate to take the place of God.

Shouldn't their effort be spent on showing that there is no such thing as Godhood at all?

I think countering arguments for religious candidates for the position of God (without replacement that is) and showing there is no such thing as godhood as essentially the same - if you can convince me that God isn't necessary, that is partway down the journey of convincing me God doesn't exist.

Ihedinobi:

Wiegraf, man, how you been?

Now, why'd you post this comment, to confuse or tickle me? I am both like 'hahaha' and 'huh?' right now.

Do hohohohoho

Yeah, twas a hahahaha. I hope you're settling whatever is plaguing you.

As for the 'truths', don't know what you're talking about. It is about probabilities for me, and being practical of course. I'll sit this one out though

Ihedinobi:

Sure, whatever you say, man.

WHO told you I'm male??

Kay 17:

WHO told you I'm male??

You aren't??

Kay 17:

WHO told you I'm male??

Sorry. "Whatever you say, lady".

wiegraf:

Do hohohohoho

Yeah, twas a hahahaha. I hope you're settling whatever is plaguing you.

As for the 'truths', don't know what you're talking about. It is about probabilities for me, and being practical of course. I'll sit this one out though

Thanks for clearing that up, man. And, yeah, I'm gettin out of the woods.

Welcome to the show.

debosky:

People try to convince others to adopt their positions/opinions even where absolutes are not involved/cannot be determined so I don't expect atheists to be any different in that regard.

It has little/nothing to do with the absolutes but more of human nature that takes the view of 'I am right and I'll convince you to adopt my position'.

My brother, you're pretty good at playing devil's advocate and I totally agree that it is needful to keep those you agree with sharp and honest. But have you not yet seen that the work is done here? Just like in the other thread where I owned up to my ignorance of experiments 'proving' evolution.

Here, your argument may be deteriorating. The point of philosophical debates is that there is only true and false. Two contradictory things cannot be true at once. One must be true and the other false or else both are false. There is only one truth and everything is true or false according to the degree that they resonate or conflict with it. Having said that, I am not interested in identifying this truth here, for no other reason than that it is not the subject of discussion. I point it out to indicate that human beings set about swaying other human beings' opinion their way by laying claim to this truth. Atheists are no different.

It would probably help if I laid out threads that bear evidence of the atheist's claim to knowledgr of the truth, but I don't think in all honesty that I need to do so. I know you're around these parts enough to know that the average atheist tends toward the sentiment that religious people are deluded and need to be shown the truth. That is hardly a novel statement, it's rampant enough. Notable atheists are known to hold the same sentiments.

Apologies - my views are often not communicated as lucidly as I would wish.

Can you give an example of what you mean in bold above?

For example, giving 'evolution' as the process by which humans exist today (argument against creation by God) isn't the same as offering another candidate to take the place of God.

Some examples, on a light note, would include their Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Pink Unicorns and Lord knows what else their bizarre imaginations concoct. But that's said for a laugh.

On a serious note, however, if someone refuses to accept the notion of Jehovah or Allah or Buddha or whoever being God for whatever reason, including infinite regress, and then turns around to say that the universe has always been here, would you say that one uncaused cause has been replaced with another? There are other such examples scattered over this board.

I think countering arguments for religious candidates for the position of God (without replacement that is) and showing there is no such thing as godhood as essentially the same - if you can convince me that God isn't necessary, that is partway down the journey of convincing me God doesn't exist.

I have never seen an atheistic argument that succeeded at eradicating the necessity of God, all have invariably sought to replace God with, well, God, only this time with a different name and shrine. If you know of one such argument, I would appreciate the education.

debosky:

For example, giving 'evolution' as the process by which humans exist today (argument against creation by God) isn't the same as offering another candidate to take the place of God.

debosky, would it be out of place for a "fool" like me (Psalm 14:1) to say God bless you for the above (and to ask "How you dey? ) )?

Ihedinobi:

My brother, you're pretty good at playing devil's advocate . . .

I'll wager you just discovered this.

You might want to borrow a leaf tree

jayriginal:

I'll wager you just discovered this.

You might want to borrow a leaf tree

Not sure what you mean.

Ihedinobi:

Not sure what you mean.

I mean I'll bet you didnt know debosky was a christian before now. Its a wager and I could lose it but I think Im safe.


So, did you know ?

Oh, and about the borrowing a leaf, it simply means that you dont have to see red whenever its a theist vs atheist matter. debosky has held his own against atheists but his approach is different.

jayriginal:

I mean I'll bet you didnt know debosky was a christian before now. Its a wager and I could lose it but I think Im safe.


So, did you know ?

Oh, and about the borrowing a leaf, it simply means that you dont have to see red whenever its a theist vs atheist matter. debosky has held his own against atheists but his approach is different.

You lost your wager. I've known debosky's a Christian since last year.

I'm not really sure about the seeing red part. I don't have much patience for futile discussions, they bore me so I generally stay away. I only used to get upset when I began debating atheists last year because I had pretty high expectations of you guys out of my naivety. But now, I don't think you can talk about me seeing red like I have some vested interest in atheist-theist arguments that I must protect by winning. I care much less about the scoreboard here than the people in the game and how everyone walks away from the engagement.

Ihedinobi:

You lost your wager. I've known debosky's a Christian since last year.

I'm not really sure about the seeing red part. I don't have much patience for futile discussions, they bore me so I generally stay away. I only used to get upset when I began debating atheists last year because I had pretty high expectations of you guys out of my naivety. But now, I don't think you can talk about me seeing red like I have some vested interest in atheist-theist arguments that I must protect by winning. I care much less about the scoreboard here than the people in the game and how everyone walks away from the engagement.

Bully for you then.

The evolution quote is because its very common on this board to find " evolution = atheism" or "atheism = evolution" and the like.

As for high expectations, well lets not go down that road.

As for seeing red, it does seem a lot that if one person takes a position, another feels honor bound to take the opposite, in gross violation of common sense. One cant agree all the time but some things are really quite clear.

Ihedinobi:
Here, your argument may be deteriorating. The point of philosophical debates is that there is only true and false.

Maybe the misunderstanding is mine - your initial post indicated you felt everyone believes in a God - that isn't a philosophical question to me, that is a challenge on what atheism means, which is why I tried to explain it as a viewpoint, based on the balance of probabilities as opposed to an absolute 'true/false' issue.

I point it out to indicate that human beings set about swaying other human beings' opinion their way by laying claim to this truth. Atheists are no different.

We agree - except for laying claim to 'truth' - it's laying claim to being 'right' as opposed to 'truth' if you see the distinction. For example someone might try to convince you that drinking only red wine is 'right' regardless of whether this is the 'truth' (is it actually good for you) or not.

It would probably help if I laid out threads that bear evidence of the atheist's claim to knowledgr of the truth, but I don't think in all honesty that I need to do so.

Like you said, this isn't the intent of this thread.

On a serious note, however, if someone refuses to accept the notion of Jehovah or Allah or Buddha or whoever being God for whatever reason, including infinite regress, and then turns around to say that the universe has always been here, would you say that one uncaused cause has been replaced with another? There are other such examples scattered over this board.

No I wouldn't, since being an 'uncaused cause' isn't a sufficient characteristic of God (from a Christian perspective anyway).
The real nub of things (I think) in our day to day existence - is 'sin', morality, right or wrong, views on 'life' after death, etc. emanating from a divine being or is it just something we developed ourselves over time to manage our existence in human society? That to me is what atheists are really interested in when challenging theists, not really the philosophical aspect.

I have never seen an atheistic argument that succeeded at eradicating the necessity of God, all have invariably sought to replace God with, well, God, only this time with a different name and shrine. If you know of one such argument, I would appreciate the education.

Well you've given an example yourself - if the universe has always been, it doesn't need God to create it or set it in motion.

debosky:

Maybe the misunderstanding is mine - your initial post indicated you felt everyone believes in a God - that isn't a philosophical question to me, that is a challenge on what atheism means, which is why I tried to explain it as a viewpoint, based on the balance of probabilities as opposed to an absolute 'true/false' issue.

Ok, I think I understand you now. The contention here is what atheism means, right? Well, the word is a-theism, that is "not theism". It's a 180° deviation from theism, the exact opposite. However, that's just word dissection. Atheism, like realism or naturalism or materialism or communism, is a philosophy. It holds not that there might not be a God after all or that there doesn't need to be a God or that there probably is no God but that there isn't at all a God. It's not a journey, it's a destination.

Why did I put this thread up? To show that this is an altogether false and utterly untenable position that cannot hold its own in argument. To show that in reality there are no atheists, that all those who claim to be atheists are, well, idolaters, for want of a more diplomatic term.

Of course, I believe that there are those who claim total indifference to existential questions, but that is because they have accepted an answer to and have no further intention to debate or study existential questions. These people aren't true atheists either, they're just as settled in their faith, if I dare use the word, in whatever answer they have chosen as religious people of every cloth can also be in theirs.

We agree - except for laying claim to 'truth' - it's laying claim to being 'right' as opposed to 'truth' if you see the distinction. For example someone might try to convince you that drinking only red wine is 'right' regardless of whether this is the 'truth' (is it actually good for you) or not.

Why would I argue back in your instance?

No I wouldn't, since being an 'uncaused cause' isn't a sufficient characteristic of God (from a Christian perspective anyway).

While I do hold the Christian perspective, this is not a Christ versus Atheism thread. It's a philosophical discussion. So, what is that one thing that sets God apart and makes him/her/it God to the exclusion of all other contenders?

Um, the question is philosophical, sorry about that. Can't be helped.

The real nub of things (I think) in our day to day existence - is 'sin', morality, right or wrong, views on 'life' after death, etc. emanating from a divine being or is it just something we developed ourselves over time to manage our existence in human society? That to me is what atheists are really interested in when challenging theists, not really the philosophical aspect.

Well, that is interesting. If atheists begin from the atheistic stance to argue those things, then their arguments are going to be fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions if I am right about atheism, don't you think? In any case, my experience with atheists has largely been that these things you named are their excuses for refusing to accommodate theistic arguments. They have not proven to be the real nub of anything. The real nub (I know) is plain old jealousy and covetousness - why should Jesus or whoever be God and not me?

Well you've given an example yourself - if the universe has always been, it doesn't need God to create it or set it in motion.

Well, if you agree with me on the sufficient definition of God, then a universe that has always been would be God.

PS. The Christian definition of God is actually in total agreement with me. Or rather, I am with it in my submissions here.

jayriginal:

Bully for you then.

The evolution quote is because its very common on this board to find " evolution = atheism" or "atheism = evolution" and the like.

As for high expectations, well lets not go down that road.

As for seeing red, it does seem a lot that if one person takes a position, another feels honor bound to take the opposite, in gross violation of common sense. One cant agree all the time but some things are really quite clear.

I understand.