-->
@Amoranemix
I didn't say no one understands morality.
You did in the link you referred me to.
atheism is irrational
Posts
Total:
618
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of god ?
A spiritual being at the very least. I don't take issue with the modification of this being as "supreme."
if your food looks good, but smells like rotten roadkill, you might not want to eat it
The Duriant Fruit may change your mind.
-->
@FLRW
Pediatric cancer?
Kids aren't supposed to get cancer? We all die at some point, right? The value placed on long lives if we're subjecting it to analysis with respect to the Bible, for example, is an earthly attachment which falls short in juxtaposition to the after life. I know the attempt is to demonstrate incompetence, but if one believes in God, and everything that is stated in the Bible, then why would a child's death be an example of incompetence, especially as it concerns non-violent circumstances?
" I cannot imagine a God..."
It already starts off with an appeal to incredulity.
"...who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty."
Awfully detailed for something one "cannot imagine."
"Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.“ — Albert Einstein
Egotism? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Wasn't he dismissing the entire concept because "[he] cannot imagine [it]?"
-->
@Athias
We all die at some point, right?
Why do we die? Isn't it to enable Evolution?
One has to assume.
Going to heaven a 5 month old differs from going to heaven as a 83 years old.
Or not.
What would be a good age to go to heaven ?
I could reword it. Because i know where it is going to go.
Is a 5 month old soul the same as a 83 year old soul. ?
-->
@Amoranemix
[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous
No, it wasn't.
I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case.
And your assumption was correct, but it doesn't apply to the "example case" because you included the premise "X is impossible." My dispute isn't whether I support the claim Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational as long the definitions I provided are being used; my dispute has been with your failure, unwillingness, or incapacity to provide description to the terms "impossible" and "exist."
You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.
I do not have to honor the burden of an argument I did not make. The example case while attempting to extrapolate my reasoning is still presented through your argument.
[105] Where have I stated that ?
Where have you stated what? If you're referring to my statement you highlighted with "104," then here is where you stated it:
Athias #460[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,Amoranemix #444Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.
[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.
False. I posted Post #445.
Possibility is a requirement for existence.
Demonstrate this. (Hint: you would have to provide a description to "Possibility.")
'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'
Same as directly above.
[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.
No, I am not. I'm not arguing that a premise is an argument. I'm implicitly stating that a premise is an essential part of an argument, i.e. when a premise changes, the argument changes. Thus, your changing the premise changes the argument from mine to yours.
[108] No. I never made that argument.
Explicitly stating that argument is not required.
You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.
I've already done it.
[a] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.
Yes, it depends on what is meant with impossible. So what do you mean by "impossible?"
The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.
And this was intended to inform Bertrand Russell's statement about wisdom, correct? But you haven't really demonstrated how this applies.
[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.
I'm interested in clarity; I'm just not interested in repeating myself frequently. Quote me in sequence and we can easily resolve this issue.
post 440 :exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.real: true or actual.material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?
To exemplify one's being through spiritual aspects, I suppose. As for whether God exists in people's minds, well, everything one experiences exists in one's mind.
I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.
Do you "suspect" or is this what you're arguing? I'm very well aware that atheists are maintain a materialist position. Of course, the irony in this is that their materialism is substantiated by the immaterial.
Everything: all things that existNothing: all things that do not existHence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.
Square Circles by definition are illogical. That however does not speak to their "existence." You would have to demonstrate how logic and existence are necessary bi-conditions.
93] We are not discussing the use of 'God does not exist' as a presupposition.
We're not; we're speaking directly to a claimant with respect to his/her claim, which is necessary for any claim.
[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.
What is the difference between "believing" God does not exist, and "knowing" God does not exist?
And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.[95] Please demonstrate that.
Because the claim itself necessarily demonstrates knowledge; claims do not create themselves; claims reflect what the claimant knows or presumes to know or what is to be known (presumably by everyone.)
Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."[96][96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.
It follows from what I stated in "[95.]"
[97] Not yet.
I have. Whether it has satisfied your metrics, only you know.
-->
@FLRW
Why do we die?
Because all of our organs have a timestamp.
Isn't it to enable Evolution?
You believe in that? I do not pedal consensus-based narratives by the "science-community."
Yes it is irrational. I don't get why people even want to be atheists, I mean there is no morality, no afterlife, no wonder, no magic, no nothing.
-->
@Conservallectual
If you have
no morality, no afterlife, no wonder, no magic, no nothing.
Other than 'afterlife' if you lack the other things without adhering with blind faith to some scripture made so many hundred, or even thousands depending on your religion, years ago followed by people who didn't know better and couldn't critically think their way out of it, the problem is probably with you as a person and you either need therapy or just are somebody who never will gain morality and 'wonder' in life.
-->
@Conservallectual
Yes it is irrational. I don't get why people even want to be atheists, I mean there is no morality, no afterlife, no wonder, no magic, no nothing.
The rational approach would be to accept reality for what it is, even it is not what you want it to be. In contrast, the irrational approach would be to based your view of reality on what you want it to be.
So, RationalMadman thinks more like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking and Conservallectual thinks more like Jim Bakker.
-->
@Conservallectual
Yes it is irrational. I don't get why people even want to be atheists, I mean there is no morality, no afterlife, no wonder, no magic, no nothing
The thing that really bugs atheist more than anything is service. If what they're doing doesn't somehow benefit them they want no part of it. Since religion is about service especially service to something they can't see or feel without any actual reward for them they're not interested. And they believe whatever they think is right is moral whether it is or not. I don't believe there's any sort of line you can cross that makes something bad even though we all know there are certainly things that happened to people that are bad and they've been done to people with the intent of being bad.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The quote you replied to just highlighted how religion serves the believer and how atheism fails to (in the poster's opinion).
-->
@RationalMadman
Religion isn't set up to serve the atheist it is set up to serve the believer. Why the hell would religion serve atheists they don't want anything to do with it.
-->
@Conservallectual
Yes it is irrational. I don't get why people even want to be atheists
If your beliefs about what is true are based on what you want that’s the opposite of rational.
-->
@Athias
A spiritual being at the very least. I don't take issue with the modification of this being as "supreme."
what is your preferred definition of "spiritual" and what is your preferred definition of "supreme" ?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The thing that really bugs atheist more than anything is service. If what they're doing doesn't somehow benefit them they want no part of it. Since religion is about service especially service to something they can't see or feel without any actual reward for them they're not interested. And they believe whatever they think is right is moral whether it is or not. I don't believe there's any sort of line you can cross that makes something bad even though we all know there are certainly things that happened to people that are bad and they've been done to people with the intent of being bad.
do social animals perform altruistic actions ?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is a 5 month old soul the same as a 83 year old soul. ?
(IFF) one believes in heaven (THEN) going to heaven would seem to be a universal good
-->
@Conservallectual
I don't get why people even want to be atheists,
i'm quite certain nobody "wants" to be an atheist
most of them are simply looking for logical-coherence
I mean there is no morality,
ethical standards are essential to human survival
no afterlife,
we will all become part of the one
no wonder,
science is amazing
no magic,
everything that is not understood seems magical
no nothing.
there is no such thing as "nothing"
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your preferred definition of "spiritual" and what is your preferred definition of "supreme" ?
Athias:
spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
As for supreme, these definitions should suffice:
highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chiefof the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc
-->
@Athias
Spiritual.
An internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus.
Often incorrectly defined with ritual-speak.
Supreme.
Arguably the best pudding in the World.
Or arguably not.
Depending upon one's internal electrochemical response to the pudding.
In my opinion, some puddings are spiritual and some are just nice.
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine getting re- married.
When heaven gets awkward. ...
-->
@Athias
spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
would you consider "spiritual" = "brain-states"
or do you quantify "spiritual" by some other metric ?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Imagine getting re- married.When heaven gets awkward. ...
great point
-->
@zedvictor4
In my opinion, some puddings are spiritual and some are just nice.
yep
-->
@Athias
Athias 454 :[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.[2.] I was not confirming your statement. I meant, "No, it isn't."[3.] Stating belief is based on value is redundant.[4.] I remember stating this in response to your statement:[quotes from Amoranemix 439 and Athias 440 with definitions]And you responded:“ Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ? Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ? Is a quantum wave function material ?The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.”We are still in the middle of this argument, as you will see below.[4.''] Humor me: why haven't I supported my position to your satisfaction?Amoranemix 465 :[1.] You forgot to answer my question.[2.] I suspected as much. That is why I corrected you.[3.] Why is that ?[4.'] We are arguing about definitions while you should be supporting your claim.It is the prerogative of the side that presents a case / argument to choose definitions, within reason.[4.''] Because it is false.Athias 469 :[1.] Your question was already addressed in post #440.[2.] You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.[3.] Because of the meaning of "value."[4.'] The two aren't mutually exclusive.[98] And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted,[99] and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.[100]"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?[101][4.''] Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.
[1.] For clarity, here is the question from post 453 : “How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?”
For clarity, here is what the question is about ('what you said'), from post 440 : “I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis.”
First, you are missing the point, for the issue is not whether you addressed the question, but whether you answered it. You haven't.
Second, I cannot find where in post 440 you addressed the question. Please show where you have done so.
[2.] Please demonstrate that your disagreement with the claim “In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.” is rationally defensible.
[3.] You are being evasive. How does the meaning of value explain why stating that a belief is based on value is redundant.
[4.'] Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.
[98] That did not stop you from using the former as an excuse to abstain from doing that latter.
[99] I did so on your request.
[100] If I have inappropriately failed to provide substantion to my questions about your definitions, please point out the pertinent cases.
[101] Typically confusing or deceptive definitions. For example, calling your dog God and then claiming that God exists.
[4.''] You forgot the magic word.
Athias 454 :[78] Substantiate this assumptive characteristic.[a] I have not assumed.[b] Seem is not an argument.[c] We are still disputing the definition of exist (or maybe not? I haven't grasped your position on this.)Amoranemix 465 :[78] Name-giving is not an assumptive characteristic. In the interest of understanding I gave the substantiation of a verb form according to a method common in the English language.[a] Your discourse in post 440 seemed to be missing the point without that assumption. I assumed you were actually trying to support your position about Spino and that appeared to be the way you were reasoning. Apparently I misunderstood. Please explain how “[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?” is supposed to support that one cannot know Spino does not exist.[b] In debates I have the habit of using words that are not an argument. I have noticed you do that too. Is that inappropriate ?[c] If you can't find the right terms to make your argument,[c'] you may even invent terms.[c''] That is what I did with 'inverse implication'. You could for example add a qualifier before or after 'exist' or 'existence'.[c''']Athias 469 :[78] This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."[a] Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.[b] No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.[c'] I already did and submitted them.[c''] Are you being facetious?[c'''] No need.
[78] Right. Let's jump passed the confusion you mangaged to sow.
In post 440 you said : “Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information.” I assumed you were trying to answer the question you were addressing, namely how Spino's nonexistence prevents one from knowing he does not exist. I tried to figure out how your response attempted to do that, which led me to believe you relied on the assumption that knowing something about X, requires information from X.
Apparently I read you wrong. You again successfully confused me.
In post 445 you said : “In order to aquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.”
Please demonstrate the last claim.
I am assuming you were trying to support this claim from post 317 : “That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist.” If not, please demonstrate that claim.
[a] So, defining Spino implies conceiving Spino and conceiving Spino provides information about Spino. Yet you claimed that the nonexistent provides no information. Please demonstrate that.
[b] It would seem then that I can make you commit a red herring fallacy on demand.
You forgot to answer my question.
[c''] No.
Amoranemix 465 :[93] You have done and keep doing that. You break up sentences and omit quoting parts of sentences. I am even combining and readding fragments you have separated to put them in context. I am also usually quoting farther back to provide more context.[94] That you (pretend to) know what you your burden is and what my burden is does not exclude your confusion. Moreover, usually people try to confuse others.[95] Maybe. Maybe not. I have shown no unwillingness to assume my burden.[*] You on the other hand have shown unwillingness to assume your burden of proof.[**]Athias 469 :[*] Yes, you most certainly have.[**] I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.
[*] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[**] Providing information to this argument ≠ honouring your burden of proof.
Most people are lazy. Few people are honest enough to admit it.
Athias 469 :[a] I didn't fail to answer your question. Your question was already addressed in post #454.[a''] What? Do you not remember this:“[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias, unnecessary limitations and unnecessary complications and filling.”[b] Stalling? Buddy, I asked you about these definitions over a month ago. And it's just in latest response that you've made a decision about them one way or another; I am not the one who's stalling.[c] My politeness is not a subject of discussion.[d'] You have affirmed that my position is false. Is that not based on a counterexample or counterfactual?[d''] Is this the position you maintain? Because I'm not having a discussion with "people." I'm having a discussion with you.[f] Then what was your point in stating that it didn't answer your question to begin with? And yes, I excluded the last sentence of the portion because that is your response, not mine. I only own that I which I state.[g] The laws of physics or nature are inextricably tied to Mathematics--an abstract; logic is abstract. So when you state you measure "impossibility," you are applying abstracts, correct?[81] Neither. The nonexistent does not exist, and therefore there is no "it" to imagine. And if "it" exists prior to one's imagination, then its existence is independent of one's imagination.
[a] You missed the point. Adress a question ≠ answer a question
Moreover, you failed to make clear what in post 454 is supposed to address my question in post 449.
[a''] I do remember that.
[b] The claim I have asked you to prove is that everything that is perceptible exists. (I am assuming that Everything = everything.) Since then we have a definition for everything, namely all things that exist. That makes the claim elementary. However, you also claimed that God is perceptible and that the nonexistent cannot be perceived. Please demonstrate those claims.
[c] Your impoliteness is not contested.
[d'] You are conflating two things. 'I don't know' is about which definition applies, not about a claim of yours.
[d''] No. I have not claimed God does not exist.
[f] I thought you had not answered the question and strictly speaking, I was correct. Then, in post 465, I noticed that an answer could be derived fom it, which I provided in post 465. Now you refuse to acknowledge that that candidate answer is indeed according to you the answer to my question. You refuse to provide clarity.
[g] I don't state I measure “impossibility” and I don't know what applying abstracts means.
As this is not going anywhere, I would assume the answer is 'no' for logical impossibility and 'it depends' for physical impossibility. However, since making assumptions about what you believe or stand by tends to be counteproductive, I won't.
[81] You claim that it is false that it is impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior. Therefore it is possible to imagine something that does not exist prior or it is neither possible nor impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior.
Thus we have :
P1. It is impossible to imagine something that does not exist. (from post 454)
P2. Imagining something that does not yet exist does not always cause it to exist.
P3. It is possible or (not possible and not impossible) to imagine something that does not exist prior.
P3 implies (using P2) that it is possible or (possible nor impossible) to imagine something that does not exist.
That appears to contradict P1. How do you reconcile these premises ?
i'm quite certain nobody "wants" to be an atheist
If according to atheist, atheism is the superior choice,why would nobody want to be an atheist? It's like saying there's nothing wrong with abortion but we should try to reduce abortions either it's okay to get one or it's not.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If according to atheist, atheism is the superior choice
it's simply "less wrong"
99.99% of people who self-identify as "atheist" do not join any formal "atheist" organizations
it's not a club
there is no "achievement"
"becoming" an atheist is not a "goal"
-->
@Amoranemix
you are a machine