Page 247 of 247 FirstFirst ... 147197237245246247
Results 2,461 to 2,470 of 2470

Thread: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

  1. #2461
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,414

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by CrabCake View Post
    What does that have to do with this discussion?

    The fact remains that Christians did invent orphanages and they were not the exploitative hell holes you portrayed.




    I listed it for your benefit, not mine. Like I told the other guy, my knowledge of the topic doesn't come from the internet. The fact remains that it is not one source, it is an authoritative Encyclopedia article that summarizes the facts we know from history and lists all of its sources; it's a summary of all we know based on everything that has been written and studied through the ages.

    Your story, on the other hand, appears to be backed by absolutely no one and comes from cobbled together internet articles.
    Yes they invented them ansd then used them to torture, exploit and murder women and children. be proud of that.

    And as i said it is only one source. Any one with any real interest or understanding of history would look at more than one. Those like you who are only interested in a biased position that supports only your view will use only one source.

    My information can be backed by various sources. Your relies upon one source only.

  2. #2462
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 06:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,307

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    No, i had already stated that the fsm is nothing more than a concept. It does not exist. I was pointing out that there is no difference in the idea of a prime mover and the fsm. Both are discussed as entities.
    This is false. An entity is a particular being, or this is the usual use in these contexts. The God of classical theism is held not to be a particular being alongside all other beings, but being itself (or perhaps, in some schools, beyond being, but we need not worry about that). The FSM, indeed, is not just a particular being but one that exists in time and space - in the universe. Therefore, the FSM is doubly distant from the God of classical theism.


    I had a feeling that you might say that. We are back to your not understanding the language you use.

    Note the two words in bold. "Therefor" signals the conclusion. But the use of the word "and" brings on an additional bit of information, or otherwise called a premise.
    You are being imprecise. The Five Ways are arguments (or rather summaries of arguments) for the existence of a transcendent cause. They do not assume that cause. Aquinas argues elsewhere why this cause must have the attributes ascribed to the God of classical theism. It was certainly not apparent from your previous comments this is what you meant - Aquinas does not assume God exists to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #2463
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 06:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,307

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Russell797 View Post
    What knowledge? First you say there is knowledge, then you say it is allegedly discoverable by proofs....which is it? Then I must "prove" something based on the allegations and alleged proofs?
    I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm simply conceptually differentiating the kind of entities and knowledge involved. I'm not saying the proofs are correct. What I'm saying is that until they are shown to fail, Russell's teapot/FSM misses the point.

    "there is change" is the consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Not a proof of god at all.
    Actually, I don't think it is a consequence per se, but, anyway, one version of the cosmological argument (such as in Aquinas' First Way) does use change to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause. SoylentGreen actually quoted a portion of that argument.


    Also if god does not exist in time and space then how can it interact with time and space and anything contained within?....that makes no sense.


    You are speaking of scientifically derived knowledge when you discuss the laws of nature. Scientific investigation has not overturned the laws which make up the standard model of physics. Science is not philosophy. At one time there was no difference. Science and philosophy were one and the same. That was many centuries ago.

    Science works with empirical evidence. If said god in some way objectively exists we can not know it by assessing objective reality. Deep intellectualism which you offer does nothing to alter the reality that we can not detect anything which may exist "outside" our spacetime. All you have is speculation and irrational arguments. You must have a blind faith that god exists because there is no path to knowledge.
    This is just rather poorly strung together assertions, which is somewhat ironic given they include attacks on theists for blind faith.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #2464
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 06:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,307

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by devildavid View Post
    I'm aware that some have tried to prove god through words. I don't call those proofs at all. If evidence of god can't be observed directly there is a good reason for that. The simplest explanation is that god is an idea created by man and only exists as an idea. Taking the idea of god literally is a mistake, no matter who has tried to prove otherwise.
    This is just unsupported assertions, which is somewhat ironic given your position. You show no more than the most general awareness of these proofs, so I'm not sure why there should be any stock put in your dismissals of them. The rest of your claims is simply a very simplistic and amateurish attempt at sociology of religious belief based upon these dismissals.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #2465
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,414

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is false. An entity is a particular being, or this is the usual use in these contexts. The God of classical theism is held not to be a particular being alongside all other beings, but being itself (or perhaps, in some schools, beyond being, but we need not worry about that). The FSM, indeed, is not just a particular being but one that exists in time and space - in the universe. Therefore, the FSM is doubly distant from the God of classical theism.
    If you are under the impression that you have the right to determine what i claim the fsm to be then surely you must agree that i must also have the right to determine what your god should be.


    You are being imprecise. The Five Ways are arguments (or rather summaries of arguments) for the existence of a transcendent cause. They do not assume that cause. Aquinas argues elsewhere why this cause must have the attributes ascribed to the God of classical theism. It was certainly not apparent from your previous comments this is what you meant - Aquinas does not assume God exists to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause
    While you are moving the goal post. My statement only concerned the first way which is what you were talking about. From your post #2432,
    That is not remotely what Aquinas' first way looks like. It doesn't have God's existence as a premise.
    Aquinus named the transcedent cause as god.

  6. #2466
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 06:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,307

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    If you are under the impression that you have the right to determine what i claim the fsm to be then surely you must agree that i must also have the right to determine what your god should be.
    I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.

    While you are moving the goal post. My statement only concerned the first way which is what you were talking about.
    And your statement was confused. You said he simply assumed God exists as the premise for the entire argument. He doesn't do that, clearly. What you seem to object to now is that after his main conclusion he mentions that the transcendent cause is generally called God and doesn't immediately prove this there. That is a pretty facile objection, seeing as he does that elsewhere.

    Aquinus named the transcedent cause as god.
    So what? The point of the First Way is to show a transcendent cause. This is the conclusion of the argument. As you said, the bit that comes after the therefore. The final clause is not strictly speaking a part of the argument for that cause, or, in fact, the First Way. He argues for that clause elsewhere.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #2467
    Professor devildavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is just unsupported assertions, which is somewhat ironic given your position. You show no more than the most general awareness of these proofs, so I'm not sure why there should be any stock put in your dismissals of them. The rest of your claims is simply a very simplistic and amateurish attempt at sociology of religious belief based upon these dismissals.
    I can dismiss anything that has to do with the so-called proofs of the existence of god because there is no physical evidence of god. I don't need to read every attempt to prove god because such proofs are meaningless. Even science does not prove things but presents fact and evidence. Since there are no facts and no evidence to present about the existence of god there is no reason to delve into the question. Religious belief is just that, a belief without evidence. No different than any other type of belief or superstition.
    Remember Bowling Green! Remember Atlanta! Remember Sweden!

  8. #2468
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,414

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.
    You have to agree that people tend to define god in a similar manner. Yet some like yourself want to differ and present another aspect of god. It is your right to do so. your belief your problem. Yet here you are trying to deny that right to others. It matters not how others choose to believe in the fsm. Just as it matters not how others believe in god. Right now i must give you respect by accepting your version of god and not try and force you into believing another version. Of course i could change my mind and attitude if you feel you have the right to insist on telling me what my belief is.

    And your statement was confused. You said he simply assumed God exists as the premise for the entire argument. He doesn't do that, clearly. What you seem to object to now is that after his main conclusion he mentions that the transcendent cause is generally called God and doesn't immediately prove this there. That is a pretty facile objection, seeing as he does that elsewhere.
    Not at all. I thought it quite clear that he wishes the thing he calls a prime mover to be called a god. When he states "and this everyone understands to be God.”" Should i not assume that he includes himself in that everyone.


    So what? The point of the First Way is to show a transcendent cause. This is the conclusion of the argument. As you said, the bit that comes after the therefore. The final clause is not strictly speaking a part of the argument for that cause, or, in fact, the First Way. He argues for that clause elsewhere.
    True, all the ways are connected to finally prove that there is a god. In fact that is the whole purpose of his argument to uphold the idea that a god exists. It is not proof of a gods existence because it starts from the very beginning with the assumption that a god exists.

  9. #2469
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,606

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm simply conceptually differentiating the kind of entities and knowledge involved. I'm not saying the proofs are correct. What I'm saying is that until they are shown to fail, Russell's teapot/FSM misses the point.



    Actually, I don't think it is a consequence per se, but, anyway, one version of the cosmological argument (such as in Aquinas' First Way) does use change to argue for the existence of a transcendent cause. SoylentGreen actually quoted a portion of that argument.




    This is just rather poorly strung together assertions, which is somewhat ironic given they include attacks on theists for blind faith.
    Let's cut through the mumbo jumbo and speak clearly. Are you claiming that a supposed god is potentially discoverable by the human mind? If the answer is yes then I must demand an explanation which describes the interaction. Otherwise the claim falls short of convincing because we will not know whether the communication is real as described, or some other unexplained process or phenomenon or even just confirmation bias.

    You keep saying that there are philosophical proofs or something. That sounds like an oxymoron.

    You say you are not sure that entropy explains change in our universe. You would rather attribute change to divine intervention? Thermodynamics is a foundational aspect of physics. You are not so subtly denying science if you claim entropy does not explain motion and change in our universe of matter and energy.
    Last edited by Russell797; 03-24-17 at 10:06 AM.

  10. #2470
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,606

    Re: Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I'm simply going 1) from the name - A flying monster made of pasta is by definition an entity in time and space; and 2), from the fact that the FSM is just another name for Russell's teapot.
    The FSM is a god..It can appear to us however it wants to. Who are you to say what god can or can not be? It's omnipotent and omnipresent. Probably omnivorous too!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •