• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When does Atheism Become a Belief System

calamity said:
We cannot rule out infinity because infinity has not been excluded from the equation. It would be nice if we could, but we can't. Therefore, infinity must be considered in play when discussing these things.
Click to expand...

But then god can be anything anyone wants it to be. Not necessarily what it objectively may be. So, that brings us right back to square one....Do I believe in god? What is god? Is it possible? Define it. If you can define it then it is not infinite. Where is it? If you can't define it then what is it that I am looking for?

I can exclude infinity from the equation. Not only can I but I must do so in order to remain rational. If I'm not being rational then I am not worth listening to.
 
calamity said:
Not even close. But, do keep trying.

I do not believe in gods. I'd like to be able to say there are no such thing as gods. I can even come very close to actually proving that there are no gods in our known universe (see my rain, earth, sun and hydrogen posts for examples of that). But, I have just enough humility to admit that I simply do not know enough about all of existence to exclude gods form the equation completely. In short, I know we do not know enough about the fabric of existence to make such a claim.

Tis a shame your hubris prevents you from crossing that bridge. But, do continue to flail. It's entertaining to see.
Click to expand...
Going the full Frank I see. Not surprised really because that's how he responded when cornered with the absurdity of his inane points. You either want to discuss this or you don't, Frank didn't because he hated being contradicted, he saw himself among the finest minds to have contemplated the question. It bothers me not either way, I destroyed Frank's argument and I can destroy yours because yours is basically what you plagiarised from Frank anyway, even down to the insincere shoddily concealed personal attacks. I'll debate you in this at whatever level you like but, whichever way you go, you simply cannot avoid the absurdity of using ignorance.
 
calamity said:
We cannot rule out infinity because infinity has not been excluded from the equation. It would be nice if we could, but we can't. Therefore, infinity must be considered in play when discussing these things.
Click to expand...

Infinity is an abstract concept, just like god. It only "exists" in the human mind, not in physical reality. There is no such thing as infinity.
 
calamity said:
Any reasonable discussion about gods has to go beyond what is known and rational.
Click to expand...
Which literally means that any reasonable discussion about gods, is not about reality. Which is true. "beyond the and rational", is the irrational. Claiming to "reasonable discussion" something that is "beyond what is known", is also a contradiction. Lastly, how do you "know" such a discussion "has to go" where you say it does? Do you have evidence of "beyond what is known"? By definition you cannot. Therefore, you're making a claim that requires no evidence, which means its a claim not base on reason... In that one sentence, you've got what appears to be at least two logical contradictions, along with part of the claim being exactly the opposite of what you seem to intend (that this is not a discussion reality, but you thought it was). Isn't there a saying about wise men not talking about things they do not know about?
 
Re: When does Atheism Become a Belief System
Mach, et al,

This is a very good point.

Mach said:
Which literally means that any reasonable discussion about gods, is not about reality. Which is true. "beyond the and rational", is the irrational. Claiming to "reasonable discussion" something that is "beyond what is known", is also a contradiction. Lastly, how do you "know" such a discussion "has to go" where you say it does? Do you have evidence of "beyond what is known"? By definition you cannot. Therefore, you're making a claim that requires no evidence, which means its a claim not base on reason... In that one sentence, you've got what appears to be at least two logical contradictions, along with part of the claim being exactly the opposite of what you seem to intend (that this is not a discussion reality, but you thought it was). Isn't there a saying about wise men not talking about things they do not know about?
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

My oldest watches this Television Show on "Netflix" called "Originals." I happened to watch a couple episodes with the kids. This TV show is about "Vampires" - "Werewolf's" - "Witches and Warlocks." These are all fantasy supernatural entities. But, beyond this basic level, there are the "Ancestors" that speak and present their powers from the beyond the death. Wow, the first episode I watched was very confusing for me. The kids had to explain who was what. And what I notice was that they talk about it from the perception that it is real; even though they know it is not.

Stories of supernatural entities date back to a time before the [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]Sumeria and Babylonians. Even the legend of King Arthur has several supernatural entities AND Merlin, the Lady of the Lake who produces Excalibur, and at King Arthur's death, three fairy Queens take the King's body to the mystical island of Avalon.

In the time of Amenhotep, there were women with the power to make magic talisman and amulets to for protection. And at Delphi in Greece, there were Oracles that spoke of knowledge from the Gods: much like Pythia spoke for Apollo.

In the modern day religion of Rome, there are such things as "Angels;" the opposite of demons. Even some still believe that Lucifer is a fallen angel. This is no different from those that once believed in Valkyries that visit the battle field and gather the souls of the brave warriors to take then to the God Odin in Valhalla. In Great Britain, although they may not believe, they still sing the praise to the mystic by the lake, saying "none can harm the Knight who has laid with the "Witch of the Westmoreland." The Deities of Osiris and Dionysus were praised from the time of the early Pyramids to the last Pyramid. Some say that Osiris first appears in Egyptian Mythology during the reign of King Khasekhem (2711 - 2691 BC).

All of these belief systems and concepts were just as real to ancient man as the God of Abraham is in the 3 historically important religions in the Middle East today. Remember it was not that long ago that man believed in "witchcraft" well into 1690s. Wicca, Witch, Shamanism, Voodoo, and Paganism are sit practiced today.

Over time, most all religions and supernatural beliefs fade away and take on the trappings of fantasy. Witches and Warlocks were around nearly 6000 years ago. Christians have only been around 2000 years, Jewish beliefs about 3000 years, but Islam only back to 7th century Saudi Arabia.

It is all a discussion about fantasy. Whether you are talking about the resurrection after three-days, or the coming back to life after a stake is pull out of your heart, the concept is the same. Which one is true?

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
Infinity is an abstract concept, just like god. It only "exists" in the human mind, not in physical reality. There is no such thing as infinity.
Click to expand...

Georg Cantor might disagree, as might most mathematicians.

Anyway, if there was no such thing, it wouldn't even exist within the mind. Unwittingly, you have given an argument for the immateriality of the mind.
 
Wessexman said:
Georg Cantor might disagree, as might most mathematicians.

Anyway, if there was no such thing, it wouldn't even exist within the mind. Unwittingly, you have given an argument for the immateriality of the mind.
Click to expand...

Perhaps those unwilling to grapple with infinity are showing us why their minds do not allow for the possibility of gods.
 
Wessexman said:
Georg Cantor might disagree, as might most mathematicians.

Anyway, if there was no such thing, it wouldn't even exist within the mind. Unwittingly, you have given an argument for the immateriality of the mind.
Click to expand...

Anything can "exist" in the mind only. Ideas exist. Not all ideas have something outside of the mind that correspond in reality. We are able to make things up.
 
devildavid said:
Anything can "exist" in the mind only. Ideas exist. Not all ideas have something outside of the mind that correspond in reality. We are able to make things up.
Click to expand...

You don't believe it might be the other way around? The mind seems to exist as a set of chemical States and electric potentials and is of the same essence as the ideas.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, it's quite concrete, I assure you.
Click to expand...

Just like infinity, zero does not exist. Absolute zero is and always was an impossibility. Even if there "was" nothing but potential that's still not zero.

When we speak of infinity, the concept applies to some sort of metric like space and time or a number of things. The observable universe is not infinite, it has boundaries in both time and space. "Beyond" those boundaries space and time have no meaning to us. Our space and time contains a finite number of "things", something like 10^90 elementary particles. That's an unimaginably large number but it is not even close to infinity. It's no closer to infinity than is the number 1.

Infinity is an abstraction. It does not exist as part of our reality. Our universe can be considered a "thing". No thing (nothing) can be infinite. To speak of anything else is irrational as is infinity. Zero, absolute zero, no wavelength, no molecular motion are all nonsensical from our perspective. When the term infinity shows up in a mathematical equation, it's an indication that something is wrong with the formula or the model.
 
Russell797 said:
Just like infinity, zero does not exist. Absolute zero is and always was an impossibility. Even if there "was" nothing but potential that's still not zero.

When we speak of infinity, the concept applies to some sort of metric like space and time or a number of things. The observable universe is not infinite, it has boundaries in both time and space. "Beyond" those boundaries space and time have no meaning to us. Our space and time contains a finite number of "things", something like 10^90 elementary particles. That's an unimaginably large number but it is not even close to infinity. It's no closer to infinity than is the number 1.

Infinity is an abstraction. It does not exist as part of our reality. Our universe can be considered a "thing". No thing (nothing) can be infinite. To speak of anything else is irrational as is infinity. Zero, absolute zero, no wavelength, no molecular motion are all nonsensical from our perspective. When the term infinity shows up in a mathematical equation, it's an indication that something is wrong with the formula or the model.
Click to expand...

But, of course, Zero does actually exist. Simply stating that it's an abstract won't cut it.

To deny that is to deny reality.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, OK. Tell me, how many elephants are on your head just now?
Click to expand...

There are zero elephants on his head just now, but the question defines boundaries. If we just ask how many elephants are there we can't answer the question. It becomes an irrational question. Elephants where? On Earth, Planet Tambora, the observable universe, the multiverse? Define a boundary like on his head and we can say zero..... or can we? Maybe there are an infinite number of weightless, invisible elephants on his head....See what happens when we introduce infinity? It becomes irrational.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, Zero does actually exist. Simply stating that it's an abstract won't cut it.

To deny that is to deny reality.
Click to expand...

Zero exists as a concept. There are zero elephants on my roof. Zero is not a number of something. It's a lack of something.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, OK. Tell me, how many elephants are on your head just now?
Click to expand...
It is an abstraction. Mathematics is an abstraction, it represents reality, it is not in itself reality.
 
devildavid said:
It is an abstract concept, contrary to your assurance.
Click to expand...

Zero is no more or less abstract than any other number. Likewise with infinity, with the only exception being infinity happens to be the next number, on through infinity.
 
William Rea said:
It is an abstraction. Mathematics is an abstraction, it represents reality, it is not in itself reality.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you, having one or zero elephants on your head is not an abstraction. You will certainly know which is which.

Maybe you can go try, and report back to us the results :)
 
calamity said:
I guarantee you, having one or zero elephants on your head is not an abstraction. You will certainly know which is which.

Maybe you can go try, and report back to us the results :)
Click to expand...
Does he have zero African elephants or zero Asian elephants? And are you it's zero elephants and not zero hamsters? Zero is an abstraction and doesn't mean anything in itself, but only in comparison. There are an infinite number of things I do not have on top of my head (including hair), so to pick any particular one has no significance except in comparison or reference to that object's previous presence or presence elsewhere.
 
calamity said:
I guarantee you, having one or zero elephants on your head is not an abstraction. You will certainly know which is which.

Maybe you can go try, and report back to us the results :)
Click to expand...

It is. Your failure to understand this does not surprise me and neither does your ridiculous argument.
 
pinqy said:
Does he have zero African elephants or zero Asian elephants? And are you it's zero elephants and not zero hamsters? Zero is an abstraction and doesn't mean anything in itself, but only in comparison. There are an infinite number of things I do not have on top of my head (including hair), so to pick any particular one has no significance except in comparison or reference to that object's previous presence or presence elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Sure. I have ten thousand hairs on my head but zero dinosaurs. Why is that abstract? It's pretty concrete, even if what happens to not be on my head at the moment is a hat.
 
William Rea said:
It is. Your failure to understand this does not surprise me and neither does your ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

You're the one who said numbers are just an abstract. So, why not prove it out by letting "one" elephant sit on your head and then report back to us?

Failure to do so is an admission that "zero" and "one" are not abstract after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom