General

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

liberty student — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:28:51 GMT

WillBlake:
You did misunderstand me on purpose so as to avoid commenting on my topic

Well, you can't know what I did on purpose, because it is impossible to prove intent. I would be happy to comment on your topic. I thought I had, but if I have not, I would be happy to debate it if I disagree with it.

WillBlake:
the fraud committed by the humans who lie about their "relation" to higher powers (for gain).

I did comment on this. Numerous times. Would you like me to repost our discussion?

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

WillBlake — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:44:46 GMT

liberty student : Where did I mischaracterize your position?

Well, maybe >mischaracterize< wasn't the most accurate word. What you did was answer X when I was actually talking about Y. It's true that you didn't explicitly ascribe X to me, but you behaved as if I was talking about X, though I wasn't. I was talking about Y. You did misunderstand me on purpose so as to avoid commenting on my topic : the fraud committed by the humans who lie about their "relation" to higher powers (for gain).

Anyway, this is boring now. You can have the last word (last fallacy in your case).

Anarch : I concur with many though that religion has at times in history been a liberating forcing of good in the world. And yes many cultural creations come from religion.

And why should religion be credited with that kind of thing? If, for instance, catholicism hadn't existed people would have used their resources to build beautiful "secular" buildings instead of cathedrals.

I do like mythology and fairy tales. They can be very beautiful. But to sell fairy tales as if they were real is fraud.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Samarami — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:25:53 GMT

I’ve watched this thread now for a week: 179 posts at last count.

Odd when you think about it. Bizarre on down the scale.

We professing libertarians and anarchists can certainly be emotional and “intellectual” creatures when trying to defend where we stand. Is that because we feel so Outside-The-Box?

It occurs to me that I might have the proclivity to in fact worship my own ideologies. Is that not exactly the inclination of which I accuse statists?

Why is it necessary for us to be so assiduous in our defense of our Beliefs when in fact our agreed-upon position is to commit no aggression (physical OR intellectual?) upon our neighbors? Is it worthwhile to attack one another over tidbits while Rome is under conflagration?

On anarchist and libertarian forums it seems to me that “religion” and “atheism” and all that lies between become the paper tigers that consume real issues. I submit that might be because if your case turns out to be anything like mine you feel so intellectually distanced from 98% or more of your family, friends and neighbors.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

chloe732 — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 06:55:44 GMT

Anarch: "But it (religion) has outlived its beauty and individualist tones and has now become a bane upon civilization instead of a good thing. "

We are certainly entitled to our opinons, and assertions. It's just that I can say the opposite and be just as correct, or incorrect, as you are, yes?

"It (religion) has no place b/c modern day religion is harmful to everyone involved."

Hmm...is this a true statement? Religion is harmful to everyone involved? Really? What do you mean it has no place? What ought to be done if religion has no place?

Anarch: "Now i have no problem with people who have faith..."

How kind of you.

"...my only thing is that it (religion) shouldn't limit you for who you are nor allow you to commit atrocities."

Agreed. I just don't think your point applies only to religion.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Anarch — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:44:22 GMT

No i border in between atheism and anti-theism. I concur with many though that religion has at times in history been a liberating forcing of good in the world. And yes many cultural creations come from religion. But it has outlived its beauty and individualist tones and has now become a bane upon civilization instead of a good thing. Now a days religion is just used as a crutch to hurt others and oneself. It has been disproved with science and philosophy. It has no place b/c modern day religion is harmful to everyone involved. Now i have no problem with people who have faith my only thing is that it shouldn't limit you for who you are nor allow you to commit atrocities.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Sieben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:36:03 GMT

Angurse:
The definition is, at best, unfinished.

Right i'm saying that, by definition murder is wrongful killing. I didn't realize you were picking up on that. By saying that murder is wrongful killing, you aren't endorsing whatever ethics, you're just playing their nonsensical little linguistic game.

The same way that Fordlesnap can be defined as Toodlesnoosh.

Fordlesnap is Toodlesnoosh. Hey I've got an idea for a new philosophy!

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Angurse — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:33:48 GMT

You're missing it because its so simple. The definitions for "God" and "Exist" have nothing to do with eachother. It couldn't be analytically true.

You're right, I'm overlooking the analytical emphasis you've been making. "God exists" is as analytically true as "ladybugs exist" or at least can be depending on what definition you use.

Err I misunderstood how you wanted me to handle "wrongful" then? Can you put it in a proposition? The basic stance of logical positivists on morality is basically that its metaphysical garbage. Ethical propositions aren't capable of being true or false. I actually heard Roderick Long talk about this but wasn't at all satisfied. He seemed to deny it on the grounds that it destroys ethical truths... but this is exactly what its proponents purport it to do!

You placed "murder is wrongful killing" beside "potatoes are carrots", and other falsifiable statements. However, since I agree with non-cognitivism, however since "wrongful" isn't truth-apt, like the statement isn't really falsifiable. It cannot be proven or disproven that you were murdered and not just stabbed in the neck. The definition is, at best, unfinished.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Sieben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:16:00 GMT

Angurse:
I don't really see the contention, your view (and my own) of reality could simply be limited (which it probably is).

You're missing it because its so simple. The definitions for "God" and "Exist" have nothing to do with eachother. It couldn't be analytically true.

Anguse:
Using the term wrongful in the definition implies objective meaning does it not?

Err I misunderstood how you wanted me to handle "wrongful" then? Can you put it in a proposition? The basic stance of logical positivists on morality is basically that its metaphysical garbage. Ethical propositions aren't capable of being true or false. I actually heard Roderick Long talk about this but wasn't at all satisfied. He seemed to deny it on the grounds that it destroys ethical truths... but this is exactly what its proponents purport it to do!

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

liberty student — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:00:38 GMT

WillBlake:
Same thing here. It's too bad that you keep mischaracterizing my position.

Where did I mischaracterize your position?

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

WillBlake — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:56:39 GMT

liberty student : But your mistake is in confusing me (as a supposed selective skeptic) as someone who has a dog in the "there is a god", "there is no god" race. I really don't care if there is or isn't. It's simply not important to me or how I go about my day each day.

Same thing here. It's too bad that you keep mischaracterizing my position.

I think I already mentioned that I wasn't directly discussing the existence/non-existence of god.

Rather, I was discussing the political and epistemological character of organized religion.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Angurse — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:17:56 GMT

No I meant "intrinsically equivalent".

God:A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.

exist: to be; have existence; have being or reality

I don't really see the contention, your view (and my own) of reality could simply be limited (which it probably is).

Well, its obtuse and absurd, but the definitions of these two words do not imply one another. Don't think its that simple? It is with all other analytic propositions. Murder IS wrongful killing. Potatoes aren't carrots.

Using the term wrongful in the definition implies objective meaning does it not?

Glad we agree on the rest.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Sieben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:11:13 GMT

Angurse:
I see, in that case I didn't know that God exists was ever meant to be the equivalent of the universe was created.

No I meant "intrinsically equivalent".

God:A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.

exist: to be; have existence; have being or reality

Well, its obtuse and absurd, but the definitions of these two words do not imply one another. Don't think its that simple? It is with all other analytic propositions. Murder IS wrongful killing. Potatoes aren't carrots.

Angurse:
I'm not sure, I don't see how god isn't (or cannot be considered) a thing.

I don't think we disagree. "God" is a noun. A "thing" is an unspecified noun.

Angurse:
That seems like a fair approach, I don't see anything inherently contradictory about said view though.

Yeah its all going to depend on whatever they're pitching... I think most people consider god metaphysical and you can use this tactic though.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Angurse — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:06:03 GMT

Eachother.

I see, in that case I didn't know that God exists was ever meant to be the equivalent of the universe was created.

don't understand. You mean, "falsify" just the statement "wrong"? It has no truth content. It is not capable of being true or false.

Then what does this mean? "2+2=4. Murder is wrongful killing. Human action is purposeful. Potatoes are carrots. All examples of falsifiable a priori statements, who's thruth content depends on the sense of their definitions."

Can "wrong" be falsified or not?

Thing = generic noun. Isnt that what I'm saying?

I'm not sure, I don't see how god isn't (or cannot be considered) a thing.

Hey don't ask me. If christians really believed that god flew around zapping things then that's gravy. But they usually claim god has metaphysical properties, which can't be discovered empirically, so I'm blocking this interpretation.

That seems like a fair approach, I don't see anything inherently contradictory about said view though.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Sieben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:25:47 GMT

Angurse:
Aren't equivalent to what?

Eachother.

Angurse:
Falsify "wrong."

I don't understand. You mean, "falsify" just the statement "wrong"? It has no truth content. It is not capable of being true or false.

Angurse:
God isn't a thing?

Thing = generic noun. Isnt that what I'm saying?

Angurse:
Why? I don't see why God is limited to to abstract form, confining God to a box, any box, seems like a contradiction.

Hey don't ask me. If christians really believed that god flew around zapping things then that's gravy. But they usually claim god has metaphysical properties, which can't be discovered empirically, so I'm blocking this interpretation.

Re: Theism vs. Atheism

Angurse — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:20:40 GMT

"God exists" or "The Universe was created" it becaomes pretty obvious that these aren't a priori because the definitions aren't equivalent.

Aren't equivalent to what?

2+2=4. Murder is wrongful killing. Human action is purposeful. Potatoes are carrots. All examples of falsifiable a priori statements, who's thruth content depends on the sense of their definitions.

Falsify "wrong."

I do however know that "god" is at least supposed to be a noun, so :P

God isn't a thing?

If he can, then he's just a dude floating on a cloud with a nice outdoor voice. Their thesis would be in principle falsifiable if they adopted this approach, though he no longer has any metaphysical properties. So its a non-metaphysical god. Most people would find that a contradiction in terms.

Why? I don't see why God is limited to to abstract form, confining God to a box, any box, seems like a contradiction.