One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
I'm not. I even bothered to say what, 3 times? That I do make difference between Natural Atheist and a Parrot of his Posterboy.
I do respect the Natural Atheist who just tries to makes his sense of life, the Parrot of the Posterboy, is indeed annoying.
Last edited by Aikanár; July 03, 2015 at 01:57 PM. Reason: off-topic
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
I understand your frustration, but the whole "New Atheism" movement did its best to create an "Atheist Model" for the mass media, while presenting such to anyone with a hint of Religious, over and over. The creators of the stereotype that annoys you were not the Religious person.
That's not my fault. If it bothers you, you're complaining at the wrong door.
Last edited by fkizz; June 28, 2015 at 02:21 PM.
It's not a movement anymore than Christianity is a movement for Theism. They can enjoy empericism all they want. The meaning of atheism will not change no matter how much they jerk off over it and how much you try to project it onto other people to hold it against them. Get over it.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Philosophy is not an obstacle to logics, because it is applied logics itself. However, some people misunderstand philosophy as doing history of thought and making a point by quoting unquestioned bits and pieces from supposed "great philosophers", relying on the alleged authority of the person quoted rather than the inherent quality of the argument. That is why I made the careful distinction in answering your question. Hope it is clearer now.
The meaning of this is unfortunately opaque to me. Could you elaborate on what you wish to express?That's a curious thing to empirically experiment. I thought atheists enjoyed empiricism. Instead I see believers going for empiricism, which is highly ironic. If you want to see how the taste of the cake is, why not taste a slice?
For the last time:And don't forget OP is a Believer, so trying to make OP's thread as an "atheist club" with few believers allowed is not very polite, is it? Good manners please.
I am not trying to make this an atheist club nor am I trying to oust anyone from this thread, just asking to cease the repeated ad hominem fallacies. Besides, the OP specifically asked atheists for their views. That the OP was written by a religious person does not change this fact, so I do not see what you think you can infer from this.
PS: If you'd be so kind, would you actually answer the question I asked you to understand your position about how a "believer" would change the debate in contrast to a "disbeliever": How does your faith change the premises and logics you use for your arguments?
Thanks for carrying on the actual discussion.
To be precise my existential argument does not necessarily entail a theistic belief, but any kind of religious conduct in the broadest sense of the word. E.g. a buddhist's conduct would also be accounted for this, while buddhism is an atheist religion. A theist position is simply the choice to think of the answer to the existential question of meaning as a person, to whom then certain characteristics are ascribed.
Your last question I would actually word the other way around in an affirmative way: Everyone somehow assumes their existence has some purpose and some call this purpose "God".
Last edited by Aikanár; July 03, 2015 at 01:59 PM. Reason: double posts merged; continuity
"Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
"Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil
On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.
I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.
I don't agree with that, our existence only has the meaning one attaches to it, objectively our existence has no purpose, we propagate the species by instinct, humans came into being through a series of natural occurrences, our existence only appears to be necessary because we obviously have no way of seeing a universe where humans either don't exist, or exist but lack the higher reasoning needed to actually ponder the question of purpose. It doesn't help that it's human nature to view things in a self centered manner.
Last edited by War lord; June 29, 2015 at 02:15 AM.
Okay, an organism being different from inert matter: It's not really different, it's just relatively more complex.
What causes the imperative to survive? Why every moment previous to the splitting of the first complex molecule of course and every moment since compounds that imperative. What does survive mean? A temporary continuation of a material pattern, what some call a mind. What does "survive" mean? A question for a linguist, after that it's a question for a philosopher, who must (by definition) rely entirely on what is established by the linguists, or become a linguist himself, which is the basis for much of philosophy anyway.
Now back to the organism: an organism is never an individual (in the purest sense of the word), even the asexual ones, even the lone wolf. It's not just the continued existence of the individual's constituent parts that constitutes its imperative, but its pattern, I was careful in my wording there, the imperative is spread over its fellow organisms. Pattern is a very vague word and can mean a great variety of things in different contexts, for humans it's even more convoluted, particular when my favorite subject is brought up: transhumanism. A human that is no longer an organism, but identical in every other regard, perhaps replaced molecule by molecule, an easily solved thought experiment like Theseus' Ship or Locke's Socks. The same applies to all organisms.
Choice, once reduced to it's key components can only exist in the hypothetical, it is imagination. Whether one is talking about a past choice or a future choice it doesn't matter. The thing that happened is the thing that happened and the thing that will happen is the thing that will happen. What we call choice in the future is simply the unknown (the vast majority of these supposed choices are falsehoods, things that will never be, were never going to be), in the past it's what could have been (but was not). The process of choosing is like any other thought: a sequence of complex neurological and chemical reactions, causes that had causes and reactions that will cause reactions.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
Are you subtly implying that people on TWC are not smart/cultured enough for a Philosophical type of Debate; without it derrailing? Well, if so...
I hope with this the meaning becomes less opaque;
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Also I gave you this link and hint for free, not even a small fee required. Be thankful.
That's the question and points I made you in the first place to you. Typical sophist. However I must admit it's interesting to finally deal with one of your kind. This is going to get more and more interesting.
And then you wonder where the ideas that you try to create an alternative discussion for atheists come from?
Your USSR-empathic friends are there backing you up. Good to see you have reserves.
Last edited by Aikanár; July 03, 2015 at 01:59 PM. Reason: continuity
Wow. More distortions, deliberate misinterpretations, and ad hominem attacks from fkizz. I see nothing of any value whatsoever in this post.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
Meh. Probably.
Ok, but even supposing everyone presumes their existence has purpose how does this lead us to any conclusion about existence itself? Perhaps an impulse towards self-preservation is simply a predominant mental habit among those who have survived.
Last edited by chriscase; June 30, 2015 at 05:13 PM.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
you stated westboro baptist church arent christians but if they believe they are....guess what, by christian logic they are!