View Full Version : Atheism



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 08:02 AM
•Will you acknowledge that atheism is not a belief?
•Will you admit that one can intellectually discuss the concept of faith?
•Will you recognize that I never questioned the existence of faith itself?
•Will you acknowledge that you proposed an unsupported non sequitur when you argued that religious faith cannot be "approached in the same manner because it is based on something more complex?"
•Will you concede that religious faith is a subset of the term faith, as it is conventionally understood?
•Will you admit that bombermwc's response was irrelevant to discussion

First of all, I have defined the terms you claim I haven't but you don't appear to understand them or even recognize when I've done so - I suspect this is because can't grasp the essense of what I am saying due to your preconceptions. That may be the result of a lack of training, exposure or experience. That you have been exposed to them at this point, IMO, puts the burden on you as an intellectual in training to do your homework. It appears to me that based on your post, that may require more effort than you are interested in. What strikes me about your posts is that these look to be arguments you've made or heard before. The rebutting arguments are perhaps not what you expected and instead of addressing them, you are ignoring them as "irrelevant." I also suspect, based on your tone, that you are a little put off that your readers aren't more impressed with your brilliance. I was more impressed until I noticed you simply ignore or discount anything not in your box.

Atheism is clearly a belief system. It is a belief that there is no god. Some would argue that it is a faith that there is no god, primarily because, through intellectual inquiry the seeker has found no conclusory evidence of god. In the absence of conclusory evidence contradictory to the existence of god, I submit that the conclusion that god doesn't exist is in itself an act of faith.

I will admit you can discuss the existence of faith intellectually, but I submit it must be a thorough and honest discussion not restrained by arbitrary lines of questioning set by someone who refuses to accept that such conclusions may be arrived at by virtue of experience. Moreover, I do not believe that a logical discussion can conclusively establish the existence or non existence of god, absent faith (on either side), due to lack of complete information. A person of faith may draw upon personal experience to establish their belief system. This is a different faith than simply a belief in facts without proof, as previously discussed. This is what people have been telling you but you aren't recognizing that it constitutes the basis of their faith. "You" may not experience, say, a oneness with god, but another might. That experience is generally the actual basis for their faith - not a set of arbitrary, external facts pulled out of the hat by someone with imperfect knowledge of how the universe works.

I suppose a person of nonfaith could also draw upon their personal experience but to do so steps outside an intellectual debate. He is left to argue with incomplete information for a conclusion that is not verifiable.

How do you intellectually verify the existence or non existence of god? You can't. That is the essence of my argument and the reason I claim you are attempting to structure the argument.

As to "faith," my earlier point was that faith, in the traditional, spiritual sense, is different from a mere belief without supporting facts. It is an experience (rather than a "belief") personal to the believer. From reading your rebuttal, it does not appear, to me, that you grasp that concept/argument. It may be that you lack training in that concept or have not been exposed to it prior to this discussion. I submit that absent that understanding, you are speaking a different language than a believer and as a result, simply don't comprehend what they are saying - moreover, I believe you are missing some fundamental concepts you believe are irrelevant simply because you are ignorant of them. This isn't mumbo jumbo, Broncho. It is the essense of my position that you are attempting to control the scope of the discussion to matters that you do understand and recognize. It is not complicating the discussion. It is a traditional and ancient definition that you want to ignore because it doesn't fit easily into the mental frameworth you've developed. Because of the changing meaning or words, you'll have to dig to get at what faith means in the reliigious sence if you don't want to take my word for it. You can put the effort in to verify what I am saying or you can remain ignorant - up to you. But it is on the table.

Yes, I still believe you are attempting to frame the argument/debate by discounting the arguments made by people such as MWC and myself as irrelevant. They are only irrelevant because you have attempted to control the scope of the discussion. If you weren't attempting to be the one to control the scope of the conversation, you might claim the arguments were erroneous, but you didn't. "Irrelevant" was the term you selected.

Broncho, your basic premise, with which I disagree, is that the existence of god can be determined through an intellectual/logical debate. It is a simple concept. You spent time claiming you had no such basic premise but much of the rest of the time attempting to use logic and continuing to frame the discussion. You rejected that you were trying to control the rules of the debate and laid down more rules. Interestingly, you went out of your way to discount MWC's "ramblings" as irrelevant and used words intended to diminish my objections on an emotional level rather than intellectual. It appears to me that you do not want honest debate, rather, you want cheerleaders or to "win" by simply framing the discussion on your terms and discounting any conflicting opinions. I find your posts to be, on the surface, interesting but when it comes to actual give and take, they lack intellectual honesty and a sincere interest in truth. You're just playing at being the intellectual without actually addressing the arguments.

No, I do not believe MWC's comments were irrelevant. I found them to be a "logical" response to an intellectual attack upon faith and also reflective of many people's personal experience related to this subject. My suggestion to you would be to drop back and consider why an intelligent person like MWC would respond in that manner and re-consider whether what he is says is actually irrelevant, or if your basis premise concerning the subject is flawed. It would be one thing if his common beliefs were held only by ignorant, stupid or religious people. However, that is not the case and such beliefs are shared by ignorant and learned, brilliant and moronic, religious and nonreligious. That should knock on the door of your basic premises if, indeed, you are as interested in determining truth as you would have us believe.

Broncho
12-22-2010, 08:37 AM
PennyQuilts,

Will you please directly reference my statements when responding so that others may see exactly how you are misrepresenting my argument?

Joe Daddy
12-22-2010, 03:27 PM
Hahahahahaha bullet points make my day.

Both the Magical Hippopotamus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster concur: Broncho - Game, Set Match! :LolLolLol

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 04:55 PM
PennyQuilts,

Will you please directly reference my statements when responding so that others may see exactly how you are misrepresenting my argument?

Your basic premise in that statement is that I misrepresented your statements. I disagree. I responded directly to the comments you originally didn't grasp and apparently, you still are in the dark. You didn't even bother to defend your position and, instead, want to shift the effort to others. I think you like to make pronouncements but haven't really the skill to actually respond civilly and with even a nod at intellectual or agile curiousity. You were not motivated to try to understand someone else's position, rather, your zeal seems to confine itself to holding court.

Are you interested in a fair debate or are you merely smarting that I find your arguments to be flawed? What is the relevance of other readers' opinions on this particular matter? Have you abandoned a search for truth in favor of gathering supporters? Surely you don't believe that strengthens your position - in fact, it is suggestive of insecurity or lack of commitment to your own position. Switching the issue to seeking supporters of your position suggests an abandonment of intellectual honestly in favor of trying to convince others you are "right." What a waste of effort for all concerned.

Prunepicker
12-22-2010, 05:16 PM
If survival of the fittest is bonafide then
how do atheists explain morality?

Broncho
12-22-2010, 06:42 PM
Your basic premise in that statement is that I misrepresented your statements. I disagree. I responded directly to the comments you originally didn't grasp and apparently, you still are in the dark. You didn't even bother to defend your position and, instead, want to shift the effort to others. I think you like to make pronouncements but haven't really the skill to actually respond civilly and with even a nod at intellectual or agile curiousity. You were not motivated to try to understand someone else's position, rather, your zeal seems to confine itself to holding court.

Are you interested in a fair debate or are you merely smarting that I find your arguments to be flawed? What is the relevance of other readers' opinions on this particular matter? Have you abandoned a search for truth in favor of gathering supporters? Surely you don't believe that strengthens your position - in fact, it is suggestive of insecurity or lack of commitment to your own position. Switching the issue to seeking supporters of your position suggests an abandonment of intellectual honestly in favor of trying to convince others you are "right." What a waste of effort for all concerned.

Please reference my exact statements and compare them to your projections! This does not have to be difficult! Stop attacking me and start addressing what I have written!

With my exact statements in quotations, I would like you to articulate how you can possibly infer what you have from my responses. Seriously, let us start with just one -- one single statement. Give me your very best.

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 06:59 PM
Please reference my exact statements and compare them to your projections! This does not have to be difficult! Stop attacking me and start addressing what I have written!

With my exact statements in quotations, I would like you to articulate how you can possibly infer what you have from my responses.

No sir, you are the one making claims that I missrepresented your statements. I disagree. Balls in your court if you think it is that important. That is not an attack.

My suggestion is that instead of claiming to be misrepresented (without specifying in what manner) and trying to control the conversation by instructing me on what I am to write (you have got to be kidding) you take the effort to back up your position by making the effort to refute the specific comments with which you take issue. I am not about to do your work for you nor am I going to play "read your mind." I will be happy to debate with you if you are willing to do your part. But you are not a professor setting the criteria or the format that others are to follow. You may need a certain format to be comfortable but that doesn't mean others share the need for that or prefer it. Asking you to specify which comments you take issue with is not unreasonable. Expecting me to rewrite my response in the absence of nothing more than a conclusory comment is.

Hopefully, since you are swimming in these waters by choice, you are capable to determining what is relevant to the discussion and how best to rebut it. It is absurd for you to come on here, make accusations and then expect others to rephrase/reframe all their comments to make it easier for you to keep up. If you believe you have sometime important to contribute to the conversation, I hope you will make the effort to express yourself. Analyzing the comments of those with whom you disagree is part of debate and no one is expecting you to do more than they expect from anyone else.

Easy180
12-22-2010, 07:12 PM
Hoping someone will take a few minutes to summarize this thread in one or two paragraphs when someone wins... my brain is hurting trying to follow this

Martin
12-22-2010, 07:27 PM
hoping someone will take a few minutes to summarize this thread in one or two paragraphs when someone wins... my brain is hurting trying to follow this

it's kinda like that scene from princess bride... except there are two vizzinis. -M

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/snackeru/greet/images/vizzini.jpg vs. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wow.com/media/2008/09/az_vizzini.jpg

Broncho
12-22-2010, 07:57 PM
No sir, you are the one making claims that I missrepresented your statements. I disagree. Balls in your court if you think it is that important. That is not an attack.

My suggestion is that instead of claiming to be misrepresented (without specifying in what manner) and trying to control the conversation by instructing me on what I am to write (you have got to be kidding) you take the effort to back up your position by making the effort to refute the specific comments with which you take issue. I am not about to do your work for you nor am I going to play "read your mind." I will be happy to debate with you if you are willing to do your part. But you are not a professor setting the criteria or the format that others are to follow. You may need a certain format to be comfortable but that doesn't mean others share the need for that or prefer it. Asking you to specify which comments you take issue with is not unreasonable. Expecting me to rewrite my response in the absence of nothing more than a conclusory comment is.

Hopefully, since you are swimming in these waters by choice, you are capable to determining what is relevant to the discussion and how best to rebut it. It is absurd for you to come on here, make accusations and then expect others to rephrase/reframe all their comments to make it easier for you to keep up. If you believe you have sometime important to contribute to the conversation, I hope you will make the effort to express yourself. Analyzing the comments of those with whom you disagree is part of debate and no one is expecting you to do more than they expect from anyone else.

Thank you for admitting defeat.

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 09:08 PM
Thank you for admitting defeat.

What a lightweight. That last comment was completely lame. It appears you are not willing to actually discuss this or defend your position. For that matter, you won't even explain your specific objections to my comments. You have completely wasted everyone's time.

Broncho
12-22-2010, 09:27 PM
What a lightweight. That last comment was completely lame. It appears you are not willing to actually discuss this or defend your position. For that matter, you won't even explain your specific objections to my comments. You have completely wasted everyone's time.

How is the comment lame? You conceded defeat in a previous comment. It's all there in your posts.

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 09:42 PM
Hoping someone will take a few minutes to summarize this thread in one or two paragraphs when someone wins... my brain is hurting trying to follow this

Easy, my main position is twofold - the first is that most people of faith who believe in the existence of god do not reach that conclusion by virtue of an logical, intellectual analysis. They tend to reach it by virtue of personal experience. This was the basis of my comment to Broncho that insisting on an intellectual analysis under the terms he demanded was demonstrating an underlying premise that faith or the existence of god is primarily an intellectual endeavor. He discounted responses as "irrelevant" that did not abide by that underlying premise and made no effort to refute those responses, otherwise. I was surprised Broncho took such issue with such a common and benign position but he did.

A second point I hold is that atheism, a belief that god does not exist, can not be known or verified on the facts we have available to us. Accordingly, it does not lend itself to logic or intellectual analysis because we lack sufficient conclusory facts. Moreover, unless we adopt a specific notion of the essence of god, we lack even the ability to frame questions sufficient to reach a verifiable conclusion on the subject. As such, my position is that anyone who believes there is no god is, actually, engaging in an act of faith (or has a theory). You can make that argument without taking a side one way or the other.

Broncho apparently objected to my (I think) uncontroversial statement that he had an underlying premise that the existence of god could be determined logically. If he didn't believe that, he wouldn't have engaged in the discussion as he did, particularly since he was rabid about insisting that the disussion would be conducted in a detailed manner soley of his choosing. Actually, it is hard to say what he objected to in my statements, specifically, because instead of pointing to specifics, he simply said I'd misrepresented him and demanded that I go back and set out all my misrepresentations to the board. My repeated offers to address his specific concerns if he identified them were ignored other to than to issue addition forum requirements that were laughable.

I also argued that most believers reach that status based on personal experience rather than an intellectual inquiry. Most of them will point to that personal experience as the basis of their belief. Their "faith" is in the traditional sense, i.e., it is not merely a belief in facts without proof but a belief based on an internal certainty. It is a subtle difference but not controversial for those that study such things. Call it a "knowing" a "belief," or what have you. Broncho called that merely complicating the issue and refused to address it (thus rejecting at his discretion an argument with no reason given other than that he didn't accept it). In any event, without making the argument that believers have the better argument, I have merely taken the position that they didn't get that way through an intellectual inquiry and all the logic in the world is not going to touch on the basis of their belief/certainty.

Tempest in a teapot. Nothing I said was particularly earth shattering or briliant but Broncho got miffed that he was challenged and refused to continue an honest intellectual discussion. He is very enthusiastic about demanding that others follow his rules but won't even go so far as to specify what in particular he objected to in my comments. I would have enjoyed an honest debate but as soon as he got push back, he dropped all pretense at enjoying an intellectual debate and became snide, dismissive and so rigid he wouldn't even clarify what he was objecting to.

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 09:45 PM
How is the comment lame? You conceded defeat in a previous comment. It's all there in your posts.

Broncho, I concede that trying to have an intelligent conversation with you was a waste of time. I'm embarrassed I took you seriously. We're done.

kevinpate
12-22-2010, 09:45 PM
it's kinda like that scene from princess bride... except there are two vizzinis. -M

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/snackeru/greet/images/vizzini.jpg vs. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wow.com/media/2008/09/az_vizzini.jpg


Hand's down best dang post of the day!

PennyQuilts
12-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Hand's down best dang post of the day!

I think I look pretty good in that picture!

Broncho
12-22-2010, 10:13 PM
PennyQuilts,

Actually, I am done with you, hence the apathy in my most recent posts. I am going to enjoy the holiday season and when I return, I will create a new thread and submit a full autopsy report of your dead position.

Merry Christmas, OKCTalk.

Matt
12-22-2010, 10:14 PM
I think I look pretty good in that picture!

That wasn't you.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1314/905915223.gif

Prunepicker
12-22-2010, 10:20 PM
Hoping someone will take a few minutes to summarize this thread
in one or two paragraphs when someone wins... my brain is hurting
trying to follow this
I'll step up and do it.

Penny is kicking broncho's butt.

I hope it wasn't too long or involved.

:ohno:

Prunepicker
12-22-2010, 10:22 PM
Broncho, I concede that trying to have an intelligent conversation
with you was a waste of time. I'm embarrassed I took you seriously.
We're done.
You were far more patient than he deserved to have.

MadMonk
12-23-2010, 06:09 AM
Hand's down best dang post of the day!
LOL, Yeah, but which one is immune to iocaine powder?

PennyQuilts
12-23-2010, 08:19 AM
PennyQuilts,

Actually, I am done with you, hence the apathy in my most recent posts. I am going to enjoy the holiday season and when I return, I will create a new thread and submit a full autopsy report of your dead position.

Merry Christmas, OKCTalk.

On the one hand, he claims I conceded defeat and on the other he concedes he was merely apathetic. But be warned! He will be back next year when he gets around to it and feels inspired to follow through. Clearly more interested in personalities than actual intellectual honesty.

Prunepicker
12-23-2010, 07:30 PM
LOL, Yeah, but which one is immune to iocaine powder?
PQ has spent the last few years building up an immunity to
iocaine powder.

--

Merry Christmas!
After all, it's that time of
the year!

MadMonk
12-23-2010, 08:43 PM
PQ has spent the last few years building up an immunity to
iocaine powder.
Inconceivable!

Prunepicker
12-23-2010, 10:21 PM
Inconceivable!
Indeed.


--

Merry Christmas!
After all, it's that time of
the year!

MikeOKC
12-23-2010, 10:42 PM
I think this whole debate is really moot in the overall scheme of things. God, which God, no God, this God, it all misses the BIG picture, which is being discussed in this thread. (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24100) The fact is none of us know, none of us can know, and to get angry about something we can only speculate about is ridiculous. Hanging on to ancient belief to make us feel better about our impending doom, or being so arrogant and angry knowing that "they" (believers) are wrong - are both positions that are too...well... small.

Joe Daddy
12-24-2010, 07:13 AM
I think this whole debate is really moot in the overall scheme of things. God, which God, no God, this God, it all misses the BIG picture, which is being discussed in this thread. (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24100) The fact is none of us know, none of us can know, and to get angry about something we can only speculate about is ridiculous. Hanging on to ancient belief to make us feel better about our impending doom, or being so arrogant and angry knowing that "they" (believers) are wrong - are both positions that are too...well... small.

Plenty of arrogance on both sides...those that "know" there is a god and those that "know" there is not a god, and both get angry and indignant at the slightest challenge to their fragile belief system.

I think the discussion of our origin is a completely fascinating subject. It would be even more fun if people would actually discuss the topic instead of each other.

Prunepicker
12-24-2010, 12:14 PM
The fact is none of us know, none of us can know, and to get
angry about something we can only speculate about is ridiculous.
Getting angry is not good, but to say that we can only speculate
about God ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you aren't sure or don't
know but that doesn't mean someone hasn't.

Prunepicker
12-24-2010, 12:17 PM
... It would be even more fun if people would actually discuss the
topic instead of each other.
Which is what I've been trying to do but nobody wants to.

USG'60
12-24-2010, 02:47 PM
OK, Prune, YOU set some rules and start with your first assertion and let's see how it goes.

PennyQuilts
12-24-2010, 06:21 PM
I think this whole debate is really moot in the overall scheme of things. God, which God, no God, this God, it all misses the BIG picture, which is being discussed in this thread. (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24100) The fact is none of us know, none of us can know, and to get angry about something we can only speculate about is ridiculous. Hanging on to ancient belief to make us feel better about our impending doom, or being so arrogant and angry knowing that "they" (believers) are wrong - are both positions that are too...well... small.

Agreed.