08 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“…It is not possible to not believe in God….”
You hit the nail on the head. It is not possible to not believe in God. You may reject Him, but you cannot not believe in something you know to exist. That's like saying, "I don't believe in me." Hate yourself, maybe. Despise your every action, possible. But disbelieve in yourself? Poppycock.
Then there are no atheists! 😛 And therefore there is no atheism!
So why do you argue against atheism when it doesn’t exist?
Explain how you can argue against a non-existent viewpoint?
“…You may reject Him,…”
How can I reject something that I do not believe exists?
“…but you cannot not believe in something you know to exist….”
Yes, and you cannot believe in something you know to not exist.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadBuddhist creative efforts notwithstanding, as soon as the 'I' is mentioned there's no denying the same.
From what I gather from Buddhist ramblings, that is not actually unheard of.
The real poppycock though is your belief that I necessarily believe in the existence of the entity you call God.
Too, your protestation does not have the benefit of support as can be found for the assertion that man believes in God. Always has.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo why do you argue against atheism when it doesn’t exist?
“…It is not possible to not believe in God….”
Then there are no atheists! 😛 And therefore there is no atheism!
So why do you argue against atheism when it doesn’t exist?
Explain how you can argue against a non-existent viewpoint?
“…You may reject Him,…”
How can I reject something that I do not believe exists?
“…but you cannot not bel ...[text shortened]... omething you know to exist….”
Yes, and you cannot believe in something you know to not exist.
Cute. I am arguing against a nonsensical position, not against something that doesn't exist. The atheist takes a position which cannot be supported; I merely point out that reality.
Yes, and you cannot believe in something you know to not exist.
Do tell.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you agree with "I think, therefore I am."? Or is it "I refer to myself therefore I believe I exist"?
Buddhist creative efforts notwithstanding, as soon as the 'I' is mentioned there's no denying the same.
My understanding is that some Buddhists believe the "I" is an illusion regardless of whether or not it is useful to refer to said illusion.
Too, your protestation does not have the benefit of support as can be found for the assertion that man believes in God. Always has.
So you say, but since you have no credible argument to that effect, it remains your opinion. I believe my opinion, based on knowledge of my own thoughts holds more weight than your opinion without any direct knowledge of my thoughts on the matter.
08 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“…The atheist takes a position which cannot be supported…”
[b]So why do you argue against atheism when it doesn’t exist?
Cute. I am arguing against a nonsensical position, not against something that doesn't exist. The atheist takes a position which cannot be supported; I merely point out that reality.
Yes, and you cannot believe in something you know to not exist.
Do tell.[/b]
It is not the atheist's position that needs supporting; it is the theist's position.
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists. Atheism is not really so much of a belief but disbelief; specifically, the disbelief that there exists a God.
Any assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable (not JUST the existential claim that there is a “God” ) when there is no credible evidence to support it. If this was not the case then ANY existential claim should be seen as perfectly credible no matter how wild such as the existence of tooth fairies or the existence of an invisible flying cat floating above your head right now.
One does not have to use scientific method to show these claims to be probably false, one only has to merely point out that is no credible evidence to support it –that is all!
So, therefore, the burden of proof of any existential claim made such as “there is a God” should fall on the shoulders on those that make such a claim as opposed to those that oppose it (atheists in this case).
08 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you agree with "I think, therefore I am."? Or is it "I refer to myself therefore I believe I exist"?
So you agree with "I think, therefore I am."? Or is it "I refer to myself therefore I believe I exist"?
My understanding is that some Buddhists believe the "I" is an illusion regardless of whether or not it is useful to refer to said illusion.
Too, your protestation does not have the benefit of support as can be found for the assertion that man bel s more weight than your opinion without any direct knowledge of my thoughts on the matter.
I hold that man--- at his pinnacle of reason-- can only confirm his own existence in his own mind. That sounds like more than it actually is. It is essentially saying he is using himself as the barometer for reality, and once the summit is reached, his reality begins to unravel: what does he really know? Who the hell is 'I?' Is anything else real?
My understanding is that some Buddhists believe the "I" is an illusion regardless of whether or not it is useful to refer to said illusion.
Reality is (apparently) impossible to ascertain without identity, and that identity is illusory, ergo... the 'reality' is, there is no reality. Just ask my identity!
So you say, but since you have no credible argument to that effect, it remains your opinion.
Not so fast. My opinion on the matter is based upon man's history. Your opinion on the matter is based upon personal experience, reason, etc.. You're as moribund as Descartes' "conclusion."
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is not the atheist's position that needs supporting; it is the theist's position.
“…The atheist takes a position which cannot be supported…”
It is not the atheist's position that needs supporting; it is the theist's position.
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists. Atheism is not really so much of a belief but disbelief; specifically, the disbelief that there exists a God.
Any assumption ...[text shortened]... rs on those that make such a claim as opposed to those that oppose it (atheists in this case).
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists.
The claim of God's existence is God's, not the theist. A theist simply accepts God's claim, whereas that exceedingly small (and relatively newly established) group known as atheists simply reject God altogether.
The atheist contention that God must be proved is to insist the cart must precede the horse. That God exists is not merely an occasionally-occurring phenomenon in a handful of societies; the existence of deity has been a fountainhead of all societies.
Atheism is not really so much of a belief but disbelief; specifically, the disbelief that there exists a God.
That's akin to forming a group of like-minded folks, who's primary commonality is their disbelief in, say, the tooth fairy. Forming such a group is the ultimate irony.
So, therefore, the burden of proof of any existential claim made such as “there is a God” should fall on the shoulders on those that make such a claim as opposed to those that oppose it (atheists in this case).
Well, if you really need 'proof' of God's existence, consider the Jew.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou opinion is based on your own seriously flawed interpretation of what you believe to be mans history.
Not so fast. My opinion on the matter is based upon man's history.
Your opinion on the matter is based upon personal experience, reason, etc.
Which is clearly the very best possible source if what we are talking about is my own personal beliefs. My personal knowledge of my beliefs trumps the whole of mans history even if it did seem to point to something.
You're as moribund as Descartes' "conclusion."
I am afraid that ones lost on me. I don't remember who Descartes was.
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"Cogito ergo sum" - R. Descartes
You opinion is based on your own seriously flawed interpretation of what you believe to be mans history.
[b]Your opinion on the matter is based upon personal experience, reason, etc.
Which is clearly the very best possible source if what we are talking about is my own personal beliefs. My personal knowledge of my beliefs trumps the whole of mans h ...[text shortened]... s' "conclusion."[/b]
I am afraid that ones lost on me. I don't remember who Descartes was.[/b]
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, isn't saying 'the claim of god's existence is god's' a bit circular?
[b]It is not the atheist's position that needs supporting; it is the theist's position.
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists.
The claim of God's existence is God's, not the theist. A theist simply accepts God's claim, whereas that exceedingly small (and relatively newly established) group known as atheists simpl ...[text shortened]... his case).[/b]
Well, if you really need 'proof' of God's existence, consider the Jew.[/b]
I don't really buy into all of this atheists have the burden of proof, or theists have the burden of proof, claptrap - my view is that proof of god's existence is impossible no matter which perspective you take, and that you must believe or not, based on some other means, faith, emotion, whatever.
09 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“….The claim of God's existence is God's, not the theist. A theist simply accepts God's claim,…”
[b]It is not the atheist's position that needs supporting; it is the theist's position.
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists.
The claim of God's existence is God's, not the theist. A theist simply accepts God's claim, whereas that exceedingly small (and relatively newly established) group known as atheists simpl his case).[/b]
Well, if you really need 'proof' of God's existence, consider the Jew.[/b]
The claim that “God” claims he exists is virtually equivalent to the claim that there exists a God for one could not be true without the other being true (UNLESS there is a God but he does NOT claim he exists! ).
So my assertion:
It is the theists that are making the existential claim, not the atheists.
Still stands regardless of whether that “existential claim” is the claim that “there exists a God” or “there exists a claim by God that he himself exists”; which one of these existential claims a theist chooses to make is irrelevant.
“…That God exists is not merely an occasionally-occurring phenomenon in a handful of societies; the existence of deity has been a fountainhead of all societies….”
Both these assertion would be false if there is no God (unless what you mean by “deity” above is not necessarily a supernatural god? ).
“…Atheism is not really so much of a belief but disbelief; specifically, the disbelief that there exists a God. (my quote)..
...
That's akin to FORMING a group of like-minded folks, who's primary commonality is their disbelief in, say, the tooth fairy. Forming such a FORMING is the ultimate irony….” (my emphasis).
Atheism is not caused by people deciding to “FORM a group” of disbelievers just as disbelief in the existence in the tooth fairy is not caused by people deciding to “FORM a group” of disbelievers.
Atheism is caused by simply not believing there exists a God; that is all!
I am not an atheist because I want to be part of some kind of “atheist group”, because I reason independently, I would be atheist even if there is not and never were and never wii be any other atheists in existence.
“…Well, if you really need 'proof' of God's existence, consider the Jew….”
What about the “Jew”?
09 Sep 10
The saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" is just that, a saying.
It's not true.. and even if it were, it wouldn't prove anything.
All it would show is that when people are desperate and can't see a way to improve their life or situation, their instinct to survive and flourish is still strong enough to look for another way out.
All that phrase really says is that people tend not to give up. And even that's not true. Plenty of people give up quite easily and those that don't are acting out a genetic script optimized for survival and reproduction.
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrNo, I get that. My take on his conclusion is that it's an indictment on reason as a means to crest the summit, to find God. Sans revelation, man isn't able to conclude much of anything--- basically he can find his own ass with his own two hands, and little else. Everything beyond his nose is too fuzzy to determine with any 'knowledge.'
Don't bash Descartes, he's on your team! The major conclusion of The Meditations is that our entire edifice of knowledge is based on the fact that God exists and is not a deceiver. And, wow, that boy could write.