So you assume materialism. If you cannot justify that assumption, your position is based in faith.
Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?
- Thread starter PetesSweets86
- Start date
So you assume materialism. If you cannot justify that assumption, your position is based in faith.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The reason those impulses still send messages is because God allows them to.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Anyone is foolish to put any faith in banks these days.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
okay, then I have faith that a Chinook Salmon is lying in my bed right now reading a victoria secret magazine and wearing Oakley sunglasses dining on the blood of christ (which nowadays is grapejuice).....now if I walk in there...with my faith all certain...will it be there...will it exist...will it ever exist?
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
that's like saying I piss and :q:q:q:q because god allows me to :q:q:q:q/piss. Last time I checked I could be a saint and be quite often constipated as well as I could be a sinner and have some pretty sweet bowel movements.
Next you'll be telling me people are islamic, athiest, budhist, etc etc...because god allows them to be
so if you jerk off to kiddy porn...I'm telling god he's a fascist
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
God even allows you to be a moron, Pete.
OK. now that is funny - worth coming back from a long weekend and logging on - just for that.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Methinks she doth protest too much.
wanna catch one that makes you say "WTF?"
http://www.waitingforarmageddon.com/
here's a review.
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/waiting-for-armageddon/
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
^^ you my bro
then there would be 20 billion or so different religions.
or did you mean in that post that only SOME come up with deity ideals from philosophy, etc.
so, not all.
yet again you adding something to an arguement that wasn't there.
i am talking of your standard everyday person. you keep pinning attributes there.
those attributes assume education to understand a difference.
apparently i need to make a simple statement into a page long essay so as not to confuse you. others have understood my statement, yet you the scholar are incapable.
i'm still not talking of atheism. i guess the simple term would be ignorance.
a total lack of knowledge.
i would actually describe most, but this is what i have been saying.
thanks for finally agreeing.
there are a few that exist without deity, and many that claim deity.
so, how many are without an actual god?
it would not spread throughout a society if not taught.
but yes, some would come up with it. that is obvious. it exists today.
i see no reason to continue replying to your inane circular reasoning.
as for this
maybe ask for clarification of an arguement before answering.
not a dozen or 2 posts later.
Showing the inconsistencies and logical flaws in an argument is not "adding to an argument", or in any way misrepresenting it, as you say.
It rather clear that you want me to be misrepresenting your argument in some way and are working to distort reality to justify that desire.
Pathetic.
I have assumed no such thing and you know it. I simply assume basic skills of observation that everyone has, and a desire to make sense out of things one doesn't understand, which everyone does.
Now you are misrepresenting my argument in order to make it appear that I am misrepresenting or "adding to" your argument.
The argument still assumes that there is no God and therefore still assumes materialism.
No it is not and you know it. You never said (or implied) that simply "some" could live without a conception of God. You claimed that without science and religion no conception of God would exist.
Once again, you are betrayed by your actions in previous threads.
materialism
n noun
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
if you have no knowledge, you would not ponder whether anything else exists.
there must be other ideals in comparison. else it's not materialism, since materialism would not exist either.
everyone? so you assume everyone is capable of high level cause and effect?
you think everyone really worries about it?
you think everyones a philosopher?
no, just clarifying, and pointing out that you don't know nor understand my arguement at all.
as i said, next time ask for clarification first. not everybody understands the thoughts of others on short words.
atheism itself isn't a fitting word. i should have used something different. maybe that's why you keep plying materialism.
no belief is natural. most would never worry if this is all there is, and god would not be a part of it either.
n noun
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
if you have no knowledge, you would not ponder whether anything else exists.
there must be other ideals in comparison. else it's not materialism, since materialism would not exist either.
everyone? so you assume everyone is capable of high level cause and effect?
you think everyone really worries about it?
you think everyones a philosopher?
no, just clarifying, and pointing out that you don't know nor understand my arguement at all.
as i said, next time ask for clarification first. not everybody understands the thoughts of others on short words.
atheism itself isn't a fitting word. i should have used something different. maybe that's why you keep plying materialism.
no belief is natural. most would never worry if this is all there is, and god would not be a part of it either.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
We apologize for this commercial interruption.
YouTube- FOX 11 LOS ANGELES NEWS REPORTER INTERRUPTED
YouTube- FOX 11 LOS ANGELES NEWS REPORTER INTERRUPTED
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Quit.
His argument is that even before the argument of what you are putting faith into, materialism or a fictional book about a guy with great hair, you are born without knowledge of either, therefore without being taught about God, you are atheist. Agnostic would be a better term to use in this instance, and one can argue that as a person grows, people should and most will question their existence, but, his argument is that a person is born atheist, and has to learn everything else. This has nothing to do with materialism, faith or anything else you continue to insist he is talking about or avoiding. This is just a point in itself.
That is not what he is arguing. Maybe you should go back and re-read his first post; # 108.
He first says in post #108, "it doesn't take a jump to be athiest." This indicates what he is setting out to do in his argument. Hrmwrm was trying show that atheism doesn't require a leap of faith; that it does not require materialism.
This is his conclusion, "atheism is natural. god must be learned." However, if the idea of God is "learned" by simple, natural observation and rationalization (as the typical Atheist explanation for Theism claims), then it is no more "learned" then atheism would be. Only if it is explicitly taught could it be learned in the manner he was speaking and that rejects both the possibility of a transcendent God (assuming materialism in the process) and the possibility of gleaning the idea from natural observation and rationalization.
If hrmwrm had said agnosticism, that would have been one thing. But he did not. In fact, his original comment was aimed at proving atheism was not rooted in any faith.
I have said before that agnosticism is the only logical position. But a justification for agnosticism is not a justification for atheism. The two are different ideas. One makes a negative claim of no belief in and/or knowledge of God and the other makes a positive claim of a belief that God does not exist. There are not the same thing. If you are equating atheism with agnosticism then you can't understand hrmwrm's original argument or my argument
Again, if he had said agnosticism, that would be one thing. But he specifically said atheism and the justification for agnosticism is not the justification for atheism. The only way any justification for atheism makes sense is with an assumption of materialism and his original argument is no exception.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
When you think about it though, atheism is not REALLY making a positive claim that there is no god just as it stands. (yes, I know they say there is no god, but you have to think beyond that for a second here) Atheism just is a state of having NO belief in god. Agnosticism is of course the natural state in a world where you are confronted with opposing beliefs prior to making a decision of your views, however, if a person were to be able to live without the suggestion of a god, they would be atheist. Now, I don't want to rehash the argument that materialism takes "faith", because that is silly semantics that are based primarily on personal beliefs and views, and much of it is self-serving. But, atheism, in and of itself, requires no faith. Questioning existence is where the argument of faith comes into play. It is not a prerequisite of being atheist to decide there is no god, the only prerequisite is to not have a belief in god.
No, you are talking about agnosticism, not atheism.
From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief
Or, if you want to use the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty
Or you can go with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God
There has been attempts in recent years by some in the atheist community to define down atheism and blur the lines between atheism and agnosticism. But that is a false argument rooted in deception.The difference between not affirming one position (or any position) and affirming an opposite is subtle but relevant; especially when it comes to the rationale behind those positions.
When you don't affirm a position, you simply need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views.
When you affirm a position, you need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views as well as make a develop a rationale for your position.
Dodging that argument is the only thing that is inherently self-serving. The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism or Theism start at that presupposition of materialism.
The fact is that atheism is premised on materialism. If you cannot give a logical justification for that assumption then it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; faith.
I told you before that most atheists I know don't want to confront that presumption of materialism.
You have that bass ackwards. As I have shown, atheism REQUIRES a belief that God does NOT exist, not simply a lack of any belief.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
No, you are talking about agnosticism, not atheism.
From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief
Or, if you want to use the Encyclopaedia Britannica:Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certaintyOr you can go with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of GodThere has been attempts in recent years by some in the atheist community to define down atheism and blur the lines between atheism and agnosticism. But that is a false argument rooted in deception.
The difference between not affirming one position (or any position) and affirming an opposite is subtle but relevant; especially when it comes to the rationale behind those positions.
When you don't affirm a position, you simply need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views.
When you affirm a position, you need to point out logical (or factual) flaws in opposing views as well as make a develop a rationale for your position.
Dodging that argument is the only thing that is inherently self-serving. The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism or Theism start at that presupposition of materialism.
The fact is that atheism is premised on materialism. If you cannot give a logical justification for that assumption then it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; faith.
I told you before that most atheists I know don't want to confront that presumption of materialism.
You have that bass ackwards. As I have shown, atheism REQUIRES a belief that God does NOT exist, not simply a lack of any belief.
There you go again pulling out the most self-serving definitions you can find without thought to context or otherwise. Atheism just means without theism. Agnosticism requires the knowledge of a "god option" as agnosticism means that you are undecided or believe it is impossible to prove it either way. Anyways, if you have no knowledge of something, its non-existence is a certainty.
Apparently you are incapable of looking beyond your preconceived notions.
Why should anyone take you credibly? Why do you even engage people on the politics section of this forum?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
'Don't you dare to try to confuse me with facts. Definitions mean nothing, because that's not what I want to think!!'
KS