powder
-
Posts
478 -
Joined
Posts posted by powder
-
-
I apologize to all who think I am trolling. Again- I opened this thread to run my principles against the gambit of atheism.
Ok omega, I'll take the bait. I like religious debates, though I am fascinated that you would choose to have one in a place like this.
- You claim that your 'faith' or 'principles', I don't really understand what you mean by the word principles but you did use it, are based on a logically consistent interpretation of scripture. Is that right?
- would you say that you have a more rational empirically based faith that uses correct interpretation of the bible?
- I grew up with religious indoctrination and have spent many years studying the history of religion. I would say that based on your claims the vast majority of christians, both past and present, have a different interpretation and you think they have got it wrong? Is that right?
- Have you studied the history of the christian movement up through to the renaissance? Did you know that up until the last of the 'christians' who did not join the church of rome were wiped out they did not have the same belief as you and other modern christians who they all lumped into the category of the 'roman cult'? In fact, what they believed was more different than modern christian belief is compared to the islamic belief system. (historically the christians called the roman church the 'babyolonian/roman cult' and the church of rome called the followers of jesus's teachings 'heretics' and gave them specific names like 'bogomils' 'cathars', 'waldensians' etc based on the writings of the leaders of the crusades)
- Did you know that the king james bible, that all contemporary bibles are based on, was not the same as the scriptures used by the early followers of jesus or even the reformers? how much do you know about king james, his family and affiliations?
- I would be interested to hear your response to Ray H's questions above.
-
You make a valid point ILO. The definition of 'state' or 'government', or 'anarchy' for that matter, all have very different meanings to the general population and in mainstream definitions. Like you say, I think it is helpful to stick to discussing the NAP and voluntarism instead for the most part.
-
"Coercion free government" is an oxymoron. I believe that the definition of 'government' as it is defined around here is: "a group of individuals with a monopoly on force and the legal right to initiate force (coercion) in a geographical area"
So no, if services are provided voluntary and the NAP is respected, then it is no longer government.
-
...
So I know that our disagreement is regarding our particular choices when it comes to the semantics of divinity, so we shouldn't argue about that anymore. I'm just saying that your argument for atheism is not a particularly useful one (in my opinion) given a very general claim of atheism and a very general, if any, choice of deity. To put it short - one should get the theist to confirm that his definition of God is self-contradictory before that argument is used. Otherwise i can perfectly understand how some theists might claim that atheism is almost religious in itself - in the same way that you say that we should be clear in our definitions, we should be clear as to whether our counter argument is actually applicable in this particular case before we get all 'religious'
about it.Thanks Hannibal, that sums up my position nicely.
-
I was going on about 'structural violence" in another thread. It is at the core of P J's thesis, and I did not feel like it was adequately addressed in the interview he had with Stef.
There are some very good responses here in this thread and as I posted in the other thread, Stef does a great job of dismantling the 'structural violence' gig in this video. It is with the second caller somewhere around 15 min in that he takes it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzs61DEWKTE&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w
-
Don't know and don't care about what? I asked you before, but you never responded.
Don't care and don't know about Hercules? Don't know and don't care about Shiva? Or do you not care and don't know about something eternal, involved in the creation of the universe with some incorporeal consciousness (some variation of the square circle)?
No agnostic that I have ever met was agnostic with regard to anything except that last one.
All of the above, I do not feel qualified to make a judgement on Shiva or Hercules or something eternal that created the universe. I don't know, I don't care. Does that make me an agnostic, I am not sure about that anymore.
You can talk about Ra and Quetzalcoatl, but it's only for the purposes of creating exceptions to a rule you (in all likelihood) accept as much as I do.
No, I do not accept the rule. I don't know that Ra is any different or lesser or whatever than Yahweh.
I can guarantee you that if we were talking about norse gods you would not be challenging atheists to say how they couldn't exist. It's a particular kind of god, the one you refuse to define, what started this whole conversation and is the subject of the book you are asking people about.
I'm going to tell you what you are talking about, since you wont. You are talking about the kind of god that modern people believe in. The sort of god that people are going to attack you for criticizing, the kind of god that people only still believe because it's put into the place that people cannot measure: another universe, non existence, before the universe etc.
No, I am not. I have already given a definition of god that I am more comfortable with. lets talk about Quetzalcoatl if you like.
So you are an agnostic? Agnostic about what god in particular? And be honest, santa claus is checking his list! You don't want a lump of coal for christmas do you?
Agnostic (or indifferent perhaps) about all questions related to god or gods of any kind I would have to say.
This is an argument from ignorance. It's another logical error you've made.
-
A definition doesn't have to be unchanging and invariable (which is redundant btw
) for it to be specific enough as to exclude things from it which are unlike, and not unlike like Yahweh and Zeus are unlike, but unlike in the sense that what it is that makes X a "god" is unlike.Yahweh is a god because he's eternal, incorporeal, omniscient etc, and a tomato is a god because it's a red veggie (or fruit or whatever). You get that the definition becomes completely useless at this point.
It's really as simple as saying that magic tricks aren't real magic. Unless I'm just missing something totally obvious, it's really not that complicated.
I don't know Kevin, maybe I'm missing something totally obvious.
So, I don't think the definition of god as you and Stef have defined it (god(s) must be eternal/immortal, omniscient, omnipotent...) is historically or theologically adequate to encompass all those given that moniker, ie: Most of the beings worshiped, looked to for guidance, prayed and given sacrifices to etc, were not claimed to have had all those characteristics.
Let me try to be more specific with my question: What would you say to a definition of god(s) that goes something like this: a non human being or entity that has some type of supernatural powers and that is perceived by its admirers (?) to have some sort of ability to control the destiny of mankind and is often prayed to, worshiped, looked to for guidance and so on. Could be Ra or Shiva or Quetzalcoatl or the Rain God, whatever.
-
But they were wrong that it was a god. It's because it is what it is and not what people think it is, that is my point.
If they were mistaken, then they were wrong.
Let's say they thought that my magic trick was real magic. Once I reveal that it's just an illusion, we don't change the definition of "magic" to include illusions. It was in fact not magic.
I think I still agree with Flake here Kevin.
So you are saying that the word 'god' has a specific definition, that is invariable and unchanging, like the word 'circle' for example, and anyone who uses the word 'god' to describe anything outside of that definition is just mistaken and using it wrong. Like calling a tomato a stapler. Have I got that right?
-
Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god".
First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing.
If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory.
A cup is not a god, this computer screen is not a god, my pinky toe is not a god. "God" has an actual definition as vague as some people like to make their gods. It's not like it's something we can't comment on without putting forward a bunch of definitions. If you say that a god could exist, or that your god exists, then you are wrong, or you are using the word wrong.
The debate is actually very enlightening if you haven't watched it yet. Please do that.
I totally get what you are saying Kevin, and the logical consistency of language and definitions is easy to follow. I did listen to the videos and Stef's definition of God. Still, there have been throughout history, and still today there are, many definitions given to 'god' or the 'gods' (Zeus perhaps) that do not fit that definition. Like what Flake said. Does a definition of god not have to have some historical relevance? I think that any being with supernatural powers (could be an ipad) that is looked up to by man as a 'superior' being that they look to for guidance of some sort has been called god and would be an apt definition for me.
-
I'm not trying to irritate some of the other posters here, Powder. But I think that (if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding trolling - which I do after you last response to mine and not having read the other threads) some of them are making this unnecessarily complicated for you.
I don't think it's useful for people to tell you that the idea of "God" is logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. This is the case only if we take a very narrow and specific definition of "God", and I actually think you have rightfully asked for definition in that sense. The thread is about atheism, not the disbelief in some particular God according to some particular religion.
The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to prove a negative, so if we choose a definition of God which is not self-contradictory (and there have been many throughout history), as a square-circle is, then no one can truthfully tell you that there cannot be such a thing as God.
So I would advise you to ignore all of the comments about self-contradiction, and just take onboard the fridge-monster comparison.
IF, however, you choose a particular God which is self-contradictory in it's definition (like 'your' RC Christ), then fine - it's not even worth assessing the probability. But really this is just a distraction from your real problem, which is to understand the axiom that no one can prove a negative, and that probability is not the same a possibility. In the same sense one could argue that it is impossible to prove a positive, and I would agree; but we can demonstrate that the probability is so high that it is rational to consider it proof unless we receive evidence to the contrary.
It doesn't even matter if you find a way to argue that the RC God is not self-contradictory, because it would STILL be so unlikely that it would be irrational (unreasonable if you like) to believe in it. This is the point.
I think that is an absolutely brilliant response to my query Hannibal. Thanks for indulging me, I really get it now.
-
Guys, don't get sucked in. This is a guy who comes to a philosophy board and says this:
And in the same post continues on to say this:
looks like you and darkskyabove are the philosophy police around here. I am new to this sort of discussion as may seem obvious to you guys. Perhaps I am missing something very key to this philosophy thing.
So Lians, the definition of a circle and 'god' fit into the same category of truth somehow? Since everyone can agree on what a circle is and almost no one on a definition of god, I am not sure what to think, really. and I am not being difficult, I am interested in learning.
-
Quoting now without having read further yet - forgive me if already properly addressed:
I'm not saying that it's irrational to believe in something unless you can prove or [directly] experience it. What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge.
So what I'm saying is that I cannot prove that there is no monster in the fridge without looking inside the fridge.
The chances of there being a monster in the fridge, though, are so slim that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT a monster in the fridge. For the same reason it is IRRATIONAL to suppose that there is.
I still can't prove that there isn't a monster in the fridge, and if we suppose that it's an invisible monster then even looking inside won't help. Now its very similar to the God question - what is the difference between our invisible fridge monster and God? I can't prove that either do not exist, yet it is entirely irrational of me to believe that they do.
I assume that as you agreed with my fridge monster example before, you have no choice but to agree with it again now after it's been shown to be exactly the same as God ?
So to go back to your question quoted, nothing here negates the possibility; and anyone who tells you it does is wrong. This is the difference between santa claus and a square circle. Santa claus cannot possibly be proven to not exist, whereas a square circle does not exist, by definition.
But do you need absolute proof that something doesn't exist? You certainly don't live your life like that (which is the original point). If you did live like that you wouldn't be able to function as a human being in the world, and I would dare say that you'd be insane because you'd have no way of discerning what is and is (so very probably) not real.
Very well said Hannibal. Thanks for your perspective. I had missed that somewhat in your first post - esp your statement: "What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge." I just don't know if I am comfortable with the word "irrational", perhaps unreasonable works better for me, since there is no compelling reason or evidence to suppose god exists it is the same as the monster in the fridge. Got it.
If in the days prior to the understanding of disease and viruses, you had suggested that perhaps there are things too tiny to be seen that cause certain diseases, you would do well to be greeted with skepticism if you had no way to verify this.
Skepticism is the product of a healthy and inquisitive mind, that is not the same as condemnation and disbelief.
However, a particle that is too small to be seen is not contradictory to what we know of the world. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is not inherently contradictory.
It was not consistent with the understanding of the world at the time, that is the point of my example. The theory of God is self-contradictory. There is no point in suspending belief about this entity.
You would have to define what theory of God you are referring to before I could consider this. The concept of God is not even wrong. It is a no-thing. It lacks existence. Reality is not contradictory. Things that exist in reality inherit this troublesome attribute.
-
So, viruses did not exist before we were able to detect and measure them empirically, is that how this logic works?
That's a wonderful approach! Statists will never be able to prove that I'm wrong! Mwahahaha!
yeah, except that I don't think you cannot have a debate without an agreed upon definition...
-
I see... If I don't provide a definition this means there's a possibility of what I'm saying being true. I'll take that!
you got it!
-
Lians, by 'truth' in this context I assume you mean the laws of the known universe as we understand it at the present time. If you want to talk about 'truth' and 'reality' then you will need to define it for me. Just like I say that if you want to talk about 'god' you need to have an agreed upon definition.
Unless that thing rises and falls at the same time.
Or is a square circle.
Or has consciousness without material form.
Or is omnipotent and omniscient.
Or that living things come from somewhere except for god.
Or the most complex thing can exist without evolution.
Or basically any logical contradiction of terms or ideas that define existence as impossible in reality.
not that same, those things have a universally (mostly) agreed upon definition in our reality as we understand it.
Your position would more accurately be described as ignosticism. Which brings up the point you are making here, that there is no way to nail down the definition, meaning that debating its existence is meaningless in the philosophical sense.
I'll buy that. thanks Flake.
-
You can fill the large void of human knowledge with just about anything you can imagine. I don't know why you would want to do that, but hey, it's your life. There are only two exceptions. You can't put self-contradictory beings (all-powerful and all-knowing) and/or entities that violate our scientific knowledge of the universe (consciousness without matter) in the unknown. To accept the existence of such beings is to reject the reality that you're living in.
Where you don't have empirical knowledge, you put in the possibility of existence. That's perfectly fine, but there are limitations to this approach. I outlined them in the core part of my previous post. The part that you ignored. I don't need to verify that the inhabitants of Omicron Persei 8 have developed consciousness without matter. I don't even admit the possibility of such a thing because the idea goes against the laws of our universe.
I did not ignore that part of your post I simply don't agree with it. I don't see how there can be any imposed limitations or exceptions to my idea of accepting the possibility of existence of whatever, there are limitations to the understanding of science and the laws of the universe however.
In my view, accepting the possibility of something existing is not tantamount to rejecting the reality that I live in - there is a lot about the 'reality' that we live in that we do not understand or are even aware of.
-
I think I understand what you are saying, but then how can you call yourself an agnostic? Agnostic about what?
What did you think about Stef's arguments around the fact that you have to accept a few necessary things in order to even talk about gods? Like we're not talking about bunnies or tomatoes or anything like that.
P.S. I love your avatar.
Ha! good one. I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being: "I don't know and I don't care". I am certainly open to considering other more widely accepted definitions, but then I would likely not want to call myself an agnostic anymore if they didn't suit me.
Sure, I agree with Stef that if you are going to talk about something or debate its validity you have to have an agreed upon definition, which is why he started out the debate by proposing one, I just didn't think there was any reason for me to accept it. I will be happy to discuss 'god' but on a case by case basis given the agreed upon definitions at hand.
thanks, the avatar is a pic of one of our fluffy cats, his name is Powder and he has no interest in philosophy.
-
My Mother in Law just sent me this one:
A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work.
As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.
The girl replied, 'I'm drawing God.'
The teacher paused and said, 'But no one knows what God looks like.'
Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, 'They will in a minute.'You can fill the large void of human knowledge with just about anything you can imagine. I don't know why you would want to do that, but hey, it's your life. There are only two exceptions. You can't put self-contradictory beings (all-powerful and all-knowing) and/or entities that violate our scientific knowledge of the universe (consciousness without matter) in the unknown. To accept the existence of such beings is to reject the reality that you're living in.
I am not interested in filling any void with anything. I don't care about things I don't know about or don't affect my life, be they goblins or gods or purple spaghetti dragons. I don't accept the existence of anything I cannot verify with my own experience, I won't discount the possibility that they don't exist is all, so I don't know how your comments relate to my question.
Kevin, I listened to the video debates you posted while I was painting. They were good. The whole of Stef's argument is based on a presumed and agreed upon definition of what 'god' is, and if we accept that definition, then the logical conclusion must follow.
I don't accept any definitions of god, so I have no rational train of thought to adhere to. The square circles and married bachelor examples are different because I can accept a definition of those that everyone who speaks english and understands the words will readily accept. Ghosts? I don't have an acceptable definition for that and for me to argue that they do not exist I would have to get everyone to agree with my definition. does that make sense?
Those last two are bad examples, because they are logical impossibilities, which is an entirely different thing altogether. Not to be picky - just mentioned it because making that mistake invalidates (insofar as an argument is concerned) the rest of what you wrote.
To the OP - as other have mentioned, it's not about proving that something doesn't exist. It's about not supposing that something does exist unless there is a reason to. Your whole life as a human being revolves around your rational ability to discern the realities of nature in which you exist. You might suppose that there is a monster hiding in the fridge, but you don't let that stop you from eating because it's sufficiently unlikely that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT monster hiding in the fridge.
If you agree with that above paragraph (please let me know if you don't - i'd be shocked), then you MUST see how you MUST also concede that it is irrational to believe in god.
Right on. I agree with the paragraph about not supposing or believing that something exists unless there is a reason to, evidence. I don't think it is a good idea to choose to believe in anything that you cannot prove, that only leads to well, we know what religious and political belief systems are capable of.
So you are saying it is irrational to believe in something you cannot prove or experience? If so, how does that negate the possibility of something existing outside of our perception and experience? Like planets to the ancients?
You say that you don't disbelieve in fairies, but you don't make any kind of consideration to fairies which has any effect on your life (I assume). If your views on God are the same, then it's really just a form of mental masturbation - you're suggesting that it's wrong to presume the non-existance of a thing which you act entirely as if it doesn't exist.
If someone told me about the existence of something that I cannot verify with my own experience I would not choose to believe it does not exist or consider it irrational to believe in such a thing any more than I would choose to believe in it. they are both a waste of energy as far as I can tell. why would I argue for the non-existence of fairies? and I know some people who do believe in them. I still don't get it. Keep workin' on me here.
-
I am not religious, though I grew up with the RC indoctrination. I would say that I am an agnostic.
below is a quote from the description of Stef's book on Aethism. I don't get it. I don't reject the possibility of fairies or goblins. how the heck should I know? history has shown that there are lots of things discovered all the time that defy what we imagine possible.
I admit that for now I am only curious about the issue, not engaged enough to read a book about it but can you atheists explain to me what is irrational about not claiming to know whether something you have no way of verifying is 'real' or not.
It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies on the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.
-
Anarcho-capitalism isn't something that gets instituted; it simply happens when people stop aggressing against each other.
I love this quote Alan! brilliant and to the root of the problem.
so many ask: "how would the NAP be implimented? would some people be able to opt out of that statist model? would it happen gradually, all at once, or by revolution?... etc" all of it missing the point.
-
You know, I think PJ started out with his ideas, never saw much, if any criticism of them, did some videos (high production quality videos which must have taken serious effort), started a movement and then probably started to come across conflicting information after all this work and effort had been done. Maybe he's just too invested in it now and it's blinding him to criticism of it.
I think you got it there. good point about the lack of tangible material to study darkskyabove - I can't imagine that a thorough written proposal with specs on how the mega computer will be programmed would get very far. but then maybe he would stick to film making, which he is really good at I think.
-
Happens every day. One of the more common examples on this board would be taxes. You are told you have the choice - pay your taxes or go to jail. You can say that isn't being dominated because it's your choice. But the issue is not whether you're choosing but what your options are. Someone has narrowed your choices to those two and removed other choices. If you choose not to pay them you may be put in jail without ever consenting to any of it. So how is that not being dominated without consenting to it, which you claim cannot happen?
The point here is that power is exercised not only in removing choice but in determining the options available to choose from.
Of course this kind of coercion and domination happens everyday in a system founded on the myth of authority, the 'divine right of kings', the legitimacy of the state - this is an illusion that we collectively support with our belief that it is legitimate. I should have made myself clear that I am not talking about how things work in the past and present system, but with respect to the NAP.
-
Ster, your point about parents having control and tricking their children is not the same as adult interactions in my view - children cannot choose their situation. Adults cannot dominate, or have authority over other adults, unless it is given to them. I could be wrong but you will have to give me better and more precise example of how it happens in the adult world.
-
It does matter, but yes, rulers being powerless without a demand to be controlled is an extremely neglected point. Children don't have the opportunity to refuse this domination, but adults do, and nearly all plans to rework society neglect this very basic and necessary fact. The reason it is neglected is that it draws attention to the fact that children did not have this option. Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved.
The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it. I think this was neglected or misunderstood by both Stefan and Peter. There is no state if businessmen do not believe in it. When they seek political power, they are reinforcing the violent state and keep it in place. I think Stefan lets businessmen off sometimes on this fact. Saying that the state must be removed so businesses won't use it is putting the cart before the horse. I think Peter may have been trying to make a similar point even if he was misrepresenting the term "market".
I do not understand hoe Peter intends for his system to be implemented. How does he intend to impose it onto people? If he does not intend to impose it, is he planning to sell it to them, meaning he hopes there is a MARKET for his idea? ::shudder::
thanks kalmia, good points.
you say yes it matters but you did not say how or why does it matter or how structural violence would be a factor in a volunteer society? what kind of 'structural violence' would you expect to see in a 'free' society?
good question about the RBE system. how in the world would you implement it voluntarily, though that may not be the intent, and how could it possibly function if absolutely everyone, on the planet really, was not on board because the system relies on accurate assessment of available resources.
Let's run through it.
in Atheism and Religion
Posted
ahh, darn...