Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I 'm a Quentin Smith naturalist pantheist- in awe of Exiistence. We ignostics find that theologians and theistic philosophers of religion merely use guesses and it must be's to define God. Aren't Objectivists new atheists, anti-theists? Whilst Miss Rand was right that this is a small matter in her sense, it is a gargantuan one as it affects public polilcy and people being superstitious- anti-rational.

Some cannot stomach that we let others know that even theistic evolution is nonsense [ Eugneie C. Scott, herself a naturalist].

It takes mockery and such contempt to get to theists to see reason, as philosophy and science alone don't suffice. This is a spur to their reason, not contempt for it, as I see it.

Objectivist George Smith in " Atheism: the Case against God," notes the anti-rationality of faith, the we just say so of credulty.



Edited  by skeptic griggsy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I 'm a Quentin Smith naturalist pantheist- in awe of Exiistence. We ignostics find that theologians and theistic philosophers of religion merely use guesses and it must be's to define God. Aren't Objectivists new atheists, anti-theists? Whilst Miss Rand was right that this is a small matter in her sense, it is a gargantuan one as it affects public polilcy and people being superstitious- anti-rational.

Some cannot stomach that we let others know that even theistic evolution is nonsense [ Eugneie C. Scott, herself a naturalist].

It takes mockery and such contempt to get to theists to see reason, as philosophy and science alone don't suffice. This is a spur to their reason, not contempt for it, as I see it.

Objectivist George Smith in " Atheism: the Case against God," notes the anti-rationality of faith, the we just say so of credulty.


Well...

I am creating an "Agnostic Church of Reason"

I invite you all to join :lol:

Next post: The Seven Deadly Sins against Reason

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...

I am creating an "Agnostic Church of Reason"

I invite you all to join :)

Next post: The Seven Deadly Sins against Reason

My advice in this matter is to find a way to rationally exercise our "mystic muscle", to use our "religious instinct"

Mystic Muscle?

Who are you, mister irony?

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystic Muscle?

Who are you, mister irony?

You are right, my Agnostic Church of Reason is somehow ironic :)

But anyway useful to point some truths

I am planing also a post about "The problem of Jesus" and how his altruistic commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is ruining our western civilization

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right, my Agnostic Church of Reason is somehow ironic :)

But anyway useful to point some truths

I am planing also a post about "The problem of Jesus" and how his altruistic commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is ruining our western civilization

You can say that again.

1- You shall have no gods before Reason.

If its agnostic, does this mean that the members of the church are not sure if reason exist? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say that again.

If its agnostic, does this mean that the members of the church are not sure if reason exist? :)

You are right!

I was never aware of this possibility of interpretation of the title

Perhaps it should be "Atheist Church of Reason" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought murder only meant a killing when doing so is a crime.

Well... You are right BUT the concept of "crime" itself is not a fact, it is an opinion of the society

The concept of what is crime depends of the laws of some specific territory at a specific time

And at some point the edge between murder and killing can get blurring. By example in Spanish (my main language)

the commandment is in fact "No mataras" = "You shall not kill" which gives more ground to my point

On the other hand the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jewish "legally", i.e. supported by laws approved by the government, so you can see that the concept of "crime" is not an absolute parameter to rely on so easily

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I get really annoyed when debating with an agnostic. They are perfoming intellectual cowardice, and saying that because they can't prove the existance nor the non-existance of an entity they have thus taken the virtuous high ground by abstaining from the debate. Why is the existance of a god given 'special' status? by an agnostics logic they also can't prove the existance of invisible gremlins or unicorns that might traverse the planet.

If I say to an agnostic that I'll sell him a laptop for £10.00, he gives me £10.00 and I send him an empty box, he can't prove that I haven't sent the laptop, thus he must abstain from asking for his money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I get really annoyed when debating with an agnostic. They are perfoming intellectual cowardice, and saying that because they can't prove the existance nor the non-existance of an entity they have thus taken the virtuous high ground by abstaining from the debate. Why is the existance of a god given 'special' status? by an agnostics logic they also can't prove the existance of invisible gremlins or unicorns that might traverse the planet.

If I say to an agnostic that I'll sell him a laptop for £10.00, he gives me £10.00 and I send him an empty box, he can't prove that I haven't sent the laptop, thus he must abstain from asking for his money back.

Well... There could be several different reasons to be agnostic:

1- Cowardice, as you said: If you are really convinced there are no Gods but still you don't want to admit it openly to others or yourself

2-Scientific honesty: You can be old enough to know that science is not perfect and today's truths can be false tomorrow as it happened by example with early models for the Atom and thousands of other things along human history. So you are very carful when it comes to be so sure about some things.

3-Priority: Some people just doesn't think that the existence or non-existence of God is important enough to have a definitive opinion formed. They usually believe that there are much more important issues in "this" life to waste time thinking about hypothetic problems of the afterlife

Link to post
Share on other sites
2-Scientific honesty: You can be old enough to know that science is not perfect and today's truths can be false tomorrow as it happened by example with early models for the Atom and thousands of other things along human history. So you are very carful when it comes to be so sure about some things.

It's one thing to say, "this theory doesn't explain everything, so more research needs to be done and more evidence needs to be gathered." That remains in the realm of possible. It's quite another thing to say, "this theory doesn't explain everything, therefore it could be unicorns." There is no basis for the latter. Imagining it doesn't make it a possibility, although possible things can be imagined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one thing to say, "this theory doesn't explain everything, so more research needs to be done and more evidence needs to be gathered." That remains in the realm of possible. It's quite another thing to say, "this theory doesn't explain everything, therefore it could be unicorns." There is no basis for the latter. Imagining it doesn't make it a possibility, although possible things can be imagined.

I love science, it is the only light that illumines my path, but you have to admit that its mistakes sometimes have gone far beyond than "this theory doesn't explain everything"

I don't believe in God the way this concept is traditionally understood/accepted. And this traditional concept of God is not scientifically acceptable ok. But there is something very important beyond the falsehood of the concept itself and you can read bout it in Matthew Alper's book "The God Part of the Brain"

My personal approach can be found in the this post of the Agnostic Church of Reason

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I say to an agnostic that I'll sell him a laptop for £10.00, he gives me £10.00 and I send him an empty box, he can't prove that I haven't sent the laptop, thus he must abstain from asking for his money back.
Sorry, he doesn't have to, because ideas like "must" are based on having actual knowledge. Agnostics take knowledge to be random and arbitrary. An agnostic might refrain from asking for his money back, but then again he might decide to ask for his money back. The agnostic eschews reason, so men of reason have no basis for dealing with the agnostic qua man. Unfortunately, we also can't deal with agnostics qua non-volitional animal, since in fact their actions are not a consequence of their nature. I advise you to always get payment up front when dealing with an agnostic, since you're dealing with an unnatural aberration.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, he doesn't have to, because ideas like "must" are based on having actual knowledge. Agnostics take knowledge to be random and arbitrary. An agnostic might refrain from asking for his money back, but then again he might decide to ask for his money back. The agnostic eschews reason, so men of reason have no basis for dealing with the agnostic qua man. Unfortunately, we also can't deal with agnostics qua non-volitional animal, since in fact their actions are not a consequence of their nature. I advise you to always get payment up front when dealing with an agnostic, since you're dealing with an unnatural aberration.

Hey man where so much angry comes from?

Agnostic in the context of our discussion is only about God. It does NOT means being "agnostic" about science, reason, principles, ethics, etc.

You are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey man where so much angry comes from?

Agnostic in the context of our discussion is only about God. It does NOT means being "agnostic" about science, reason, principles, ethics, etc.

Way to disregard his entire comment. Someone who is agnostic "only about God" but not about other things is compartmentalizing. There's no guarantee that they won't rearrange their compartments in the future, to your disadvantage. As for reason, they are not agnostic about that - by accepting the arbitrary they have rejected reason, and may be expected to do so in other circumstances.

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites
I love science, it is the only light that illumines my path, but you have to admit that its mistakes sometimes have gone far beyond than "this theory doesn't explain everything"

I don't believe in God the way this concept is traditionally understood/accepted. And this traditional concept of God is not scientifically acceptable ok. But there is something very important beyond the falsehood of the concept itself and you can read bout it in Matthew Alper's book "The God Part of the Brain"

My personal approach can be found in the this post of the Agnostic Church of Reason

You may claim to love science, but the stuff you're linking to is not science. It is pseudo-science, the work of a charlatan claiming to be a scientist.

Matthew Alper is not a scientist. He claims to have a BA in philosophy, but he conveniently forgets to name the Uiversity. He also claims to have written an unnamed play in Germany, and he's been to Africa once. No scientific background whatsoever.

So, if that's what you wish to push, do it some place else, this is not an UFO convention.

Hey man where so much angry comes from?

Agnostic in the context of our discussion is only about God. It does NOT means being "agnostic" about science, reason, principles, ethics, etc.

You are wrong.

You're not agnostic about science, you are unaware of what science is.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey man where so much angry comes from?
I wasn't angry, simply pointing out a simple fact,. However, I'm now annoyed at you for your frothing irrationality and evasion, but it doesn't rise to the level of anger. Just annoyance that you're wasting bandwidth.
Agnostic in the context of our discussion is only about God.
Stop invoking "context" as some kind of mystical exception to the nature of reason. The epistemological "principle" which enables religious agnosticism is exactly the same one as the one that results in scientific and moral nihilism.
You are wrong.
YOU ARE WRONGER!!! I win, I used a bigger font and more exclamatives. Next time, try using reason to advance an actual argument.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't like bold letters? OK I will keep it simple

The word/concept Agnostic is clearly defined in the dictionary:

agnostic.jpg

You DavidOdden, Jake_Ellison, brian0918 and Gruff are trying to extend the meaning of the word/concept to an area I don't agree with

And Matthew Alper is a scientist even when Jake_Ellison disagrees and he wrote a great book that could change the way humanity sees at the ancient discussion about the existence or non-existence of Gods and the origin of religions. His scientific approach to the "problem of God" is a turning point in this issue.

Edited by Tonix777
Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't get any clearer - someone who accepts the arbitrary or incoherent as a possibility (god, square circles, astrology, whatever) is rejecting reason in the context of the claim they've accepted.

The degree to which this rejection of reason reveals itself in other contexts is merely an indication of their consistency (in rejecting reason). There is no guarantee that they won't reject reason on a whim in another context, so once you have the evidence of their irrationality in one context, you should be cautious of all other dealings with such an individual.

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...