Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The New Atheists

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

So there have been a lot of topics on thesse four. There was a rather well-written piece about them in the last issue of the Objective Standard.

While I enjoy these men on individual points, particularly on their very poignant and correct criticisms of religion, including Islam which has been a no-no for many atheists until recently, I find them rather objectionable on other points and they fail miserably at debates they attend many times. As the article in the Objective Standard points out, the reason is that they try to defend an indefensible moral standard of altruism. This is VERY clear in a debate Hitchens had with his own brother not yet a year ago.

a woman asks how Hitchens separates enlightened self interest from morality. Rather than repudiating such a distinction, and telling her that, ultimately, self interest is the very essence of morality, he seems to accept it as valid. He goes to actually mention Ayn Rand explicitly, as he has done before, and distance himself far from her, as he has done before... Criticisms of Rand are welcomed, but he doesn't really give a reason WHY he disagrees with her. He just blindly tows the line of altruism, and how altruism can actually be in one's self interest, referencing George Bernard Shaw.

I dont' think the others have ever mentioned Rand, but they do often accept that morality is the opposite of selfishness. And of course, they are at the whim of the Theists at that point. No matter how good they are at defending their position of non-belief, they offer no very substantive belief in return of how one should act. They accept the same dogmatism they argue against.

EDIT: Inserting link

EDIT 2: I believe I posted this in an inappropriate sub-forum. Please move it to it's appropriate place if this is the case

Edited by TheEgoist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of an Ayn Rand quote: "It is futile to fight against, when one does not know what one is fighting for."

You hit the nail on the head though, the problem with the "new atheists" is that they don't understand that not only is religion bad because it promotes the existence of that which does not exist, but it uses that as a reason for followers to sacrifice themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to visit Dawkins website quite a lot out of interest in the featured science news stories (my user name is a holdover from back then). Gradually however, it became obvious that his articles featured mostly pander to his insipid "intuitive morality" premise.

He thinks that people can be good without religion just because some instinct informs them. And so the types of news stories and articles you will see featured are things like; "Do microscopic organisms show an evolutionary tendency toward altruism?" just like that too, with the insultingly coy little question mark on the end as if to say "well we're not really saying that, but isn't that an interesting idea!" Evolution is big too. They try to justify damned near everything on evolutionary grounds, like homosexuality, or left-handedness, or the emergence of swing music, you name it. Right now I wouldn't be surprised if they were mulling the idea that government bailouts have evolutionary advantages. Or another example, something like "Harvard tests show that most people have free-standing moral concepts" that would go on to detail some kind of insufferably stupid and bias "science" done to confirm their conclusion.

When it comes to actual science, Dawkins is probably a pro in his field, and he can give a fantastic lecture on Darwin's life and work as well. But when he and his kin cross over into philosophy they flounder hopelessly. It is palpably frustrating for me to listen to them debate. In a way they come so close, they regard reason as a good thing, but they can't quite come out and say that unreason is bad. And like you said, the article in TOS did a great job of laying out all their other serious issues.

By their nature they can only go so far because they are required to pull their punches, stopping just before identifying the real root of the problem. Eventually I grew so frustrated with their appeasing defense of atheism and morality that I remembered Objectivism and went to see what Rand had said on such issues for my own satisfaction. So thanks new atheists for reuniting me with Rand's work and ideas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Dawkins is not only horrible in philosophy, but has also been able to become the "champion of atheism" with probably the weakest arguments for atheism that one could imagine. The angle these "atheists" take is the one of "show me the evidence", without understanding that that question cant even logically be asked. It's not because of low probabilities or "lack of evidence" that one shouldnt believe in an ultimate creator, and instead one should understand that the idea of an ultimate creator is logically impossible. Its not that there is no proof for a god, it is that there can not be any proof for a god.

All these idiotic Russel's teapots and flying spaghetti monsters are completely stupid, and totally beside the point. A teapot actually could physically be orbiting around Mars, and one could conceive a being made out of pasta or whatever the FSM is supposed to be, and these are the things that dont exist because there is no evidence, but the question of god has nothing to do with this. The whole idea that something could exists that existed before existence existed, and then created existence into existence, is totally contradictory, and a major logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of the stolen concept and has absolutely nothing to do with "lack of evidence" or low probabilities. This is the only logical basis for atheism, and probabilities or lack of evidence have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the existence of god.

I really hope at least objectivists would stop giving Dawkins any sort of credit, becase its not just his deterministic and intrinsicistic ideas that are bad, it is his version of "atheism" that is bad. Sadly, this doesnt get pointed out often enough, and it really makes my blood boil...

Edited by JJJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins is not only horrible in philosophy, but has also been able to become the "champion of atheism" with probably the weakest arguments for atheism that one could imagine. The angle these "atheists" take is the one of "show me the evidence", without understanding that that question cant even logically be asked. It's not because of low probabilities or "lack of evidence" that one shouldnt believe in an ultimate creator, and instead one should understand that the idea of an ultimate creator is logically impossible. Its not that there is no proof for a god, it is that there can not be any proof for a god.

All these idiotic Russel's teapots and flying spaghetti monsters are completely stupid, and totally beside the point. A teapot actually could physically be orbiting around Mars, and one could conceive a being made out of pasta or whatever the FSM is supposed to be, and these are the things that dont exist because there is no evidence, but the question of god has nothing to do with this. The whole idea that something could exists that existed before existence existed, and then created existence into existence, is totally contradictory, and a major logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of the stolen concept and has absolutely nothing to do with "lack of evidence" or low probabilities. This is the only logical basis for atheism, and probabilities or lack of evidence have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the existence of god.

I really hope at least objectivists would stop giving Dawkins any sort of credit, becase its not just his deterministic and intrinsicistic ideas that are bad, it is his version of "atheism" that is bad. Sadly, this doesnt get pointed out often enough, and it really makes my blood boil...

These are logical fallacies, only if the only definition of God is "a being who exists outside of existence." Many theists claim he exists outside

of the universe but, again, depending on the definition of "universe," that doesn't have to be a contradiction.

There is no such thing as strong or weak arguments for atheism...only strong or weak arguments for theism. The arguments Dawkins uses are

primarily reductio ad absurdums, and they're actually quite effective, especially considering that his target audience is the general population,

not people with formal philosophical training. The use of devices like Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster resonate more with the

average person than any discussion of the nature of existence is going to do. If an average theist, who has never heard this type of argument,

asks you to "prove there isn't a God" and you respond with the FSM question--if he is honest and not an outright nutjob (which most theists are not)--he will admit that you've got a point.

People often accuse Dawkins of using old, tired arguments against the existence of God. Well, the obvious response to that is that they haven't

changed over the centuries precisely because they don't need to, anymore than arguments against the existence of Santa Clause need to

become more sophisticated. I'm really wondering why you think FSM, Russell's Teapot, etc. are "weak" arguments against the existence of God.

Criticize his moral philosophy all you want, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the arguments he uses against the existence of God. In fact, I find your arguments here to be very confused. If you really think that there is a "basis" for atheism, then you fundamentally misunderstand what "atheism" even is. It is the lack of belief in a supreme being. There is no basis for it anymore than there is a basis for disbelief in a 13-legged Banana Cow from the planet Xanaphoge. Theism is what requires a basis...not only does atheism not require one, but it is quite impossible for it to have one, by definition. This is the point that Dawkins tries to make.

And, yeah, lack of evidence has everything to do with the argument. Virtually no theist (especially one with any theological or philosophical background) will argue that God exists outside of existence, because this is nonsensical. They might argue that he exists outside the "universe" but, as I've already pointed out, that is an entirely different question. The idea of an incredibly powerful being who exists somewhere beyond our own limited horizon and who has the power to rearrange galaxies, etc. is not inherently contradictory. It's just silly, because there is absolutely nothing to support it. Unless "God" is defined as something that automatically contradicts itself, this is the only reasonable basis to argue against his existence. Any half-way intelligent and educated theist will be able to define him in such a way that is not logically contradictory. Once that happens, you have no choice but to rely on Dawkins-style arguments.

Edited by The Wrath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of an incredibly powerful being who exists somewhere beyond our own limited horizon and who has the power to rearrange galaxies, etc. is not inherently contradictory.

No, but you forget the theistic argument about the creation of the universe. Not only is the theistic god someone who has the power to change existence, he is the power that made existence exist in the first place. And this is where the contradiction lies. Yes, there is nothing logically impossible in existing outside "our own limited horizon" and being able to rearrange existing physical matter in our "horizon" in a godlike fashion. If theists simply claimed that god has the power to affect our lives, then your rebuttal would be correct, but the idea of at least the abrahamic god, also holds within it the idea of the "ultimate creator" that created existence itself.

And Dawkins argument where he branded his atheism as "level 6" atheism, is full of skepticism, and i dont know why any O'ist would call those strong arguments for anything. He goes on to say that we have to doubt absolutely everything, and that we can never be absolutely sure about anything. Of that follows that we should even doubt that we should doubt everything, but that is a topic the skepticists never want to adress. I read The God Delusion, and even though i didnt read it with all that much focus, his argument about probabilities and lack of evidence are the ones that stuck in my mind as his main argument for the lack of a god.

And im a bit puzzled why you dont think there is a logical basis for atheism, because that is the most important one to me. I dont care THAT people are atheists, i care why they are atheists, and i dont see being an atheist without rational reasons any better than being a religious nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but you forget the theistic argument about the creation of the universe. Not only is the theistic god someone who has the power to change existence, he is the power that made existence exist in the first place. And this is where the contradiction lies. Yes, there is nothing logically impossible in existing outside "our own limited horizon" and being able to rearrange existing physical matter in our "horizon" in a godlike fashion. If theists simply claimed that god has the power to affect our lives, then your rebuttal would be correct, but the idea of at least the abrahamic god, also holds within it the idea of the "ultimate creator" that created existence itself.

People come up with all sorts of logical loops to get out of this one. Whether they're valid or not isn't the point. The point is that, since they think the arguments make sense, you have to look elsewhere if you want to convince them of anything. I generally find that the most effective way of disarming a theist is to--rather than point out the flaws in his logical train--to show him that his logical train leads to all manner of absurdities.

And Dawkins argument where he branded his atheism as "level 6" atheism, is full of skepticism, and i dont know why any O'ist would call those strong arguments for anything. He goes on to say that we have to doubt absolutely everything, and that we can never be absolutely sure about anything. Of that follows that we should even doubt that we should doubt everything, but that is a topic the skepticists never want to adress. I read The God Delusion, and even though i didnt read it with all that much focus, his argument about probabilities and lack of evidence are the ones that stuck in my mind as his main argument for the lack of a god.

This is a problem I have with Objectivism. The notion that 100% absolute certainty about anything other than purely logical issues (math, noncontradiction, etc) is possible. Being a skeptic doesn't mean that you don't believe the earth exists, gravity works, etc. It is the mindset that demands sufficient evidence before accepting any idea. No amount of evidence can prove something for absolute certain...the history of science amply demonstrates this. Rather, there comes a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that to not accept an idea becomes absurd, even though there is still a tiny probability that that idea is wrong. In general, it is absurd to doubt the existence of things that we physically experience, because our senses are the tools with which we perceive our surroundings, they are the only things we have, and they've worked pretty well so far. The "skeptic" merely admits that it is possible, however unlikely, that he could be hallucinating, dreaming, hooked up to the Matrix, schizophrenic, etc. Some of these are more absurd than others. But, as a person who has extremely vivid dreams, there have been times in my waking life where I genuinely wondered if I could be dreaming. Also, try telling John Nash that it's ridiculous to doubt his senses. Skepticism doesn't mean "doubt that what you see is real." It means "admit that it is not impossible that you could be mistaken." Science wouldn't have progressed very far if scientists maintained 100% certainty about anything.

And im a bit puzzled why you dont think there is a logical basis for atheism, because that is the most important one to me. I dont care THAT people are atheists, i care why they are atheists, and i dont see being an atheist without rational reasons any better than being a religious nut.

This may be a semantic difference. I'm saying that, since atheism is the lack of belief rather than an actual belief, that the phrase "basis for atheism" is a misnomer. I don't believe in Santa Clause, but that isn't the kind of thing that requires a "basis." Rather, what would require a basis would be if I actually believed in Santa Clause. Since there's no basis for that belief, then disbelief in Santa Clause is the default position, and requires no evidence and no basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem I have with Objectivism. The notion that 100% absolute certainty about anything other than purely logical issues (math, noncontradiction, etc) is possible.

Re-run your skepticism while keeping in mind that Objectivism also says that knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical as well as relative. That should address the issue of 100% certainty - that something is certain within a specified context. That is why both Newton and Einstein are correct about their theories.

It is also something that science - having glossed over philosophy - hasn't picked up on yet.

:wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one, prosperity!

Since I was raised atheist, I haven't had to wrestle with this issue the way so many people have who had the concepts drummed (sometimes literally) into their little heads from before they learned to think and speak. But for a long time I was stridently atheist, in that I was hell-bent (haha) on convincing people of the stupidity of belief in god.

What changed me was realizing that I, too, have my pet beliefs. I realize that we all do have a belief or two, for example, with respect to what happens when we die. Since there is no way to know, each of us makes up our minds on that issue and frankly - whatever you decide must be filed as a belief.

I'm not really worried too much about separating people from their religious beliefs. What I am keen is making sure they understand that their beliefs cannot be used to justify violence on me and mine. Them using their beliefs to guide them in their daily lives, rationally or irrationally as the case may be, is of no concern to me. Of course it would be better if more people were rational on the subject of the meaning of the word "god" and the other issues that come along in the package deal.

Browbeating people about the irrationality of their beliefs does not strike me as a recipe for inducing a greater interest in rational philosophy and ideas.

:wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-run your skepticism while keeping in mind that Objectivism also says that knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical as well as relative. That should address the issue of 100% certainty - that something is certain within a specified context. That is why both Newton and Einstein are correct about their theories.

It is also something that science - having glossed over philosophy - hasn't picked up on yet.

;)

Well, this is fine, so long as you recognize that there has to be some ultimate uncertainty about pretty much everything. Sure, within the context of assuming that my senses are accurate, I know for a fact that my cat is sitting next to me. While that is a pretty good assumption, I have to be willing to admit that I could be schizophrenic or dreaming, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Why?

A nice reductum ad absurdum for you

1) a schizophrenic person thinks he see a cat next to him , he based on that experience knows that he haze a cat therefore according to your logic he haze a cat

2) However other persons observe that there is no cat , it’s a figment of imagination of this person and that he is patting the air not a cat this again is 100% true according to you.

3)because 1 and 2 can not be true the argument fails or are you arguing that A is NO A and A at the same time?

4) The classical strategy to this is to play subjectivism and word games you see you can argue that every person in 1 and 2 are 100% true in their frame of reference however this negates a objective reality. Identically if you argue that Einstein and Newton are 100% true , they are not. One persons models reality better the other that’s why one is false and the other is write. And this is named validating something against a objective reality not believing in a subjective personal truth where everyone is 100% true. Finally every experience would be equally true making superstition a fact by default because it would be true in this persons “frame of reference”. However the point is that we can never know what this objective reality is and can never have 100% certainty we are not a brain in a jar or in the matrix because every prove ultimately rests on our senses and they can be deceived example drugs (or is a LSD trip 100% real and we have weird stuff around :lol:).

Now on god

As a Gnostic Atheist I know there is no god simply if god is defined for a perfect creature that “loves” me I know there can not be a god because something perfect would not have the need to love anything (or create any thing it would be perfect already having everything it needs ) and if something is not perfect then it can simply go insane or misjudge on some occasion. Besides all knowing conflicts with itself (how can god know he isn’t in a matrix ?). However this doesn’t negate the possibility of the existence of something that is incredibly powerful and evil or/and insane that could be named god however worshiping it would be pointless.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nice reductum ad absurdum for you

1) a schizophrenic person thinks he see a cat next to him , he based on that experience knows that he haze a cat therefore according to your logic he haze a cat

2) However other persons observe that there is no cat , it’s a figment of imagination of this person and that he is patting the air not a cat this again is 100% true according to you.

3)because 1 and 2 can not be true the argument fails or are you arguing that A is NO A and A at the same time?

4) The classical strategy to this is to play subjectivism and word games you see you can argue that every person in 1 and 2 are 100% true in their frame of reference however this negates a objective reality. Identically if you argue that Einstein and Newton are 100% true , they are not. One persons models reality better the other that’s why one is false and the other is write. And this is named validating something against a objective reality not believing in a subjective personal truth where everyone is 100% true. Finally every experience would be equally true making superstition a fact by default because it would be true in this persons “frame of reference”. However the point is that we can never know what this objective reality is and can never have 100% certainty we are not a brain in a jar or in the matrix because every prove ultimately rests on our senses and they can be deceived example drugs (or is a LSD trip 100% real and we have weird stuff around :P).

Now on god

As a Gnostic Atheist I know there is no god simply if god is defined for a perfect creature that “loves” me I know there can not be a god because something perfect would not have the need to love anything (or create any thing it would be perfect already having everything it needs ) and if something is not perfect then it can simply go insane or misjudge on some occasion. Besides all knowing conflicts with itself (how can god know he isn’t in a matrix ?). However this doesn’t negate the possibility of the existence of something that is incredibly powerful and evil or/and insane that could be named god however worshiping it would be pointless.

What the crap are you talking about? :P

1) a schizophrenic person thinks he see a cat next to him , he based on that experience knows that he haze a cat therefore according to your logic he haze a cat

I'm not talking about a schizophrenic person, I'm talking about "the wrath". I'm assuming he has a normal functioning brain - that he isn't schizophrenic. The point, I think, he was trying to make was that he had to entertain the idea that reality could be other than what he perceived it as (a view of skepticism). My argument is that it is what it is. Actually, my question to his statement was "why", and that his assumption was arbitrary, which it is - assuming that he was being serious.

The first question is "how do you know that you are schizophrenic as versus dreaming as versus...?". You either have an answer to that question which presupposes that you know what reality is and that what you are experiencing is a dream or an altered state of reality induced by a chemical abnormality in your brain or some other abnormality that causes you some type of cognitive trouble in processing the data you take in. The other alternative is that you don't know and that your assertion is arbitrary.

However the point is that we can never know what this objective reality is and can never have 100% certainty we are not a brain in a jar or in the matrix

You're starting with an arbitrary assumption. The onus of proof is on you to prove that we are a "brain in a jar" or stuck in "the matrix".

because every prove ultimately rests on our senses and they can be deceived example drugs (or is a LSD trip 100% real and we have weird stuff around tongue.gif).

That's not true. Your sense organs have no power of volition. Your eyes see what is really there, they have no choice what to do when they are acted on by stimuli. In the case of drugs, for example, your eyes are still seeing what is there, but your brain cannot process the data properly because you've literally taken mind altering drugs, not sight altering drugs.

This is one reason to not do drugs, by the way (especially LSD, which is - I think - probably one of the most toxic substances you could put into your body).

A second point that could be made is that even if one or two of your senses are damaged (you are born or become blind or deaf), this does not prevent you from discovering reality.

A third point is that your knowledge of what LSD does defeats your argument as it presupposes that there is reality, and then there is the drug induced "alternative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O boy you wrought a lot of fantasy nonsense that contains a lot of logical fallacies and superstitious assumptions that would take 20 posts of questioning to unwrap them for nothing else then fallacies and assumptions. However instead of doing this I will simply bring you down to the ground .

Answer me this boy can you travel faster then the speed of light ? YES/NO answers only however regardless of the answer you contradicted yourself saying :

That is why both Newton and Einstein are correct about their theories.

According to Newton YES , according to Einstein NO so you say that we can and can not travel faster then the speed of light ?

Next question is gravity a force that travels instantaneously (infinite speed) or travels with the speed of light ? YES/NO/Other answers

That is why both Newton and Einstein are correct about their theories.

However you already contradicted yourself saying that gravity travels instantaneously and at the speed of light. According to Newton gravity travels instantaneously according to Einstein gravity travels with the speed of light. They both can not be true .

You simply contradict logic and assert absurdities , its easy if you are talking in abstract nonsense however if you make a testable example of your thinking it false apart.

Kainscalia do you have a argument or something ?

A Gnostic Atheist is a Atheist that haze knowledge of god and because of this knowledge knows that there is no god because he/she haze tested/visited god and did not find a god. Gnostic = with knowledge ; Agnostic = without knowledge ; Theist = with a believe in god ; Atheist = Without a believe in god.

There is a pattern with the “A” , can you see a pattern with the “A” ? I think you can figure it out besides what do you think it supposed to mean are you reeling on your gut feelings ? Without knowing the definition of the word that I use your assertions are silly saying “Agnostic Theist” I could mean the concept you know as a taster ? I don’t think that you know languages to assert south thing nether to say in Polish(language) the word “Oni” means “They” and in Japanese its evil spirit or something like this and I’m now in a town that is named “HELL” in Poland and written “Hel” so how can you possibly know what I did have in mind ? Really this is amusing if I would say "I live in HELL" most mentally limited English speakers would be confused not knowing that there is really a town with this name. My advice ask for the definition for a given index number before saying something about this index number especially if a over indexing accrued it will help you to not look foolish in some circumstances.

You can define "Democratic Socialist" for "human" and instead of saying that you have seen a human you would say you have seen a democratic socialist and there is no contradiction in the index numbers themselves the concepts they are assigns can be contradictory I think that helps you.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Edited by Kamil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about a schizophrenic person, I'm talking about "the wrath". I'm assuming he has a normal functioning brain - that he isn't schizophrenic. The point, I think, he was trying to make was that he had to entertain the idea that reality could be other than what he perceived it as (a view of skepticism). My argument is that it is what it is. Actually, my question to his statement was "why", and that his assumption was arbitrary, which it is - assuming that he was being serious.

I'm not "assuming" that I'm schizophrenic or dreaming. I just have to be willing to admit the possibility. Schizophrenics don't always know that they're schizophrenic. John Nash had auditory hallucinations for years before anyone knew what his problem was. In A Beautiful Mind, he has a roommate in college who has been his best friend for years...turns out, he wasn't real. I have no reason to think that I am schizophrenic...I also have no reason to think that my apartment manager is currently taking a leak in the restroom of Starbucks. That doesn't mean either is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not "assuming" that I'm schizophrenic or dreaming. I just have to be willing to admit the possibility. Schizophrenics don't always know that they're schizophrenic. John Nash had auditory hallucinations for years before anyone knew what his problem was. In A Beautiful Mind, he has a roommate in college who has been his best friend for years...turns out, he wasn't real. I have no reason to think that I am schizophrenic...I also have no reason to think that my apartment manager is currently taking a leak in the restroom of Starbucks. That doesn't mean either is impossible.

Maybe what you mean is that you have to recognize that after you have made a conclusion, new information could come to light that could change the equation? Because that's true, but it isn't quite the same as always assuming you could be wrong on any point. If someone is schizophrenic and all they do is see cats where there aren't any, then it might be a while before someone realizes what's happening and points it out to them (which is what happened to Nash in the movie - everyone just figured he was an oddball genius and left him alone). But once someone does point it out, then you can evaluate the new information and maybe come to a different conclusion.

What Prosperity means (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's arbitrary to assume that whenever I see a cat it might just be that I have schizophrenia. If there's no evidence of it then you can assume you don't have it. If there's no evidence that you're wrong, then you can assume that you're right. Then when/if new evidence comes to light you can reevaluate - you don't have to assume that it's going to in any given case. In most cases if you're evaluating the truth value of something that actually matters (i.e. is a truth valuation you need to make in order to decide on a course of action), it's going to come to light pretty quickly. But you need some reasonable level of certainty in a conclusion in order to take any action at all, and a level of certainty in which all your knowledge is taken into account and you have no evidence to the contrary is as "certain" as it gets.

For example, I am personally in the habit of assuming that most floors are solid and won't break when I walk across them. Suppose someone told me that I was just crazy and in fact there was a gaping hole in the middle of my hall floor which I just couldn't see. I'd have to decide whether to believe them or not - if I just decide to stay off the floor, thinking I can never be really sure one way or the other, then I'd never be able to get from the kitchen to the bathroom, which would be inconvenient. But once I decide how to test whether the floor is solid or not and figure out whether there's really a hole and maybe get myself checked out for any visual or mental issues then I don't need to doubt the floor all over again every time I use it, I can just assume it's OK unless I notice one of those signs that it isn't. If I just assumed every time I crossed the floor that *this time* could be the time I fall through .... then I'd be an idiot because that's a totally arbitrary assumption.

Now on the other hand you have the truth or non-truth of the existence of God. Well - the observable fact is that, while people make decisions all the time based on their valuation of this statement, nothing actually changes whether you believe it or not. Lighting won't strike you if you don't, you won't change colour or get cancer, animals won't growl when you touch them ... and if you do decide to believe you won't find your problems magically solved, water won't turn to wine in your fridge, tumours won't shrivel up and disappear, you won't suddenly understand the nature of existence if you didn't already ... doesn't matter one way or the other whether you believe in God or not. All that matters is the same stuff that always mattered: the nature of reality and your (and others') actions. "God exists" is an arbitrary statement because there's no evidence for it, and what's more, it doesn't even matter! So it's not only arbitrary to believe in God ... it's also arbitrary to even entertain the idea or admit it as a "possibility".

Which is why it doesn't make sense to refer to a "basis" for atheism. Just because something is possibly wrong doesn't mean it's rational to be skeptical about it. Skepticism is jumping the gun and asking for a certainty that doesn't even really make sense. Sure, you could have schizophrenia. Do you think you have schizophrenia? No? Then why the hell are you even bringing it up ...?

I think there's probably a better explanation of that concept out there (I know my use of the term "matters" is a little sloppy but I can't think of another way to phrase it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Excising a very lengthy play on words)

You can define "Democratic Socialist" for "human" and instead of saying that you have seen a human you would say you have seen a democratic socialist and there is no contradiction in the index numbers themselves the concepts they are assigns can be contradictory I think that helps you.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

When you identify yourself as a Gnostic, you are evoking the syncretistic religious movement, who took their name from the greek word γνῶσις, knowledge, and whose beliefs rest in the idea that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge- the judeo-christian god. When I hear the word "Gnostic" as applied to a philosophical or religious stance I do not immediately think of the greek word (Gnosis), but to the term as it has been contextually applied in the history of religious and philosophical movements. Since no other group in history outside of these beliefs have claimed the term for themselves, there is absolutely no reason for me to suddenly perform a linguistic reduction of the terms you have applied. I could call myself a Catholic Atheist, since 'Catholic' comes from the greek καθολικός, "whole"/"complete," but I recognize that there is a contextual problem concerning the application of this term. You can try to define "Democratic" as "human," but unfortunately 'you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.'

Have you been reading too much Derrida?

Kainscalia do you have a argument or something ?

A Gnostic Atheist is a Atheist that haze knowledge of god and because of this knowledge knows that there is no god because he/she haze tested/visited god and did not find a god. Gnostic = with knowledge ; Agnostic = without knowledge ; Theist = with a believe in god ; Atheist = Without a believe in god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
When you identify yourself as a Gnostic, you are evoking the syncretistic religious movement, who took their name from the greek word γνῶσις, knowledge, and whose beliefs rest in the idea that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge- the judeo-christian god. When I hear the word "Gnostic" as applied to a philosophical or religious stance I do not immediately think of the greek word (Gnosis).

Didn’t I write the exact thing In my response to you ? Do you have difficulties understanding concepts or stuff that I write ?

but to the term as it has been contextually applied in the history of religious and philosophical movements. Since no other group in history outside of these beliefs have claimed the term for themselves

Actually there are a lot of people identifying themselves for Gnostic/Agnostic Atheists ( http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?tit...st_vs._Agnostic ).

BTW A nice hint you start using logic and reason then you don’t look retarded. Trying to prove a absolute negative is impossible you fool ! Because you would need to be all knowing and have knowledge of every single person in history and obviously your knowledge is less then a Google searche :P , that’s a nice example of what accurse if you don’t accept the impossibility of proving a absolute negative (matrix scenario) especially is it is possible (there is no logical of physical limitation for humans to do this ).

You can try to define "Democratic" as "human," but unfortunately 'you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.'

O Yes how I love the superstitious people always believing in magic seriously you are going to defend this notion ?

Ok neo-mystic boy here it comes “HOW do you discover the exact meaning of the word ONI ?”

What is the exact meaning of this combination of audio waves and how are you going to discover it ? Maybe using your magical crystal ball ? :D

How about the word Hel is it Hell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell ) like in English or Hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(miasto) ) like in Polish ? And with in Polish is it the hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(pierwiastek) ) element or Hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(miasto) ) please ? Yes overindexing can accrue in one language or how about the English word state is it a synonym for government “the state haze ordered” or a word like “I state this proposition” ?

Bring it on show me this discovering of exact definitions of sound wave patterns and I will be the firs to congratulate you on your Nobel prize in linguistics and physics .

Bring it :( on stop talking nonsense and give me some examples instead of this religious crap I’m a hard core empiricist and I will get my evidence.

BTW what are you going to tell me next “One day you will discover there is a god ” ? HAHAHA really you silly religious notions are the same retarded bullshit that Christians throw at me simply replace the word “god” with anything and you have again the same illogical argument.

Maybe you assumed that you don’t supposed to overindex in a definition set however this is more a rule then a discoverable truth. I argue strongly in favor of outlawing overindexing.

However this is not consistent with word like “discover”.

PS: Why do I suppose to hold enemy respect for a definition of something that belongs to a long extinct religion. I can use their index numbers because they sound nice if I wont to besides its used by many Atheist so they understand it and its accepted. Whets next rename the planets because if someone says Jupiter you think about the god Jupiter and not the name give to the planet ? Your proposition is absurd at best to honor the index numbers of nonexistent religions of how altruistic from you.

Have you been reading too much Derrida?

????

What is that ???

????

Are you referring to this dude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida ????

Do you really think I got my ideas from a book ?

HAHAHAHA Thus are self evident truths that can be found true experimentation its like me presenting the proof for gravity and you say “Have you been reading too much Newton ”. You can find and prove everything that I have stated here ! Look up the languages ! See that overindexing occurs ! Case proven there can be overindexing therefore there is no inherent meaning to audio wave combinations that we have for index numbers or are you implying numerology ?

It may be surprising to someone who is a second hander that depends on other people for knowledge that some people like me are quite capable of discovering knowledge on their own.

Maybe what you mean is that you have to recognize that after you have made a conclusion, new information could come to light that could change the equation? Because that's true, but it isn't quite the same as always assuming you could be wrong on any point. If someone is schizophrenic and all they do is see cats where there aren't any, then it might be a while before someone realizes what's happening and points it out to them (which is what happened to Nash in the movie - everyone just figured he was an oddball genius and left him alone). But once someone does point it out, then you can evaluate the new information and maybe come to a different conclusion.

What Prosperity means (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's arbitrary to assume that whenever I see a cat it might just be that I have schizophrenia. If there's no evidence of it then you can assume you don't have it. If there's no evidence that you're wrong, then you can assume that you're right. Then when/if new evidence comes to light you can reevaluate - you don't have to assume that it's going to in any given case. In most cases if you're evaluating the truth value of something that actually matters (i.e. is a truth valuation you need to make in order to decide on a course of action), it's going to come to light pretty quickly. But you need some reasonable level of certainty in a conclusion in order to take any action at all, and a level of certainty in which all your knowledge is taken into account and you have no evidence to the contrary is as "certain" as it gets.

While I agree for all practical reasons with his its still not sufficient to deny a matrix scenario because there would be no possibility of every discovering something different because every sensory impute would be a part of the matrix and unlike in the film there would be no people or evidence to free you from the matrix (no evidence to show that you are deluded , its more like a insane person who is constantly hallucinating and will never awake and haze no contact with reality or real people ). The matrix scenario is a nice description of the impossibility of all knowledge because even if something is claming a absolute stance to know that he is all knowing he would need to know that he isn’t in a matrix and the matrix is obscuring itself from his powers.

Besides its a nice that experiment to realize how some experiences can be deceiving like hallucinations and some truths that can be hidden under a that we think is the truth examples Newton physics and Einstein’s physics or how about the atom previously assumed to be indivisible now we know we can split it or even play alchemy creating gold from air (nuclear fusion) so knowledge can be only statistical never absolute.

The matrix scenario is for me more of a abstract mind experiment to show that sometimes evidence like thinking you can disprove the possibility of making iron into gold by seeing some religious nonsense preformed on metals doesn’t negate the possibility of iron turning into gold however we never can know if there exists this possibility or not. On a side note there could be a possibility us really living in the matrix and do to our limitations never realizing it , a nice example of this is found in games/simulations for instance the game “black and white” is a god game where players play as gods to compete with other while some AI gods are really all knowing (they can detect everything instantaneously do to the scripting) in the game , they can never use thus abilities out side of the game because they are only a limited script created by the computer/matrix. And this is a nice debacle for Christians and everyone claming to have negative knowledge that is absolute (god can not be deceived) in science positive knowledge only counts (like this experiment doesn’t make iron into gold ) that is not absolute.

One thing before someone points out “but saying that it is impossible to prove a absolute negative is absolute in itself ” maybe I clarify if I use impossible I have ~99% certainty only and if someone shows me a method to find a way out of the matrix scenario I will correct my self and accept that is possible however until someone doesn’t show a method that works my statistical knowledge remains the same.

Edited by Kamil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn’t I write the exact thing In my response to you ? Do you have difficulties understanding concepts or stuff that I write ?

I'm sure he does. You can't spell (I suggest a simple spelling program), and you're erratic.

What makes you think that you're making perfect sense, and people understand everything you say? I'm not saying that everyone has to speak perfect English, but if you don't, you can't then pretend that you do and call people stupid when they don't know what the hell you're on about. Or at least you shouldn't. You should try to keep your sentences short, and only use structures and words you master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure he does. You can't spell (I suggest a simple spelling program), and you're erratic.

What makes you think that you're making perfect sense, and people understand everything you say?

]O Really news flash I use a spell check !

Prove me wrong ! Quote the word the I spelled incorrectly bring it on show me my errors.

Bring it on. :(

Do it show me my errors I’m waiting.

“Hel” is not a spelling error its a word from the Polish language equally “hel” and “oni” again except words from different languages my spell check in not finding errors.

Maybe you learn to actually have something before starting . Maybe if you actually run my posts in a spell check you will not find errors.

What is it with you people and you your absolute lack of evidence ?

If I’m hard to understand then ask nicely for clarification note that I have asked nicely if there is a problem in understanding of my writing. Nicely so that a confusion can be clarified .

I’m not claming that my sentence is perfect after all English is not my first language. However to somehow absurdly jump to conclusions that I need to use a spell check is retarded especially that I use one maybe next time you ask yourself humbly “hey maybe this dude is using a spell check lets see and check his posts in MS-Word”.

If I have made a spelling error then I apologies immediately and give my humble regrets this I swear to you. It could be that I have used one word that haze a different meaning is spelled the same however written differently (or , ore) and made a mistake. I would sincerely apologies if proven wrong.

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that I have a spelling error in one of my posts ?

There may be a word that haze a different meaning however that not a spelling error.

Besides I’m using short word structures and I’m often repeating the same concept just to make my self absolutely clear.

If there is a difficulty simply quote the sentence and ask for me to clarify. While I know that I don’t supposed to jump on people like this really tops everything I use a spell check I can’t get over it , chow could you assume that I don’t use a spell check ?

Edited by Kamil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O Really news flash I use a spell check !

Prove me wrong ! Quote the word the I spelled incorrectly bring it on show me my errors.

Bring it on. :(

If I have made a spelling error then I apologies immediately ...

Apology not accepted. I hate you because you're a douche, not because you can't speak English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that I have a spelling error in one of my posts ?

There may be a word that haze a different meaning however that not a spelling error.

Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has.

chow could you assume that I don’t use a spell check ?

I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...