| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: So then, under what conditions would someone lack God in their knowledge base? Only afterwards. Atheism comes from religion. You are constituted by your rejection! How can you constitute yourself by a gesture of rejection if there is nothing there to reject?? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: No, I understand perfectly that the concept of God with a name, form or even abstract definition doesn't have to exist. I just can't see how any sort of concept that could be remotely considered "God" is an automatic inclusion into any knowledge framework. For example, if you were to place one million newborns into the wilderness in complete isolation, and every single one was to survive, you're saying that by the age of, say, 5, every single one of them would have God somewhere in the framework of their knowledge. What do you think an utterly uncivilized child totally without human contact is going to think of the massive floating sphere that hurts their eyes and yet warms their skin? And the first time they witness a full moon? What about the black bear that shows up one day and threatens violence with a loud growl, only to plod back into the woods to find some berries? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:27 sam!zdat wrote: Only afterwards. Atheism comes from religion. that's silly | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
no it's not. You cannot be an atheist until your culture has been theistic. Atheism is not the degree-zero of weltanshauung. It is a belief with content. it's a dialectical reversal! read your hegel oot How can you reject "God" until you have a notion of what "God" is? That's why I always ask Atheists "what is God, that doesn't exist"? They cannot say what they believe, except by saying what they don't believe, but they can only ever reject a SPECIFIC NOTION OF THE DIVINE. That's why atheists always think they are being so clever when they talk about how there is no "man in the clouds" or no "creator deity." they miss the point. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:29 sam!zdat wrote: no it's not. You cannot be an atheist until your culture has been theistic. Atheism is not the degree-zero of weltanshauung. It is a belief with content. What is the content then? And how is it a belief? And for the record, I never called you a douche, at any point. I took exception to what I perceived as an insult to my intelligence, that's it. You sure do come across as a bit of a juvenile contrarian from time to time. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:33 McBengt wrote: What is the content then? And how is it a belief? And for the record, I never called you a douche, at any point. I took exception to what I perceived as an insult to my intelligence, that's it. You sure do come across as a bit of a juvenile contrarian from time to time. the other guy called me a douche. I'm definitely a contrarian (it's in my blood) but I think atheists are the juvenile ones. see my edit above for why it is a belief with content | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:28 farvacola wrote: What do you think an utterly uncivilized child totally without human contact is going to think of the massive floating sphere that hurts their eyes and yet warms their skin? And the first time they witness a full moon? What about the black bear that shows up one day and threatens violence with a loud growl, only to plod back into the woods to find some berries? How does an animal think of these things? The sun just comes with the day, and the day is when its safer to be out. The moon comes with the night, that's when you should sleep in a safe place. A black bear is a big threat, you should avoid it. It's well within human capacity to simply accept something to be as it is. I know as a child there were things that I didn't question with deep thought. A rock on a field was a rock on a field, and I never bothered to think about where it came from or why it was there. There was plenty of things that I did question, but there was never an intrinsic requirement to have an explanation for every thing I ever experienced. This is basically a chicken and the egg problem. You assume that God always existed and that it was used to explain everything, I believe God did not exist until questioning reached a point where it was required. For all I know, the very first sentient thoughts could have been "Why is the sun there? Someone put it there. Who is that someone?" At the same time, the first sentient thoughts could have been "That animal is big, it's stronger than me. I can't kill it. Can I kill it? How would I kill it?" | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote: You assume that God always existed and that it was used to explain everything, I believe God did not exist until questioning reached a point where it was required. If you would listen to what I have been saying, you would see how both of these things are true. On March 04 2013 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote: At the same time, the first sentient thoughts could have been "That animal is big, it's stronger than me. I can't kill it. Can I kill it? How would I kill it?" Don't be ridiculous. You are projecting a much more developed stage of consciousness back onto primordial origins (classic fallacy of liberal thought, we might add) | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:41 sam!zdat wrote: If you would listen to what I have been saying, you would see how both of these things are true. No, you believe that an abstract concept God always exists within the knowledge framework of a sentient being. I believe that sentient beings will always be capable of having a concept related to God, but it is never a requirement. On March 04 2013 04:41 sam!zdat wrote: Don't be ridiculous. You are projecting a much more developed stage of consciousness back onto primordial origins (classic fallacy of liberal thought, we might add) Or perhaps it's simply translation convention. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:43 WolfintheSheep wrote: No, you believe that an abstract concept God always exists within the knowledge framework of a sentient being. No, I rejected this explicitly. I believe that sentient beings will always be capable of having a concept related to God, but it is never a requirement. WHAT IS GOD??? | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:35 sam!zdat wrote: the other guy called me a douche. I'm definitely a contrarian (it's in my blood) but I think atheists are the juvenile ones. see my edit above for why it is a belief with content I reject your line of reasoning. I frankly find it absurd. I don't need to identify or recognise every variety of superstition and unfounded belief in order to dismiss them. A refusal to give credence to anything which is not supported by science and empirical evidence is enough, it's not up to me to make my case here. I am willing to consider every position and evaluate every claim according to the same standards of evidence. That is all that anyone can reasonably expect. This strikes me as a particularly weak argument. "You don't understand every minute detail of my faith, therefore you cannot dismiss it!" Yes I can. Until something concrete is presented, I damn well can. Edit: Unless of course you postulate a claim that is so vague and poorly defined that you cannot possible argue against it, because there is nothing to argue against, i.e the universe is god or some such nonsense. And that is where I lose interest. I don't care for a discussion that does not conform to at least a basic level of intellectual honesty. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
what are you possibly talking about? What faith does sam have? On March 04 2013 04:44 McBengt wrote: A refusal to give credence to anything which is not supported by science and empirical evidence is enough Oh yeah!?!?!? Well I don't believe you have self-consciousness!! Only I have self-consciousness!! You are just an automaton! | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
Maybe go back to topic? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
I don't see how. You said atheism only exists after theism, and you said you could conceive of such a framework, but then rejected it on the basis of impossibility. I don't know, you tell me. You're the one saying that even if it wasn't separated out from the knowledge base, religion of some form has always existed for mankind. On March 04 2013 04:48 ACrow wrote: Isn't this thread supposed to be about US politics? I came here expecting to read about for example the fiscal cuts that came to enforcement on friday and instead all I see is abstract stuff about the concept of a god... Maybe go back to topic? I suppose it would be nice to have a separate topic for this. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:48 ACrow wrote: Isn't this thread supposed to be about US politics? I came here expecting to read about for example the fiscal cuts that came to enforcement on friday and instead all I see is abstract stuff about the concept of a god... Maybe go back to topic? Religion is extremely important to american politics, as it happens. Give me a few more hours and I'll solve our cultural crisis, just you watch. edit:@wolf - I've already addressed your points. Look back over what I wrote and try to see what I'm getting at. All I can do is twirl the lotus. If you don't believe me, you might go learn something about anthropology. edit: Why does reality exhibit law-like behavior? Whence this understanding of the cosmos, so crucial to the atheistic conception? It is not the most immediately obvious way to think about things. It is not the natural state of man. It had to be developed, and religion was an integral part of that development. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:50 sam!zdat wrote: Religion is extremely important to american politics, as it happens. Give me a few more hours and I'll solve our cultural crisis, just you watch. edit:@wolf - I've already addressed your points. Look back over what I wrote and try to see what I'm getting at. All I can do is twirl the lotus. You really haven't. All you've done is associate a lack of theistic concept with a rejection of theism. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote: You really haven't. All you've done is associate a lack of theistic concept with a rejection of theism. No, that is your mistake. You conflate the two. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:54 sam!zdat wrote: No, that is your mistake. You conflate the two. I don't see how. You're the one that specifically stated that a lack of God only comes with atheism, which has absolutely no relation to a lack of theistic concept. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
"lack of God" is not equivalent to "lack of theistic concept", they are on opposite sides of the rupture if you lack a theistic concept, you do not know that you lack a theistic concept. If you lack God, you know very fucking well that you lack God. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote: "my faith"? what are you possibly talking about? What faith does sam have? I wasn't speaking to you, it's just an example of an annyoing form of reasoning I've encountered before. Oh yeah!?!?!? Well I don't believe you have self-consciousness!! Only I have self-consciousness!! You are just an automaton! The fact that I am speaking and thinking and responding is sufficient proof that I am sentient. You are making a basic mistake in not recognising the varying degrees of burden of proof. A claim that I am me and not an automaton can easily verified or disproved. Once I present myself in all my fleshy glory and have a basic conversation the burden of proof is fulfilled. The burden of proof for the divine, as you may have guessed, is quite different. I suppose an ardent contrarian such as yourself could find some ridiculous reason to question the most mundane claims beyond reason, but most people grow out of that some time during high school. Not all claims are equal. Some require more proof, some less. A claim of a god requires, in technical terms, a fuckton. The only other option is some form of morbid solipsism that bores me beyond words | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
