The Law Of Contradiction

Yes he did. So did I. See message #3.I notice that by n_j's reasoning I must be a right-wing religious conservative who believes in the Loch Ness Monster; crystal healing, an alien origin for crop circles; the complicity of GWB in 9/11; and homeopathic medicine. Oh, and I must really hate whales. Nasty blubbery fish. Hate hate hate. But of course I'm "in denial" and will never admit this.Either that, or arguing for something is a sign that you agree with it, and arguing against something is a sign that you disagree with it.You wouldn't think it would be necessary to explain this even to a creationist, but the motto of these people seems to be "If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's an aardvark." In the same way, it seems that when they hear a man arguing that God doesn't exist, they immediately peg him as a theist.Funny people, creationists.

quote:

---

If morals are relative then what difference does it make what somebody else thinks?

---

All morals are relative, and always have been.

Oh, please. Don't you understand that you are as arrogant as all the rest of us?

It is one of life's truths that you are more likely to receive what you deserve than what you need.

I haven't read the whole of this thread, so what I have to say may already have been covered but I wanted to answer your question.Firstly, I'll need to reframe your question: what is a "law"? what is a "truth"? And how may a truth be "fundamental"?I don't accept the existence of laws; laws as we see them are abstractions of real properties of the universe at best; and inventions of the human mind at worst.Truth is real; but only for a specific subset of possible questions which may be answered objectively by reference to reality - something we have no direct access to; and doesn't always answer in ways that fit with our impressions.A fundemental truth I shall assume, is one somehow primary to other; as such I do not accept any human derived law as such - see above.None-the-less I do accept the law of non-contradiction. It is empirically derivable from the world around us and does seem to hold given suitable caveats and frame of reference.

quote:

---

No, they attack me for a variety of reasons. They don't like my beliefs on a broad scale.

---

No, your arguments are attacked because you have not supported many of your claims with evidence, nor logic.Not "liking" your claims or beliefs is irrelevant.

quote:

---

But this argument extends to why anyone would attack the notion of God as if it has any consequence to them. Why hasn't anyone answered my question? If you don't believe in God then what do they care? Its irrational-- unless, of course, there is some tacit recognition that God does exist.

---

Way back in message #15 of this thread, Purple Youko anwered your question perfectly.Maybe you missed it, so here it is again.

Maybe omnipotent is an ambiguous term for God. To me, God's omnipotence means that He has absolute reign over all of His creation, not that He could or would want to defy His own nature. I will go so far as to say that God is limited by His own nature. Imagine a serial killer with such a defense at his own trial.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Right. I believe in God for a variety of different reasons, but I don't know that He exists in the same sense that I would know whether or not my shoelaces are tied.My main question was why atheists give recognition to the notion of God if they claim to not believe in Him? And why would many of them get angry at the mere prospect of such Being existing? Doesn't that seem irrational to you? This isn't a blanket statement about all atheists, just most that I've met-- including myself at one time.My point is, if you really want to believe in the 19th century notion, "God is dead," then don't talk about Him. That is greatest way to make an argument against God. But let me extend it further. I'm very pleased that you all are arguing against God, because the one's that project the most venom against Him are the one's closest to their conversion. Its the apathetic ones that really concern me.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Most of them pay no attention to the notion of God, until they are confronted by an attempt to impose religion on them. Evidence please (of such alleged anger)! It sure does. So why are you falsely attributing such irrational behavior to atheists? The atheists I know don't talk about him unless is forced by theists.

Well, I have never seen anyone get upset over that so in my experience that is a non-issue. In fact I have NEVER seen and atheist get angry at the mere prospect of Gods existence.What I see folk getting upset over, and frankly rightly so, is when someone tries to point to some absolute or objective morality. Not only is that something that is not borne out by history it is insulting. When as has always been the case the person claiming absolute or objective morality is challenged they often turn to some religion as their only support and so far none have been able to point to such a critter. So far I have not seen anyone doing that even though you have asserted many times that they do. What they have said is that some descriptions of GOD do not stand up to scrutiny. As to conversion, why? Whay should anyone have to suffer through some conversion? Seems pretty silly and pointless to me.The typical atheist has a far higher probability of getting into heaven than the typical Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've never heard of anybody "attacking the notion of God." What I have heard of are freethinking individuals defending themselves and their entirely reasonable positions against your fellow religionists. You're asking the wrong question, as any atheist can tell you. The proper question is "if we don't believe in God, what do you care?"

There is a fine line between reaching some cordial agreement concerning different faiths and an outright compromise of the Word. Strongheaded Bible-bashing pushes people away, but then again, so does the very word of God. Its offensive to the people who are not ready to recognize that the universe doesn't begin and end with them. Two things happen to people when they realize God. 1. They are filled with an inexpressible sadness as if their entire life was a facade. 2. After this sinks in, it is replaced with ineffable joy from one's innermost being-- at least in my own experience. Because the prevailing Christian apology reaches the shores, whereas, a flippant belief in pink elephants holds as much water as a puddle. Besides, you aren't doing much justice in defense of atheism being that the greatest atheistic mind of the 19th century, Neitzsche, died in an insane asylum. So much for German Rationalism when you can't rationalize that which transcends all of human thought. But who cares, right? We're just a collocation of well-organized molecules, aye? If my arguments were as insipid as you make them out to be, you wouldn't spend time on a refutation to my posts.... Likewise, if God is truly just a childishly fanciful notion then what does that say about you, the philospoher, who spends himself in engaged in deep conference over such notions?

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Like most believers, you drastically overestimate the amount of consideration it takes us to dismiss your ridiculous God.Seriously. As atheists, we don't spend all that much time thinking about your religion. Ideas about God simply aren't a part of our lives, except when your fellow religionists are trying to cram them down our throats. Aside from that, though, your ludicrous "God" is almost never on our minds. Why would we waste the time like that?

We don't. As a card-carrying True Atheist(tm), I honestly couldn't care less if you worshipped ancestor spirits in rocks and sacrificed goats at the full moon. In fact, if that's all there was to it, I'd be delighted (for a small fee), to get you as many sacrificial goats as you wanted, wholesale.However, that's NOT what the fundamentalists do. We are constantly barraged with with tracts, preaching, pointless pseudo-psychobabble ("If they truly disbelieved, then what compulsion is there is in telling us all about it?"), threats of hell and damnation, etc etc etc. Worse yet, there is a vocal minority which attempts to legally force their primitive superstitions to be taught as fact to kids in schools my tax dollars are paying for. They've even managed to elect a president to the head of the last remaining superpower who openly states that people who don't believe in his flavor of deity should be declared non-citizens.If the fundies would keep their primitive superstitions out of my life (and out of my face) and the life of my kids, I wouldn't feel compelled to spend time pointing out how ludicrous and self-contradictory their particular belief system is. If they would stay in their own sandbox, they'd never hear from me again.

I could certainly agree on that point. I call bluff. If that were really the case then the majority of atheists would seek to disprove all religion with the same venom they reserve for Judaism and Christianity. That clearly isn't the case. Aside from which, I suppose that on some level, all of religion is unfalsifiable. That leads us back to why anyone would care either way, especially those who maintain a relativistic and 'tolerant' viewpoint. This is the intolerant face of the 'new tolerance' and the absolute rule of relativity. Okay...? What is illogical about it? I guess we'd better start there before we can get into the deeper aspects of the argument. Because that's what atheism is founded upon. And a house divided cannot stand. If the foundation be destroyed what shall the unbeliver do? Its not???Atheism1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.Pretty straightforward, wouldn't you say? If you claim to be an atheist then excuse me all over the place for jumping to a conclusion that your belief mirrors that of its very definition. First of all, the definition is as clear as could be. Its completely abstruse. Secondly, placing the prefix "A" does not always follow its normal course. Case in point, asexual doesn't without sex, it means self-replication. Just like placing the prefix "in" does not always follow a negative. Case in point, 'invaluable' does not mean that it has no value, it means that its so valuable that it no price will suffice. Would you say that this view best represents your beliefs?Agnostic1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.It sounds to me that you are an agnostic, which, in my opinion, is far superior than atheism because of its objectivity. Okay, its dropped. I'll continue speaking with other people who keep engaging me. I won't force you to keep speaking with me anymore.*removes gun from Youko's temple and holsters sidearm*

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner