|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6281 days) Posts: 18 From: Covington, Georgia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Law Of Contradiction | |||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I said this:
I've perused your posts in this thread and I'm not sure I know why you believe it's irrational and self-refuting. If you could spell it out for me, I'll let you know if I accept it or not. Your response was:
I don't believe in flying-purple elephants, do you? Would it make you angry if I believed in them? Does it make you angry that you don't believe in them? Does it matter either way? I doubt it. So what difference does it make to the atheist whether or not I believe in God? What compulsion exists in certain atheists to actually become angry over it, unless there is something in them that recognizes that its not as silly as they might like to portray, for perhaps, posterity among their peers? That's all I'm saying. I see absolutely nothing there that shows that atheism is either irrational or self-refuting. At most it makes the charge, without any evidentiary support, that some indeterminate number of atheists are vociferous in their criticism of religion because of their insecurity in their beliefs. At least one answer to your question has been provided several times in this thread. Your arrogance apparently prevents you from even considering that the proffered explanation is accurate, so it must be a subconscious belief in god.
There is no rational reason to suppose they exist. Now you say, aha, that's how I feel about your God, Nemmy! That would be all fine and good if your disbelief simply ended there. Here's the difference: I'm not mad about it. I have no reason to get all flustered over it. I would just be concerned that they are worshipping false gods. I don't believe in Zeus, and I could engage in long debates on why I don't believe in Zeus, but why spend all that energy on a Deity that I don't believe in the first place? Do you see the difference? If I spent all this time trying to destroy the notion of Zeus, wouldn't that be a tip-off to you that somewhere in the dusty recesses of my mind, that I was concerned that Zeus might actually exist? Quite interesting that you chose Zeus as your example. I'm not aware of any religions active today that actually worship Zeus. What about Allah? I've certainly seen great number of christians, almost always fundie types, argue with great passion that islam is not a true religion. For that matter, we're all aware that in some parts of the world christians are killing one another because they don't worship christ properly. Do some atheists get over excited in debating godstapo types? I've never met any, but you claim to have. I'll take you at your word. Are you so quick to assume that those who vehemently argue against islam suffer a similar insecurity? Do you suppose that the protestants and catholics who kill one another are both secretly afraid that the other side has the truth and they don't? If not, what's the difference? I'll say it again; your assumption that anyone who argues with you about god might be doing so out of insecurity in their own beliefs is arrogance in the extreme. I don't expect you to see it that way, that would be completely inconsistent with such arrogance. I don't even expect you to spend any time seriously thinking about it. Dr. Adequate asked why you spend time arguing against atheism. Your explanation:
Because I see it as a destructive heresy and because I believe that people's lives are at stake. My reason is philanthropy. Is the atheist able to claim this? Of course the atheist is able to claim this. I claim it. I don't think that any belief in any deity has ever provided any benefit to any person that they could not have found through another medium. What's more, I don't think you can point to a single organized religion that hasn't done a great deal of harm. I think if we could convince everyone to give up religion, the world would be a better place. Here's the difference: I acknowledge that most individuals who try to "spread the gospel" do so because of their genuine belief that it is in the best interests of those they are trying to recruit. You, however, in your arrogance, cannot even conceive that the evil atheists could possibly have anyone's best interests in mind. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, come on, n_j --- haven't you ever argued in favor of something that you thought was true? Are you only passionate about things which you know to be false? If some, you have my pity and contempt in equal measure; and my assurance that normal people argue for what they believe and against what they disbelieve.
Throttle back, you're getting frothy spittle all over my screen. What did the whales ever do to you? I have no idea why I hate whales so much, but since I argue heatedly in favor of their preservation, I must secretly want them wiped out, yes?
Here's the difference champ: I don't believe in Zeus ... As you said you don't believe in Zeus, I take it that means that you do. As, I suppose, do all the so-called "Christians" who get so angry about neopaganism. Polytheists, the lot of them, clearly. "In denial", though, of course.
No, no, no.... you've got it backwards. If an evolutionists thinks it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be related to a nematode. It is not enough to shout "tu quoque", it is also necessary to be right. Now in point of fact, you never see any evolutionist claim that anyone who argues for creationism must be an evolutionist "in denial". 'Cos we have more sense. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Here are some people who, it would seem, believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "In denial", of course.
i do not know why you might have suggested something weird like this anyways; who might have though the flying spaghetti monster or whatever would be compared to someone like Jesus. First of all the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up of matter, and so it had to created in the first place. whatever fools believe in this load of crap are going to burn in hell, and that would be of your doings. Yes, it was their choice to believe in it, but you gave them the idea and with their simple minds they took it and died with it. So if you can live with the thought of people burning in eternal Hell and crying out in pure agony, then by all means be my guest. And any idiot would understand that the possibility of a 'flying spaghetti monster' being the god who made the earth and everything in it is beyond ridiculous. So either you're an alcoholic and all of your brain cells have been destroyed, or your just plain stupid. what the hell is this? PASTAFARIAN?!? that doesn't even make sense!! why the hell would god be PASTA?!? are you high when you decided to make up the spaghetti monster casue i think you were their is no such thing as the spaghtti monste. I do believe you are a fucking retard and I hope you burn in hell. Fuck you and the flying spaghetti monster ... God is not a flying spaghetti monster because only a human could think up such a dumbass retarded idea like that. When basing a comparison on "COMMON SENSE" the FSM makes absolutely NO SENSE! "Why then are the mountain tops not made of spaghetti noodalege. Is not the water on the earth a steaming pot of spaghetti sauce?" Dude thats what your crap sounds like. So in essence, from having read your website, I can conclude that it is irrational to believe in the FSM ... ok first off i want to start by asking do you really believe everything that you wrote on that page about us being created by a freaking giant spaghetti monster?? cuz if you do wow give me some of what your on cuz it has got to be strong in order to have you believing that a spaghette monster created us..... oh by the way. i am having spaghetti and meatballs tonight u little prick. i think i will just throw it in the trash cause thats where it belongs. along with your fake whack religion and fake god. so have a nice day, and hope u have fun gettin raped by your spaghetti and meatball, FAKE god. They wouldn't get so worked up, would they, unless, deep down, they believed that the world was made by supernatural pasta? Either that, or when they say the FSM is a dumb idea, they mean it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I have no idea, and neither do you. It is arrogant to assume anything about how people feel, even generally. Especially generally. You have backed away from your initial statement, I've noticed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
All morals are relative, and always have been. quote: Yeah. Strange but true. All morals are relative, including yours. ...unless you'd like to trot over to one of the threads on on the subject and show all of us an absolute moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ah, so the link for Atheism DOES show that folk misuse Atheism.
My point still stands. Equating Atheism with immorality is simply wrong. Folk are right to get upset when it is used in that fashion. If Christianity had the ethics of Secular Science then it would be far more respected. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Most of them pay no attention to the notion of God, until they are confronted by an attempt to impose religion on them. What would constitute imposition in your mind? I guess I could donwload pictures of my vehicle when it was 'keyed' because I have a 'Calvary Chapel' sticker on my car. What was I thinking? I shouldn't have imposed. I also suppose I could download pictures of my car that had a pint of urine and spit on the door because I have a Calvary Chapel sticker on the back window, if only I had taken a picture of the offense. What was i thinking? How dare I impose my beliefs?
I have had tires slashed, eggs broken on my car, antennas snapped. I don't jump to conclusions as to why this might have been done.
Does that seem like rational behavior to you?
Your jumping to conclusions sure seems irrational.
And for the umteenth time, I'm not implicating all atheists.
What a cop out. You are attributing such behavior to atheists as a class. Go back and read your own posts in this thread.
Ah yes... I'm sorry that I have accosted you and placed you in my God-lair where I incessently torture your eardrums with Scripture. The whole pity-party thing is wearing thin.
Dishonest rhetoric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is arrogant to assume anything about how people feel, even generally. Especially generally. Everybody does this all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Ender Junior Member (Idle past 6281 days) Posts: 18 From: Covington, Georgia Joined: |
I didn't think that my simple (or maybe not so simple) question would expand into such a debate!
I do think that my original intention for posting this forum has been a little lost. I don't think that I want to go back to it, but I do want to know one thing: Can the following statment be proven false:God exists. If not, why not? If it can, can the Law of Contradiction do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Can the following statment be proven false:
No. The statement does not say anything testable, therefore cannot be proven false.
God exists. If not, why not? If it can, can the Law of Contradiction do it?
There is no contradiction inherent in the simple statement "God exists", although people do often come to contradictory conclusions on the basis of that statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Ender
Can the following statment be proven false: God exists. Wel let us examine this. First we need to give some operational boundaries to God in relation to God's existence and ask ourselves if there is someway in which the law of noncontradiction applies. The law of noncontradiction requires that a thing cannot both be and not-be simultaneously. So we are asking if God can both exist and not exist at the same time. Two parallel considerations arise from this that must be determined {or at least conceded} by those debating the case. First What does it mean to say something exists? Second what does it mean to say something occurs simultaneously? If ,as some contend, {though where their information arrives from is questionable} God "exists" seperately from us then we need further pursue what is meant by this existence of God and how we may justify it.How does God interact with "our" existence when ,at the same time, it is asserted that he does not since He exists seperately as mentioned. As to the question of simultaneous occurence we also find that God is given {by virtue of his omnipotence} the ability to be "outside of time" {do not ask me how this is arrived at} we find the same consideration as with existence. How does God participate in an event occuring within a spacetime to which he is defined as being outside of ? I will leave it open to the forum to argue these considerations and see what we arrive at. Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is. Best wishes, Richard Feynman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can the following statment be proven false: God exists. I'm sorry, what exists? "God"? You'll have to pardon my ignorance but I don't know what that word means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well, I don't know what more I can say about the argument I presented. I guess the atheist and the theist just have to be comfortable in their stalemate. Perhaps my counterparts posts have proved my point for me. I guess it doesn't really matter. The argument will trek on into infinity.
I'm sorry, what exists? "God"? You'll have to pardon my ignorance but I don't know what that word means. That's interesting you just said because it reminded of a sermon I was listening to a couple of nights ago. "You keep mentioning God... What are you talking about?" Oops, something lost “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I guess I could donwload pictures of my vehicle when it was 'keyed' because I have a 'Calvary Chapel' sticker on my car. What was I thinking? I shouldn't have imposed. I also suppose I could download pictures of my car that had a pint of urine and spit on the door because I have a Calvary Chapel sticker on the back window, if only I had taken a picture of the offense. What was i thinking? How dare I impose my beliefs? Why do you attribute this damage to your car to the Calvary Chapel sticker in the back window? As nwr pointed out, cars get vandalised all the time. There can be any number of reasons. The most common reason in places I've lived is that the local hooligans have had too much to drink and randomly pick on vehicles to attack as the stagger by. Oh and as an aside - how do you know it was a pint of urine? If it was on the door - or any other part of the car thinking about it - it would have run off which could make it kind of difficult to measure the amount. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
NJ writes: quote: I don't understand what you're arriving at, can you elaborate, please? Maybe an example will help: what do you think about the Snarfs? Since you've (probably) never seen a Snarf, I guess you will ask me to show you one before you give an opinion. I will answer that that is impossible, but that we know from ancient writings what a Snarf is, and how it behaves. But then you will meet other people who also claim they know Snarfs and what they stand for. And their ideas about Snarfs will in all likeliness differ from mine. Significantly, or only in details... But the Snarfs themselves, who could give you the opportunity to decide for yourself instead of relying on stories and interpretations of stories, they just keep hiding themselves! Nevertheless I could ask you what your opinion of Snarfs is. What would you answer?
NJ writes: quote: That is really a non-issue. The issue is whether or not God exists, not to define what or who God is. It may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me. How in the world can you have an opinion about something, if you are not even able to define exactly what it is??? I never have opinions about things that I don't know the first thing about. And I find it highly amusing how some can argue so strongly about their version of something that nobody obviously knows the first thing about, lol.
NJ writes: quote: Your answer about God changes depending on who asks you? Did I understand that correctly? Like I pointed out in your poll, I remain sort of agnostic towards a 'first cause' God, but on the other hand firmly atheist when it comes to a benevolent, watching-over-everything God. So depending on what kind of God the person who asks me, refers to, my answer should be different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024