|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
RAZD,
I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer. Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. A = A is not one of the axioms nor the postulates of Euclidean geometry. Are you thinking of the Law of Identity ? And can you explain why the idea that a thing is equal to itself could possibly be considered arbitrary ?
quote: Since we obviously can observe that a thing is equal to itself, I have to wonder what you think you are talking about.
quote: That's your personal opinion. It is NOT a necessary presupposition, so it is of no use to presuppositionalist argumentation.
quote: Again, I don't know what you are talking about here. Are you really suggesting that Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica was handed to them by God ? If not, then how can you deny the human effort that has gone into producing mathematics ?
quote: Again that is simply your opinion. And in respect of the fact that we can make sense of a good deal without even considering the question it obviously does not indicate that we must presuppose God to have knowledge.
quote: To reply, a = a is self-evident, so I have no idea why you think that it cannot be observed to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
RAZD is not an atheist, so your question to him is mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But written on a piece of paper, you see some mathematical equations, and words written out (this involves both math and language). How, if you saw the equation 1+1=2, would you ever determine anything about what this meant. [...] In my universe however, all understanding and knowledge comes from God. God passed it down to Adam and Eve, and they passed it on to their descendants and so on. So Adam and Eve and their descendants passed down from generation to generation a system of mathematical notation which (as a matter of historical record) wouldn't even be invented for thousands of years after the creation? I think not. I think that sometimes people can have original ideas. I know I have. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer. Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe? Neither atheist is a description it only tells you what the person DOESN'T believe. It tells you nothing else about the person or belief systems if any exist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Please answer how
why does a creator define your truths? I cannot understand your stance and what you're asking unless you do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Neither atheist is a description it only tells you what the person DOESN'T believe. It tells you nothing else about the person or belief systems if any exist But his question was addressed to RAZD personally. He even put the word "you" in italics to emphasize this. Of course, since RAZD is a deist, his question was founded on a misconception, but not on the one you attribute to him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
But his question was addressed to RAZD personally. He even put the word "you" in italics to emphasize this. It doesn't matter using the word atheist in the way that they did doesn't make sense...
Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe?
One cannot believe atheism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again sac51495,
I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer. Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe? Curiously, in my previous post I already listed the necessary presuppositions for a rational understanding of reality. Interestingly, in my previous post I also asked a question of you - still unanswered, even though it seems you think you can ask me questions instead. Sorry, your turn first. Try again. What is\are your basic assumption/s? (Or haven't you done your homework). And then you get some penalty questions for missing the first one: Why do you presuppose that I am an atheist? Do you (mis)classify everyone that doesn't fall over for your incomplete logic and your argument/s from incredulity as an atheist? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
sac51495 writes: RAZD, I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer. Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe?
sac51495, I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer. Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe in RAZD's case despite his signature, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe in RAZD's case despite his signature? Pay attention to detail. Why don't you do some homework before making yourself appear the fool? Like look at RAZD's signature? The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Please pardon the springboarding.
I've previously mentioned hearing a mid-80's presentation (recorded and replayed on the radio) by former fundamentalist minister Dan Barker (now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation). He was born and raised in fundamentalism; he described how his mother would every day do her housework while singing in tongues. One of the things I remember from that presentation (not yet mentioned in my reading of his book, godless) is his description of the fundamentalist mentality as being "when your theology becomes your psychology." I saw it at work during my divorce when I was unfortunately talked into going through the DivorceCare program at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church as well as a few visits to Cloud and Townsends' Monday relationships sessions at Mariner's. Everything centers around Jesus! DivorceCare did have a few kernels to offer and there might have been a few more, but it was all buried under mountains of religious chaff. Cloud and Townsend, two Christian counselors, generally offered what other counselors do, so there was a bit less chaff, but then the only reason they offered for why you should take care of yourself is "because that's what Jesus wants." What kind of sense does that make to a normal? And the major message that DivorceCare delivers is that only Christians could ever possibly survive a divorce? What planet are these freaks from? sac is a presuppositionalist. And he is so wrapped up in his theology that that's the only way he can think. Normal thinking appears to be quite beyond him. To hark back to something else I've posted, his head is so firmly wedged in the cockpit that he is unable to pull it out to see what's really going on around him. From that Wikipedia article (my emphasis):
quote: So he's trying to back us into a corner. A corner that does not exist. A corner that only exists inside his fevered theology-imprisoned mind. Reminds me of all those fundamentalist proselytizers who had this really great conversion script all rehearsed (eg, the infamous "After-Life Insurance" rehash of Pascal's Wager), only to have me completely ruin it by exposing the gaping holes in their script. When are they ever going to finally realize that they don't have the slightest clue what atheists really believe, think, or do? When are they ever going to finally realize that all they have to do is to ask us ... and to listen for once! sac, I think I've told you this before in another way: normals don't think like you do, so when you're talking with normals, you have to actually listen to what they tell you and think about it. Though, admittedly, thinking can be dangerous; that's how Dan Barker went from being a life-long fundamentalist and prominent preacher to one of the most prominent atheists in America. PSI remember a Charles Bronson movie where he was in the Border Patrol. As he was training a new agent in the art of tracking, he instructed him to cut a mark in his own boot so that he could distinguish his own tracks from the others'. To euphemize it, he told of an agent who didn't do that. He started following his own tracks. Ended up following himself up his own rectum and nobody ever saw him again. Kind of what you're doing, sac. Time to pull your head out of the cockpit and see what's really going on around you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Try again. What is\are your basic assumption/s? (Or haven't you done your homework). And then you get some penalty questions for missing the first one: Why do you presuppose that I am an atheist? Do you (mis)classify everyone that doesn't fall over for your incomplete logic and your argument/s from incredulity as an atheist? I'm sorry I missed that question. The answer is simple. My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom. I see from your signature now that you are a deist. Before I go into an argument with you then, I need to know if you believe that God is dead, or if you believe that He just no longer controls the universe? Or, if I am still mistaken about your beliefs, please tell me. I guess I assumed you were an atheist because of the implications of your assumptions in one of your previous posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
PaulK,
Before I go into responding to your post, we need to take a few steps back and see why we are unable to understand the opposing person's arguments. You apparently cannot understand my arguments, and this is my fault, as I did not clear some things up earlier. The first thing you must understand is that I do not believe that God handed down directly to Adam and Eve everything there was to know about mathematics and science and other such things. I believe that what He did do though was create them in His own image, and thus, give them the ability to understand the world around them, and reason in a manner that would lead them to correct conclusions (simple things such as, e.g., the tree is hard, therefore if I bang my head against it, that would hurt...). Because Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, so were their descendants. So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability? And I made a mistake by using the term "observe/unobservable" in regards to a=a. Perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of this: we cannot reason to come to the conclusion that a=a, so we must therefore accept this to be true. No one that I know of has concluded that 1=2, 2=3 etc. So if anyone can adhere (if they want) to different laws of logic, and they can use these laws to make certain conclusions about what they see, then why has no one yet come to the conclusion that 1=2, and 2=3 (maybe you did not specifically say that some one can use different laws of logic, but if you haven't yet said that, why couldn't someone try using different laws of logic?)? This denotes that a=a is a universal truth, and is not subjective to the varying laws of logic of different ethnic groups. This does not mean that every single person in the world has this picture (a=a) in their mind. That's just the way the Greeks wrote it down (for instance), but ultimately, no one would say, e.g., that one person is equivalent to two people. Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method? And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)?To phrase it more clearly, when it comes to the subject of whether or not there is a god, would you define yourself as neutral, or bias? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Sorry, my mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
So Adam and Eve and their descendants passed down from generation to generation a system of mathematical notation which (as a matter of historical record) wouldn't even be invented for thousands of years after the creation? Once again, we are created in the image of God, and this gives us the ability to reason in the correct way, thus, we will then be able to come to the correct conclusions about the world around us. God did not tell Adam and Eve about rocket science and the theory of relativity, He simply gave them the ability to reason in manner like unto Himself...the point being, if the person I spoke of had evolved in an atheist universe, how would they ever come to conclusions about the world around them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024