Atheism

Originally posted by Little Caesar
I think I made my reason clear in my previous comment.

He's just polarizing. Invoking his name in discussion has a tendency to send the conversation spiraling. I don't disagree with him on an intellectual level, but in debate I've found his presence to be a hindrance.

Originally posted by Oliver North
"nuances in the God debate" = which theologian thought how many angels could dance on the head of a pin

Heh. I honestly don't think it takes a doctorate in theology to become versed in the 'God Debate.' I'm not a scholar, I'm not an expert, but it's been years since I've been blindsided by an argument for God/religion in a discussion that I'd never considered. I think the "science" end of religious discussion takes a lot longer to absorb, and the highest levels are rarely achievable by laypeople.

Basically, if everyone accepts limits to their knowledge, "laymen" can have lots of productive discussion without treading on ground they don't understand.

Now, debate and nuance within religion is indeed nigh-endless. I have a friend who is a Jesuit; a good deal of his life revolves around being pedantic about religious nuance, and it becomes brilliantly complex. But for religion, there is a limit to the number of ways it can be philosophically and intellectually packaged. Similarly, atheism only has so many permutations. I've been able to condense my central reasoning into about 6 bullet points that I can get through in 2-3 minutes in discussion. And while I'm not every atheist, there's only so many justifications for non-belief.

Originally posted by Oliver North
"what I'd like to see is less people thinking for themselves and everyone admitting that my perspective is the correct one"

What a petty and childish knee-jerk reaction. I'd like to see people do more thinking instead of sticking within their hypocritical biases. I'd also like people to stop pretending to have all the answers (many atheists, even "famous" ones claim that they don't have all the answers and then proceed to pass off speculation like it is an answer. and don't get me started on religious zealots that think science is an enemy and they have all the "answers" they need about the universe).

My perspective is one of concluding there is a God. Guess you should..you know...not knee-jerked? 😐

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, given how well you generally present your position, I think you'd make a more impressive/substantial vid.

I agree with this.

Originally posted by Digi
This doesn't seem like a direct response to the video, but more a jumping off point to share a relevant but somewhat tangential opinion. See my response to Mindship.

It is: I am directly responding to the montage she made to support her position. She selected some snippits that do not support her position she is trying to make.

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. I honestly don't think it takes a doctorate in theology to become versed in the 'God Debate.' I'm not a scholar, I'm not an expert, but it's been years since I've been blindsided by an argument for God/religion in a discussion that I'd never considered. I think the "science" end of religious discussion takes a lot longer to absorb, and the highest levels are rarely achievable by laypeople.

Basically, if everyone accepts limits to their knowledge, "laymen" can have lots of productive discussion without treading on ground they don't understand.

Now, debate and nuance within religion is indeed nigh-endless. I have a friend who is a Jesuit; a good deal of his life revolves around being pedantic about religious nuance, and it becomes brilliantly complex. But for religion, there is a limit to the number of ways it can be philosophically and intellectually packaged. Similarly, atheism only has so many permutations. I've been able to condense my central reasoning into about 6 bullet points that I can get through in 2-3 minutes in discussion. And while I'm not every atheist, there's only so many justifications for non-belief.

Exactly. This is what I was getting at.

I think some "lay" people can be better nuanced in the "God debate" than many professionals, philosophers, and theologians.

I'm an atheist. But, I'll allow that god exists if the definition of god is everything there ever was and will be.

All of you who have concluded that there is a god that makes its will known necessarily use some form of magical thinking to arrive at this. And, you can be dismissed with a wave of my hand.

There, now that I've settled this, and we can all get on with the more practical, difficult and important task of separating church and state.

Originally posted by Little Caesar
I'm an atheist. But, I'll allow that god exists if the definition of god is everything there ever was and will be.

Originally posted by Little Caesar
I'm an atheist. But, I'll allow that god exists if the definition of god is everything there ever was and will be.

Pantheism, eh?

Originally posted by Little Caesar
All of you who have concluded that there is a god that makes its will known necessarily use some form of magical thinking to arrive at this. And, you can be dismissed with a wave of my hand.

Prove that this is what I believe.

But, yes, you are probably the 99% I was referring to, earlier.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yes, you are probably the 99% I was referring to, earlier.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is: I am directly responding to the montage she made to support her position. She selected some snippits that do not support her position she is trying to make.

It was a trailer for an artistic endeavor, not a thesis. I enjoyed the sentiment. I don't pretend that it contributed to whatever debate you think I was trying to start with it.

srug

Originally posted by Digi
It was a trailer for an artistic endeavor, not a thesis.

I viewed it as the crescendo of her point.

We are supposed to go, "ZOMG! That's just horrible! Look at all of these people oppressing others!"

Didn't quite work.

Originally posted by Digi
I enjoyed the sentiment.

As did I. 😄

Originally posted by Digi
I don't pretend that it contributed to whatever debate you think I was trying to start with it.

srug

No idea what this is about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pantheism, eh?

Prove that this is what I believe.

But, yes, you are probably the 99% I was referring to, earlier.

I don't have to prove it, you do, but you cannot. You're the one wants to introduce something into reality, if you cannot explain it to anyone else stop wasting our time, there are more interesting fairytales.

This is my view on atheism if something really didn't exist you wouldn't need to dis Proof it done

Originally posted by FollowGod
This is my view on atheism if something really didn't exist you wouldn't need to dis Proof it done

Originally posted by dadudemon
Exactly. This is what I was getting at.

I think some "lay" people can be better nuanced in the "God debate" than many professionals, philosophers, and theologians.

Interesting. Though I suppose it makes some sense, in that many experts are experts in their field, or on their "side" (if we want to frame it like that). But ask a devout theologian to accurately represent atheistic arguments. Many probably can't, because they have no need to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I viewed it as the crescendo of her point.

We are supposed to go, "ZOMG! That's just horrible! Look at all of these people oppressing others!"

Didn't quite work.

As did I. 😄

No idea what this is about.

kk. I think we're good here. Ignore the last comment.

Originally posted by FollowGod
This is my view on atheism if something really didn't exist you wouldn't need to dis Proof it done

Somewhere, a panda frowned because you put this sentence into existence.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This is usually the best way to go; agree God exists, just re-define It.

(Problem of induction, causal knowledge, etc.)

Originally posted by Zampanó
What's fun is that even as a tautology, his redefinition doesn't work. I can just as easily refuse to accept the belief that we can have knowledge of the future, and say that we can never have knowledge about "[everything there ever...will be]." Your pantheism is invalid.

accepting that this is an extremely weak argument, of course

Originally posted by Zampanó
What's fun is that even as a tautology, his redefinition doesn't work. I can just as easily refuse to accept the belief that we can have knowledge of the future, and say that we can never have knowledge about "[everything there ever...will be]." Your pantheism is invalid.

(Problem of induction, causal knowledge, etc.)

lol. I know you guys almost came in your pants upon "discovering" I was a flawed pantheist, but sorry, I'm really not.

What I wrote was 'I'm an atheist. But, I'll allow that god exists if the definition of god is everything there ever was and will be.'

I just wrote that flippantly, dismissively.

Originally posted by Zampanó
What's fun is that even as a tautology, his redefinition doesn't work. I can just as easily refuse to accept the belief that we can have knowledge of the future, and say that we can never have knowledge about "[everything there ever...will be]." Your pantheism is invalid.

(Problem of induction, causal knowledge, etc.)

My God's pretty f*ckin irrefutable.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My definition of God is "the existence of stuff".

My God's pretty f*ckin irrefutable.

Good basis for a cult. All you need is a good name for it and half a million dollars to get started.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My definition of God is "the existence of stuff".

My God's pretty f*ckin irrefutable.

What was wrong with the term "stuff that exists", or even "stuff", that you needed to rebrand it?

Originally posted by Oliver North
accepting that this is an extremely weak argument, of course

Originally posted by Little Caesar
lol. I know you guys almost came in your pants upon "discovering" I was a flawed pantheist, but sorry, I'm really not.

What I wrote was 'I'm an atheist. But, I'll allow that god exists if the definition of god is everything there ever was and will be.'

I just wrote that flippantly, dismissively.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Grammatical errors: 7

None egregious. It's easier to debate when you're not on that horse.