RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 12:29:25 PM)

A relationship appears to exist between Catholicism and Objectivism.



GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:06:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
If there is to be peace, for example between Atheists and Christians, a better understanding of each other will be needed.

Atheists generally all ready know a good deal about Christians, as it turns out in general we actually know more about the Bible than Christians do. Unfortunately the reverse is not also true. People such as yourself taking the time to gain even the most basic grasp of atheism would go a long way toward this understanding that you're talking about.


However, not understanding the subject that you're talking about isn't your most appalling failure in this thread. Your refusal to construct arguments in such a way that anyone besides yourself will be able to understand them is. We obviously can't be familiar with the jargon you've invented or the unlisted presuppositions that you're holding which if I understand what you're saying correctly come from a voice in your head.

Refusing to use English the way everyone else does, answer questions and explain yourself makes your "mission of mercy" a sham.



GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:08:38 PM)

In regards to my own mission of mercy there are a few things which really need to be mentioned:


1. Expressing yourself in a way that doesn't sound like rants of insane gibberish would make people more inclined to have conversations with you and would make women more inclined to date you.

2. The voice in your head is not God. The stuff you keep coming up with is so blatantly false that it's clearly not coming from a higher power.

3. Talking to a professional would likely go a long way in fixing 1-2



PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:11:56 PM)

I have to say that I am finding your arguments rather less clear than a limpid Alpine pool, BM.



youngdom25 -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:23:15 PM)

steel, I am basing my opinion of atheism on the athiests I've met, and indeed a way I've behaved in the past. As a buddhist, no I don't have a god, but I am open to the existence of one, it's entirely possible that I am wrong about everything I believe, and I am on a potentially fruitless quest for enlightenment and the truth. I believe the position I hold would be termed agnosticism. I never meant to cause any offense and I apologize sincerely if I have done so,



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:47:14 PM)

I am clearly a prime mover according to Objectivist philosophy.

Objectivism appears to be an eclectic interpretation of Catholicism which makes sense historically. Moving backwards in time: Objectivism, Nietzsche, father of Nietzsche was a Lutheran pastor(1), the Lutheran faith broke away from the Catholic Church. Some ideas were borrowed.

Objectivism appears to be Will to Power tempered by objective truth whereas atheism is Will to Power tempered by nothing. My impression, however, is that objectivism is a form of atheism with elements borrowed from monotheism. Objectivism is an impure variant of atheism that appears to be an attempt begun with Nietzsche to keep a world run by atheists from imploding.

(1) "The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche" by Bernd Magnus and Kathleen Marie Higgins, published by Cambridge University Press, page 82



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 1:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Atheists generally all ready know a good deal about Christians, as it turns out in general we actually know more about the Bible than Christians do.


I do not contest whether or not atheists are familiar with the Bible. They are. They just unfamiliar with the Bible because without God you know nothing. We know the important parts, what we need to know, handed to us by people who concern themselves with figuring out what we need to know.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 2:13:17 PM)

What do communists do when they don't like somebody?



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 2:52:52 PM)

I knew it - you're talking about Randism, aren't you? It's anything but objective, although it does resemble religion largely in that it's based on belief rather than objectivity and empiricism - like religion.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 3:03:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

I knew it - you're talking about Randism, aren't you? It's anything but objective, although it does resemble religion largely in that it's based on belief rather than objectivity and empiricism - like religion.


I'm happy that I made you happy. There is some resemblance. I'll admit to that. If I fail to make GotSteel happy, it is forget about him. I'm fine with it if I made your day.

Bottom up reasoning would make your thesis seem reasonable. I do not see it as balanced, however.



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 3:22:01 PM)

Well you're both propositionalists, birds of a feather I'd say - that is, you and Randist Atheism, just different delusions, six of One, half a dozen of the other.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 3:42:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Well you're both propositionalists, ... .


Of course, so is the scientific community.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 3:56:05 PM)

In order to be productive it might be best for you to tell me what the objections against Randism are. We all reason from propositions so that is not indicative.



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:02:00 PM)

No, not really. All scientific propositions are open to counter propositions - but the counter proposition must conform to the scientific method, and the counter proposition is itself is open to... counter proposition.

Again, ultimately, the scientific "truth" as such is confined to what can be proven to be a falsifiable hypothesis, and independently confirmed as "not false".

There is no method to test for the existence of god to date, it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, no way to prove or disprove it, much less confirm or falsify it, as I've been saying - it's purely propositional, with no empirical body of evidence to substantiate it, thus, irrelevant until such time as there is empirical evidence that would support a testable hypothesis.

You are welcome to keep trying in the spirit of scientific inquiry, but until you have a testable hypothesis, it can only be regarded as an unsupported proposition - and in science, there is a very large distinction between supported and unsupported propositions.



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:07:03 PM)

i.e., in propositionalism, a thing is simply asserted to be true, with no requirement for supporting evidence - in fact it's common in propositionalism to attack and attempt to marginalize or eradicate empirical modes of reasoning, and/or it's supporters and adherents.

Or, for that matter, any sort of counter proposition at all, see heresy.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:19:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

No, not really. All scientific propositions are open to counter propositions - but the counter proposition must conform to the scientific method, and the counter proposition is itself is open to... counter proposition.

Again, ultimately, the scientific "truth" as such is confined to what can be proven to be a falsifiable hypothesis, and independently confirmed as "not false".

There is no method to test for the existence of god to date, it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, no way to prove or disprove it, much less confirm or falsify it, as I've been saying - it's purely propositional, with no empirical body of evidence to substantiate it, thus, irrelevant until such time as there is empirical evidence that would support a testable hypothesis.

You are welcome to keep trying in the spirit of scientific inquiry, but until you have a testable hypothesis, it can only be regarded as an unsupported proposition - and in science, there is a very large distinction between supported and unsupported propositions.


This is not how science works. Your take is biased and rosy. It is based on successful theories. This is not quiet the same thing as the story you are advancing. The scientific method has limitations. You are assuming that it can be applied unilaterally to solve all problems. One of the problems that science has difficulty with as I've already pointed out is how does one interpret its results. It is one thing to get results and another to interpret them. In the physical sciences the problem is less noticeable, but in the social sciences it gets messy and it is not just because everyone has an opinion.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:27:16 PM)

It is feasible to put reality on ignore in the physical sciences. So you get this subculture of people who think that this can be done unilaterally in all areas of life.



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:28:03 PM)

So you counter with a proposition. In the short run, propositions abound, over time, the empirical evidence prevails, the unsupportable propositions fall by the wayside, and the supportable propositions remain.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:33:02 PM)

Your only point concerning Randism is that it is based on propositions?



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/25/2012 4:38:48 PM)

No, my point was that it's hard to tell any difference between you and them.



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875