How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Well our Gordon has just said he only disbelieves in what other have described as their God, so not gods but only the ones he has heard about.

Am I right Gordon?

Gonnagle.

And that's my position too. But I have no belief  in gods that I haven't heard about. So I have a lack of belief in them too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does seem difficult to talk about not having a belief.   Of course, the old joke was talking about not stamp collecting, and you could even set up a club for non stamp collectors.    My old dad was an atheist, and he found the whole area deeply tedious, and there was little to talk about.

I suppose that's pre New Atheism atheism. I think New Atheism is the emotional response of antitheists to fundamentalist religion I don't think many would
deny that a kind of Toronto Blessing for atheists. That would explain it's antiintellectualism vis the response on this forum to De Botton who obviously didn't receive the 'gift'.

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose that's pre New Atheism atheism. I think New Atheism is the emotional response of antitheists to fundamentalist religion I don't think many would
deny that a kind of Toronto Blessing for atheists. That would explain it's antiintellectualism vis the response on this forum to De Botton who obviously didn't receive the 'gift'.

More made up drivel.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

No, because (a) it's nonsensical since surely the war mongering is Hunan so why is your position mirehunan, and (b) surely that would mean if I said look here's a lamp that I am going to call 'god' you believe in the lamp existing ergo 'god' exists. It's not an argument it's a semantic game that makes the term meaningless

Is it, boy oh boy! very cynical, from what I have read ( yes Armstrong again ) early man had compassion for all living things, he only learn't war as a lazy get out clause, why should I toil in the field when I can go and steal the other buggers crop.

I think you need to read more Sriram, all about growing spiritually.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Is it, boy oh boy! very cynical, from what I have read ( yes Armstrong again ) early man had compassion for all living things, he only learn't war as a lazy get out clause, why should I toil in the field when I can go and steal the other buggers crop.

I think you need to read more Sriram, all about growing spiritually.

Gonnagle.

Where did war come from if not humans? What does 'spiritually' mean?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

And that's my position too. But I have no belief  in gods that I haven't heard about. So I have a lack of belief in them too.

Well actually that was one answer I received many moons ago regarding God, why should I ponder on God if I don't believe in God/gods, basically the whole God question is out the window, nothing to see here move on folks.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Well actually that was one answer I received many moons ago regarding God, why should I ponder on God if I don't believe in God/gods, basically the whole God question is out the window, nothing to see here move on folks.

Gonnagle.

That isn't what my post said. I pointed out that I will lack belief in something I have no knowledge of.

[Gordon]

Dear Sane,

Well our Gordon has just said he only disbelieves in what other have described as their God, so not gods but only the ones he has heard about.

Am I right Gordon?

Gonnagle.

Not exactly: I don't actively disbelieve what they say since what they say is either fallacious or incoherent, so I just reject their arguments

You could say that I see no grounds to believe that 'god' is a serious proposition on the basis of the arguments advanced by theists but that doesn't equate to a belief that there are no gods.

In everyday speech I clearly don't believe in gods,for the reasons given, but by the same token I dont believe the proposition that there is a }=++<* since, for me, this }=++<* is as incoherent as gods - so not a serious proposition.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane, Gordon and anyone else who joined in this merry go round,

Fair enough but I still liked Gordon's answer.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

In which case why don't people STFU after they've said it?

Because of the problems associated with widespread belief in things for which there is no evidence or reasoned argument.

And I guess saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is a way for you to avoid it.

No, telling the truth isn't avoiding anything: atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s).

The reason I don't STFU (as you put it) about it is as I stated above - but that is not a part of atheism. I'm sure some people must be atheists for reasons that are just as baseless as theism - but that wouldn't make them not atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because of the problems associated with widespread belief in things for which there is no evidence or reasoned argument.

I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.

why state an assertion as fact?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why state an assertion as fact?

Well there is no knockdown argument. If you think I am wrong produce one that is written in the language of logic and not New Atheism.

[Nearly Sane]

Well there is no knockdown argument. If you think I am wrong produce one that is written in the language of logic and not New Atheism.

And you repeat your assertion as fact.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Feser?? do you mean

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.

The Feser argument I looked at was nonsense - and I gave extensive reasons why in the Searching for GOD... topic, for example #26392 and #26413.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Vlad,

Feser?? do you mean

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/

Gonnagle.

Yes, that's who Vlad is talking about

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Feser argument I looked at was nonsense - and I gave extensive reasons why in the Searching for GOD... topic, for example #26392 and #26413.

I seem to recall pointing out that you had the wrong end of the stick at one or two points and started riffing on science at others.

[Stranger]

I seem to recall pointing out that you had the wrong end of the stick at one or two points and started riffing on science at others.

You basically kept on ignoring what I'd actually argued and making spurious allegations of inconsistency. There was no particular need for science, as I recall. But anyway, the argument is there for all to see and read - I stand by what I said. Feser's argument fell apart as soon as he tried to attribute the characteristics of 'god' to his 'end of hierarchy'; it became hopelessly contrived and then self-contradictory. It can also be refuted with a reductio ad absurdum using Tegmark's speculation as the 'end of hierarchy' - which is far more self-consistent.

Here is the argument in question: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - very long, very dull, and very silly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Feser?? do you mean

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/

Gonnagle.

That's the guy.
His line is that there is respect for the reasonableness of philosophical and metaphysical arguments for God...but that is limited to mainly people in the business including some atheists giving lie to the claim that there are no reasons to believe. What then is the basis of admitting that there might be a God which is what most atheists end up acknowledging.

There is also the support for Neil De Grasse Tysons idea that the universe could have a transcendent intelligent creator....as long as we don't call it God.

Of course, Dawkins and Krauss and Hawking have exempted, in some kind of Charismatic antitheist gifting, New atheists from having to bother with philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You basically kept on ignoring what I'd actually argued and making spurious allegations of inconsistency. There was no particular need for science, as I recall. But anyway, the argument is there for all to see and read - I stand by what I said. Feser's argument fell apart as soon as he tried to attribute the characteristics of 'god' to his 'end of hierarchy'; it became hopelessly contrived and then self-contradictory. It can also be refuted with a reductio ad absurdum using Tegmark's speculation as the 'end of hierarchy' - which is far more self-consistent.

It cant be refuted with Tegmarks theory since Tegmark is a form of the Feser argument. Stop waving Tegmark about Shamanically. Also Tegmarks speculation requires the multiverse whereas Fesers only requires the universe.

I seem to recall you trying to say he tried to attribute the characteristics of the christian God. He doesn't. He links his argument to classical philosophical descriptions of God.
In the end you resorted to ''we don't know' a lot thus your riffing on science.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

His line is that there is respect for the reasonableness of philosophical and metaphysical arguments for God...but that is limited to mainly people in the business including some atheists giving lie to the claim that there are no reasons to believe. What then is the basis of admitting that there might be a God which is what most atheists end up acknowledging.

Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?

Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.

As for Feser, a whole new ball game I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Vlad,

Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?

Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.

As for Feser, a whole new ball game I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!

Gonnagle.

Yes, Vlad us as usual lying about what people actually say, and attributing motivations to people as facts which he is asserting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?

Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.

As for Feser, a whole new ball game I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!

Gonnagle.

Top ofthe evening to you Mr G.

[Stranger]

It cant be refuted with Tegmarks theory since Tegmark is a form of the Feser argument. Stop waving Tegmark about Shamanically.

You really haven't a clue about logic, have you? The whole point of the reductio ad absurdum (look it up) is that Tegmark can be plugged in to the first part of Feser's argument.

Also Tegmarks speculation requires the multiverse whereas Fesers only requires the universe.

Which has bugger all to do with anything. Once again, the refutation does not require Tegmark's speculation to be true - just logically possible.

I seem to recall you trying to say he tried to attribute the characteristics of the christian God. He doesn't. He links his argument to classical philosophical descriptions of God.

I recall he tried to attribute omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, thoughts, and intelligence. All of which were hopelessly contrived, contradicted his earlier claims, and would apply with equal (in)validity to the laws of nature or (especially) to Tegmark's speculation.

In the end you resorted to ''we don't know' a lot thus your riffing on science.

Drivel.