Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All generalizations are wrong. Must be true because it is short.
Indeed. "Ploys" like that flash warning lights. You know..the 'Oh I sure rattled your bars' - type argument. The ploy presented here (The longer the explanation the more likely it is to be false) is essentially under the 'You have to work so hard at denying God'. heading of apologetic. It is all wrong for an "atheist" to bash atheists using false theist apologetics. Something ain't right.
The response by the way is: 'It is a lot quicker to say "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden" than to explain why there probably aren't.'
Look at all some others "Jesus is attested by historians". "Life cannot happen by chance", "we are all born atheist".
Theist or atheist, they all require some discussion and explanation before we know what the argument is and whether it stands up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Yeah it's a nice play on the liar's paradox.
"This is a false statement."
I worked out that, since it involved an element of deception and dishonesty whichever way it was looked at, the person putting the paradox has to be mendacious. Wrong? Too simple? The old 'You are are not playing according to the rules of Philosophy' argument? I have said I am a practical man and in fact the principle of parsimony is not just a Logical rule that is needed to enable any kind of meaningful discussion, but is practical (see Arq'a bush behind a rock mind -experiment).
Also the 'Cheese sandwich' or 'missing chair' mind experiment that refutes (in a practical way) Solipsim and argues that reality exists on its' own terms regardless of what people expect.
De Botton line is that Philosophy, and indeed Theism - as I saw in the 'colour -blind fish' point - are useful for asking questions and making us think. But practical research is needed to validate the answer. Philosophy, I have to assert (using Arq's authority ) goes wrong when it is used as though it was research -science (1).
I became aware as soon as I arrived in the board that Theist apologetics finds what it calls 'Philosophy' a fine way of making what is unvalidated look almost certain (e.g the Kalam/ Ontological arguments for a god) while being handy for arguing that ...this is almost a theopologetic Axiom..."Everything we thought we knew is wrong". It takes a practical argument that everyone relies on what we know every day to cut through this kind of argument. What Arostophanes called "Making the worst cause appear the better". It is in fact lawyers' rhetoric used in the cause of theist apologetics.
(1) Yep even Russell's orbiting teapot collapses when put into a practical context. Essentially, these are analogies intended to make a logical point (that is true anyway) easier to understand. Not to prove that an orbiting teapot is as likely as a god.
That is also why theist apologetics using analogies as evidence of what is NOT known to be true (see the analogy of the barber) are rhetorical ploys rather than logical points.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-21-2016 at 03:40 AM..
convoluted logic just keeps mudding the waters and allows for an equally sound mud response.
since it looks like there is no Omni dude and that "nothing" more complex is not a reasonable base for claiming no Omni dude, its time the middle stands up and says "no, you end gamers are wrong" "end gamers" here meaning the ends of the spectrum. The data is just to clear these days. There is 'something". And I can't see the universe having less than or equal to anything we have. Of course that means only "good fairies" is very short sighted and only bad fairies is just plain stupid.
The only problem I have, and I think other normals, with people that have OCD beliefs is that they think their's is the only logical choice and forcing it on the rest of us "as the only right answer" at all cost to commonsense. Or dehumanizing those that don't belief what they believe by calling them delusional, weak minded, and less logical. Or the ever popular "going to hell". Otherwise they can believe and live out productive lives with the rest of us.
I still think there is hope for you. But you have to stop relying on your own faulty reasoning and go with logic and evidence.
This says that there is no more good evidence for something ordering and controlling the universe than for "Omni Dude". In fact the idea of Something More beyond the reasonable admission that there is a lot that isn't known and is yet to be discovered is getting quite Omni-dudeish. You are already close to making Gldnrule/Mystic -type belief -claims about what this 'Something More' does while denying that you are making any belief -claims at all.
If you just accept that order in the universe does not imply 'something more' than the sufficient explanation of materialistic naturalism and that, until some better case is made for the need for something more than material physics there is no cause to consider it anything more than an undisproved possibility with no really good evidence for it, then you are indeed an agnostic and logically ought to disbelieve the god -claims of any and all kinds, from Omni -dude to the intelligent order of Einstein. Thus being the atheist you claim to be.
This means that on the basis of Logic and evidence, disbelief (until some better evidence appears) is CORRECT and a 'midway' position is wrong EITHER if believing in a sortagod (a you seem to deny doing) or bashing atheism for being extreme denialist (though in fact you are apparently bashing it for being militant...which is what is setting off the alarm -bells) about anykindagod - which it is not, as you ought to have learned by now.
If you in fact said that you thought Order was a good reason to believe in a sortagod, then you would be an agnostic theist and you would still be my brother as much as Troutdude, who believes but understands why atheists don't.
What I'm getting at is that you are wrong to bash atheism for not buying into Something More. I don't know why you would do it even if you admitted that you believed in some kind of Comic Mind. Just as Gldnrule and Mystic phd do.
It is a puzzle to me and you don't help as you either don't see the problem or don't want to. Your Fundy -atheist duck -hunt is entirely misconceived and looks very much like the wrongheaded 'New atheist' bashing by theists who, even if, (like Gldnrule) they claim to be irreligious are fighting us because of the campaign against religion.
We don't bother about people who believe in a Sortagod. We only care about rolling back Personal Holybook - Omni -dude and organized religion. The Fundy -accusation (so very Gldnruleish ) is wrong when applied to a sorta -god (because it doesn't apply at all) and only makes sense when applied to the irreligion -campaign. Then it makes sense to use the false argument that we are taking a denialist view of any sortagod and the proof is that we are outspoken or a perceived 'emotional' response in our posts. It would be a cover for the real reason for bashing "New" atheism as 'fundy' but it would at least be comprehensible.
What I don't know is whether you are persistently misunderstanding the atheist position on 'something more-god' or whether there is an element of partiality for organized religion that you don't realize or won't admit to.
Which is it?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-21-2016 at 04:52 AM..
I worked out that, since it involved an element of deception and dishonesty whichever way it was looked at, the person putting the paradox has to be mendacious. Wrong? Too simple? The old 'You are are not playing according to the rules of Philosophy' argument? I have said I am a practical man and in fact the principle of parsimony is not just a Logical rule that is needed to enable any kind of meaningful discussion, but is practical (see Arq'a bush behind a rock mind -experiment).
I resolve the liar's paradox as demonstrating that the opposite of "true" is "not true"...rather than "false". Even if practical use of true and false are typically considered binary and many things which are not true are also false.
Same with love and hate. I think it's mordant who (rightly) points out that while these are often used as opposites, the real opposite of love is indifference...or "not love".
I resolve the liar's paradox as demonstrating that the opposite of "true" is "not true"...rather than "false". Even if practical use of true and false are typically considered binary and many things which are not true are also false.
Same with love and hate. I think it's mordant who (rightly) points out that while these are often used as opposites, the real opposite of love is indifference...or "not love".
Thanks. Care to set out the paradox and your explanation? I'm cooking and can't strop to work it out myself
I must say I would immediately think that the opposite of love was hate and indifference is a midway position. But I could be wrong there.
Thanks. Care to set out the paradox and your explanation? I'm cooking and can't strop to work it out myself
I must say I would immediately think that the opposite of love was hate and indifference is a midway position. But I could be wrong there.
Yes, though I should have been more careful in my word choice of "opposite" & framing the paradox. I suspect if I had framed it less flippantly it would not have been as confusing as it basically follows the same line of reasoning as the logical absolutes.
I should have said that it demonstrates something can be "not true" without being "false". Or "not false" without being "true". This being a common debate fallacy from theists on the existence of god(s).
So the statement of the liar's paradox can be "not true" or "not false". And these are perfectly acceptable conclusions (in my view) which demonstrate the false dichotomy of true/false, and why the logical absolutes are pertinent in discussion.
I'm sure I did mordant no favors if I mischaracterized his words, but "indifference" tends to be the "not love" resolution as I see it. And I should not have used "opposite", rather my own fault for using it as shorthand for "not the thing".
I must say I would immediately think that the opposite of love was hate and indifference is a midway position. But I could be wrong there.
You can't hate someone without caring about them. Hatred is just disappointed love.
In other words you cannot be enraged at someone unless you project on them certain expectations in which you are deeply invested and therefore feel betrayed or disappointed and therefore are angered. I don't care that my next door neighbor has not spoken to me in days or even months but I will start to feel frozen out if my wife doesn't speak to me for mere hours.
On the other hand if you can't even gin up disappointment or feel wounded then you don't care in the first place.
Of course people can be angry at people they don't love, including total strangers. If a burglar robs your home you can be angry at them without even meeting them. But even there it can be argued that it is a violation of the implicit social contract and your trust in the goodness of your fellow man that is the problem ... it is still disappointed love, just far more generalized than the specific case of a significant other.
The point is anger requires something to violate. Maybe the violation is so great that you change your mind about loving the violator in the process of being angered and begin to disinvest in them emotionally, as a result of which after a time you will "be over" them. But love is there as a starting-point.
Now .... is my generalization invariably 100% true or even 100% provable? Probably not. It is tempting to see hatred as the opposite of love because loving actions are the opposite character of hateful actions. Hate speech and bigotry are hate against people you don't know over imagined threats and people violating one's assumptions about their proper "place" or how others ought to act or look, etc. I am not comfortable saying that a KKK member on some level loved the freed slave they were hanging. That is every bit as irrational as the disordered thinking of bigotry and racial hatred itself. And I'll warrant that the average person of color would be delighted if whites who currently hate them would just become indifferent at least. So there are probably times when you are right, indifference can be a middle ground between hatred and love or at least acceptance.
But I think the generalization holds for intimate / close relationships, including explaining self-loathing. And I use it to try to help theists understand that the old "atheists hate god" or "atheists are angry at god" canards are not true. We don't hate god, not least because we don't believe he exists to BE hated but we ARE indifferent to the concept. That indifference, that discarding of hopeful belief, is what they can't get their minds around, so they have to cast about for some emotional explanation that they can relate to AND that fits their particular theology. If you believe that "the natural mind is at emnity with god" and believe that you have a renewed mind and spirit then you imagine that those who are unrenewed are enemies of god, an enemies hate each other as a matter of course.
The notion that unbelievers simply don't factor god in one way or the other is not a thought that is thinkable to theists. This, despite the fact that they don't factor the tooth fairy or Harry Potter into their life decisions or views of reality. God for them is in such a category of special pleading that relegating him to their mental back room along with the fevered imagination of JK Rowling -- as entertaining fiction and nothing more -- is just inconceivable. But we do it nonetheless and this is clearly indifference, not hatred.
You can't hate someone without caring about them. Hatred is just disappointed love.
In other words you cannot be enraged at someone unless you project on them certain expectations in which you are deeply invested and therefore feel betrayed or disappointed and therefore are angered. I don't care that my next door neighbor has not spoken to me in days or even months but I will start to feel frozen out if my wife doesn't speak to me for mere hours.
Thanks for elaborating as I knew I would botch what you had said.
Even though there may be scenarios where hate is the antithesis of love, I do think it worthwhile to note that part of embodying a true dichotomy is that it ought to always apply. At least for the purposes of discussing existential concepts. Or perhaps thats just my strong inclination or preference.
And so in a true binary choice, it really does become "a thing" and "not a thing" as the 2 choices, not "a thing" and "some other thing". Or, essentially what I think the logical absolutes convey & demonstrate their value where existentialist debate needs some sort of parameters to be as useful as possible.
(1) Hypocrisy from Christians. Ie; "OMG why would you kill that animal you're going to Hell. i hope you die a slow painful death"
(2) Growing up hearing "When it rains that means God's crying". Then eventually learning about meteorology. LoL.
(3) Seeing/hearing about horrific events and killings and thinking about how theists love spewing the "we're all God's children" and the "God created everything" rhetoric. So you mean to tell me such a loving caring God would create us humans with faults that could lead to the harm of others? I mean he created "everything", right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you have to stop relying on your own faulty reasoning and go with logic and evidence.
) is wrong when applied to a sorta -god (because it doesn't apply at all) and only makes sense when applied to the irreligion -campaign. Then it makes sense to use the false argument that we are taking a denialist view of any sortagod and the proof is that we are outspoken or a perceived 'emotional' response in our posts. It would be a cover for the real reason for bashing "New" atheism as 'fundy' but it would at least be comprehensible. 
