Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you think theism is a rational position?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:13:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like this classification system:

"1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all. It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations. But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it. Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.


Now let"s consider three different attitudes an atheist could take toward the practical side of a religion, going again from the most hostile to the least hostile:

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of. The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition. Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry. Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history. Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context. They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people. We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying. But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false. This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else. It may even have grave social consequences. But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable
."

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:48:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like PCP's descriptions (2.5 and B.5 would probably most align with my own positions--that is, the .5s being in between the positions as outlined).

That said, there's a bit of an issue with the formulation you've presented:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

Is a very different question than:

do you respect theism as a possibility?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:56:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:48:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like PCP's descriptions (2.5 and B.5 would probably most align with my own positions--that is, the .5s being in between the positions as outlined).

That said, there's a bit of an issue with the formulation you've presented:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

Is a very different question than:

do you respect theism as a possibility?

True. I didn't think about my wording much. I should reword it as: do you think theism is a respectable position as far as intellectual content goes?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:13:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like this classification system:

"1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all. It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations. But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it. Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.



Now let"s consider three different attitudes an atheist could take toward the practical side of a religion, going again from the most hostile to the least hostile:

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of. The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition. Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry. Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history. Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context. They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people. We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying. But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false. This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else. It may even have grave social consequences. But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable
."



http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

I like these very muchly. No wonder though.. it's Feser.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 2:10:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
New Atheists are impossible and so cliche'. If we are going by the stereotype, I'd be waiting for displays of self-anointed elitism, denial of intellectual responsibility and refusing to provide reasoning for their beliefs or reasons for rejecting theist arguments, emotional rejection and rationalizations are provided to explain the reasons for having their worldview, redefining critical thinking as being critical of everything except materialism and scientism (As if any "critical" thinking is needed to reject or refute them), rejection of absolutes (moral and intellectual) so the truth can be conveniently defined as everything they want it to be.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 2:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

Positions are neither rational or irrational. They are simply either true or false. The *reasons* for accepting or taking a position may be rational or irrational however.

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 2:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:56:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

True. I didn't think about my wording much. I should reword it as: do you think theism is a respectable position as far as intellectual content goes?

Graah, you're making my pedantic side go crazy.

The intellectual content of theism is undeniable. People have put a LOT of thought into it. Are you asking about the position: "God exists", and whether it is a reasonable one for folks to take? I mean, most atheists would probably answer "no", or else they'd take it.

So are you asking whether this is something that reasonable people can disagree on, or whether atheists just think that theists are definitely wrong?

If the latter, I would tend to say I think their support is definitely wrong. That doesn't make the position necessarily untrue, but I generally find the support for theism to be dramatically flawed. Doesn't negate the motion, but makes it difficult to accept it as one of those "people can disagree" things. But that's just me, and I try to be respectful, given that A, lack of support does not necessarily equal untruth, and B, No one's ever always as smart as they think they are, myself included, which means I recognize I could be wrong, mistaken, or have not heard the "magic argument".

I am of the opinion that all claims to the supernatural--whatever it's proposed to be--have been refuted where they are refutable. There are ones that are beyond our ability to refute--but are likewise beyond our ability to establish. As such I approach it in a truly agnostic sense--that is, would argue that no one has any idea. That said, If no one has any idea, I don't think it's reasonable to start bandying about concepts as though they were true, and I lack a belief in god, hence identifying as an "agnostic atheist" under the foursquare rubric that is in fashion in some circles these days (and which I prefer for some practical reasons of identification).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Toadstring
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 2:29:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If theism is the belief in one or more god-like beings, and atheism is the presence of a belief that there is none, then no, from an atheistic point of view, the belief in a god can not be rational

If theism is the belief in one or more god-like beings, and atheism is the absence of a belief in either the existence or nonexistence of such a being, the existence of a god-like being is not irrational.

I personally refuse to believe in either the existence or nonexistence of god, since neither can even be close to proven. To me, it's an absurd question. The belief in a god is from my point of view very practical. It might give some a sense of purpose or hope, or something along those lines. If that is what you need in your life, believing is a rational action.

As for people who very strongly believe that THERE IS NO GOD, my opinion is the same. Often these people will insist on such things as free will and responsibility for your actions or inaction. I see it as just another way of comforting oneself , which is, like believing in a god, practical.
Please
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:13:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like this classification system:

"1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all. It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations. But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it. Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.



Now let"s consider three different attitudes an atheist could take toward the practical side of a religion, going again from the most hostile to the least hostile:

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of. The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition. Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry. Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history. Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context. They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people. We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying. But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false. This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else. It may even have grave social consequences. But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable
."



http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

I'm 3C.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:38:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:57:08 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:13:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

I like this classification system:

"1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all. It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations. But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it. Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.



Now let"s consider three different attitudes an atheist could take toward the practical side of a religion, going again from the most hostile to the least hostile:

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of. The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition. Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry. Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history. Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context. They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people. We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying. But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false. This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else. It may even have grave social consequences. But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable
."



http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

I like these very muchly. No wonder though.. it's Feser.

Feser4lief <3
Nolite Timere
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 7:58:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:13:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 9:48:27 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
It's good to know that we have some atheists who aren't part of the usual 1A atheist rabble in the religion forum.

Yes, it's quite refreshing actually. Which is one reason why I like DDO. The atheists are intelligent respectable chaps.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:21:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 9:48:27 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
It's good to know that we have some atheists who aren't part of the usual 1A atheist rabble in the religion forum.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:58:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:21:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/2/2014 9:48:27 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
It's good to know that we have some atheists who aren't part of the usual 1A atheist rabble in the religion forum.

Yes, it's quite refreshing actually. Which is one reason why I like DDO. The atheists are intelligent respectable chaps.

I'd say I'm at 1.5-A
(I certainly think some Religious philosophers have provided interesting and intelligent observations/arguments... just not in support of Theism as such)

And I think I'm somewhat intelligent and respectable :P
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 6:59:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

As a Theist, I'll be the first to admit that the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, the human experience of reality is theistically ambiguous; which is to say that the human experience can be interpreted religiously or naturalistically with equal rational justification. That is why it has always been a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide a rationally satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 11:51:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
(I certainly think some Religious philosophers have provided interesting and intelligent observations/arguments... just not in support of Theism as such)

For example, since Maimonides was mentioned, I think Maimonides discussions of Monism are intelligent and interesting... And I also think his skepticism about our ability to describe/understand the ultimate nature of the one is rather prudent and justified...

I Just don't see how he can get to any kind of substantive God from there.

And, as to why I'd classify myself as being in Group-A...
Well, I do think that religious groups can often provide positive experiences for a community of people... But I don't think it usually has anything to do with their particular unjustified beliefs and think that (as "A" suggests) the positive aspects of such organizations is not dependent upon it being a religious community group.

Also, I think the unjustified beliefs aspect of religion can, and often does, lend itself to troubling contradiction of a humane consideration of things.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe that everything except theism is logically impossibe all things considered.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

Not really. God is only properly understood as an empirical proposition, for which there is no evidence at all, making all theists involved in either what Ayer would call "the production of nonsense" or terrible evaluators of hypotheses. I have so little respect for theism as a position because it either puts forwards analytic arguments which could never possibly establish his existence, or puts forward empirical hypotheses which are as verifiable as the claim that we are all living in the Matrix.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:40:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:21:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

Not really. God is only properly understood as an empirical proposition,

Can you produce an argument for this conclusion?

for which there is no evidence at all, making all theists involved in either what Ayer would call "the production of nonsense" or terrible evaluators of hypotheses.

More than likely that came of Ayer's convictions as a positvist which he famously recognized the reasons for holding were terribad.

I have so little respect for theism as a position because it either puts forwards analytic arguments which could never possibly establish his existence, or puts forward empirical hypotheses which are as verifiable as the claim that we are all living in the Matrix.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:44:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:21:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

Not really. God is only properly understood as an empirical proposition, for which there is no evidence at all, making all theists involved in either what Ayer would call "the production of nonsense" or terrible evaluators of hypotheses. I have so little respect for theism as a position because it either puts forwards analytic arguments which could never possibly establish his existence, or puts forward empirical hypotheses which are as verifiable as the claim that we are all living in the Matrix.

The idea that there is some impassable gulf between logical arguments and the real world is nonsense. We can know on an a priori basis that the real world must conform to logic, for if it were anywhere inconsistent its existence would require its non-existence in order to be manifest. God's existence can be logically established by showing that his non-existence would lead to contradictions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:21:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:53:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is for atheists. While I understand that you don't believe in God, my question for you is this:

Do you think it's rational to hold a theistic position?

It seems that many New Atheists would say no... but DDO isn't exactly all new atheists.

I guess in other words, do you respect theism as a possibility?

Not really. God is only properly understood as an empirical proposition

According to the definition of God, he either necessarily exists or he necessarily doesn't exist. Thus, if he doesn't necessarily exist then he doesn't exist. It's hardly an empirical proposition. Your ignorance is nothing short of astonishing.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:40:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Not really. God is only properly understood as an empirical proposition,
Can you produce an argument for this conclusion?

The 'God proposition' is not a statement about the logical constructions of thought but about the facts of reality.

More than likely that came of Ayer's convictions as a positvist which he famously recognized the reasons for holding were terribad.

What was "terribad" was the principle of verification, which was false, but what isn't is the idea that: 'It doesn't make any sense for someone to assert an empirical hypothesis if they know that empirical hypotheses require evidence and they have no such evidence'. It was wrong to say they are meaningless since the actual problem is that it's self-contradictory to assert such hypotheses with the correct understanding of what is being asserted. 'I should believe X only when I have evidence. I have none, but I assert X'.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:44:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:44:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
We can know on an a priori basis that the real world must conform to logic, for if it were anywhere inconsistent its existence would require its non-existence in order to be manifest.

? ? ?

sounds unsupported, and circular...

You're supposedly answering the question of whether "logic" is necessarily true,
but in order to do so are Relying on these supposedly a priori logical necessities to require a real contradiction (which logically shouldn't be allowed) in the first place...

Now I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to go with what makes sense... but just take it for what it is... no reason to chase around in circles :P
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:51:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 1:44:31 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:44:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
We can know on an a priori basis that the real world must conform to logic, for if it were anywhere inconsistent its existence would require its non-existence in order to be manifest.

? ? ?

sounds unsupported, and circular...

You're supposedly answering the question of whether "logic" is necessarily true,
but in order to do so are Relying on these supposedly a priori logical necessities to require a real contradiction (which logically shouldn't be allowed) in the first place...


Logic doesn't claim that logic is not a valid standard for verification. That's completely contradictory and therefore not something logic would say, which means your claim that "which logically shouldn't be allowed" is utterly absurd.


Now I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to go with what makes sense... but just take it for what it is... no reason to chase around in circles :P

Your assumption that something cannot be "self-verifying" is completely unjustifiable. Logic is precisely the rules under which verification is achieved (by definition).
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:54:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 1:51:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're supposedly answering the question of whether "logic" is necessarily true,
but in order to do so are Relying on these supposedly a priori logical necessities to require a real contradiction (which logically shouldn't be allowed) in the first place...

When I'm saying "which logically shouldn't be allowed" I'm referring to contradictions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 1:54:19 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/3/2014 1:51:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're supposedly answering the question of whether "logic" is necessarily true,
but in order to do so are Relying on these supposedly a priori logical necessities to require a real contradiction (which logically shouldn't be allowed) in the first place...

When I'm saying "which logically shouldn't be allowed" I'm referring to contradictions.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say then.