Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Are Theist's Closet Atheists?

WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 6:04:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Faith and reason govern divergent epistemological spheres. While both are faculties to belief, faith is the means to belief in that for which there is no evidence. Reason is the means to belief in that for which there is evidence. It is absurd to think that an argument would be sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is metaphysical. God's existence is simply unknown. (ergo, to believe in God at all is an act of faith, rather than reason.)
Tsar of DDO
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 6:53:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

In all honesty, I'm not convinced he's actually making an argument here. I understand the meaning of every word, but I'm not sure they make sense putting them together as he has.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 6:55:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Oh, wait...I see you're parodying Reason. lol I was wondering why you added that disclaimer.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 2:16:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Faith and reason govern divergent epistemological spheres. While both are faculties to belief, faith is the means to belief in that for which there is no evidence. Reason is the means to belief in that for which there is evidence. It is absurd to think that an argument would be sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is metaphysical. God's existence is simply unknown. (ergo, to believe in God at all is an act of faith, rather than reason.)

We're talking here about universals & their necessity / relation to mind.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 9:20:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Faith and reason govern divergent epistemological spheres. While both are faculties to belief, faith is the means to belief in that for which there is no evidence. Reason is the means to belief in that for which there is evidence. It is absurd to think that an argument would be sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is metaphysical. God's existence is simply unknown. (ergo, to believe in God at all is an act of faith, rather than reason.)

Take some wise words from the man in your icon.

"At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded." - Wittgenstein On Certainty (253)

Eventually, the infinite regress of reasons will lead to a kind of dogmatism. If I remember you're a moral nihilist which requires its own views on moral epistemology that will inevitably tie back to assertion - one might even call it "faith." IMO Wittgenstein's quote is a little strong by calling all core views "unfounded" but I do contend that all reasoning begins with these core assumptions and beliefs that just are.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. God isn't the explanandum, it's logic. In fact your attempt to parody actually reinforces my point!
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:47:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 6:31:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. God isn't the explanandum, it's logic. In fact your attempt to parody actually reinforces my point!

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. Logic isn't the explanandum, it's God. In fact your attempt to argue actually reinforces my point!
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 8:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:47:00 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/11/2012 6:31:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. God isn't the explanandum, it's logic. In fact your attempt to parody actually reinforces my point!

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. Logic isn't the explanandum, it's God. In fact your attempt to argue actually reinforces my point!

How childish actually, you're not undercutting the fact that Logic inherently is conceptual and necessary & therefore has an ontology in a necessary Mind.

^speak to this.