Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Theism

bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 4:54:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

I like that definition. :)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:54:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Disagreed, I would request that you be clear with the definition of the key terms (ex. religion) and that point you wish to make so that we may have a more fruitful discourse with less ambiguity.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:13:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:54:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Disagreed, I would request that you be clear with the definition of the key terms (ex. religion) and that point you wish to make so that we may have a more fruitful discourse with less ambiguity.
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote, I didn't mention religion and the key term is gods.
I hope that helps.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:30:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:13:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:54:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Disagreed, I would request that you be clear with the definition of the key terms (ex. religion) and that point you wish to make so that we may have a more fruitful discourse with less ambiguity.
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote, I didn't mention religion and the key term is gods.
I hope that helps.

You asked to discuss your assertion that theism is a claim made by humans that gods exist. By that I conclude that atheists subscribe to theism.

Hopefully you would fulfill my request to provide definitions to the key terms for easier communication.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:20:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:30:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:13:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:54:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Disagreed, I would request that you be clear with the definition of the key terms (ex. religion) and that point you wish to make so that we may have a more fruitful discourse with less ambiguity.
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote, I didn't mention religion and the key term is gods.
I hope that helps.

You asked to discuss your assertion that theism is a claim made by humans that gods exist. By that I conclude that atheists subscribe to theism.

Hopefully you would fulfill my request to provide definitions to the key terms for easier communication.
Well you certainly seem confused but ask yourself where you saw the word all and you will understand, hopefully.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 11:24:46 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

It's a perfectly rational position.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:49:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.
With no evidence to support the claim
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:16:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:49:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Do you want to really discuss or just assert? let me know before I waste my time...
But just to let you know, the statement above would be true but you ruined it with the garbage below because you don't have a clue what you mean by "evidence" in relation to spiritual reality, that is something you will most likely go to the grave with, unless of course you surprise me with something fresh...but I seriously doubt that, after a decade of rambling with you atheists I think I have seen it all and I have a real good idea of what is going on.

With no evidence to support the claim

Typical atheist blabber, just want to get under the skin of Theists, so he goes for the ol' "evidence" card to be an obnoxious twit, nothing but a group of brainwashed atheists here, I have yet to find ONE, just one person who is an atheist that is searching for the truth and intellectually honest.
Prove me wrong atheists and show us you're capable of simple understanding and simple concepts..... just once follow where the truth leads...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:18:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

I think theism is more than just an ontological claim, BP. I think there is also tucked away a moral claim and an epistemological one.

To unpack it:

1) Intelligent metaphysical beings exist, somehow ordering the operation of the universe -- this makes them godlike, though not necessarily gods (Ontology);

2) They are worthy of worship and propitiation -- making them actual gods and not simply godlike beings (Morality); and that

3) Both 1) and 2) are both knowable and known to humanity -- meaning, there are reliable epistemological methods by which the above claims can be validated and verified (Epistemology)

The problem with the claim 'gods exist' is that being a trifold claim, each claim must be validated and verified independently of the others. Refutation or rejection of one claim rejects the conjunction of the three.

This misunderstanding among theists -- the conflation of three claims as a single claim -- explains three odd theistic behaviours, comprising the tendency to:
i) try and support #1 with evidence (e.g. Creationism), while ignoring #2 and #3 -- which at most would prove the possibility of deism, but not the certainty of theism;
ii) ignore (or fail to comprehend) the euthyphro dilemma in moral philosophy [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...]: the prospect that the world is ordered (however it might be ordered) does not resolve the question of whether one should consider that ordering moral, or the principles of order worthy of worship and adherence; and to
iii) hold that atheism arises from a rejection of all three claims, when in fact atheism might arise from a rejection of any of the three.

Yet there are psychological and rhetorical reasons theists want to hold claims 1-3 as a single, unified claim, namely that doing so:
(i) reduces their burden of evidence;
(ii) conceals the conflicts and confusions in their theology;
(iii) keeps their ideas safe and comfortable by avoiding disturbing doubts; and
(iv) confounds accountability, transparency and objection.

Thus, I hold little hope that we'll see many theists respond constructively to your post, BP. I think the matter is too disturbing for most theists to entertain, and sadly, many theists aren't here to be accountable anyway.

Nevertheless, that's my take and I hope you may find it interesting and useful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:39:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:16:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I have yet to find ONE, just one person who is an atheist that is searching for the truth and intellectually honest.
EV, is your issue whether atheists are interested in truth, or whether they respect your authority to dictate it?

I've seen many atheists draw you out on what you believe and how you know it, only to reject your methods in producing knowledge, and your independence in evaluating it.

That doesn't sound like closed-mindedness to me; however your inability to accept criticism of your self-proclaimed authorities might be closed-mindedness in you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 1:31:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:16:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:49:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Do you want to really discuss or just assert? let me know before I waste my time...
But just to let you know, the statement above would be true but you ruined it with the garbage below because you don't have a clue what you mean by "evidence" in relation to spiritual reality

There's no such thing as spiritual reality, it is not defined, nor is tangent in any way, shape or form, it is a meaningless phrase, there is only reality.

, that is something you will most likely go to the grave with, unless of course you surprise me with something fresh...but I seriously doubt that, after a decade of rambling with you atheists I think I have seen it all and I have a real good idea of what is going on.

With no evidence to support the claim

Typical atheist blabber, just want to get under the skin of Theists, so he goes for the ol' "evidence" card to be an obnoxious twit, nothing but a group of brainwashed atheists here, I have yet to find ONE, just one person who is an atheist that is searching for the truth and intellectually honest.

You will never offer such a thing, you will only offer meaningless words, hallucinations and delusions, that's the only thing you ever write about.

Prove me wrong atheists and show us you're capable of simple understanding and simple concepts..... just once follow where the truth leads...

The truth is offered in reality and explained by science. Your hallucinations and delusions coupled with your constant yapping about spirituality is not any kind of truth, it's just meaningless drivel.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:07:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:30:55 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:13:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:54:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Disagreed, I would request that you be clear with the definition of the key terms (ex. religion) and that point you wish to make so that we may have a more fruitful discourse with less ambiguity.
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote, I didn't mention religion and the key term is gods.
I hope that helps.

You asked to discuss your assertion that theism is a claim made by humans that gods exist. By that I conclude that atheists subscribe to theism.

Hopefully you would fulfill my request to provide definitions to the key terms for easier communication.

There is nothing complicated or confusing about this. He is pointing to the fact that all theistic claims are ultimately made by man. What is your objection?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:09:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:16:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I have yet to find ONE, just one person who is an atheist that is searching for the truth and intellectually honest.

Please define "searching for the truth". Explain how one who is intellectually honest goes about doing this.

Thanks in advance.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:13:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Red alert! This just in! The 2 non Jewish Abrahamic faiths now compose 75%+ of Earth and are coming to a cataclismic showdown!
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:20:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

List us the noncaused creator gods and we will discuss them.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:49:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:20:18 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

List us the noncaused creator gods and we will discuss them.
Is this one of your dilihamyteed disruptions you talk about?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 3:54:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:49:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:20:18 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

List us the noncaused creator gods and we will discuss them.
Is this one of your dilihamyteed disruptions you talk about?

You mentioned other gods. Name them. Zeus? Created. Chaos? Caused? Shiva? Caused. Kali? Caused. Athena? Caused. Ishtar? Caused. Baal? Caused. Osiris? Caused. Isis? Caused. Dianna? Caused. Venus? Caused.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 4:32:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:54:41 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:49:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:20:18 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

List us the noncaused creator gods and we will discuss them.
Is this one of your dilihamyteed disruptions you talk about?

You mentioned other gods.
WHERE?
Name them. Zeus? Created. Chaos? Caused? Shiva? Caused. Kali? Caused. Athena? Caused. Ishtar? Caused. Baal? Caused. Osiris? Caused. Isis? Caused. Dianna? Caused. Venus? Caused.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 4:47:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Here on this thread. Not to mention the hundreds of other attempts of dodging by pointing out "gods" of which you know nothing about.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 6:30:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:20:18 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

List us the noncaused creator gods and we will discuss them.
Ptah. He masterbated the universe into existance. Way befor jehovah.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 7:12:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 4:47:12 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Here on this thread. Not to mention the hundreds of other attempts of dodging by pointing out "gods" of which you know nothing about.
Where did I mention other gods? Other than what?
Are you such a masochist that you enjoy parading your gross ignorance in public as often as you do?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 8:52:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:18:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

I think theism is more than just an ontological claim, BP. I think there is also tucked away a moral claim and an epistemological one.

To unpack it:

1) Intelligent metaphysical beings exist, somehow ordering the operation of the universe -- this makes them godlike, though not necessarily gods (Ontology);

I'd like to point out: "Beings" being plural; ordering the operation; "not" necessarily gods, are terms that can be viable. If defined correctly, there can be an interesting conclusion - being the most likely out of the three.

3) Both 1) and 2) are both knowable and known to humanity -- meaning, there are reliable epistemological methods by which the above claims can be validated and verified (Epistemology)

This one i would only agree to disagree. I can't be bias and say, "in no way do i relate, or do i agree to relate; therefore, false"... i'm sure groupies exist in all forums.

The problem with the claim 'gods exist' is that being a trifold claim, each claim must be validated and verified independently of the others. Refutation or rejection of one claim rejects the conjunction of the three.

How? If i can define a "god(s)" as something that is in some way a higher power (in my ontology or life) ... i don't need the second to be true, or in my situation, the third. You can easily prove that you are better than me in something like grammar or vocabulary, bc i'd simply agree - being a higher power in that sense. Vice versa (i'm quite confident i'd beat you in a one on one sniping match on Nuketown). Why can't i look at you as a god? We even say in excitement when impressed by the other's talent (you're a god at this!).

This misunderstanding among theists -- the conflation of three claims as a single claim -- explains three odd theistic behaviours, comprising the tendency to:
i) try and support #1 with evidence (e.g. Creationism), while ignoring #2 and #3 -- which at most would prove the possibility of deism, but not the certainty of theism;

I may be confused on defining "god." Simple google search of the word:
https://www.google.com...
The only part i agree with is a "superhuman being." I believe it exists in both reality or in a transcendental 'reality' (or plural). Superhuman - many in this reality that push the impossible of the ones they precede. Superhuman (ontological) - different capacities, or order, in a transcendental reality. I define a transcendental reality not as one, but many. I just don't think, by observation, this wouldn't be a logical speculation to make; therefore, should be considered by its own right.

euthyphro dilemma

In my case, i don't think Plato's argument is relevant. Although, a good argument and fun to read.

iii) hold that atheism arises from a rejection of all three claims, when in fact atheism might arise from a rejection of any of the three.

I have always called myself an agnostic atheist - spiritual. I don't know if i am crediting theism, or deism more. Nevertheless, i believe in atheism to its point: "there is no evidence." However, i hold both sides to the same point (agnostic); not knowing which is true. I have many reasons to believe in a transcendental realm; i can't ignore that. I also can't ignore what a neurologist teaches me about the brain.

Yet there are psychological and rhetorical reasons theists want to hold claims 1-3 as a single, unified claim, namely that doing so:
(i) reduces their burden of evidence;

Not true. I just say there isn't (the truth) a valid way to get evidence for such things. The scientific method may... but, there "is" another way that will help (i'm being optimistic). The future may hold many more treasures. I cannot deny that, at this point, from where i am sitting, the sky is infinite. Everyone may tell me tomorrow, poof... this was all a joke. Welcome back home. Could 31 years feel like a joke when facing immortality?

(ii) conceals the conflicts and confusions in their theology;

I try not to conceal anything. Personally, knowing the conflicts has always pushed me to a more refined position. I value such things.

(iii) keeps their ideas safe and comfortable by avoiding disturbing doubts; and

I swear to god *pun* :-) make me feel uncomfortable about my belief (some kind of weird irony in there) ... i hate my idea ever being safe.

(iv) confounds accountability, transparency and objection.

I agree this can happen, but when words can be defined in so many ways ... it is hard to avoid. But... one should always understand the picture. I don't understand why that isn't okay, although i understand why it is important to have good definitions. If parties move forward as honestly as they can, this shouldn't be a problem.

Thus, I hold little hope that we'll see many theists respond constructively to your post, BP. I think the matter is too disturbing for most theists to entertain, and sadly, many theists aren't here to be accountable anyway.

Nevertheless, that's my take and I hope you may find it interesting and useful.

It is always interesting reading what you write. But, when you say there are no theists that would try to respond, is "too disturbing," i will gladly always step up. Not to protect any theists on these forums, or any one religion ... i'm not sure if i am even a theist. But, if it happens that i am, i would say i am a confident one by logic and reason. The first step was understanding why i took the leap in the first place... Which is unfortunately the most subjective part of the story.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 8:52:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

First. I agree to this statement. However vague it may be, it's the truth.

With no evidence to support the claim

It sucks, but yeah. However, i am sure there are others like me, that found their spirituality 'accidentally'... i don't even know a good word to use there. I don't know how to define spiritual to your standards either. All i can say, from my observations, i believe there is a transcendental reality. I think you can define characters as gods in it ... however, i also define you as a god. You are a higher power (a god) in something or in some way to me. Vice verse (i'm outplaying someone, somewhere, for sure)... Now, is my definition off? Bc, i define the word "gods" in this way (looking at it ontologically or now).
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 11:12:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 8:52:16 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:18:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.
To unpack it:
1) Intelligent metaphysical beings exist, somehow ordering the operation of the universe -- this makes them godlike, though not necessarily gods (Ontology);
I'd like to point out: "Beings" being plural; ordering the operation; "not" necessarily gods, are terms that can be viable. If defined correctly, there can be an interesting conclusion - being the most likely out of the three.
It's the least encumbered, Outplayz, but I'm not convinced that even this is valid. Consider: how can you detect whether a being is metaphysical and not simply a physical being using ordinary capabilities you haven't detected before? For that matter, how can you be sure that any being -- a rock or a cat, say -- isn't also metaphysical?

3) Both 1) and 2) are both knowable and known to humanity -- meaning, there are reliable epistemological methods by which the above claims can be validated and verified (Epistemology)
This one i would only agree to disagree. I can't be bias and say, "in no way do i relate, or do i agree to relate; therefore, false"... i'm sure groupies exist in all forums.
I do not believe there are any reliable epistemological methods to demonstrate or falsify 1). The question of 2) is a moral matter and I think epistemology alone won't cut it, though it might help.

The problem with the claim 'gods exist' is that being a trifold claim, each claim must be validated and verified independently of the others. Refutation or rejection of one claim rejects the conjunction of the three.
How? If i can define a "god(s)" as something that is in some way a higher power (in my ontology or life) ...
That's not a definition, though, Outie. It's a vague hand-wave. An elephant is a higher power in sheer strength, and the earth is a higher power in gravitational force. However, holding them responsible for creating a moral order to the universe is more than just a power comparison. It attributes abilities and intentions that to be valid, you need to both define and demonstrate.

Why can't i look at you as a god?
Treating anything as a god is not a demonstration that things exist which by both agency and moral virtue ought to be treated as gods. It's simply the assertion that what exists, you worship, to which one might reasonably reply: so what?

This misunderstanding among theists -- the conflation of three claims as a single claim -- explains three odd theistic behaviours, comprising the tendency to:
i) try and support #1 with evidence (e.g. Creationism), while ignoring #2 and #3 -- which at most would prove the possibility of deism, but not the certainty of theism;
I may be confused on defining "god."
Usage itself is vague and confused, but consider: the statement "gods exist" or "a god exists" isn't simply the statement "something exists which I worship" or "that which I worship exists". It's far more imperative: "there is that which exists that YOU should worship." By contrast, atheism could be the reply: "that which you worship doesn't exist", but it might equally be: "nothing extant is worthy of worship", or even: "it is wrong to claim that that which you worship, exists, simply because you worship it."

The only part i agree with is a "superhuman being."
I hold this to be vague and hand-waving too, Your Outitude. :) Superhuman how? We all have abilities today that ancient theologians never dreamed of, provided to us with technology. Are we superhuman by their standards?

And what should the standards be? Is it biological? Technological? Something else, and if so, how do you recognise it?

euthyphro dilemma
In my case, i don't think Plato's argument is relevant. Although, a good argument and fun to read.
It's all through traditional religion because it's all through ancient politics: the most powerful despot in the land ought to be obeyed and revered, ancients thought, because that's how they understood the rule of law. Therefore the most powerful despot in the universe ought to be obeyed, revered and called good -- regardless of what it actually did.

iii) hold that atheism arises from a rejection of all three claims, when in fact atheism might arise from a rejection of any of the three.
Yet there are psychological and rhetorical reasons theists want to hold claims 1-3 as a single, unified claim, namely that doing so:
(i) reduces their burden of evidence;
Not true.
Outie, you're not a theist, so why are you addressing a point made only about theists? :D There might be reasons nontheists want to take the claim as a whole -- or they may accept it simply because that's the way theistic tradition casts it. However I haven't spoken about that.

Thus, I hold little hope that we'll see many theists respond constructively to your post, BP. I think the matter is too disturbing for most theists to entertain, and sadly, many theists aren't here to be accountable anyway.
It is always interesting reading what you write. But, when you say there are no theists that would try to respond, is "too disturbing," i will gladly always step up.
Your response is welcome, Outie, but you said yourself you're not confident it's a theist's response.

I'm not either. :)

As I've read your ideas in the past, you're a member who hopes for a morally ordered universe where life can continue beyond the body, because you think that's more attractive than an amoral universe where people die finally (I can understand that view, though I don't share it.)

So your position is ambivalent but nonconstructive, in this sense: that you admit you cannot construct anything from empirical evidence but an amoral universe where everyone dies irrevocably, but you hope evidence might await that one day will let you construct something else.

I'm not sure if that position has a name, but I think it's a stretch to call it theism, since I believe you'd be quite content if this universe was run by benign aliens who declared themselves your friends, but also said you shouldn't worship them. :)
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2016 9:10:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 3:16:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
I see the believers have already started with their attempts to derail the thread, could it be because if they were to discuss as requested their house of cards would collapse?

Yes it would since theists are all atheists when it comes to most gods except for the few they happen to believe in like the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and Satan.

They like to believe all Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Hindu gods etc. are mythical but the God/ gods of the Jews are not mythical.

It seems you don't need to believe in gods to be a theist. You just need to believe in one god. It makes no difference which one you accept as you reject the rest, as long as you believe one will save you, you will be saved.
It is ironic that none of the gods can save any theist from their delusion and self deception that one god is real.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 12:47:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/24/2016 11:12:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/24/2016 8:52:16 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:18:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

For that matter, how can you be sure that any being -- a rock or a cat, say -- isn't also metaphysical?

You are correct. Everything in our reality can be metaphysical. For instance, if the "virtual" reality hypothesis is correct, plus B-theory of time... then, this entire reality could be like a film reel. This is a view i similarly favor with my own.

This one i would only agree to disagree. I can't be bias and say, "in no way do i relate, or do i agree to relate; therefore, false"... i'm sure groupies exist in all forums.
I do not believe there are any reliable epistemological methods to demonstrate or falsify 1). The question of 2) is a moral matter and I think epistemology alone won't cut it, though it might help.

Well, the way i am trying to paint this picture is that #3 doesn't exist unless an observer thinks it does. For instance, i have gone through life worshiping no one, just respecting when it is due. It can be falsified in a way... but, i think that way isn't available bc it hasn't been discovered. However, some things have such as evolution... Why is it people will blindly ignore it just to keep favoring the "one" they worship? Is there anyway to change these people from what they are? If it was easy to change them, i would say that falls under some sort of epistemological falsifying ... but, just helps (to your point), it is a poor method until we can understand our reality better.

That's not a definition, though, Outie. It's a vague hand-wave. An elephant is a higher power in sheer strength, and the earth is a higher power in gravitational force. However, holding them responsible for creating a moral order to the universe is more than just a power comparison. It attributes abilities and intentions that to be valid, you need to both define and demonstrate.

I see. The earth is a high power, even a fast moving bus, but ultimately we would always be the high power (to them) bc we can dissect their idea or definition to its most fundamental pieces. At which point, we can only compete with each other for the title of higher power. I believe there are different levels and capacities within humans, so the title can be held by many. It is interesting to me that the idea of our differences could make an ontological platform. What if we are just as different in a transcendental phase? Not every one is a builder here, not everyone has the creativity to create art, not everyone has the leadership necessary to make sure ideas go through effectively. But all these people exist, and if they do in a ontological way is what i am searching for, which is a logical search imho.

to which one might reasonably reply: so what?

Haha. I like that, it is the truth. The observer decides what definition to give to another. Remember, i only think we can compete with each other for the title of higher power. Whether now in reality, or in a transcendental reality. I am speculating they are both the same in idea.

By contrast, atheism could be the reply: "that which you worship doesn't exist", but it might equally be: "nothing extant is worthy of worship", or even: "it is wrong to claim that that which you worship, exists, simply because you worship it."

I agree with all the statements of an atheist. I told a friend recently, i think i'm crushing on atheists lol.

We all have abilities today that ancient theologians never dreamed of, provided to us with technology. Are we superhuman by their standards?

I have been thinking about this. I believe a lot of what could have been called spiritual is now just called science. By this progression, i'm confident we will define more that is thought of as spiritual by science, making it just that, a scientific discovery. But... to which point can we get to? Do humans have a cap to their understanding like a cat or dog? Or ... can we find everything that is possible; we sure as hell have enough time to. If you ask me, i find people like Stan Lee to be superhuman or creators of other artistic thought. I find intelligent people to be superhuman. So... i guess yeah, it is a vague definition. By all rights, i really think everyone is a 'god' to their own capacity. I am finding however, my definition of 'god' is the wrong semantics.

And what should the standards be? Is it biological? Technological? Something else, and if so, how do you recognise it?

euthyphro dilemma
Therefore the most powerful despot in the universe ought to be obeyed, revered and called good -- regardless of what it actually did.

I am in disagreement with the traditional idea of god(s) bc of this very reason. It may have been free thinkers that introduced the idea to the world (which i respect), but ultimately, it wasn't them that put the idea into effect ... the bully wanting all attention and power was... i stay confident on this assertion from my assumptions of religious history.

Outie, you're not a theist, so why are you addressing a point made only about theists? :D

Lol... i just had to get to the bottom of, "am i a theist?" I agree, i don't hold many of the key ideas in the definition of theism, especially that one should worship anything or anyone; making anything deserving of worship none. I however believe we do have a power, yet i believe this power is shared analogous to the idea of talents. Whether this is a similar consequence in a transcendental reality is the question that i am most interested in.

As I've read your ideas in the past, you're a member who hopes for a morally ordered universe where life can continue beyond the body, because you think that's more attractive than an amoral universe where people die finally (I can understand that view, though I don't share it.)

I actually don't mind the amoral aspect either. The latter is only attractive bc i see viability in it. The "seeing it part" has also been forced on me. Now, is it bc i look for such things, it could be; but, i do have experiences that have gone beyond coincidence. I mean, how many coincidences can one have in a life time before it warrants attention? I have always looked at 'spirituality' as a skeptic, and it has always proved me wrong. I just find that odd bc i do look at myself as an experiment.

So your position is ambivalent but nonconstructive, in this sense: that you admit you cannot construct anything from empirical evidence but an amoral universe where everyone dies irrevocably, but you hope evidence might await that one day will let you construct something else.

I think the evidence is right in front of us; we just have to look at it with an out of the box, larger picture view. For instance, (fyi i am totally making this up) what if the sounds of nature we hear day and night is our immortal chatter? That would mean taking it away should have effects on the human race... but, how can we do such an experiment to falsify? This is a good example of what i think is needed to start proving "spiritual" claims. Large scale instead of more concentrated like the scientific method, but with the same idea.

I'm not sure if that position has a name, but I think it's a stretch to call it theism, since I believe you'd be quite content if this universe was run by benign aliens who declared themselves your friends, but also said you shouldn't worship them. :)

I say HiiiiSSSSSS to the reptilian race! ;-) Thank you for helping me get to the bottom of it; however, i am sad ... i would rather continue our conversation out of the box of theism. It would be rude to derail the OP however, i understand you respect that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 1:55:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:16:08 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:49:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:30:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is a claim made by humans that gods exist.
Discuss.

Do you want to really discuss or just assert? let me know before I waste my time...
But just to let you know, the statement above would be true but you ruined it with the garbage below because you don't have a clue what you mean by "evidence" in relation to spiritual reality, that is something you will most likely go to the grave with, unless of course you surprise me with something fresh...but I seriously doubt that, after a decade of rambling with you atheists I think I have seen it all and I have a real good idea of what is going on.


Just discuss the OP then.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin